Mora Augmentation Processes in Japanese

Stuart Davis & Isao Ueda Indiana University & Osaka University of Foreign Studies

Abstract: Japanese displays a variety of mora augmentation processes. These processes typically involve lengthening a word by a single mora, usually for emphasis. In this paper we focus on two such processes: the formation of emphatic adjectives in the Shizuoka dialect and the formation of intensified adverbs in standard Japanese. We first examine adjectival emphasis in the Shizuoka dialect. We show that adjectives can be augmented by gemination, nasal insertion, or vowel lengthening and that there is a priority to the means of augmentation. We offer an optimality-theoretic analysis of the mora augmentation process. We then contrast the adjectival pattern with the augmentation process found with intensified adverbials in standard Japanese which has the same priority of means of augmentation, but with some interesting differences in the details. We offer an analysis of the intensified adverbials showing how a unified analysis of both mora augmentation processes can be offered under optimality theory. We conclude by briefly discussing some other instances of mora augmentation in Japanese. [Area of interest: Phonology]

1 Introduction Japanese displays a variety of mora augmentation processes. These processes typically involve lengthening a word by a single mora, usually for emphasis. In this paper we focus on two such processes: the formation of emphatic adjectives in the Shizuoka dialect and the formation of intensified adverbs in standard Japanese. In Japanese adjectives can be emphasized by the addition of a mora. In standard Japanese this additional mora is typically realized by the lengthening of an accented vowel, as in kataai the emphatic form of katai ‘hard’ where the second vowel is accented. The realization of the additional mora, however, may vary among dialects. In this paper, we will first consider the rather complex pattern of mora augmentation found in adjectival emphasis in the Shizuoka dialect. We will present and describe the data which are not generally known to phonologists or to others working on Japanese linguistics. We will then show how the various instantiations of mora augmentation can be accounted for under an optimality-theoretic approach. Afterwards we will compare the Shizuoka pattern of adjectival mora augmentation with that found in standard Japanese for intensified adverbs. These forms have been discussed by Kuroda (1965), McCawley (1968) and Hamano (1998) as well as by Lombardi (1998) from an optimality-theoretic perspective. The two patterns are similar but not identical. The Shizuoka pattern of adjectival emphasis is more revealing in that adjectives are not phonotactically restricted to a (C)VCV shape as are the adverbs. We will compare the two patterns from an optimality-theoretic perspective and show how they can be accounted for in a unified way. We conclude by briefly discussing some other instances of mora augmentation in Japanese. Our data on the Shizuoka dialect come from Hino (1977), Yamaguchi (1987), as well as work with native consultants. The pattern we describe is found among older speakers in a fairly large area of central Shizuoka prefecture. 2 Data and Description of Emphatic Adjectives in the Shizuoka Dialect Descriptively, in the Shizuoka dialect, an adjective can be emphasized by augmenting the first

syllable by one mora. The precise way in which the mora is realized, though, varies depending on the phonemic makeup of the input adjective. Consider the representative data in (1)-(3) illustrating the different ways that the mora can be realized. (1) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. hade hande showy b. ozoi onzoi terrible c. yowai yonwai weak d. hayai hanyai fast e. karai kanrai spicy f. nagai nagai long g. kanašii kannašii sad h. amai ammai sweet

(2) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. katai kattai hard b. osoi ossoi slow c. takai takkai high d. atsui attsui hot e. kitanai kittanai dirty f. kusai kussai stinky g. ikai ikkai big

(3) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. zonzai zoonzai impolite b. kandarui kaandarui languid c. onzokutai oonzokutai ugly d. suppai suuppai sour e. okkanai ookkanai scary In (1), augmentation occurs by inserting a nasal consonant after the first vowel (or after the first mora). Notice that the inserted nasal surfaces before a voiced consonant. In (2), augmentation ensues by geminating the consonant after the first vowel (or mora). Notice that the geminated consonant in (2) is always a voiceless consonant.1 In (3), when the first syllable of the adjective is closed, augmentation results from vowel lengthening rather than by nasal insertion or gemination. In none of the data does augmentation occur beyond the first syllable. Thus, in (3c) for example, vowel lengthening occurs in the first syllable, rather than gemination of the voiceless consonant later in the word. The generalizations on how mora augmentation is realized can be summed up as follows: If the initial syllable of the adjective is (C)VC then mora augmentation occurs by vowel lengthening as in (3); otherwise, augmentation occurs by means of nasal insertion before a voiced consonant as in (1) or by gemination of a voiceless one as in (2).2 Consequently, vowel lengthening is the least preferred means of mora augmentation. It only occurs in CVC syllables; gemination or nasal insertion in such syllables would result in a highly marked CVCC syllable. In the following section we will develop an optimality-theoretic analysis

of the mora augmentation data. 3 Analysis of Emphatic Adjectives One issue that immediately arises for an analysis of emphatic adjectives is the question of the representation of the morphological indicator of the emphasis. We posit an analysis whereby the emphasis is morphologically indicated by a single floating mora. This is shown in (4). The mora is realized toward the beginning of the word because of the alignment constraint given in (5). (4) Representation of the emphatic morpheme as a floating mora µe (µe = emphatic mora) (5) Alignment constraint for the morpheme µe Align-L(µe,Wd) -- Align the emphatic mora with the beginning (left edge) of the word.3 For ease of reference we will indicate the emphatic mora as being in prefixal position with the understanding that it need not be anchored in that position. A second issue that arises is the question of what the emphatic adjective is based on. We posit that the emphatic adjective is in an output-output relation with its nonemphatic counterpart. That is, the fully prosodified nonemphatic adjective serves as the base for the emphatic form. In (6) we show the input of the emphatic adjective. It consists of a base which would be the moraified (nonemphatic) adjective plus the floating mora (indicated in prefixal position). (6) Input of the Emphatic Adjective (example from 2a) µe µ µ µ | | | k a t a i output = [kattai] ‘hard (emphatic)’ In the representations in (6) and elsewhere in this paper we show only the mora structure. However, we do assume that the words are syllabified and that following such works as Ito (1986) the only permitted coda consonants in Japanese are either a nasal or the first part of a geminate. With respect to the syllabification of vowel sequences, we consider a sequence of two identical vowels (i.e. a long vowel) to be tautosyllabic. A sequence of two non-identical vowels, such as [oi], is considered a tautosyllabic diphthong (McCawley 1968, 1978). For example, a word like /oišii/ ‘delicious’ has the syllabification [oi.šii]. (The issue of the syllabification of a diphthong or long vowel in a potentially trimoriac syllable, CVVC, is discussed later, following (25).) Given this as background, we will present a formal optimality-theoretic analysis of the data in (1)-(3), introducing the constraints and constraint rankings as we consider the relevant data. First, though, we reconsider the data in (1)-(3) which we repeat below for convenience. (1) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. hade hande showy b. ozoi onzoi terrible c. yowai yonwai weak d. hayai hanyai fast

e. karai kanrai spicy f. nagai nagai long g. kanašii kannašii sad h. amai ammai sweet

(2) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. katai kattai hard b. osoi ossoi slow c. takai takkai high d. atsui attsui hot e. kitanai kittanai dirty f. kusai kussai stinky g. ikai ikkai big

(3) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. zonzai zoonzai impolite b. kandarui kaandarui languid c. onzokutai oonzokutai ugly d. suppai suuppai sour e. okkanai ookkanai scary In considering the data in (1) we note that, hypothetically, there are many different ways that the additional mora can be realized. Some of these ways are shown by the potential output candidates in (7) for the word in (1a). (The failed candidates are indicated by the asterisk.) (7) Possible candidates for the augmentation of [hade] ‘showy’ (1a) a. *hhade b. *haade c. *hadde d. hande e. *hadee The question that arises is why the form in (7d) with nasal insertion is preferred to the other candidates with gemination or vowel lengthening First, candidate (7a) is phonotactically impossible given that Japanese does not allow for initial geminate consonants. Moreover, (7c) with the medial gemination of /d/ is ruled out because Yamato (native Japanese) words do not allow voiced geminates (Ito & Mester 1999). The preference for the candidate in (7d) with an inserted nasal over one like (7b) or (7e) with a long vowel reflects a ranking relationship between the constraints given in (8) and (9).4 (8) *LongVowel -- Long vowels are not permitted. (9) Dep-Nasal -- Nasal segments should not be inserted into the output.

The preference for (7d) must mean that the constraint militating against inserted nasals (Dep-Nasal) is lower-ranked than the constraint militating against long vowels (*LongVowel). This, thus, establishes the ranking shown in (10) where *LongVowel outranks Dep-Nasal.

(10) *LongVowel >> Dep-Nasal

An analysis of the data in (2) requires the active constraint militating against geminate consonants given in (11). This constraint has been independently posited by Rose (2000). (11) *Gem -- Geminate consonants are not permitted. To show how this constraint is active, let us consider the three potential output candidates in (12) for the emphatic form of the adjective in (2a). (12) Possible candidates for the augmentation of [katai] ‘hard’ (2a) a. *kantai b. *kaatai c. kattai The candidate in (12a) with an inserted nasal is interesting since it is the one we might expect to be the actual output given the ranking in (10). However, (12a) violates the constraint in (13), discussed by Ito & Mester (1999), that prohibits voiceless consonants after nasals. This is an active constraint in the Yamato vocabulary. (13) No-NT --- Postnasal obstruents must be voiced. The choice then is between (12b) with a long vowel or (12c) with a geminate consonant. The preference for (12c) establishes the ranking of *LongVowel over *Gem shown in (14). If the ranking were reverse, (12b) would wrongly be preferred. (14) *LongVowel >> *Gem In (15) we put together the rankings from (14) and (10). (15) *LongVowel >> Dep-Nasal, *Gem The data provide no evidence for a critical ranking between Dep-Nasal and *Gem. Let us now consider the data in (3) focusing on (3c). Some relevant potential output candidates for this data item are shown in (16). (16) Possible candidates for the augmentation of [onzokutai] ‘ugly’ (3c) a. oonzokutai b. *onnzokutai c. *onzokkutai The comparison of the three forms in (16) is interesting. The actual form that surfaces in (16a) has the additional mora realized through the lengthening of the first vowel. The alternative in (16b) witnesses nasal insertion after the first vowel; the alternative form in (16c) realizes the additional mora by the gemination of a voiceless consonant, but here, the gemination is later in the word, after the second vowel. First, in considering why (16b) fails to surface, we note that if mora augmentation is realized through nasal insertion, the output would have impermissible syllabification. The first two syllables of (16b) would either include a complex coda ([onn.zo]) or a complex onset ([on.nzo]), thus constituting a fatal violation of the *Complex constraint

given in (17) which is normally undominated in Japanese. (17) *Complex -- Neither complex onsets or complex codas are allowed.5 On the other hand, the output in (16c) with gemination of the /k/ after the second vowel is phonotactically fine. It should be the actual output given the ranking established in (14) where *LongVowel outranks *Gem. Consequently, for (16a) to be the winning candidate there must be some other constraint that outranks *LongVowel which (16c) fares worse on. The constraint that (16c) fares worse on in comparison with (16a) is the Align-L(µe,Wd) constraint given in (5). That is, the candidate in (16a) with a long vowel in the initial syllable better respects Align-L (µe,Wd) as compared to (16c).6 This establishes the ranking in (18) where Align-L(µe,Wd) outranks *LongVowel. The fuller ranking in (19) combines (18) with (15). (18) Align-L(µe,Wd) >> *LongVowel (19) Align-L(µe,Wd) >> *LongVowel >> *Dep-Nasal, *Gem For convenience to the reader, in (20a-f), we compile the constraints presented so far. (20) Constraints

a. Align-L(µe,Wd) -- Align the emphatic mora with the left edge of the word. (Align-L)

b. *LongVowel -- Long vowels are not permitted. (*LV) c. *Gem -- Geminate consonants are not permitted. (*Gem) d. Dep-Nasal -- Nasal segments should not be inserted into the output. (Dep-N) e. *Complex -- Neither complex onsets nor complex codas are allowed. (*Comp) f. No-NT -- Postnasal obstruents must be voiced. (No-NT) g. No Voiced Geminates -- Voiced geminate consonants are prohibited. (No-VG) h. *Gem-Initial -- Word-initial geminate consonants are not permitted. (*Gem-In) We add the constraint in (20g) militating against voiced geminate consonants which has been discussed by Ito & Mester (1999). We also add a constraint militating against word-initial geminate consonants in (20h). This constraint can be motivated by the rarity of word-initial geminate consonants in the world’s languages. (See Davis 1999 for discussion.) The constraints *Complex, No-NT, No Voiced Geminates, *Gem-Initial, and Align-L(µe,Wd) are all considered undominated for purposes of our analysis.7 (After each constraint in (20) we provide in parentheses the abbreviation to be used in the tableaux. In the tableaux, a period indicates a syllable boundary.) In (21), we present the tableau for the emphatic form of [hade] from (1a) to make clear some of the constraint rankings discussed above. In order to make clear how some of the constraint violations are being determined in (21) it is useful to go over each of the candidates. First, (21a) is eliminated because it violates the undominated constraint against initial geminates. With respect to *Complex, we have indicated a violation in parentheses. This signifies an uncertainty as to whether an initial geminate would comprise a complex moraic onset or have an extrasyllabic mora. Since this issue is not crucial in determining the status of (21a) we do not

take a position on it.

(21) /µ + hade/ --- [hande] ‘showy (emphatic)’ (1a)8 µe µ µ

| | h a d e

No-NT No-VG

*Gem-In *Comp Align-L *LV Dep-N *Gem

a. hhade *! (Gem-In) (*) * µeµ µ

\/ | b. h a d e [haa.de]

*!

µµe µ \/ | c. h a d e [haa.de]

*!

µ µeµ | | | d. h a d e [had.de]

*! (No-VG) *

e. h a n d e

µ µe µ | | |

[han.de]

*

µ µeµ | \/ f. h a d e [ha.dee]

*! *

Candidates (21b) and (21c) are phonetically identical. In candidate (21b) the emphatic mora is realized on the first part of the long vowel which would be the first mora of the word while in candidate (21c) the emphatic mora is realized as the second mora of the long vowel. Both (21b) and (21c) can be compared with (21e) whereby (21b) and (21c) violate *LV while (21e) violates Dep-Nasal. These two constraints are in direct conflict. The fact that (21e) is the winner constitutes a ranking argument for *LV being higher ranked than Dep-Nasal, as discussed earlier. Similarly, candidate (21f) violates *LV in addition to violating the Align-L constraint and so would be eliminated. Finally, (21d) is eliminated because of its violation of the undominated constraint militating against voiced geminates. The only ranking argument involving dominated constraints that emerges from (21) is that *LV outranks Dep-Nasal as discussed earlier. In (22), we provide the tableau for the emphatic form in (2a) with gemination. In examining the candidates in tableau (22) we first note that candidate (22a) is eliminated because it violates the undominated constraint against initial geminates. Since such forms never surface in Japanese, we will no longer consider such candidates in subsequent tableaux.

(22) /µ + katai/ --- [kattai] ‘hard (emphatic)’ (2a) µe µ µ µ

| | | k a t a i

No-NT No-VG *Gem-In *Comp Align-L *LV Dep-N *Gem

a. kkatai *! (Gem-In) (*) * µeµ µ µ

\/ | | b. k a t a i [kaa.tai]

*!

µµe µ µ \/ | | c. k a t a i [kaa.tai]

*!

µ µe µ µ | | | | d. k a t a i [kat.tai]

*

µ µe µ µ | | | | e. k a n t a i [kan.tai]

*! (No-NT) *

µ µeµ µ | \/ | f. k a t a i [ka.taai]

*! *

Candidates (22b) and (22c) both violate the constraint militating against long vowels, *LV. These candidates can be compared with (22d) which violates *Gem. These two constraints are in direct conflict. The fact that (22d) is the winner constitutes a ranking argument for *LV being higher ranked than *Gem, as discussed earlier. Similarly, candidate (22f) violates *LV in addition to violating the Align-L constraint and so would be eliminated. Finally, (22e) is eliminated because of its violation of the undominated constraint No-NT which militates against a voiceless obstruent after a nasal. The only ranking argument involving dominated constraints that emerges from (22) is that *LV outranks *Gem as mentioned. A comparison of the tableaux in (21) and (22) brings up two additional related points. First, there is no clear evidence for the ranking between Dep-Nasal and *Gem. This is because there are no Yamato forms where there would be a constraint conflict between the two. Consider the comparison of (21d) with (21e). The former violates *Gem while the latter violates Dep-Nasal. This is a potential constraint conflict. However, (21d) also violates the undominated constraint militating against geminate voiced consonants, so we cannot see how the potential conflict would be resolved. Similar is the comparison between (22d) and (22e). Here again there is a potential constraint conflict between the same two constraints, but this time candidate (22e) violates undominated No-NT, so again the conflict remains unresolved. The second related point is that the constraint *Gem almost certainly cannot outrank Dep-Nasal, though it can be tied with it. The evidence for this comes from a possible candidate [kandai] which is not considered in

tableau (22). This candidate is interesting in that it avoids a violation of No-NT by voicing the obstruent. This would mean that it has a violation of the constraint Ident-voice (i.e. input and output segments agree in the feature voice) in addition to Dep-Nasal. However, Ident-voice is most likely a low-ranked constraint, especially given the discussion in Ito & Mester (1999) where its effect can be seen in a form like [sinda] ‘died’ from underlying /sin + ta/. The consequence of this is that if *Gem were higher ranked than Dep-Nasal then [kandai] would wrongly emerge as the winner in tableau (22). Consequently *Gem must be equally ranked or lower ranked than Dep-Nasal. We will assume equal ranking of these two constraints. In (24) we provide the tableau for the emphatic form of (3c) with vowel lengthening. In this tableau we include candidate (24e) in which the augmented mora is not realized. This violates a constraint on morphological realization that requires morphemes to be realized. (See Prince & Smolensky 1993, Abu-Mansour (1995), Kurisu (2001), Kubozono (to appear) among others.) (23) MorphemeRealization-µe -- The emphatic morpheme (µe) must be realized (MorphR-µe) This constraint is undominated, at least with respect to the mora (µe) which marks the emphatic form of the adjective.9

(24) /µe + onzokutai/ --- [oonzokutai]10 ‘ugly (emphatic)’ (3c) µe µ µ µ µ µ µ

| | | | | | o n z o k u t a i

No-NT No-VG

*Gem-In

*Comp MorphR-µe

Align-L *LV Dep-N *Gem

µµeµ µ µ µ µ \/ | | | | | a. o n z o k u t a i [oon.zo.kutai]

*

µ µ µe µ µ µ µ | | | | | | | b. o n z o k u t a i [onz.zo.kutai]

*! (No-VG)

* (*Comp) *

µ µ µµe µ µ µ | | \/ | | | c. o n z o k u t a i [on.zoo.kutai]

*! *

µ µ µ µe µ µ µ | | | | | | | d. o n z o k u t a i [on.zok.kutai]

*! *

µe µi µ µ µ µ µ | | | | | | e. o n z o k u t a i [on.zo.ku.tai]

*! (MorphR-µe)

The interesting comparison in (24) is between (24d) with gemination of the voiceless consonant after the second vowel and (24a) with lengthening of the initial vowel. This comparison makes clear the role of Align-L. Given the tableau in (21) and (22) we know that both gemination and nasal insertion are the preferred means of mora augmentation. However, these are not preferred if they would occur later in the word (i.e. beyond the second vowel). As shown by the comparison of (24a) with (24d), candidate (24a) wins out over (24d) because it better satisfies the Align-L constraint. Notice, too, the role of Align-L in eliminating candidate (24c) where the second vowel is lengthened instead of the first. Candidate (24e) shows the role of the constraint Morph-Rµe. In (24e) the emphatic mora is not realized so that candidate is eliminated. Thus, given the input in (24), vowel lengthening becomes the preferred means of mora augmentation. Given our analysis, we now consider two types of cases that have not been formally discussed. First we consider the case where the first syllable of the (base) adjective has a diphthong and then we consider the case where it has a long vowel. For each case we need to refer to constraints not previously introduced in order to account for the emphatic forms. The first case involving a diphthong in the initial syllable is illustrated by (25a). Examples involving a long vowel are shown in (25b-c). (The period indicates a syllable break.) (25) Adjective Emphatic Form Gloss a. oi.šii oo.i.šii delicious b. kii.roi kiin.roi yellow c. too.toi toot.toi respectable First, consider the first type of case in (25a) involving an adjective whose initial vowel is a diphthong. In (26), we provide some possible output candidates for the emphatic form of [oi.šii]. (26) Candidates for the augmentation of [oi.šii] (Subscript ‘e’ indicates the location of the

augmented mora.) a. ooe.i.šii b. *oiše.šii c. *o.iše.šii d. *oi.šii Candidate (26a), [oo.i.šii], is the winning candidate, but our analysis as developed so far wrongly predicts (26b), [oiš.šii], as the winner. The winning candidate has mora augmentation through vowel lengthening while the losing candidate in (26b) has augmentation by means of gemination. We have emphasized the priority of consonantal augmentation over vocalic augmentation. Thus, there must be some higher ranked constraint that [oo.i.šii] respects which [oiš.šii] violates. The relevant constraint is the one in (27) militating against trimoraic syllables (cf. Sherer 1994). (27) *σµµµ -- Trimoraic syllables are not permitted. For [oo.i.šii] to be the winning candidate, this constraint has to be higher-ranked than *LV. The two other candidates in (26c), [o.iš.šii], and (26d), [oi.šii], violate high ranked constraints previously introduced: (26c) violates Align-L(µe,Wd) since the augmented mora is in the second syllable and (26d) violates the constraint on morpheme realization, Morph-Rµe. The full

evaluation tableau for the candidates in (26) is given in (28), incorporating the constraint against trimoraic syllables.11 (28) /µe + oi.šii/ -- [oo.i.šii] ‘delicious (emphatic)’ (25a)

µe µ µ µµ | | \/ o i š i

No-NT No-VG

*Gem-In

*Comp MorphR-µe

Align-L *σµµµ *LV Dep-N *Gem

µµeµ µµ \/ | \/ a. o i š i [oo.i.šii]

**

µ µ µeµµ | | | \/ b. o i š i [oiš.šii]

*! * *

µ µ µeµµ | | | \/ c. o i š i [o.iš.šii]

*! * *

µe µ µ µµ | | \/ d. o i š i [oi.šii]

*!

(MorphR-µe)

*

Now let us consider the evaluation of forms like (25b-c) where the first syllable contains a long vowel. We will illustrate this pattern with consideration for the emphatic form of [kii.roi]. Some possible candidates are provided in (29). (29) Candidates for the augmentation of [kii.roi]12 a. *kii.i.roi b. kiin.roi c. *kiir.roi d. *kiii.roi Candidate (29b) is the winning candidate, though our analysis based on (28) would wrongly predict (29a). This is because (29b) violates the constraint against trimoraic syllables while (29a) respects it. However, (29a) is odd in that an extra long vowel sequence is divided between two syllables, thus violating a constraint on long vowel integrity given in (30), which requires long vowels to be tautosyllabic.13 (30) Long Vowel Integrity -- Long vowels must be tautosyllabic. (Int-LV) This constraint must be higher ranked than the constraint against trimoraic syllables. As a consequence of this constraint, the emphatic forms of adjectives with initial long vowels as in (25b) and (25c) will have a trimoraic initial syllable. Given that (29a) violates (30), the choices are between the other candidates in (29) all of which have a trimoraic first syllable. Consider the

tableau in (31) showing all the candidates from (29). (31) /µe + kii.roi/ -- [kiinroi] ‘yellow (emphatic)’ (25b)

µe µµ µ µ \/ | | k i r o i

No-NT No-VG

*Gem-In

*Comp MorphR-µe

Align-L Int-LV *σµµµ *LV Dep-N *Gem

µµeµ µ µ \|/ | | a. k i r o i [kii.i.roi]

*! (Int-LV) *

µµµe µ µ \/ | | | b. k i n r o i [kiin.roi]

* * *

µµµeµµ \/ | | | c. k i r o i [kiir.roi]

*! (No-VG) * * *

µµeµ µ µ \|/ | | d. k i r o i [kiii.roi]

* **!

Candidate (29c) is clearly eliminated because of its violation of the high ranked constraint against voiced geminates. Candidate (29d) with an extra long vowel is ruled out because of its extra violation of *LV. The second violation of *LV is because of the vowel’s extra length. Thus, (29b), [kiin.roi], emerges as the winner. We note that a virtually identical analysis would apply to the mora augmentation of [too.toi] in (25c) with the exception that the winning candidate, [toot.toi] would violate *Gem rather than Dep-Nasal. In summary, we have presented a detailed optimality-theoretic analysis of the formation of emphatic adjectives through mora augmentation in the Shizuoka dialect of Japanese. A priority of the means of mora augmentation emerges from the analysis. The preferred way of mora augmentation is by consonantal augmentation, either nasal insertion or gemination; if that is not possible, then vowel lengthening occurs. Mora augmentation always occurs toward the left edge of the word so that augmentation by lengthening the first vowel is preferred to geminating a consonant after the second vowel as was shown by the discussion of (16). With minor modification, our analysis applies to the words in (25) with long vowels or diphthongs in the first syllable. An interesting point that emerges from our analysis of these forms is that a diphthong such as /oi/ in [oi.šii] may end up heterosyllabic in order to avoid a trimoraic syllable (thus the preference for [oo.i.šii] over [oiš.šii]), but a long vowel is treated as tautosyllabic even if the resulting syllable is trimoraic (thus the preference for [kiin.roi] over [kii.i.roi]). In the next section we will briefly discuss mora augmentation associated with intensified adverbs in standard Japanese. While the data are phonotactically limited in that the relevant adverbs have a

strict (C)VCV shape, they do confirm the analysis of the prioritization of the means of mora augmentation. 4 Comparison with Intensified Adverbials In the previous section we offered a detailed optimality theoretic analysis of the mora augmentation that occurs when making an adjective emphatic in the Shizuoka dialect of Japanese. The analysis reflects a prioritization of the means of mora augmentation such that consonantal augmentation is preferred to vocalic augmentation. It is interesting to note that this same prioritization of mora augmentation is found with intensified adverbs in standard Japanese. The formation of intensified adverbs have been discussed in such works as Kuroda (1965), McCawley (1968), Hamano (1998), as well as Lombardi (1998) from an optimality-theoretic perspective. Intensified adverbs are part of the Japanese mimetic vocabulary and involve the suffixation of -ri to a base along with mora augmentation of the first syllable. Phonotactically, the intensified adverbials are somewhat limited in that the base of affixation is always of the shape (C)VCV. This is different (and less interesting) than the Shizuoka adjectival data where the initial syllable of the adjectival base can be heavy as in (3) and (25). In this section we briefly discuss the similarities and differences between the two mora augmentation processes and then offer an analysis of the intensified adverbs. The analysis is essentially the same as the one developed for the Shizuoka emphatic adjectives and it will be shown that the two analyses can be combined into a single unified analysis of mora augmentation. Let us consider the representative data in (32) showing the Japanese intensified adverbs. (See Hamano 1998 for a full listing of the intensified adverbs plus discussion on their semantics.) (32) Intensified adverbs Base Intensifed Adverb English gloss a. kote kotte-ri densely b. bata batta-ri with a bang c uka ukka-ri thoughtlessly d. huku hukku-ri plump, puffy e. koso kosso-ri steathily f. kiči kičči-ri tightly g. zabu zambu-ri with a splash h. šobo šombo-ri sadly i. mai mani-ri a wink of sleep j. koga koga-ri brown k. boya bonya-ri absently l. yawa yanwa-ri gently m. gena genna-ri fed up n. simi simmi-ri calmly o. fura fura-ri swaying The augmentation pattern we see in (32) is quite similar to what we saw for the Shizuoka emphatic adjectivals. If the consonant after the first vowel is voiceless, gemination occurs as in

(32a-f); but if it is a voiced consonant then augmentation is by nasal insertion as in (32g-n). However, there are some significant differences with the adjectival emphatics. First, nasal insertion does not occur before /r/ as in (32o). Moreover, vowel lengthening usually does not occur as a means of mora augmentation.14 An analysis of the intensified adverbials needs to account for these differences. Before showing how the constraint ranking developed for the emphatic adjectives applies to the intensified adverbials, we consider the nature of the input representation of the intensified adverb. We view the intensified adverb as consisting of the suffix -ri and a floating mora which we represent as µin along with the (C)VCV base.15 This is shown in (33) for [kotteri], (32a). (33) µin µ µ µ | | + | k o t e r i Given the nature of the input, it should be clear that the ranking shown in (19) also accounts for the prioritization of the means of mora augmentation for intensified adverbials. We show this in (34) where we add the relevant high ranking constraints discussed earlier. (34) *Comp, No-VG, No-NT, Align-L, >>*LongVowel >> *Dep-Nasal, *Gem Both the Shizuoka emphatic adjectives and the intensified adverbials show a preference for consonantal augmentation. The ranking in (34) will account for the intensified adverbial cases with gemination (32a-f) and nasal insertion (32g-n). This is shown in the tableaux in (35) for [kotteri] illustrating gemination and in (36) for [bonyari] illustrating nasal insertion.16 (35) /µin + kote-ri/ -- [kotte-ri] ‘densely’ (32a)

µin µ µ µ | | | ko t e - r i

*Comp No-VG No-NT Align-L *LV Dep-N *Gem

µµin µ µ \/ | | a. k o t e -r i [koote-ri]

*!

µµin µ µ | | | | b. k o n t e -r i [konte-ri]

*! *

µµinµ µ | | | | c. k o t e -r i [kotte-ri]

*

µ µµin µ | \/ | d. k o t e -r i [kotee-ri]

*! *

(36) /µin + boya-ri/ -- [bonya-ri] ‘absently’ (32k) µin µ µ µ

| | | b o y a -r i

*Comp No-VG No-NT Align-L *LV Dep-N *Gem

µµin µ µ \/ | | a. b o y a -r i [booya-ri]

*!

µ µin µ µ | | | | b. b o n y a -r i [bonya-ri]

*

µµinµ µ | | | | c. b o y a -r i [boyya-ri]

*! *

µ µµin µ | \/ | d. b o y a -r i [boyaa-ri]

*! *

In these tableaux, we do not show the Morph-R constraint presented in the Shizuoka analysis since this constraint referred to the specific emphatic morpheme (µe). (Also, for these two tableaux, we do not consider a candidate in which the floating mora (µin) remains unrealized since this will be discussed later with respect to (32o).) The tableaux in (35) and (36) show the similarity between the augmentation with the intensified adverbial and the Shizuoka emphatic adjectives. Given this, we must now account for the differences, the failure of augmentation to occur in intensified adverbials for data like (32o) where /r/ is the intervocalic consonant of the base and the lack of vowel lengthening. In the previous section, we showed how the emphatic floating mora (µe) must always be realized with the emphatic adjective, no matter how phonotactically odd. On the other hand, as indicated by (32o), the intensified floating mora (µin) does not have to be realized. This suggests that there is a difference in the morpheme realization constraint regarding the surfacing of µe as opposed to µin. Thus, we posit that morpheme realization can have different rankings depending on the morpheme involved. Recall that the morpheme realization constraint regarding the morpheme for the emphatic adjective (µe) given in (23) is undominated. However, the morpheme realization constraint for the intensified adverbial mora (µin) given in (37) is not undominated. (37) MorphR-µin -- The floating mora marking the intensified adverb must be realized. If we rank (37) between the constraints *LV and Dep-N as in (38) we can account for why mora augmentation in intensified adverbials is not realized through vowel lengthening.

(38) *LV >> MorphR-µin >> Dep-N, *Gem This ranking means that it is better not to realize the floating mora for the intensified adverbial than to realize it through vowel lengthening. However, the ranking in (38), on its own, does not tell us why nasal insertion fails to occur before /r/ as in (32o). To account for this, we posit the constraint in (39) that militates against the surfacing of the sequence [nr]. (39) *nr -- The sequence [nr] is not permitted.17 If we rank this constraint above MorphR-µin as in (40), we can account for the lack of nasal insertion before /r/ in intensive adverbials like in (32o). Moreover, if we also rank it below *LV we would be able to account for the occurrence of nasal insertion before /r/ in Shizuoka emphatic adjectivals as in [kanrai] ‘spicy’ in (1e). (40) *LV >> *nr >> MorphR-µin >> Dep-N, *Gem Given this ranking, consider the tableau in (41) for the intensified adjectival [fura-ri] from (32o). (We list the undominated constraints in one column. These include *Comp, No-VG, No-NT, and Align-L.) (41) /µin + fura-ri/ --- [furari] ‘swaying’ (32o)

µin µ µ µ | | | f u r a -r i

*Comp, No-VG, No-NT, Align-L

*LV *nr MorphR-µin Dep-N *Gem

µin µ µ µ | | | a. f u r a -r i [furari]

*

µµin µ µ \/ | | b. f u r a -r i [fuura-ri]

*!

µ µin µ µ | | | | c. f u n r a -r i [funra-ri]

*! *

µµinµ µ | | | | d. f u r a -r i [furra-ri]

*! (No-VG) *

µ µµin µ | \/ | e. f u r a -r i [furaa-ri]

*! (Align-L) *

In (41d) we see that the /r/ cannot geminate because of undominated No-VG. We would expect nasal insertion as in (1e), [kanrai]. However, given that the constraint MorphR-µin is ranked lower than *nr, nasal insertion will not occur. Thus (41c) fails to surface. Also the candidate with vowel lengthening (41b) does not surface given that MorphR-µin is ranked lower *LV as well. (41e) is ruled out because it violates both *LV and Align-L. Consequently, the optimal form is (41a) where the intensive morpheme goes unrealized. We have been assuming that Align-L is high ranked for the analysis of the intensified adverbials just as it is for the Shizuoka emphatic adjectives, but there is no clear evidence for this. That is, unlike the case of the Shizuoka emphatic adjectives there is no way of telling whether mora augmentation occurs closer to the left edge of the word or the right edge of the word. This is because the base of the intensified adverbials are restricted to a (C)VCV sequence. Given that vowel lengthening is not typically permitted with intensified adverbials, there is only one possible place for the augmented mora to be realized without violating high ranking constraints. However, there is evidence for the role of Align-L. An anonymous reviewer points out to us that some speakers do get [fuura-ri] for (32o) with a long vowel. For these speakers, the constraint militating against long vowels (*LV) would be ranked lower than MorphR-µin (but higher than Dep-Nasal and *Gem), thus requiring the floating mora of the intensified adverbial to be realized (toward the left edge of the word). As a final point, the analysis of the intensified adverbials is readily compatible with that of the emphatic adjectives. For example, the constraint ranking as reflected in tableau (41) above can also account for the Shizuoka adjectival emphatics. In other words, we can offer a single unified analysis that accounts for both patterns of mora augmentation. This is shown by the tableau in (42) with the example [kanrai] ‘spicy’ in (1e) where the augmented mora is a nasal inserted before /r/. (To save space we do not show all the high ranked constraints that we have previously discussed, but we include high ranked MorphR-µe which requires the emphatic morpheme to be realized.)

(42) /µe + karai/ --- [kanrai] ‘spicy (emphatic)’ (1e) µe µ µ µ

| | | k a r a i

MorphR-µe No-VG

Align-L *LV *nr MorphR- µin Dep-N *Gem

µe µ µ µ | | | a. k a r a i [karai]

*! (MorphR-

µe)

µµe µ µ \/ | | b. k a r a i [kaarai]

*!

µ µe µ µ | | | | c. k a n r a i [kanrai]

* *

µ µe µ µ | | | | d. k a r a i [karrai]

*! (No-VG) *

µ µµeµ | \/ | e. k a r a i [karaai]

*! *

What the tableau above shows is that the constraints that play a special role for the intensified adverbials (*nr and MorphR-µin) do not affect the analysis of the adjectival augmentation. Here the winning candidate is (42c) despite its violation of *nr. The alternatives shown in the tableau each violates a higher ranking constraint. In (42), the key ranking is between *LV and *nr. If *nr were ranked higher than *LV then the form in (42b) with a long vowel would be the winner. Thus the tableau provides a ranking argument for *LV outranking *nr.18 5 Conclusion In this paper we have offered a detailed analysis of the mora augmentation associated with emphatic adjectives in the Shizuoka dialect of Japanese. We have shown that there is a priority of means of augmentation, with consonantal augmentation preferred over vocalic augmentation and that this can be captured in an optimality-theoretic framework. We further demonstrated how essentially the same constraint ranking can be extended to account for the mora augmentation associated with intensified mimetic adverbials in Japanese which display the same priority of means of augmentation. In addition to the emphatic adjectives and intensified adverbials there are other mora augmentation processes in Japanese that we do not discuss and that are beyond the scope of this

paper. These processes are similar to the adjectival and adverbial augmentation phenomena focused on in this paper, but differ in details. Two such processes included the mora augmentation that is associated with ma- prefixation (e.g. makkuro ‘very black’ from kuro ‘black’, makka ‘very red’ from akai ‘red’, and massao ‘very blue’ from aoi ‘blue’) and emphatic mimetic reduplication (e.g. pikkapika ‘shiny’, subessube ‘smooth’, and dabbudabu ‘loose’) which has recently been discussed by Kubozono (to appear) and Nasu (1999). As can be seen from the examples, both these processes differ in interesting ways from the mora augmentation phenomena discussed in this paper. For example, the mora augmentation associated with ma-prefixation never seems to involve vowel lengthening or clear cases of nasal insertion. Thus, we find maorenzi ‘very orange’ and mayonaka ‘midnight’ without augmentation. However, nasal insertion can occur before a nasal as in mannaka ‘the very center’ from naka ‘center’, The emphatic mimetic reduplication is interesting because augmentation need not take place in the initial syllable (e.g. subessube ‘smooth’) and voiced obstruents are allowed to geminate (e.g. dabbudabu ‘loose’). Nonetheless, these augmentation processes still display the preference for consonantal augmentation, and, in particular, gemination as the priority means of mora augmentation. We leave the description and analyses of these and other mora augmentation phenomena for future research.

Acknowledgments We wish to thank Karen Baertsch, Masa Deguchi, Daniel Dinnsen, Matthew Gordon, Jon Hathorn, Hideyuki Hirano, Haruo Kubozono, Mayumi Miyake, Akio Nasu, Toshiyuki Tabata, and Natsuko Tsujimura for helpful comments related to this paper. We also acknowledge our Shizuoka dialect consultants Kaneko Aoshima, Sachiko Aoshima, and Tamotsu Koizumi. Finally, we wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped to substantially improve this paper. Aspects of this paper were presented by both authors at various invited talks and meetings in Japan, Korea, Germany, and the United States. We thank the many people who gave us feedback on our presentations. An earlier version of this paper appears as Davis & Ueda (2001). The current paper is a substantial reworking and expansion of the earlier paper and supercedes it.

Notes

1. Following the suggestions of two reviewers we consider emphatic forms such as [kannašii] and [ammai] in (1g) and (1h) as involving nasal insertion rather than gemination. We leave open the question as to whether the two adjacent identical consonants in (1g) and (1h) surface as a true geminate (i.e. with one common root node) or as a fake geminate (i.e. with two separate root nodes). See Rose (2000) for relevant discussion regarding the representation of identical consonant sequences. 2. An anonymous reviewer points out that the emphatic forms with gemination in (2) are also possible in the Tokyo dialect, though (1) and (3) are not. 3. The alignment constraint posited here is very similar in effect to the alignment constraint posited by Kubozono (to appear) in his account of mora augmentation in reduplicated mimetics. 4. The constraint in (8) against long vowels has been used by such researchers as Sherer (1994) and Rosenthall (1997). The Dep-Nasal constraint in (9) can be viewed as a specific realization of the general Dep constraint posited in McCarthy & Prince (1995) which militates against insertion generally.

5. An anonymous reviewer points out that complex onsets may occur in Japanese if one considers sequences of a consonant followed by [y] as in the first syllable of Kyoto. We will sidestep this point given the uncertainty of the analyis of the [y] in such forms. 6. The constraint Align-L (µe,Wd) is evaluated with respect to the syllable. If the emphatic mora is realized in the first syllable of the word (as in 16a), then the constraint is satisfied. Candidate (16c) has one violation of Align-L (µe,Wd) since the emphatic mora is realized in the second syllable. 7. Some of the constraints that we are considering undominated, such as No-NT and No Voiced Geminates are not undominated with respect to the non-Yamato vocabulary. See Ito & Mester (1999) for discussion and analysis of the various types of non-Yamato vocabulary. 8. In the tableaux, we normally show the mora structure of the candidates. Unless otherwise indicated, a prevocalic consonant that is moraic is to be interpreted as a geminate while a preconsonantal consonant that is moraic is to be interpreted as a nongeminate coda. We follow Hayes (1989) in viewing a geminate as being moraic. However, with respect to word-initial geminates as in (21a), we do not indicate the mora structure of such candidates given uncertainties regarding their representation. See Hume et al. (1997) and Davis (1999) for discussion on this issue. Also, we will not consider candidates with inserted vowels or deleted consonants because these would violate high ranking constraints. 9. We assume that there may be cases where MorphR is not undominated with respect to certain input morphemes. Specifically, there may be phonological or prosodic considerations that prevent the realization of a morpheme. For example, the English superlative suffix -est does not normally occur with adjectives that are more than two syllables in length. 10. The winning candidate in (24a) is shown with the inserted mora realized as the second part of the long vowel. There is also a candidate which we do not consider in which the inserted mora is realized as the first part of the long vowel. This is shown in (i). µeµµ µ µ µ µ \/ | | | | | i. o n z o k u t a i However, such insertion would violate a constraint HeadDep-µ (Hermans 2000 based on Alderete 1995) which militates against an inserted mora being realized in syllable head position. In a nucleus with a long vowel, the first part is considered the syllable head position. Hereafter, we do not consider candidates with the inserted mora in syllable head position. 11. There are two issues that need to be briefly discussed. One possible candidate that we do not consider in tableau (28) is [on.ni.šii] with two violations of Dep-Nasal. This could be the winning candidate if it were included in tableau (28) since Dep-Nasal is lower ranked than *LV which is what (28a) violates. However, if we assume a high-ranking self-conjunction constraint (i.e. Dep-Nasal & Dep-Nasal, or simply Dep-Nasal2) then [on.ni.šii] would be eliminated since it has two instances of nasal insertion. (See Ito & Mester 1996 for self-conjunction constraints and Fukazawa & Miglio 1996 for restricting constraint conjunction to single families of constraints, such as faithfulness constraints or markedness constraints.) The second issue concerns the emphatic form of [a.oi], ‘blue’. Our analysis predicts [aa.oi], but the actual augmented form is [an.oi] with a coda nasal. We do not really have a clear explanation for this, other than to note that all realistic candidates for the emphatic form of [a.oi] are phonotactically odd. The problem with [aa.oi] is that there are four consecutive vocalic moras without any consonants intervening. Such a vowel sequence is highly unusual in Japanese and probably does not normally occur. The actual form, [an.oi] has a violation of Dep-Nasal. However, it is somewhat unusual in that there is an intervocalic consonant that is syllabified in coda position rather than in onset position. An alternative, [a.noi], with the intervocalic nasal in onset position, would violate the high ranked constraint on

morpheme realization, since the inserted nasal would not be moraic because it is exclusively in the onset position. Moreover, as discussed above, a candidate with two violations of Dep-Nasal, [an.noi], would violate the high ranked self conjunction constraint. Thus, the output [an.oi] seems the least bad of all the alternatives. As an anonymous reviewer points out to us, there are other cases in Japanese where an intervocalic nasal syllabifies in coda position. These can be found in Sino-Japanese words such as [an.itu] ‘live leisurely’ and [šin.in] ‘psychological cause’. 12. One possible candidate that we will not consider here is [kin.roi] with shortening of the original long vowel so as to avoid a violation of the constraint against trimoraic syllables. This form, however, violates the constraint Max-µ (McCarthy 2000) which requires an input mora to be realized in the output. The effect of this constraint is that it prevents vowel shortening. This constraint is high-ranking in Japanese. 13. While to our knowledge, nobody has actually proposed the long vowel integrity constraint in (30), it seems a very plausible and natural constraint that would rule out a candidate like (29a). In positing (30) as a constraint, we expect cases where it can be violated. Kubozono (1999) suggests based on accentual evidence that long vowels in Japanese loanwords can be split up into two syllables as in ku.re.en ‘crane’. We are assuming that the long vowel integrity constraint would be respected in the native vocabulary. 14. A reviewer points out to us that some speakers lengthen the first vowel in (32o). This is discussed in more detail after the discussion of the tableau in (41). 15. Hamano (1998) considers the suffix -ri and the intensifier mora (µin) to be different morphemes. Hamano analyzes the intensifier morpheme as an affixed C-slot. We think it is superior to view it as a floating mora. This more readily accounts for the location of affixation and the lack of an inserted consonant before [r] as in (32o). It also accounts for the fact that the heavy syllables created in the formation of intensive adverbs do not attract accent. This is significant given Hamano’s observation that heavy syllables are normally accented in mimetic words. Also, our floating mora analysis does not need to assume a separate CV-tier. 16. The optimality-theoretic analysis of intensified adverbials posited in Lombardi (1998) is somewhat similar to the analysis given in the tableaux in (35) and (36). However, Lombardi does not posit a floating mora in the underlying representation, nor does she specifically analyze cases like (32o) where neither gemination nor nasal insertion occurs. Also, since she did not deal with other augmentation data, her analysis is not embedded into a larger context. This should not be taken as a criticism of Lombardi (1998) since her purpose in analyzing Japanese intensified adverbials was not to look specifically at mora augmentation, but to consider the nature of feature-related constraints. 17. This constraint against [nr] sequences is not undominated since such sequences do occur in Japanese. Mester & Ito (1989) and Hamano (1998) suggest an intriguing connection between the lack of nasal insertion before /r/ and the observation that /r/ fails to palatalize in the mimetic vocabulary of Japanese. These phenomena argue for /r/ being a placeless consonant, at least with respect to the mimetic vocabulary. As such, it resists nasal insertion since the inserted nasal in data like (32g-n) assimilates to the place of articulation of the following consonant. If the mimetic /r/ lacks a specified place of articulation then the preceding nasal cannot assimilate to it. In other words, the failure of /n/ to occur before [r] in mimetic words is due to the constraint Coda Condition (Ito & Mester 1999) which requires a (word-internal) coda nasal to have the same place features as the following onset consonant. While it is quite possible to incorporate the underspecified representation of mimetic /r/ into our analysis, for reasons of convenience we will use the constraint *nr. 18. As mentioned, according to an anonymous reviewer, some speakers are able to get the adverbial mimetic [fuura-ri] with vowel lengthening before /r/ for (32o). This is not predicted by the ranking shown in tableau (42). Nonetheless, we can account for the output [fuura-ri] by ranking Morph-Rµin above *LV so that the intensive morpheme must be realized. Assuming a consistent ranking whereby *LV outranks *nr as in the Shizuoka adjectival pattern illustrated by the tableau in (42), we might expect the possible

candidate [funra-ri] as the adverbial mimetic for (32o) rather than [fuura-ri]. In order to account for the preference of [fuura-ri] over [funra-ri] while keeping the ranking shown in (42), we we would need to assume that /r/ in mimetic words is placeless as mentioned in the previous note. Thus, [funra-ri] would be eliminated because of its violation of the high ranked Coda Condition constraint.

References Abu Mansour, Mahasen Hasan. 1995. Optimality and conspiracy in the syllable structure of Arabic. In:

Beckman, Jill; Dickey, Laura Walsh; and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers in Optimality Theory 18:1-20.

Alderete, John. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. Rutgers Optimality Archives 94. Davis, Stuart. 1999. On the representation of initial geminates. Phonology 16:93-104. Davis, Stuart and Ueda, Isao. 2001. Mora augmentation in Shizuoka Japanese. Japanese/Korean

Linguistics 10. Fukazawa, Haruka and Miglio, Viola. 1996. Restricting conjunction to constraint families. Paper

presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz, Oct. 25-27. Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford: CSLI. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20:253-306. Hermans, Ben. 2000. Compensatory lengthening in Slovak. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to

Slavic Linguistics 9, Indiana University, Bloomington, Feb. 18-20. Hino, Sukezumi. 1977. Shizuoka-ken no hogen [The dialect of Shizuoka]. In: Furusato Hyakuwa 20 [A

Hundred Stories of our Native Place 20], 11-80. Shizuoka Newspaper Company. Hume, Elizabeth; Muller, Jennifer; and van Engelenhoven, Aone. 1997. Non-moraic geminates in Leti.

Phonology 14:371-402. Ito, Junko. 1986. Syllabic theory in prosodic phonology. University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation.

(Published by Garland Press, 1988) Ito, Junko and Mester, Armin. 1996. Structural economy and OCP interactions in local domains. Paper

presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz, Oct. 25-27. Ito, Junko and Mester, Armin. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In: Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The

handbook of Japanese linguistics, 62-100. Cambridge: Blackwell. Kubozono, Haruo. 1999. Mora and syllable. In: Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The handbook of Japanese

linguistics, 31-61. Cambridge: Blackwell. Kubozono, Haruo. to appear. The syllable as a unit of prosodic organization in Japanese. In: Féry,

Caroline and van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. University of California, Santa Cruz Ph.D. dissertation.

Kuroda, S-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. MIT Ph.D. dissertation. (Published by Garland Press, 1979.)

Lombardi, Linda. 1998. Evidence for max feature constraints from Japanese. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 7:41-62.

McCarthy, John. 2000. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:147-197.

McCarthy, John and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In: Beckman, Jill; Dickey, Laura Walsh; and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, (eds). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers in Optimality Theory 18, 249-384.

McCawley, James. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.

McCawley, James. 1978. What is a tone language? In: Fromkin, Victoria (ed.) Tone: A Linguistic Survey, 113-131. New York: Academic Press.

Mester, Armin and Ito, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65:258-293.

Nasu, A. 1999. Tyoohukukei onomatope no kyootyookei to sokuon no iti [Emphatic Forms of Reduplicative Mimetics and the Location of Consonant Geminates]. Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Kansai Linguistic Society, 308.

Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado.

Rose, Sharon. 2000. Rethinking geminates, long distance geminates, and the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry 31:85-122.

Rosenthall, Sam. 1997. The distribution of prevocalic glides. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:139-180.

Sherer, Tim. 1994. Prosodic phonotactics. University of Massachusetts Ph.D. dissertation. Yamaguchi, Koyo. 1987. Shizuoka-ken no hogen [The dialect of Shizuoka]. Shizuoka Newspaper Co. Stuart Davis Isao Ueda Department of Linguistics Department of Area Studies Memorial Hall 322 Osaka University of Foreign Studies 1021 East Third Street 8-1-1 Aomadani-higashi Indiana University Minoo-shi Bloomington, IN 47405 Osaka-fu, 562-8558 USA Japan e-mail: davis@indiana.edu uedais@osaka-gaidai.ac.jp