Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Labiovelars and the labial-velar hypothesis:
Phonological Headedness in Bare Element
Geometry
Shanti Ulfsbjorninn, University of Deusto, Bilbao, ES, s.ulfsbjorninn@deusto.es
This paper begins by strengthening the labial-velar hypothesis with a novel interpretation of
the allophonic distributions of labials and velars in Lusoga. The labial-velar hypothesis (Backley
& Nasukawa 2009) is an Element Theory proposal that labial and dorsal consonants can be
marked by same ‘dark’ place feature |U| (cf. grave (Jakobson & Halle 1956)). The difference
between Lab and Dors is that Lab is the headed manifestation of |U|, while Dors is headless.
However, by hypothesis, this appears paradoxical for labial-velar stop complex segments
(collectively labelled KP). These would seem to be headless and headed at the same time. This
leads to an exploration of the term ‘headedness’ in phonology. Building on the positives of
previous approaches, and pairing back the assumptions to the first principles of combination
(Merge), I come up with a novel theory of headedness for segment-internal structure: Bare
Element Geometry (BEG). The labial-velar hypothesis, in light of BEG, is then applied to KP. A
close investigation of KP’s typological distribution and behaviour, especially in Guere (Western
Kru) leads to the discovery that it has two root nodes each with its own place node and, contrary
to the previous literature, that its parts are phonologically ordered. KP having two ordered root
nodes allows BEG’s model of headedness since the same dark place feature |U| is both headed
and headless in different parts of the structure. This asymmetric theory of headedness also
correctly predicts Cahill (1999)’s empirical observation that KP is never headed by Dorsal (rather
than Labial).
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by the Open Library of
Humanities. © 2021 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
OPEN ACCESS
Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti. 2021. Labiovelars and the labial-velar hypothesis:
Phonological Headedness in Bare Element Geometry. Glossa: a journal
of general linguistics 6(1): 111, pp. 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/
glossa.5718
2
1 Headedness, facts and interpretation
1.1 Phonetic signatures of labials and dorsals
According to the labial-velar hypothesis (Backley & Nasukawa 2009 (B&N); Backley 2011), Lab
and Dor are both characterized by the same ‘dark’ Place feature |U| (akin to Jakobson & Halle’s
(1956) grave).
It may be surprising for those who are trained to think in terms of articulatory features
that in Element Theory (ET) Labials (Lab) and Dorsals (Dor) can be analysed as having the
same Place feature. However, in a non-articulatory framework such as Element Theory, ‘place
of articulation’ takes on a more abstract foundation than a physical ‘location’. Backley (2011),
This claim is primarily couched in phonetic terms, noticing that labial and dorsal consonants
are relatively similar for some key acoustic properties. Most notably that they produce an acoustic
modulation of a baseline ‘carrier signal’ (Harris & Urua 2001) in the same way. When comparing
their spectral shapes, labials and dorsals produce the same ‘signature/shape’ (B&N).
(1) a. Dorsal stop /k/ b. Labial stop /p/
The dark element responsible for this signature is |U|, the same feature responsible for roundness
by the acoustic feature: [grave]).
Because the darkness signature is universally more robust in labials than it is in dorsals,
B&N propose that labials have a headed instance of the dark element |U|, while dorsals have
the unheaded
distinguishes /p/ from /k/ and various other labial/velar pairs of sounds.
1.2 Diachronic arguments for the labial-velar hypothesis
be seen as unnatural, arbitrary feature substitutions.
3
dialect’s [kv]. They analyse this as a case of |U| spreading from /v/ to *t resulting in [kv]:
tvättas vs. kvättas ‘to be washed’. Another case they discuss comes from Finnish. They discuss
feature terms, this process would be deemed unnatural, however, if the labial-dorsal hypothesis
is correct, the process is a natural assimilation where the unheaded |U| of the velar fricative
matches the surrounding headed |U| of round vowels. Other cases mentioned by B&N are
la[x]en ‘laugh’ (cf. PIE klak b
gwboûs bbutter.
addition to their evidence, more could be added. The labial component of many diphthongs
ʊʊgen ‘morrow’ (via. Middle Eng.
morwʊ] Deu. mar[k] (cf. Old. Eng. mærgʊ
Deu. falgen. (cf. Old English falgʊgga)
‘fellow’.
‘feel’.
of the Phonological Epistemological Principle (Kaye 2005), arguments from (acoustic) phonetic
similarity are simply not phonologically relevant and neither are diachronic shifts.
In fact, there is a general reservation in accepting B&N’s labial-velar hypothesis because
the evidence is almost entirely couched in diachronic facts. A synchronic argument based in
alternations (or robust static distribution) is currently missing in the literature. What is mostly
lacking is a synchronic alternation between velars and labials. There is, however, a compelling
synchronic alternation between labials and dorsals that has not yet been recognized as evidence
in favour of the labial-velar hypothesis.
1.3 Synchronic argument for the labial-velar hypothesis
Hyman (2017) discusses the case of Lusoga [JE16], a Bantu language. The case involves the
4
1 however, it surfaces as the allophone [p] after a nasal
consonant that is demonstrably underlyingly coronal/n/, as shown by the third column. The
classes 9/10, and after the exponent of Past.
(2) 1.PL… 1.… 1.…
/p/ tù-pìm-á pím-á n-á-pìm-á ‘measure’
tù-ɣ-á p-à n-á-ɣ-à ‘give’
This alternation also shows up in class 11/10 singular and plural pairs.
(3) ò-lú-ɣ PL p ‘feather’
This same alternation also shows up in reduplicated nouns and verbs in the formation of the
‘feathers’ > pɣ
‘banana leaves’ > pɣúúmbú
‘I give’ > pɣ-á
‘I bend’ > pɣ
indeed very tricky.
underlying form of the nasal that triggers hardening is coronal (cf. -p-à ‘1.-give’ vs. n
‘1.-give’).
(5) ‘Magical’ appearance of labiality
2017). While this is of course not impossible, an allomorphic approach is far less desirable than
natural process, without an unmotivated substitution
1
5
Hypothesis is that these alternations need not be necessarily the product of vast allomorphy or
an unnatural/feature substituting process. Instead, it can be the result of a process that involves
the (admittedly unexpected but theoretically possible) promotion of |U| to a headed status: |U|
à
contain the same basic feature |U|.
(6)
HNoise (burst, frication)
U
4
(4) Pejorative Reduplication
é-.-pà!á ‘feathers’ > é-.-
p
á!á +
!
à!á
è-m--púúmbú ‘banana leaves’ > è-m--
p
úúmbú +
!
úúmbú
.-p-à ‘I give’ > .-
p
-à +
!
-á
m--pét-á ‘I bend’ > m--
p
ét-à +
!
étà
Hyman’s discussion of the phenomenon centers on underlying forms, specifically the difficulty of
deriving [p] from /!/ in a post-nasal context. From an articulatory feature perspective this is
indeed very tricky.
The difficulty centers on the origin of the labiality. Although the output is always: [mp],
the underlying form of the nasal that triggers hardening is coronal (cf.
.
-p-à ‘1.SG-give’ vs.
n
-á-
!-à ‘1.SG-PST-give’).
(5) ‘Magical’ appearance of labiality
n (coronal) + ! (dorsal) > mp (labial)
One alternative to deriving [p] from /!/ involves setting up very, very many allomorphs (Hyman
2017). While this is of course not impossible, an allomorphic approach is far less desirable than
deriving /!/ from [p] with a single productive rule.
B&N’s labial-velar hypothesis offers a startingly simple account for this alternation as a
natural process, without an unmotivated substitution of place features. Though the specific details
of the process would need to be worked out for the language, what is afforded by the Labial-Velar
Hypothesis is that these alternations need not be necessarily the product of vast allomorphy or an
unnatural/feature substituting process. Instead, it can be the result of a process that involves the
(admittedly unexpected but theoretically possible) promotion of |U| to a headed status: |U| when
the structure becomes bipositional. While this change is clearly more complex than /!/ ! [k/g],
it is still a natural process according to the labial-velar hypothesis since both /!/ and /p/ contain
the same basic feature |U|.
(6) Promotion of /!/ to [p] in nasal hardening (spreading |/| from nasal to the fricative)
H – Noise (burst, frication)
/ – Occlusion/Silence (sustained reduction of amplitude)
U – Darkness (Velar when non-head, Labial when head)
[!] [p]
Root
Root
Place H
Place H
/
U
U
4
(4) Pejorative Reduplication
é-.-pà!á ‘feathers’ > é-.-
p
á!á +
!
à!á
è-m--púúmbú ‘banana leaves’ > è-m--
p
úúmbú +
!
úúmbú
.-p-à ‘I give’ > .-
p
-à +
!
-á
m--pét-á ‘I bend’ > m--
p
ét-à +
!
étà
Hyman’s discussion of the phenomenon centers on underlying forms, specifically the difficulty of
deriving [p] from /!/ in a post-nasal context. From an articulatory feature perspective this is
indeed very tricky.
The difficulty centers on the origin of the labiality. Although the output is always: [mp],
the underlying form of the nasal that triggers hardening is coronal (cf.
.
-p-à ‘1.SG-give’ vs.
n
-á-
!-à ‘1.SG-PST-give’).
(5) ‘Magical’ appearance of labiality
n (coronal) + ! (dorsal) > mp (labial)
One alternative to deriving [p] from /!/ involves setting up very, very many allomorphs (Hyman
2017). While this is of course not impossible, an allomorphic approach is far less desirable than
deriving /!/ from [p] with a single productive rule.
B&N’s labial-velar hypothesis offers a startingly simple account for this alternation as a
natural process, without an unmotivated substitution of place features. Though the specific details
of the process would need to be worked out for the language, what is afforded by the Labial-Velar
Hypothesis is that these alternations need not be necessarily the product of vast allomorphy or an
unnatural/feature substituting process. Instead, it can be the result of a process that involves the
(admittedly unexpected but theoretically possible) promotion of |U| to a headed status: |U| when
the structure becomes bipositional. While this change is clearly more complex than /!/ ! [k/g],
it is still a natural process according to the labial-velar hypothesis since both /!/ and /p/ contain
the same basic feature |U|.
(6) Promotion of /!/ to [p] in nasal hardening (spreading |/| from nasal to the fricative)
H – Noise (burst, frication)
/ – Occlusion/Silence (sustained reduction of amplitude)
U – Darkness (Velar when non-head, Labial when head)
[!] [p]
Root
Root
Place H
Place H
/
U
U
2 The Definition of Headedness
If Dorsals and Labials share |U| as their only place feature, that means that there are a
(when they are contrastive). However, since they appear to share all their features, the
but the organization of those features. It is under these conditions that a headedness-based
claim that headed darkness |U| stands for Lab, and basic darkness is Dors. But what does it
mean to be headed in phonology? How is headedness encoded at the abstract phonological
level?
6
2.1 Previous approaches to Headedness
purely notational. It involves underlining the headed element: |U| ‘non-head’ vs. |U| ‘head’. This
is the most obvious example of what I will refer to as the diacritic approach to headedness.
A symbol (Feature) is further marked with a non-independent symbol to distinguish it. This
and U without introducing a new feature. This,
through a diacritic? (c) why is it not the other way around (with the diacritic marking the non-
head).2 It is clear that beyond getting the answer right, the diacritic solution is a dead-end.
diacritic solution
collectively be thought of as isomeric solutions
its contents but by their organization.
and Kaye (2001). The assumption is that speech sounds/segments, technically known as
‘phonological expressions’, are composed of an ordered pair, where O is ‘operator’/non-head
and H is head.
(7) Headedness in Kaye (2001)
Phonological expression (O.H)
Notation: ({Operator elements} Head)
Unfortunately, this solution is still basically a notational solution because there is no explanation
for how the structure is derived or why it exists as it does. However, this model does make
two claims explicit: (a) no element may occur multiple times in an expression and (b) only one
element may be the head of any expression.
Faust (2017) develops this approach and (to my mind correctly) interprets this notation as a
template. We can therefore refer to this approach to Isomeric solutions as the Templatic solution.
Building on Kaye’s (2001) ordered pairs, Faust (ibid.) proposes that every phonological expression
in every language contains an operator and head position. The two positions in the template are
metaphorically presented as ‘target’ and ‘base’. Unlike Kaye (2001), for Faust (2017) the same
template with its two obligatory positions exists at all and why should a three-way contrast not
2
7
It seems to me that another instantiation of the Templatic solution is that of a Headedness tier.
geometry. Yoshida’s (2019) recent paper contains an example of this approach. This view starts
with the assumption that elements are organized onto tiers.
A ----------------------------A---------------------------------------------
U ----------U----------------------------------------------------------------
Head ----------U----------------------------------------------------------------
empty. In fact, it seems to me that this approach is a notational variant of the Templatic solution
in Kaye (2001).
This viewpoint of headedness, also possible in Faust’s model, allows for an interesting
reconciliation between those who think that velars have empty resonance (no place feature)
headed’ and contain |U| at the same time.
(9) Labial Dorsal Palatal
Head ---------U-------------------------------------------------------------------I--------
I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------I--------
U ---------U------------------------------------U-------------------------------------
element. This is a representational outcome of the Tier hypothesis and Faust’s (2017) version
of the Templatic solution. In fact, this formal characteristic is shared by another approach to
headedness and the novel solution that I propose.
Templatic solution. It still begs
tiers? Why should there be a head tier? What does it mean to have a head tier and a dependent
tier? Why are there two instances of the headed element? Why not put the headed element
structure.
8
2.2 Hidden templates
Moving away from templates, it seems logical that the simplest explanatory solution to
order (underived) geometric properties of the representation created by this combinatorial
mechanism.
feature or a head-category, ‘rather it refers to a phonological function or relation
that is contracted between positions’. Knowing that, we start only with the phonological features
(elements). Then we need to know how to arrive at these melodic ‘positions’.
Berwick 2016). Merge is demonstrably the best (and only) representation building device in
syntax because syntactic representations are unordered and recursive (pace
for special cases and discussion). In fact, syntax is recursive because it is built from the simplest
operation, Merge. To restrict Merge’s application, one would actually have to add conditions to
In this sense, phonological structures do not initially appear to be built directly by Merge.
structures there is no clear evidence of true unbounded recursivity. Though there are plenty
of phonological analyses that show you can use recursive structures to analyse phonological
have to be represented with recursion/embedding (excluding
3
Nevertheless, it does seem to depend on which representational level one looks. At the supra-
with sisters, dominance, scope, branching nodes, terminal nodes and the whole ensemble is not
insight that phonological representations are built of melody (features) and a skeleton (positions),
, as in a
directed graph (Pierrehumbert 2011).
is linear and non-recursive) and sub-skeletal featural organization, which is not linearized
3
Where the fact is so compelling it is a matter of description as much as it is of analysis.
9
(cf. Lombardi 1991). The sub-skeletal featural organization, in fact does look like a syntactic
representation.
I will propose that melodic structures have the geometric properties they do because they are
structures are not generated to other work.
It appears, therefore, that melodic structure is actually homologus to syntax, a claim that
is also made in other syntactic approaches to sub-segmental structure (though none of these
& van der Hulst 2020; van der Hulst 2020) and the framework of Precedence-Free Phonology
(Nasukawa 2019). Unlike all of these approaches I make this claim only about sub-skeletal i.e.
‘melodic’ structure.
structure is that they invariably assume a melodic structure that is explicitly based
on syntactic X-bar theory. The reason why this is not satisfying (to me) is that the X-bar
moved away from X-bar theory partly because templates like X-bar cannot be simply
they are.
2.3 A new direction from old foundations
The new direction that I take should be contextualized by its antecedents in Dependency
as foundational: (a) asymmetry is one of the core empirical aspects of phonology (and linguistic
systems in general), (b) A good way of modelling this asymmetry is by encoding it directly in the
representation. My work in this paper is a continuation of this methodology, though I go about
it in a new way.
Dependency Phonology noticed that asymmetry, or the Head-Dependent relationship is one
of the most fundamental properties of (linguistic) phonological systems (ibid). In this framework
line and the dependent with a slanted line, something that continues into modern work in this
Precedence-Free Phonology (Nasukawa 2019).
10
(10)
9
(10) Headedness in Dependency Phonology (as shown in Hulst 1989)
°
°
0 ,
The geometry of this structure emerges from the conditions of asymmetry and binarity that are
imposed by UG. It is therefore a templatic statement that sisters will be universally
asymmetrically organized into Head and Dependent. The headedness of the structure is encoded
into the representation, rather than a consequence of it. The combination of two objects into a
constituent means that one will effectively sit in the head-position, and the other in the dependent
position.
This is different from the theory that I will present shortly where Headedness is a kind of
asymmetry that is actually generated by language’s sole combinatorial mechanism, in fact, sisters
can never be headed with respect to each other.
2.3.1 Merge but with another hidden template
Merge is defined in Chomsky (1995) as follows: target two syntactic objects: 0 and ,, form a new
object 2 {0, ,}. The label (LB) of 2(LB(2)) = LB(0) or LB (,). In this schema the head is the
member of the set which decides/projects the label of the merged pair. Breit’s (2013) key
contribution to the discussion of headedness comes from correctly considering the segment formally
as a set of features.
For Breit (2013) if an element is a head it must also be contained in the overall set of
elements; this follows from taking the implications of the carrier signal modulation (Harris & Urua
2001) seriously, in that the headed element (stronger modulation) will always imply the existence
of a weak modulation (= dependent) (Breit 2019: 25). This leads to the following representations,
which I believe are correct, though to avoid postulating headedness have to be derived differently.
(11) Headedness in Breit
|A, I| = {{A}, {A,I}}
|A, H, /| = {{A}, {A,H,/}}
|I, L, /, N| = {{N}, {N,I,L,/}}
The elephant in this definition in syntax is projection. Why should one of the labels be selected
as the head? We only know that it is because it gets the right answer (Adger 2013; Chomsky
2014) but again it begs the question, why should there be projection at all?
The geometry of this structure emerges from the conditions of asymmetry and binarity that are
sisters will be universally asymmetrically
organized into Head and Dependent. The headedness of the structure is encoded into the
asymmetry that is actually generated by language’s sole combinatorial mechanism, in fact, sisters
can never be headed with respect to each other.
2.3.1 Merge but with another hidden template
key contribution to the discussion of headedness comes from correctly considering the segment
formally as a set of features.
For Breit (2013) if an element is a head it must also be contained in the overall set of
elements; this follows from taking the implications of the carrier signal modulation (Harris &
Urua 2001) seriously, in that the headed element (stronger modulation) will always imply the
representations, which I believe are correct, though to avoid postulating headedness have to be
(11) Headedness in Breit
|A, I| {{A}, {A,I}}
|A
N|
11
projection. Why should one of the labels
be selected as the head? We only know that it is because it gets the right answer (Adger
projection at
all?
a,b≐ {{a},{a,b}}. This shows that
Breit (2013) a priori stipulates that there is a head position. Therefore, as far as I can establish,
a) in the a-headed structure {{a},{a,b}}. Therefore, all
other merits notwithstanding, on the issue of headedness Breit (2013) is no more insightful
than all previous approaches that merely assume that there must be a head position: |y, x|. It is
another derivation of the Templatic solution.
Interestingly, it is possible to retain Breit’s (2013) key insight, without presupposing
Templatic headedness.
2.3.2 Bare Element Geometry and the asymmetric theory of headedness
Just as Minimalist syntax has moved away from the templatic X-bar schema, it is
possible to replace all the previous Templatic solutions (be they: x-bar, head-tier,
Bare Element Geometry
In Bare Element Geometry, elements can combine freely forming unordered sets. This means
that the Merge operation that has been selected is the simplest of all possible operations, even
(12)
a. x
b. y
c.
12
10
This question is also applicable to Breit (2013)’s derivation of headedness. According to
their model, headedness is based on the Kuratowski notation: !a,b" {{a},{a,b}}. This shows that
Breit (2013) a priori stipulates that there is a head position. Therefore, as far as I can establish,
this model presupposes projection of (a) in the a-headed structure {{a},{a,b}}. Therefore, all other
merits notwithstanding, on the issue of headedness Breit (2013) is no more insightful than all
previous approaches that merely assume that there must be a head position: |y, x|. It is another
derivation of the Templatic solution.
Interestingly, it is possible to retain Breit’s (2013) key insight, without presupposing
Templatic headedness.
2.3.2 Bare Element Geometry and the asymmetric theory of headedness
Just as Minimalist syntax has moved away from the templatic X-bar schema, it is possible to
replace all the previous Templatic solutions (be they: x-bar, head-tier, obligatory head-position,
or postulated head positions) with the equivalent of a bare phrase structure (Chomsky 1993). For
phonology this is termed: Bare Element Geometry (BEG).
In Bare Element Geometry, elements can combine freely forming unordered sets. This
means that the Merge operation that has been selected is the simplest of all possible operations,
even simpler than Pair Merge that has been used in Minimalist Syntax.4
The structures that are generated will have the following configurations.
(12) Simplex Element
a. x
b. y
c. Configurations of Elements in BEG
i. Set Merge: (0, ,) = {0, ,}
(x, y)
x y
4 The use of Set vs. Pair Merge is a thorny one in syntax, as are problems of projection in general. There
are those who have argued against Pair Merge in syntax (Collins 2002; Epstein et al. 2012; Chomsky 2013;
Oseki 2015). A reviewer asks for more details to be given on the homology of Merge in Phonology and
Syntax, as far as this paper is concerned this issue will be decided by what is ultimately required for syntax.
As far as this paper is concerned, for segment structure, Set Merge is required.
!
ii. More Merge
11
ii. More Merge
(x, (x, y)) (y, (x, y))
x (x, y) y (x, y)
x y x y
Crucially, these structures are not formed from an x-bar schema or template. There is no dedicated
‘head’, ‘complement’ or ‘specifier’ position. The trees in (12) are composed only of features and
the first order geometric relations that are produced by Merging the features together.
This is not to say that something like a ‘complement’ relation could not be identified in a
structure built by BEG, indeed many other relations are feasible with the trees shown in (12).
However, by hypothesis, these always have emerged from the first order geometric properties that
result from their Merging. For instance, ‘headedness’ has been redefined as asymmetric c-
command. Melodic features brought together by Merge (during the acquisition process) are
universally binary and there is no contrast in directionality (right or left), they are unordered. In
Bare Element Geometry there are elements and the ‘bare’ combinations thereof. Naturally this
means that ‘headedness’ does not mean what it does in an x-bar schema.
Notice also that this leads to the same representational outcome as Breit (2013): {a,
{a,b}}.5 It also preserves the key insight of the Isomeric/Templatic solution. In this approach self-
merge is possible (Adger 2013), this can lead to structures such as (x, (x, x)). They will be discussed
in more detail beneath.
2.3.3 Complexity in BEG and the asymmetric theory of headedness
In BEG there are two types of complexity: cardinality (13a-b vs. 13ci) and asymmetry (13cii).
The Asymmetry here is what I understand to be the true definition of headedness.
One type of complexity is defined by cardinality: an empty, simplex or complex set.
Assuming grammars cannot count, the difference is based on the binary opposition of an expression
having either: (a) one element = simplex, or (b) more than one element = complex. This contrast
is shown in (13a-b).
Another, entirely different complexity, is defined by asymmetry. The property that I think
underlies ‘headedness’. This is defined at the level of the feature. A feature is a head if it
asymmetrically c-commands another instance of itself (13c-d).
5 This discussion involves only two-member vocalic expressions. The implications of this model for three-member
expressions such as |ø| |œ| are left to future work.
universally binary and there is no contrast in directionality (right or left), they are unordered.
In Bare Element Geometry there are elements and the ‘bare’ combinations thereof. Naturally this
means that ‘headedness’ does not mean what it does in an x-bar schema.
Notice also that this leads to the same representational outcome as Breit (2013): {a, {a,b}}.5
It also preserves the key insight of the Isomeric/Templatic solution. In this approach self-merge is
possible (Adger 2013), this can lead to structures such as (x, (x, x)). They will be discussed in
more detail beneath.
2.3.3 Complexity in BEG and the asymmetric theory of headedness
5
This discussion involves only two-member vocalic expressions. The implications of this model for three-member
expressions such as |ø| |œ| are left to future work.
13
(13) Headed and Headless structures (as in ‘ATR’ headedness harmony systems)
12
(13) Headed and Headless structures (as in ‘ATR’ headedness harmony systems)
a. b. (A, U)
I A U
Typical value
[3] [4]
Cardinality
simplex complex
Asymmetry
no no
c. (I, (I, Ø)) d. (U, (A, U))
I (I, Ø) U (A, U)
I I = Ø A U
Typical value
[i] [o]
Cardinality
simplex complex
Asymmetry
yes yes
The structure in (13c) shows the outcome of self-merge. One application of self-merge will neither
produce asymmetry, nor an increase in cardinality: (I, I) = (I, Ø) = I [Cardinality: 1 (simplex),
Asymmetry: no]. Therefore, this will not lead to a phonological contrast. However, a second
application of self-merge (or merge of the same element) will lead to phonological contrast, because
although Cardinality cannot be increased, the outcome will be asymmetrical: (I, (I, Ø)) = (I, (I))
[Cardinality: 1 (simplex), Asymmetry: yes]. This is also why it is impossible to add another
instance of merge and produce another phonological contrast since Cardinality will be the same
and the structure will be just as asymmetrical as one level before: (I, (I, (I, Ø))) = (I, (I, (I)))
[Cardinality: 1 (simplex), Asymmetry: yes].6
Although this model does allow structures with more than one of the same element (contra
Kaye 2001), in this system, simplex expressions could still never have a chiral contrast: |A, A| vs.
|A, A|. This is because in this model, headedness can only result from asymmetric c-command and
(A, A) = (A, A).
6 This bears some similarity to Schane (1984), where he allowed multiple instances of an element to gradiently increase
an element’s phonetic prominence: |I, I, A| = [e], |I, A, A| = [5]. Except that here there is counting, and there is no way
to introduce a formal upper bound to contrasts: *|I, A, A, A, A| = �.
The structure in (13c) shows the outcome of self-merge. One application of self-merge will
(simplex), Asymmetry: no]. Therefore, this will not lead to a phonological contrast. However,
a second application of self-merge (or merge of the same element) will lead to phonological
14
6
Although this model does allow structures with more than one of the same element (contra
Kaye 2001), in this system, simplex expressions could still never have a chiral contrast: |A, A| vs.
|A, A|. This is because in this model, headedness can only result from asymmetric c-command
2.4 Empirical predictions of BEG
independent properties. This will mean that simplex expressions can be headed or headless
in cardinality do not necessarily have to have asymmetry. This creates a three-way contrast in
a. |I|
b. (A, I) (A, (A, I)) (I, (A, I))
the close-mid lax vowels suggesting their representation is also without asymmetry: (A, I).
(asymmetrical in this model).7
(15) 7
a. ATR b. -ATR
i
u
a
o
e
6
is no way to introduce a formal upper bound to contrasts: *|I, A, A, A| vs. *|I, A, A, A, A| vs. *|I, A, A, A, A, A|.
7
15
(16)
i u a e o
Unstressed i u a e o
a. bɛ b.
and structure. As such, since it is the open mid vowels that are not permitted in unstressed
position, it suggests that Tuscan’s open mid vowels are underlain by more structure than [e], not
set: (A (A,I)).
(A (A.I)) in Tuscan.
2.4.1 Two types of vowel reduction
The structures in (13) predict that there should be two basic types of vowel-reduction, those
permitted: [i, u, a, e, o].
9 This reduction appears
(17) Headedness and cardinality in Brazilian Portuguese
Pre-tonic Tonic Post-tonic
i, u, a, e, o
Asymmetry
*(A(A.I)) *(A.I)
Which mid-vowels remain depends on the dialect (Nevins 2012).
9
16
2.5 Theory internal advantages
solves are not always found in the published literature, but they are common spoken about
familiar with the framework, however, the section is short and the disinterested reader is
encouraged to skip it.
This is expressed as: how can structures be unheaded if they have a universal empty head
has no head.
Bare Element Geometry avoids the
‘all (phonological) expressions must be headed
problematic because if all phonological expressions must contain a head, empty expressions
10 because this
All Expressions Must Be Headed
All nodes must be asymmetrically c-commanded.
headed. There can be no expressions with an empty head ‘lording it over’ non-headed elements.
Templatic solutions, including Breit (2013: 23). In this model, such a
a tree (and not ‘a position’); therefore, if there are no features, there can be no head.
3 BEG and labial-velars
3.1 BEG and the labial-velar hypothesis
Returning now to labial and dorsal consonants, we see that in this model labials and dorsals have
labials.
10
distinct advantage here, however, with respect to explicitly templatic approaches.
17
(19) Labial and Dorsal place features
15
not to exist at all. However, this problem cannot even be formulated in BEG10, because this
licensing constraint would be expressed as a condition on nodes (as shown in (18)). Since, empty
expressions have no nodes, the condition in (18) does not apply to them.
(18) All Expressions Must Be Headed
All nodes must be asymmetrically c-commanded.
Another good outcome of BEG is that it automatically predicts that empty expressions cannot be
headed. There can be no expressions with an empty head ‘lording it over’ non-headed elements.
This is a difference with all Templatic solutions, including Breit (2013: 23). In this model, such a
structure cannot even be formulated. In BEG, headedness is a relational property among nodes in
a tree (and not ‘a position’); therefore, if there are no features, there can be no head.
3 BEG and labial-velars
3.1 BEG and the labial-velar hypothesis
Returning now to labial and dorsal consonants, we see that in this model labials and dorsals have
the same cardinality, but radically different structures. In fact, dorsals are a structural subset of
labials.
(19) Labial and Dorsal place features
Labial Dorsal
¥ (Place) ¥ (Place)
(U, (U, Ø)) U
U (U, Ø)
U U = Ø
3.2 The phonology of KP
In this section, I will present the evidence for the representation of KP step-by-step. Each
assumption is built not on its phonetic identity but its phonological behaviour.
For expository reasons, [kp] and [gb] will be collectively called KP, unless I need to
exclusively referring to either [kp] or [gb] specifically.
10 A reviewer points out that Breit (2013) might also have mechanisms that obviate this problem. BEG does have a
distinct advantage here, however, with respect to explicitly templatic approaches.
3.2 The phonology of KP
In this section, I will present the evidence for the representation of KP step-by-step. Each
assumption is built not on its phonetic identity but its phonological behaviour.
For expository reasons, [kp] and [gb] will be collectively called KP, unless I need to exclusively
3.2.1 KP is a single segment
Where it can be tested, KP can be shown to be a monopositional segment linked to a single
combination of linguistic properties allow us to test this directly.
kpa-kpara & pa-para).
distinguished from initial syllable reduplication, which would copy both singleton and complex
initial syllable reduplication because either they have the reduplication pattern but not the
clusters, or the clusters but not the reduplication pattern. Ewe is special because it has both and
it allows us to see the true segmental identity of KP.
(20)
a. fo ‘beat’ fo-fo ‘beating’
b. bia ‘ask’ ba-bia ‘asking’
c. ‘buy’ fe-fle ‘bought’
d. kplo ‘lead’ kpokplo ‘leading’
e. gbla ‘exert self’ gbagbla ‘exerting self’
18
the KP clusters. We see that the whole KP is reduplicated as a single consonant and unlike a
3.2.2 KP has two place nodes
Having established that it is a single segment, the fact that it has two phonetic places of
I think there is evidence to suggest that KP have two place nodes, rather than a single branching
place node.
The evidence comes from a lesser-known Bantu language, Nzadi spoken on the Kasai River
(21)
a. epim ebim ‘already’
b. t ‘pipe’ nd ‘sorcery’
c. o-tswâ ‘to bring’ o-dzwâ ‘to kill’
d. ŋkáb ‘paddle’ ŋgûl ‘big’
e. mpfùú ‘bird’ ibvuk ‘monkey (sp.)’
f. okp‘short’ ŋgbee ‘side’
What is special about Nzadi is that nearly every consonant can come ‘coloured’ by a secondary
crucially it does not include KP.
Although there are a few accidental gaps: *pfw, *vw, there is no generalized ban on
/ and /pw/ are both attested. The data in (22) lists
some dark and light coloured consonants, as well as a representative set of coloured
19
(22) 11
j C+w
a. pjoo ‘black’ o-pw ‘to decay’
b. osja ‘beautiful’ oswâ ‘tomorrow’
c. o-kjá ‘tail’ ŋkw ‘bean’
d. mpfjô ‘cold’
e. ibvj ‘breast’ mbwa /mbvwa/ ‘path’
f. o-tsjak ‘to pour’ otswâ ‘to bring’
g. ndzj ‘bat’ o-dzwâ ‘to kill’
Nzadi is a language that is rich with complex segments, but outside of this secondary consonant
11
that the ban on colouring KP is caused by a maximal number of Place nodes per segment.12 The
way that this is represented will not be obvious until the next section.
3.2.3 KP has two Root nodes
The data from Nzadi suggests that KP has two place nodes but the distribution of those place
nodes in the segmental structure is not immediately clear from that data.
There is evidence, however, for KP being made up of two ordered Root nodes, each with its
own place node. This is unexpected because it runs against all previous descriptions of the sound
3.2.3.1 Background to place features in KP
and proposes that KP has a branching place node instead.
11
12 It could also have made sense as a saturation of a place node: the place node holds maximally two features. However,
is not my favoured explanation. This may not convince some readers (though it will others), but I think the argu-
ments in the next section that KP has two root-nodes are clearer.
20
(23)
18
There is evidence, however, for KP being made up of two ordered Root nodes, each with
its own place node. This is unexpected because it runs against all previous descriptions of the
sound (Sagey 1986; McCarthy 1988; van der Weijer 1996; Cahill 1999).
3.2.3.1 Background to place features in KP
As a way to restrict the universal set of complex segments, Sagey (1986: 61) stipulates that only
terminal features can branch, class nodes cannot. She therefore excludes branching root nodes and
proposes that KP has a branching place node instead.
(23) KP (Sagey 1986: 61)
Root
Supra.
Place
Lab
Dors
Opting for this structure yields predictions, chief among which: (a) the place features of KP must
be unordered with respect to each other (Sagey 1986: 61) and (b) the whole KP segment must
share all the features that link directly to the root node.
The kind of unordered representation shown in (21) has proven very successful in limiting
the universal set of complex segments, especially affricates. It is indeed true that complex segments
almost always have agreeing voicing values: */pv, bf, tz…/.13 Because this fact about voicing is
true for all three major types of complex segments (affricates, prenasalised stops and labial-velar
stops), there is a tendency to lump these three classes of sounds together.
This tendency is further reinforced by the fact that these three types of sound
demonstrably sit beneath a single timing slot.14 However, it does not follow, that these three
complex segments should have an identical structural organization beneath the timing slot.
Indeed, it has often been observed that complex segments can only vary for one feature:
either they have complex place: [kp], or they have complex manner: [ts], but not both: *[k<].
This would be a strange condition for generative grammar: if the terminal features are
unrelated to each other and each terminal feature can branch, then why can they not both branch
in the same representation?
Furthermore, I have not seen it claimed elsewhere, but it seems that affricates and
prenasalised stops seem to very rarely have a branching place feature: *[p=, tf, kz, …], *[md, np,
13 A reviewer mentions Limbum of Cameroon as having initial [bf], however, the reviewer also mentions that it is likely
analysable as a consonant sequence rather than a segment. The same reviewer mentions the allophone of Guere: [km].
Voicing from allophonic nasalisation may constitute a counterexample, but phonemic [km] may be unattested.
14 This suggests that laryngeal features link directly to the timing slot (cf. Liu 2019; Liu & Kula 2020).
Opting for this structure yields predictions, chief among which: (a) the place features of KP must
be unordered
share all the features that link directly to the root node.
The kind of unordered representation shown in (21) has proven very successful in limiting the
almost always have agreeing voicing values: */pv, bf, tz…/.13 Because this fact about voicing is
stops), there is a tendency to lump these three classes of sounds together.
This tendency is further reinforced by the fact that these three types of sound demonstrably
sit beneath a single timing slot. However, it does not follow, that these three complex segments
should have an identical structural organization beneath the timing slot.
Indeed, it has often been observed that complex segments can only vary for one feature:
This would be a strange condition for generative grammar: if the terminal features are
unrelated to each other and each terminal feature can branch, then why can they not both branch
in the same representation?
md, np, …].15 This
13
This suggests that laryngeal features link directly to the timing slot (cf. Liu 2019; Liu & Kula 2020).
15 The closest common counterexample would be /pf/ which phonetically may appear to be bilabial, labio-dental, but
-
gical status is unclear.
21
limitation on labial-velar stops. This shows that while these three types of sound are all complex
complex segments and KP is at the level of the Root node. The former have one root node,
node-branching-place-node hypothesis because she wishes to limit the possibility of branching
class nodes.16 Her hypothesis comes with two predictions that are not shared by a two-root-
node hypothesis: (a) the place features of KP must be unordered with respect to each other,
and (b) the whole segment KP must share all the features that link directly to the root node.
Interestingly, though this has not been previously recognized, both of these turn out to be
mispredictions for KP.
3.2.3.2 KP’s root nodes are ordered
this is a two-way, not a three-way, typology.
To this list I can add Mono (Olson 2005)17
[ŋ]KP [ŋm]KP [m]KP
Kpelle, Yoruba, Dan,
There are two patterns of nasal-KP assimilation when a priori
16
17
22
phonological sense if KP’s two place features are ordered and assimilation either targets the
whole segment with its two Place features or the closest place feature out of an ordered pair:
unordered place features.
suggests, then, as well as global assimilation of both Lab and Dors, we should counterfactually
expect either place feature to assimilate to the nasal, since they would both be local. This
and Lab belong to two ordered Root nodes, as shown in (23b), then only Dors is local to
a leftward nasal. Under these conditions, only one type of partial assimilation is expected:
Dors.
This typology also shows a nice non-vowel harmony application of the logic of feature
spreading found in Nevins (2010) for vowel harmony. This also operates via Agree according
to the principle of locality. What the structure in (23b) shows is that a nasal seeking a place
feature can only take Lab if it also takes Dors, which it would have to cross-over non-locally to
reach.
(25) Locality and nasal assimilation
a.
20
There are two patterns of nasal-KP assimilation when a priori we could have expected three: n +
KP = (a) [(]KP, (b) [(m]KP or (c) *[m]KP. There is the complete place assimilation where the
nasal agrees for both of KP’s place features, resulting in [(m]KP. Then there is partial agreement
for place, where assimilation targets just one of KP’s features, but it is always the same one: Dors.
Since Lab is an inherently stronger cue, both acoustically and visually, this gap only makes
phonological sense if KP’s two place features are ordered and assimilation either targets the whole
segment with its two Place features or the closest place feature out of an ordered pair: Dors.
Crucially this pattern fails to be explained by all previous representations of KP which have
unordered place features.
If Dors and Lab features were unordered under a branching place node as Sagey (1986)
suggests, then, as well as global assimilation of both Lab and Dors, we should counterfactually
expect either place feature to assimilate to the nasal, since they would both be local. This would
create the unattested three-way typology modelled in (23a). Conversely, if Dors and Lab belong
to two ordered Root nodes, as shown in (23b), then only Dors is local to a leftward nasal. Under
these conditions, only one type of partial assimilation is expected: Dors.
This typology also shows a nice non-vowel harmony application of the logic of feature
spreading found in Nevins (2010) for vowel harmony. This also operates via Agree according to
the principle of locality. What the structure in (23b) shows is that a nasal seeking a place feature
can only take Lab if it also takes Dors, which it would have to cross-over non-locally to reach.
(25) Locality and nasal assimilation
a. Agree in an Unordered structure (Sagey 1986) (overgenerates)18
Nasal
a
KP Place
c
b
Dors
Lab domain of assimilation
Global (a) [(m]
Local (b, c) [(] or [m]
18 The "! symbol here is to remind the reader that the features could be drawn in either order. This is in contrast
with the two root node structure shown beneath where ! implies precedence.
The ßà symbol here is to remind the reader that the features could be drawn in either order. This is in contrast with
the two root node structure shown beneath where à implies precedence.
23
b. Ordered (correct)
21
b. Ordered (correct)
Nasal
a
x
Root1 Root2
Place Place
b
Dors Lab
domain of local assimilation
(a) Global [(m]
(b) Local [(]
The ordered root node analysis is particularly convincing given that it applies symmetrically on
the right side. In rightwards nasal assimilation (KP + nasal), the nasal again assimilates either
locally (m) or globally ((m). Cahill (1999), citing Mills (1984), reports that KP followed by nasal
results in /m/ in the Tyebaara dialect of Senufo: [kp
m
4@6A] 'to beat', [ni @-
-gb
m
4-@A] 'herb doctor'. He
also reports that Mada has an underlying syllabic /m/ which assimilates to the place of its onset.
In the case of /k/, the syllabic nasal becomes dorsal [(] (26a), while after KP it becomes [(m]
(26b-c).
(26) KP + nasal assimilation in Mada (Price 1989)
a. /kpak
m
ki/ [kpak
(
ki] ‘tree stump’
b. /kp
m-
/ [kp
(m-
] ‘kapok tree’
c. /gb
m-
/ [gb
(m-
] ‘canoe’
Again this local or global assimilation pattern shows that the Dors and Lab place features of the
KP are phonologically ordered with respect to each other: Dors > Lab.19
19 Depending on the framework, I guess it is a priori possible for the sub-skeletal/sub-Root node features to be
extrinsically orderable, however, this is not what is empirically observed. Outside of the framework of Articulatory
Phonology (Browman & Goldstein 1986; 1992), not even the occlusive and continuancy features of affricates are believed
to be ordered (Lombardi 1990). Indeed, it is vital to conserve the insight from Sagey (1986), that there is no ordering
The ordered root node analysis is particularly convincing given that it applies symmetrically on the
right side. In rightwards
mm
that Mada has an underlying syllabic /m/ which assimilates to the place of its onset. In the case of
(26)
a. /kpakmki/ [kpakŋki] ‘tree stump’
b. /kpm / [kpŋ m ] ‘kapok tree’
c. /gbm / [gbŋ m ] ‘canoe’
Again this local or global assimilation pattern shows that the Dors and Lab place features of the
KP are phonologically ordered with respect to each other: Dors > Lab.19
19 Depending on the framework, I guess it is a priori possible for the sub-skeletal/sub-Root node features to be extrinsic-
ally orderable, however, this is not what is empirically observed. Outside of the framework of Articulatory Phonology
features below the root node. To accept anything else would open the door to phonological contrasts that are simply
unattested: /t/ with and without ordering. Therefore, the ordering of place features in KP cannot be as a result of
ordering within a branching place node (a terminal node), the ordering must come from ‘on high’. This is especially
important to Element Theory where Backley (2011) convincingly shows us that certain consonants have ‘complex
24
3.2.3.3 KP formation
In this section, I will explain three pieces of evidence for KP’s two-root node structure taken from
but it could also be analysed synchronically. From the reported data, it seems that Aghem roots
can be made plural by the addition of a /w/ (which I assume comes with its own root node). The
pw), this is then converted into or interpreted as KP.20
(27) Aghem labio-dorsal formation
Singular Root + Plural Plural Gloss
a. n20 ‘cocoyam’
b. t ‘cricket’
c. b ó-gb ‘rope’
d. b ó-gb ‘fufu’
3.2.3.4 Distributional argument
of languages, there are strict phonotactic conditions on the distribution of KP. For instance, in
The most likely explanation for this skewed distribution is that segments with two root nodes
positions (Harris 1997).
3.2.3.5 Separatability in Guere
The third case-study is perhaps the strongest argument for KP having two root nodes.
geometry.
20 The root is underlined.
25
a. ‘back (part of body)’
b. ‘corn’
c. ‘dog’
d. ‘goat’
e. ‘to catch’
f. ‘to raise/educate (children)’
g. ‘banana’
nasal vowels these are allophonically produced with nasalization.
of this change makes phonetic sense, voicing and nasality are inherently related properties
(Ploch 1999; Nasukawa 2005), so it is phonetically natural that the voiced /gb/ nasalises to
is possible to half-nasalize KP.
overhaul.21,22
If the near consensus that nasality is a root property is correct, then the ability for a
segment to half-nasalize is good evidence for KP’s division into two root nodes. Any analysis
simply mispredicts this phonological outcome. They predict that nasality ought to always
span over both places of articulation. According to standard assumptions, the nasal feature
the stop.
21
a root node has a place and laryngeal node and the other manner features attach directly to the root.
22
entertained here.
26
(29)
23
(28) Guere labial-velar allophony (Paradis 1983: 30, 53, 33, 32 tones as in original)
a. kp&D ‘back (part of body)’
b. kpaEuF ‘corn’
c. gbeG ‘dog’
d. gbaGaD ‘goat’
e. /kp&@G/ km&@G ‘to catch’
f. /gba@a@E/ (ma@a@E ‘to raise/educate (children)’
g. kplõEF ‘banana’
As the data in (28a-d) shows, Guere has both /kp/ and /gb/ before oral vowels. However, before
nasal vowels these are allophonically produced with nasalization.
Crucially, the voiced /gb/ nasalizes fully, meanwhile /kp/ only part-nasalizes. The vector
of this change makes phonetic sense, voicing and nasality are inherently related properties (Ploch
1999; Nasukawa 2005), so it is phonetically natural that the voiced /gb/ nasalises to a greater
extent than /kp/, but what is significant from the phonological perspective is that it is possible
to half-nasalize KP.
Nasal (Nas) is a feature that links quite high in the segment. Classically, it was assumed
to link (directly or indirectly) to a Supralaryngeal node. In any case, Nas was above the Place
node (Clements 1985; Sagey 1986; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1986). In fact, Piggott (1987)
convincingly argued for linking Nas directly to the root node. This approach was adopted into
McCarthy (1988)’s feature geometry overhaul.21, 22
If the near consensus that nasality is a root property is correct, then the ability for a
segment to half-nasalize is good evidence for KP’s division into two root nodes. Any analysis based
on a branching Place node (Sagey 1986; McCarthy 1988; van der Weijer 1996) simply mispredicts
this phonological outcome. They predict that nasality ought to always span over both places of
articulation. According to standard assumptions, the nasal feature ought to link to the
supralaryngeal node (Sagey 1986) or the Root node itself (McCarthy 1998; van der Weijer 1996).
In all cases, it should equally affect both components of the stop.
(29) KP based on Sagey (1986) (30) KP based on McCarthy (1988)
C
Root
Place Nasal
Lar Place Nasal
Labial Velar
Lab Dors
21 McCarthy (1988) simplifies feature geometry in a way that is identical to the conclusions of Harris & Lindsey (1995):
a root node has a place and laryngeal node and the other manner features attach directly to the root.
22 Others link nasal still higher, Schleicher (1990), for instance, proposes to attach it to the skeletal slot. But this is not
entertained here.
(30)
23
(28) Guere labial-velar allophony (Paradis 1983: 30, 53, 33, 32 tones as in original)
a. kp&D ‘back (part of body)’
b. kpaEuF ‘corn’
c. gbeG ‘dog’
d. gbaGaD ‘goat’
e. /kp&@G/ km&@G ‘to catch’
f. /gba@a@E/ (ma@a@E ‘to raise/educate (children)’
g. kplõEF ‘banana’
As the data in (28a-d) shows, Guere has both /kp/ and /gb/ before oral vowels. However, before
nasal vowels these are allophonically produced with nasalization.
Crucially, the voiced /gb/ nasalizes fully, meanwhile /kp/ only part-nasalizes. The vector
of this change makes phonetic sense, voicing and nasality are inherently related properties (Ploch
1999; Nasukawa 2005), so it is phonetically natural that the voiced /gb/ nasalises to a greater
extent than /kp/, but what is significant from the phonological perspective is that it is possible
to half-nasalize KP.
Nasal (Nas) is a feature that links quite high in the segment. Classically, it was assumed
to link (directly or indirectly) to a Supralaryngeal node. In any case, Nas was above the Place
node (Clements 1985; Sagey 1986; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1986). In fact, Piggott (1987)
convincingly argued for linking Nas directly to the root node. This approach was adopted into
McCarthy (1988)’s feature geometry overhaul.21, 22
If the near consensus that nasality is a root property is correct, then the ability for a
segment to half-nasalize is good evidence for KP’s division into two root nodes. Any analysis based
on a branching Place node (Sagey 1986; McCarthy 1988; van der Weijer 1996) simply mispredicts
this phonological outcome. They predict that nasality ought to always span over both places of
articulation. According to standard assumptions, the nasal feature ought to link to the
supralaryngeal node (Sagey 1986) or the Root node itself (McCarthy 1998; van der Weijer 1996).
In all cases, it should equally affect both components of the stop.
(29) KP based on Sagey (1986) (30) KP based on McCarthy (1988)
C
Root
Place Nasal
Lar Place Nasal
Labial Velar
Lab Dors
21 McCarthy (1988) simplifies feature geometry in a way that is identical to the conclusions of Harris & Lindsey (1995):
a root node has a place and laryngeal node and the other manner features attach directly to the root.
22 Others link nasal still higher, Schleicher (1990), for instance, proposes to attach it to the skeletal slot. But this is not
entertained here.
Meanwhile, my representation of KP is based on two roots which sit under x (used here as a
theory neutral marker of the skeleton). Two root-node structures have a precedent in van der
nasalization could link scoping either over both places of articulation or only the labial, correctly
modelling the data.23, The representation of nasality is shown in Element Theory, |L| standing
(31) Nasalisation outcomes of two-root KP
24
Meanwhile, my representation of KP is based on two roots which sit under x (used here as a
theory neutral marker of the skeleton). Two root-node structures have a precedent in van der
Weijer’s (1996) work, where they are employed for short diphthongs and other sounds (e.g. ibid.
1996: 205), though not for KP. It is possible that a number of van der Weijer’s (1996) analyses
would be directly translatable with the structures predicted by BEG. This hypothesis predicts
that nasalization could link scoping either over both places of articulation or only the labial,
correctly modelling the data.23,24 The representation of nasality is shown in Element Theory, |L|
standing for both nasality and voicing (Ploch 1999; Botma 2004).
(31) Nasalisation outcomes of two-root KP
x
a
Root1 Root2
b
Place Place
L
Dors Lab
Global (a) [gb > (m]
Local (b) [kp > km]
3.3 KP in BEG
It has been so far established that KP has two place nodes, each belonging to a root node (Root1,
Root2). I will now put this fact in context with the labio-velar hypothesis that I defended and
developed in section 1. This was the hypothesis that in Element Theory, velars and labials are
characterized by the same place feature: |U| with different headedness status: Labial = headed
|U|, Dorsal = headless |U|. According to this hypothesis, what would be the interpretation of
labiovelar double-stops?
This would raise two questions. Firstly, does it make sense for a segment to have the same
feature leading to two interpretative effects? Secondly, assuming it is representationally possible,
does it lead to any decent linguistic predictions.
23 Leftward nasalisation of only the dorsal half of the KP is predicted to be impossible.
24 If the two-root is dominated by a skeletal slot linked to a voice feature, it attracts nasality and global nasalisation
ensues, otherwise it links locally to Root2 dominating Lab.
23 Leftward nasalisation of only the dorsal half of the KP is predicted to be impossible.
If the two-root is dominated by a skeletal slot linked to a voice feature, it attracts nasality and global nasalisation
ensues, otherwise it links locally to Root2 dominating Lab.
27
3.3 KP in BEG
It has been so far established that KP has two place nodes, each belonging to a
root node (Root1, Root2). I will now put this fact in context with the labio-velar
hypothesis that I defended and developed in section 1. This was the hypothesis that
in Element Theory, velars and labials are characterized by the same place feature:
|U|. According to this hypothesis, what would be the interpretation of labiovelar
double-stops?
assuming it is representationally possible, does it lead to any decent linguistic
predictions.
headedness that allows for a feature being simultaneously interpreted and headless and headed
in the same structure. It also makes the correct prediction that KP must be Labial headed
segments.
3.3.1 Asymmetric headedness in KP’s two root nodes
Bare Element Geometry has asymmetric-headedness (presented in section 2.3.2). This
allows for a segment with two root nodes to be consecutively headless and headed
because, according to the asymmetric-headedness hypothesis, a headed expression
always also contains a non-headed instance of the headed element. In KP this is split
is highly similar to that proposed in Harris & Lindsey (1995), but for KP. As is seen in
to the root node. A complete representation of KP for manner is beyond the scope of this
paper.
(Root1
w/. If Root1 was to link to Root2,
it would contain the whole |U| headed structure in both positions leading (with some small
w/. Because of the asymmetric-headedness hypothesis and
coexist.
28
(32) KP25
25
Interestingly, it is exactly the representational possibility offered by BEG’s theory of
headedness that allows for a feature being simultaneously interpreted and headless and headed in
the same structure. It also makes the correct prediction that KP must be Labial headed segments.
3.3.1 Asymmetric headedness in KP’s two root nodes
Bare Element Geometry has asymmetric-headedness (presented in section 2.3.2). This allows for
a segment with two root nodes to be consecutively headless and headed because, according to the
asymmetric-headedness hypothesis, a headed expression always also contains a non-headed
instance of the headed element. In KP this is split across two root nodes (the peculiarity of the
KP segment). The Element Geometry here is highly similar to that proposed in Harris & Lindsey
(1995), but for KP. As is seen in ibid. and McCarthy (1988), the manner features are shown
attached individually directly to the root node. A complete representation of KP for manner is
beyond the scope of this paper.
As we see in (31), the asymmetric-headedness allows for the first root node of the structure
(Root1) to attach to the non-head part of the structure: |U|, giving rise to Dors in the first position.
This would lead to KP or, with a small modification, /kw/. If Root1 was to link to Root2, it would
contain the whole |U| headed structure in both positions leading (with some small modifications)
to structures such as: /pw/. Because of the asymmetric-headedness hypothesis and the BEG
structure, KP is possible since both the headed and headless instances of the element coexist.
(32) KP25
x
H/L (Lar)26
Root1 " Root2
Place1 Place2
/
(U, (U, Ø))
U (U, Ø)
U Ø
Root1 = Dors / Root2 = Lab
25 Melody made of Place or Manner features must be binary branching, however, the Root and x-slot are linked to
melody by association lines, not built by Merge, they are not endocentric. Roots/x’s can link to multiple objects.
26 A reviewer asks about placement of Laryngeal (Lar). In light especially of Liu (2019), I have placed Lar directly at
the x-slot. This correctly captures the voicing facts of KP (sharing voicing).
3.3.2 Headedness and KP
The apparent implication of (32) is that KP is simultaneously headed and non-headed. But more
impossible to have KP without a Labial and according to the labial-velar hypothesis the Dors and
Labial are headless and headed versions of each other (Backley & Nasukawa 2009).25,26
either be headless (33a), Lab-headed (32b), or Dors-headed (33c).
(33)
26
3.3.2 Headedness and KP
The apparent implication of (32) is that KP is simultaneously headed and non-headed. But more
precisely, the segment as a whole is always headed by Labial. Since by definition it would be
impossible to have KP without a Labial and according to the labial-velar hypothesis the Dors and
Labial are headless and headed versions of each other (Backley & Nasukawa 2009).
Interestingly, this prediction is empirically confirmed. As Cahill (1999: 170) discusses,
previous accounts of complex segments, based on Clements & Hume (1995) predict that KP could
either be headless (33a), Lab-headed (32b), or Dors-headed (33c).
(33) KP configurations (Cahill 1999: 170)
a. C-Place b. C-Place c. C-Place
Lab Dors Dors V-Place Lab V-Place
Lab Dors
[kp] [kp or kw] [kp or pH]
In BEG, however, (33c) should never be found as a segment. KP should either show no headedness
effects or be headed. But Dors could never be headed over Lab, since by definition the Lab is a
headed Dors.This is a gap in other approaches but it is actually predicted by the labio-velar
hypothesis and BEG. This is because in this theory Lab is a headed version of Dor.
As predicted by the BEG representation of KP, there are no empirical attestations of
(33c), a KP that patterns as a dorsal (and not a labial) (Cahill 1999: 170). Conversely, there are
languages with KP OCP restrictions that affect KP and labials, but never dorsals (ibid.).
Another argument for KP’s Lab-headedness is Amele (Papuan) that has rounding of /e/
when it occurs before /o, u, w/ and /gb/. I take this is consistent with a Lab-headed KP (the
structure in 33b), though Cahill (1999) takes this to be consistent with co-equal (33a). The
equivalent effect, based on (33c) is unattested: vowel-backing before both dorsals and KP.
Meanwhile, still in Amele verbal morphology also shows cases where KP [gb] is reduced to
[p] word finally: fo[gb]ona ‘see.1PL.PRES’ vs. folo[p] ‘see.1PL.HAB-PAST’ (Roberts 2016: 151);
further highlighting KP’s primarily Lab place of articulation.
Further support for KP’s Lab headedness comes from the natural affinity between KP and
KW. In some languages, these sounds seem to either share an underlying representation or they
are so similar as to be interchangeable (Migabak, Nabak both from PNG). As Clements (1991)
and Cahill both note, KW is the typical historical path to KP. We have also already seen this
with the Aghem (section 3.2.3.3), which could also be analysed synchronically since it involves a
morphological alternation. Cahill (1999) also shows this diachronic path in Sawabatu.
25 Melody made of Place or Manner features must be binary branching, however, the Root and x-slot are linked to
26 A reviewer asks about placement of Laryngeal (Lar). In light especially of Liu (2019), I have placed Lar directly at the
x-slot. This correctly captures the voicing facts of KP (sharing voicing).
29
the Lab is a headed Dors. This is a gap in other approaches but it is actually predicted by the
Another argument for KP’s Lab-headedness is Amele (Papuan) that has rounding of /e/ when
it occurs before /o, u, w/ and /gb/. I take this is consistent with a Lab-headed KP (the structure in
based on (33c) is unattested: vowel-backing before both dorsals and KP.
Meanwhile, still in Amele verbal morphology also shows cases where KP [gb] is reduced to
’ vs. folo[p] ‘see.1’ (Roberts 2016: 151);
further highlighting KP’s primarily Lab place of articulation.
KW. In some languages, these sounds seem to either share an underlying representation or
seen this with the Aghem (section 3.2.3.3), which could also be analysed synchronically since
a. koɓo kowo ‘skin’
b. kúɓwako kúgbako ‘diarrhea’
c. kwátá kpátá ‘sword’
Data supporting the Labial-headed KP is also attested from Asia where KP is incredibly rare. In
uŋm
[haukp
|U|/ à|U|/ ó [haukp
[hʊp|U|um|U|] ‘pinch of a substance’.
30
(35)
Adu Proto-Lolo-Burmese
a. kpu55 *ku5‘able’
b. gbu33 *gu7‘goose’
c. gbu33 2‘nine’
d. kpʰu33 1‘inside’
e. ŋgbue33 *N-kwa ‘lie/deceive’
f. mu33 kpʰue33 *kwa1‘hoof’
In my model, the reason for their similarity is not that they are the same structure, but that
4 Conclusion
In this paper I began by citing the core evidence for Element Theory’s labial-velar hypothesis, the
idea that Lab and Dor share the same element as their only place feature. I additionally provided
Lusoga, which from an articulatory perspective is a highly unnatural alternation (Hyman 2017).
because in Bare Element Geometry a headed structure also necessarily contains a dependent of the
same element. However, if velars and labials share a place feature, their contrast must be based
in another property. This is taken to be headedness. For KP this leads to what might seem to be a
paradoxical statement where the segment would be argued to be both headless and headed at the
parts of a structure, with Root1 linking to the whole headed structure (Lab), and the Root2 linking
allophony. Once KP’s internal representation is better understood, which involved revising its
31
phonological distribution and behaviour, the labial-velar hypothesis and the asymmetric theory
being headed over Labial.
32
Abbreviations
stPL
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
References
Adger, David. 2013. A Syntax of Substance https://doi.
Principles of dependency phonology
Journal of Linguistics
Journal of African Languages
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Backley, Phillip. 2017. Headedness in Element Theory: the case for multiple heads. Glossa: a
journal of general linguistics
Backley, Phillip. & Takahashi, Toyomi. 1995. Activate Alpha: harmony without spreading. UCL
Working Papers in Linguistics
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2009. Representing labials and velars: a single ‘dark’
element. Phonological Studies
Phonological Aspects of Nasality: An element-based dependency approach.
Utrecht: LOT.
Breit, Florian. 2013. Formal Aspects of Element Theory
London.
Phonology
Yearbook
Phonetica
https://doi.org/10.1159/000261913
Studies in African Linguistics
33
Language and Linguistics Compass
A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann
Wydawnictwo KUL.
Structure and interpretation: Studies in phonology (PASE
Studies and Monographs)
The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger
The Minimalist Program
On the poverty of the stimulus
London.
Lingua https://doi.
Keio Linguistics Colloquium. Keio University.
Why only us?
Phonology Yearbook 2.
Working Papers of the
Cornell Phonetics Laboratory
Derivation
and Explanation in the Minimalist Program https://doi.
A Grammar of Nzadi [B865]: A Bantu
Language of Democratic Republic of Congo
Den Dikken, Marecel & van der Hulst, Harry. 2020. On some deep structural analogies between
syntax and phonology. In Nasukawa, Kuniya, (ed.), Morpheme-internal Recursion in Phonology.
Ways of Structure Building
Oxford University Press.
Glossa: a journal
of general linguistics
34
Nevins, Andrew. 2017. When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. PNAS. http://www.
.
Société d’Études Linguistiques et
Anthropologiques de France
The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Journal of Linguistic
Research
English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harris, John. 1997. Licensing Inheritance: an integrated theory of neutralization. Phonology
Frontiers of Phonology
Harris, John & Urua, Eno-Abasi. 2001. Lenition degrades information: consonant allophony in
Ibibio. Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in progress
Mon-Khmer Studies
Hyman, Larry. M. 2017. Underlying representations and Bantu segmental phonology. In:
Sonic Signatures
Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of Language
Kaye, Jonathan. 2001. Working with licensing constraints. In Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna
(ed.), Constraints and Preferences
Organizing Grammar.
Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijkhttps://doi.
and government in phonology. Phonology Yearbookhttps://doi.org/10.1017/
Khatchaturyan, Maria. 2009. La phonologique segmentale du mano guineen
d’anthropologie et d’ethnographie. (unpublished).
University of Essex.
Liu, Xiaoxi & Kula, Nancy. 2020. Multi-layered recursive representations for depressors.
Nasukawa, Kuniya (ed.). Morpheme-internal Recursion in Phonology
Natural Language and
Linguistic Theoryhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF00135619
35
(eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods
patois. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Phonetica
Senoufo phonology, discourse to syllable (a prosodic approach)
publications in linguistics. 72.
Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics
Mve, Jean P. Aspects of the phonology of Fáŋ (draft version)
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2005. A unied approach to nasality and voicing
DOI:
Proceedings of the 2013
Annual Meeting on Phonology 2013https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.25
Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmonyhttps://doi.
Letras de Hoje
Journal of the International Phonetic
Association
The phonology of Mono
Texas at Arlington.
Oseki, Yohei. 2015. Eliminating Pair-Merge. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics
study of labiovelar cluster initials in the Adu patois of the Yi language]. Minzu Yuwen
Description Phonologique du Guéré
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2011. Representation in Phonology. Talk presented at 50 years of Linguistics
at MIT. MIT.
Proceedings of the Parasession on
Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology
University Press.
36
Acta Linguistica Academica
Notes on Mada Phonology
Roberts, John R. 2016. Amele RRG Grammatical Sketch
The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-linear Phonology.
Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Phonology Yearbook
DOI:
A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be?
Language
Sciences
Language https://doi.
Phonology
(ed.), Recursion and Human Language https://doi.
van der Hulst, Harry. 2020. Principles of Radical CV Phonology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Segmental structure and complex segments. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI:
Stellenbosch Papers
in Linguistics Plus
Welmers, William E. 1977. A Grammar of Vai
Yoshida, Yoshida. 2019. 大阪・京都方言における撥音とッチ・アクセント [Pitch Accent on
/N/ in Osaka and Kyoto Japanese]. Kansai Linguistic Society,
