Schwa Epenthesis and R-sound Lengthening within Optimal Theory
Hideo Kobayashi (Osaka Prefecture University)
Abstract
This study examines two research questions about the surface forms
carash and crrrash under emphatic pronunciation (Cassidy 1983) withinframework of Optimal Theory. The research questions are: under what ranked
constraints do the target phenomena arise? Under what ranked constraints isstress assigned in the surface form (carash) with schwa inserted in theword-initial bi-consonantal onsets (henceforth, WBO).
The author proposes the following ranked constraints to account for schwa
epenthesis in the surface form (Kager 1999): *COMPLEXONS, ONSET, ANCHORING-IO>> DEP-IO, *EFFORT. *COMPLEXONS bans two onsets. ONSET requires the syllable
to have onsets. ANCHORING-IO requires a segment at the right edge of the output
to have a correspondent at the right edge of the input. DEP-IO requires output
segments to have input correspondents. *EFFORT demands less effort beexpended in the articulation.
Tableau 1 shows schwa epenthesis in the WBO of the target word underemphatic pronunciation. The output candidate (a) is the winner because itviolates the lower ranked constraints without violating the higher constraints.
Tableau 1: Schwa epenthesis in the WBO of crash
Input /kræʃ/*COMPLEXONSONSETANCHORING-IO

a.☞/kə.ræʃ/DEP-IO*EFFORT**b.

/kræ.əʃ/

*!

*!

*

*c.

/krə.æʃ/

*!

*!

*

*d.

/kræ.ʃə/

*!

*

*e.

/ə.kræʃ/

*!

*

*

*!
*!

The author proposes the following ranked constraints to account forr-sound lengthening in the other surface form (crrrash): *CODA/r >> DEP-IO,*EFFORT, DEP-μ-IO. *CODA/r is undominated in the ranking since it excludes theoutput candidate /kɼ.æʃ/ in the Tableau. The anti-lengthening constraint DEP-μ-IO
must be dominated in the ranking since r-sound will not lengthen otherwise(Kager 1999). The candidate (a) is optimal since it only violates the lower ranked
constraints (See Tableau 2).

Tableau 2 R-sound lengthening in crrrash
Input /kræʃ/* CODA/rDEP-IO*EFFORTDEP-μ-IO**a.☞ /kr:æʃ/b.

/kər.ræʃ/*!

****The author proposes the following ranked constraints to account for stressassignment in the surface form (carash): *COMPLEXONS, UNEVEN-IAMB, GRD=PRWD,FT-BIN >> NON-FINALITY, DEP-IO, *EFFORT. UNEVEN-IAMB indicates that a canonicaliamb (LH) is better than (LL) or (H). GRWD=PRWD requires a grammatical word tobe a prosodic word. FT-BIN requires that feet be binary under moraic or syllabic
analysis. NON-FINALITY requires that no foot be final in the prosodic word. Tableau
3 shows ranked constraints for stress assignment in carash! *STRESSED-SCHWA
excludes one possible candidate, (kə.ɼæʃ) where schwa receives stress. The
parenthesis indicates a parsed segment that consists of a foot (Kager 1999).
The winner is the candidate (a) since it contains the perfect quantitative shape ofdisyllabic iambs (LH) (de Lacy 2002).
Tableau 3 Stress assignment for carash
Input /kɼæʃ/*COMPLEXONSUNEVEN-IAMB

GRWD = PRWD

FT-BINa.☞(kə.ɼǽʃ)b.

kə.(ɼǽʃ)c. kə.ɼӕʃ

*!
*!

*!
*!

NON-FINALITY DEP-IO*EFFORT********This present study proposes the two ranked constraints to account for thetarget emphatic phenomena and the one set of ranked constraints to assign
stress in the surface form with schwa epenthesis for emphasis.
References
Cassidy, F. G. (1983). The intensive prefix ker-. American Speech, 58 (4),291-302.
de Lacy, P. (2002). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory.
Phonology, 19, 1-32.
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Universityof Chicago Press.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sommerstein, A. H. (1977). Modern phonology. London: Edward Arnold.