Avoiding multiple complexities in the prosodic word: Minimization in Colloquial Bamana (original) (raw)

"Colloquial Bamana (CB), a variety of Bamana (or Bambara) spoken in Bamako, Mali, is undergoing processes of Vowel Syncope and Velar Consonant Deletion that have a net effect of minimizing or reducing the number of syllables in a word (Green & Diakite 2008, Green, Davis, Diakite, & Baertsch 2009). While these two processes satisfy an overall drive towards minimization in this language variety, both processes generate marked syllable shapes in a language that has been considered generally to permit only maximal CV syllables (Standard Bamana (SB) is a CV language). Specifically, Vowel Syncope generates CCV and CVC syllables and Velar Consonant Deletion generates CVV syllables within the bounds of the language’s phonotactics, as illustrated by the examples below in (1) and (2), respectively. Standard Colloquial Gloss Standard Colloquial Gloss 1a. [ka.bi.la] [ka.bla] *kbi.la ‘tribute’ c. [si.la.mɛ] [sla.mɛ] *sil.mɛ ‘Muslim’ b. [mà.ri.fa] [mar.fa] *mri.fa ‘gun’ d. [ca.pa.lo] [ca.plo] *cpa.lo ‘millet beer’ 2a. [si.ki] [sii] *ski ‘to sit’ c. [sa.ga] [saa] *sga ‘goat’ b. [mɔ.kɔ] [mɔɔ] *mko ‘person’ d. [du.ku] [duu] *dku ‘village’ A striking fact about CB minimization is observed in compounds (e.g 3a) and other longer words (e.g. 3c), where the types and co-occurrence of complex syllables (CCV, CVC, or CVV) as a result of minimization are restricted in a given prosodic word. In words where both Vowel Syncope and Velar Consonant Deletion have potential targets for minimization, only one process is permitted to apply. Only those words with two targets for Vowel Syncope, creating adjacent CCV syllables, permit multiple instances of minimization. Consider the forms below. Standard Colloquial Gloss 3a. [se.li#sa.ga] [se.li.saa] *sli.saa/*sel.saa ‘sacrificial sheep’ b. [mɔ.gɔ#tɔ.rɔ] [mɔɔ.tɔrɔ] *mɔɔ.trɔ ‘domestic abuse’ c. [bi.la.ko.ro] [bla.kro] *bal.kro/*bla/kor ‘young boy’ d. [kɔrɔ#mu.so] [kɔ.rɔm.so] *krɔ.mso/*kɔrm.so/*krɔm.so ‘fame’ The CB forms (3a-b) are representative of instances where words surfacing with a derived long vowel do not allow another complex syllable in the same word. The constituent nouns of (3a) showcase that, in isolation, both nouns ([seli]  [sel] ‘pray’, [saga]  [saa] ‘sheep’), are free to undergo minimization via their respective processes, but when compounded, the generation of complex syllables is limited to one CVV to the exclusion of an additional CCV or CVC within the prosodic word. (3d) represents instances where, even when multiple domains are potentially available for Vowel Syncope, only a single CCV or CVC syllable is permitted. This further illustrates the impermissibility of CCVC or CVCC syllables in the language. (3c) represents a unique case of permissible multiple complexity within a prosodic word. Multiple deletions in CB are only permitted in instances where phonotactics permit the deletion of two vowels to yield a CCV.CCV prosodic word where the second consonants of each CCV are non-identical sonorants. Drawing upon recent work discussing limitations on prosodic complexity (e.g. Albright 2008, 2009) and cumulativity effects in phonology (e.g. Farris-Trimble 2008), this paper showcases restrictions on multiple complexities in the Colloquial Bamana prosodic word. Our analysis formalizes the interaction between constraints driving Vowel Syncope and Velar Consonant Deletion alongside those demanding faithfulness within the prosodic word in Harmonic Grammar (Smolensky & Legendre 2006) and illustrates that the violation of higher-weighted constraints on segmental markedness is harmonically favored in comparison to multiple violations of lower-weighted constraints against syllable complexity."