L’article literari dins dels gèneres periodístics

PNPA also applies to stems which end in a voiced stop (see the data in (8)); however, there is an added complication, as the voiced stop does not surface in the infinitive form. For example, in verbs like geben [ɡem] in (8a), reden [ren] in (8b), and fragen [fʀoʊ̯ ŋ] in (8c), the voiced stops /b, d, ɡ/ which trigger PNPA do not surface. Underlying representations with /b d ɡ/ in examples like these are motivated because the stops surface as [p t k] in coda position, e.g. 3. SG. form of geben in (8a).⁴²

Examples like [ɡem] involve overapplication because the [m] is created from /n/ after /b/, even though the [b] does not surface. I argue below that data like those in (8) exemplify a self-destructive feeding relationship (Baković 2007, 2011).

42 The stop which surfaces in these forms is in a syllable coda, and thus devoices via Final Devoicing (cf.

discussion in section 3.4.4). It is clear that the data in (8) have underlyingly voiced (and not voiceless) stops because these data behave differently than those in (5) where voiceless stops are underlying. In (5b), for example, voiceless /t/ is underlying and surfaces in a word like raten [ʀo.tn̩ ]. When voiced stops are underlying, as in (8), the voiced stop does not surface in this environment.

Further examples of a voiced stop alternating with zero in BG can be seen in word pairs such as leben ~ lebendig [lem] ~ [le.bɛn.dɪk] ‘to live ~ alive’, which show the voiced stops surfacing because the following sound is a vowel and not /n/ (Merkle 2005:34). Full present tense indicative verbal paradigms which show the alternation of [b d ɡ] ~ Ø are given in (9).⁴³ Orthographic <ng> represents the dorsal nasal [ŋ].

(9) Alternations of [b d ɡ] ~ Ø in BG verbs (Zehetner 1985:95)

leben ‘to live’ reden ‘to talk’ sagen ‘to say’

INF. leem reen sǫǫng

1.SG. leeb reed sǫǫg

2.SG. lebsd redsd sǫgsd

3.SG. lebd redd sǫgd

1.PL. leem reen sǫǫng

2.PL. lebds redds sǫgds

3.PL. leem reen sǫǫng

I argue that the data in (8-9) show that a voiced stop triggers PNPA and then deletes.

That is, when a voiced stop is place-linked to a following nasal, the root of the voiced stop de-links from a higher constituent, and the output is simply a nasal with the same place of articulation as the deleted voiced stop. This rule is given in (10).

43 The symbols used here are Zehetner’s (1985). While Zehetner (1985) does not show Final Devoicing in surface forms, it is clear that voiced stops are underlying in these verb forms, considering the alternations of surface stops with zero. If these stops were underlyingly voiceless, they would be expected to surface in all forms, particularly those with the nasal infinitive marker /-n/, as in the infinitives in (5).

(10) Voiced Stop Deletion (VSD)

-son +son +son

+cons +cons +cons



[-cont] [+voice] PLACE PLACE [+nas] PLACE [+nas]

β β

I assume that the data in (8-9) are representative of a deletion process, but this could alternatively be argued to be coalescence, where the two place-linked ROOT nodes (stop and nasal) are realized as one nasal with the place of the underlying stop. It is not clear how such a coalescence would be captured within a rule-based framework; therefore, this kind of analysis is not pursued here.

Kohler (1995:208-211) cites similar data to those in (8-9) in SG;⁴⁴ however, he makes clear that these rules are dependent on certain linguistic variables, such as tempo, pauses, accent, and environment. He writes that these changes are “totally and stylistically variable” (total und stilistisch variabel) (Kohler 1995: 206). Therefore, data such as those in (8) are different in SG and RG because they are entirely optional and variable in SG, but in RG (even in slower speech), these rules are obligatory.

A derivation showing the interaction of PNPA and VSD is given in (11a). It can be observed that the infinitive marker /-n/ assimilates PLACE to a preceding voiceless stop, fricative, and voiced stop via PNPA. VSD only applies to the third example, geben;

deletion applies here because of the linked structure created through PNPA.

44 Kohler (1995) calls these processes assimilations and degeminations.

(11) Derivation of PNPA and VSD with schlucken, schlafen, and geben

a. Self-Destructive Feeding b. Counterfeeding

(Overapplication) (Underapplication)

UR /ʃlʊk-n/ /ʃlof-n/ /ɡeb-n/ UR /geb-n/

PNPA ʃlʊkŋ ʃlofm ɡebm VSD --- VSD --- --- ɡem PNPA ɡebm

PR [ʃlʊ.kŋ̩] [ʃlo.fm̩ ] [ɡem] PR *[ɡe.bm̩ ]

In the third example in (11a), PNPA feeds VSD because PNPA creates the context for VSD to apply (place-linked sequence of voiced stop plus nasal). This is a special kind of feeding order called self-destructive feeding (Baković 2007, 2011), where a feeding order involves overapplication (cf. discussion of opacity in chapter 1). The RG examples are opaque because the trigger for PNPA is deleted. Traditional rule-based analyses argue that no feeding order can produce an opaque output with overapplication, and that if there is overapplication, the rules must be in a counterbleeding order (see Baković 2007, 2011, and sources cited therein). However, if the rule order in (11a) is reversed, as in (11b), the output is not a bleeding order (as would be expected if (11a) were true counterbleeding), but rather a counterfeeding order with underapplication: VSD does not apply in (11b) because the stop is not homorganic with a following nasal. Therefore, these rules are necessarily in a feeding order which produces overapplication opacity, i.e. self-destructive feeding.

It could be argued that examples like [ɡem] do not exhibit self-destructive feeding but rather a counterbleeding order, and that VSD has simply not been formalized correctly.

One could accordingly argue that VSD is actually a more general rule, as in (12):

(12) Voiced Stop Deletion (to be rejected)

/b d ɡ/  Ø / ____ [+nasal, +cons]

The rule in (12) states that voiced stops delete before any nasal consonant (not simply a nasal consonant which is place-linked to the voiced stop). This rule, however, cannot account for data where a voiced stop fails to delete when the following nasal is not homorganic, as in the RG data in (13).⁴⁵

(13) Non-homorganic voiced stop-nasal clusters

Ramsau German Standard German English

a. [va.ɡnɐ] Wagner ‘Wagner (name)’

b. [iɐ̯ .ɡn̩t.aɪ̯̃] irgendein ‘any’

(13a) shows the surface sequence of [ɡn] in the onset of the second syllable in the name Wagner. The example in (13b) is even more illustrative because it shows a voiced stop as the onset to a syllable with syllabic nasal [n̩ ] (as would be the expected syllable type of the infinitive verbs in (8), were they not to undergo VSD). The post-/ɡ/ nasal in (13b) has not assimilated place to the preceding voiced stop via PNPA in (7); I posit that this is because the /n/ undergoes RNPA in (4), so it is place-linked to the following /d/ (i.e. [t] in (13b)).

Thus, RNPA blocks PNPA. Since place is not linked between /ɡ/ and /n/ in (13b), the stop

45 There are certainly more examples in RG like (13), but they are not present in my corpus. For example, I predict that in a word like einigem ‘some (DAT.)’, where there would be a syllable [ɡm̩], the stop /ɡ/ would never delete via a more generalized rule like (12).

cannot delete via the original rule of VSD (10). If (12) were the correct rule for VSD, it would incorrectly delete the [ɡ] in (13a,b).⁴⁶

4.3 Vowel Nasalization and Nasal Deletion