Comments welcome! green@ling.uni-potsdam.de October 2002

Word, Foot, and Syllable Structure in Burmese*Antony Dubach Green

University of Potsdam

1. Introduction

The Burmese language has been discussed descriptively by a variety of authors, includ-ing Bernot (1963, 1980), Okell (1969), and Wheatley (1987), and detailed phoneticstudies have been done by Mehnert & Richter (1972–77) and Thein Tun (1982). In thispaper I examine the structure of the syllable, foot, and prosodic word in Burmese, usingthe constraint-based framework of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993). Inparticular, I discuss several issues in the prosodic structure of Burmese, and make anumber of theoretical proposals affecting the theories of prosodic phonology, tone, andthe lexicon more generally.

In the rest of section 1 I give the inventory of Burmese surface phones – vowels,tones, and consonants. In section 2 I discuss major (= heavy) syllables and show that anextended Coda Condition bans all singly linked place features (not just consonantalones, as in many other languages) from the right edge of a syllable in Burmese. I arguethat the properties that distinguish major syllables from minor (= light) syllables (in-cluding presence of tone and toleration of onset clusters) are most straightforwardly ac-counted for on the assumption that all major syllables are feet and that all feet consist ofexactly one major syllable. Furthermore the foot is the tone-bearing unit (TBU) in Bur-mese. In section 3 I examine minor syllables and show that their shape and distributionare attributable to the extended Coda Condition, a markedness constraint against heavysyllables, and constraints requiring all feet and prosodic words (pwords, symbolized ω)to be right-aligned. In section 4 I first show that all prosodic categories are preferablynonbranching in Burmese, then discuss the exceptions to the generalization that a pwordcontains exactly one foot in Burmese, arguing that both the pword and the foot are insome cases prespecified in the input. Section 5 concludes the paper.

1.1 Vowels and tones

The surface vowels and tones of Burmese are as shown in (1).1

* This paper is a revised version of a paper printed in Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics

Laboratory 10 (1995), 67–96. I should like to thank the following people for their help and advice: FraserBennett, Abby Cohn, Terri Griffith, Máire Ní Chiosáin, David Parkinson, San San Hnin Tun, RatreeWayland, Julian Wheatley, Moira Yip, Draga Zec, and an anonymous WPCPL reviewer.

1 There is very little agreement from one author to another on the designation of the tones. Someauthors use terms such as low, high, creaky, checked, falling, heavy, glottalized, etc.; others number thetones 1–4. Among the authors who use numbers, there is even variation as to which tone is given whichnumber. There is also wide variation as to the transcription of Burmese. Throughout this paper, I use thesame names of tones as used by Wheatley (1987), and a broad transcription in nearly standard IPA.

2

(1) The surface vowels and tones of Burmese

Monophthongs Diphthongs Tonesi(:) u(:) ei ou Low à (etc.)e: o: ai au High á (etc.)� �: Creaky a� (etc.)ε(:) a(:) Checked a� (etc.)

The syllable structure of Burmese is C(G)V((V)C), which is to say the onset consists ofa consonant optionally followed by a glide, and the rhyme consists of a monophthongalone, a monophthong with a consonant, or a diphthong with a consonant. Diphthongscannot stand in open syllables, a fact which will be discussed in more detail in § 2.2 below.Vowel length in Burmese is not phonemic, but predictable: vowels (except �) are long inopen syllables, and short in closed syllables. Some representative words are shown in(2).2

(2) Basic syllables of Burmesea. CV mè: ‘girl’b. CVC mε� ‘crave’c. CGV mjè: ‘earth’d. CGVC mjε� ‘eye’e. CVVC màuN (term of address for young men)f. CGVVC mjáuN ‘ditch’

Burmese, like many languages of Southeast Asia, has a distinction between major andminor syllables.3 The exact definitions of major and minor syllables vary from languageto language, but in general a major syllable is a surface-heavy (µµ) syllable, and a minorsyllable a surface-light (µ) syllable. In most languages that have this distinction, includ-ing Burmese, a word must contain at least one major syllable and may not end with aminor syllable. In Burmese, the characteristics of a major syllable are: (i) it is alwaysheavy (thus vowels in open syllables are long); (ii) it may contain any vowel except �;(iii) it bears tone; and (iv) it may have a simple (C) or complex (CG) onset. All thewords in (2) above are examples of major syllables. The characteristics of a minor sylla-ble in Burmese are: (i) it must contain the vowel � and no other vowel; (ii) it must be alight (therefore open) syllable; (iii) it must not bear tone; (iv) it must have only a simple(C) onset; and (v) it must not be the final syllable of the word. A result of this last re-striction is that a word may not contain only minor syllables. Examples of words con-taining minor syllables are shown in (3).

2 All examples in this paper are from Bernot (1963), Okell (1969), Esche (1976), or Wheatley

(1987), unless otherwise noted.3 The terms “major syllable” and “minor syllable” seem to have been used first by Henderson

(1952) for Cambodian and Shorto (1960) for Palaung.

3

(3) Words containing minor syllablesa. kh�.lou� ‘knob’b. p�.lwè: ‘flute’c. θ�.j��: ‘mock’d. k�.lε� ‘be wanton’e. th�.m�.jè: ‘rice-water’f. méiN.m�.wu� ‘women’s clothing’

Examples of illicit minor syllables are shown in (4). (4)a and b violate the restrictionthat minor syllables must be light; (4)c violates the restriction that minor syllables mustnot bear tone; (4)d violates the restriction that a minor syllable may not have a complexonset; (4)e–g violate the restriction that minor syllables must not be word-final; and(4)f–g also violate the restriction that a word must have at least one major syllable.

(4) Illicit minor syllablesa. *m�N.m�.wu�b. *kh�:.lou�c. *θ��.j��:d. *θw�.j��:e. *lwè:p�f. *k�.l�g. *k�

1.2 Consonants

The consonants of Burmese are shown in (5).

(5) The consonants of Burmese

Stops and affricates Nasals (N is placeless)p t t� k � m n � ŋ Nph th t�h kh m � n� �� ŋb d d g

Fricatives Approximantsθ s � h l j w (r)

sh l � (w�)(ð) z

The approximants r and w � are rare, as is ð except as a voiced allophone of θ.The feature distinguishing the voiced and voiceless sonorants is probably not

[±voice] but [±spread glottis]. In other words, the voiceless sonorants are phonologicallyaspirated. Evidence for this position comes from a set of about 50 pairs of verbs inwhich the intransitive or passive member of each pair begins with a nonaspirated sound,while the transitive, causative, or active member begins with the aspirated correlate(Okell 1969, 42, 205 ff.). Examples are shown in (6); as seen in (6)i–j, � functions as the

4

aspirated equivalent of j.

(6) Unaspirated/aspirated verb pairsa. pja� ‘be cut’ phja� ‘cut’b. t�ε� ‘be cooked’ t�hε� ‘cook’c. kwε �: ‘be split’ khwε �: ‘split’d. sou� ‘be torn’ shou� ‘tear’e. mjou� ‘be buried’ m �ou� ‘bury’f. nwé: ‘be warm’ n �wé: ‘make warm’g. �i ‘be alight’ ��i ‘to touch with flame, light’h. lu� ‘be set free’ l �u� ‘set free’i. j��: ‘be reduced’ ���: ‘reduce’j. jwe�: ‘be moved’ �we�: ‘move’

All consonants except the placeless nasal N are allowed in onset position, and an onsetconsonant is obligatory in Burmese. Thus vowel-initial words of English and Pāli areborrowed into Burmese with initial �, e.g. �ìNd�ìN ‘engine’, �à:kà:θa�: ‘space, universe’< Pāli ākāsa. Only placeless consonants are allowed in coda position, namely � and theplaceless nasal N (which is realized as nasalization on the preceding vowel, with an ap-proximate coronal articulation after monophthongs and an approximate velar articula-tion after diphthongs (Bennett & Lehman 1994)).4 Although h is placeless, it does notappear in coda position, presumably reflecting the cross-linguistic tendency to disfavorcoda h.

2. Major syllables

2.1 Bimoraicity

As alluded to above, a word in Burmese must contain at least one major syllable, whichmay be defined as a syllable whose nucleus is a full vowel – i.e. any monophthong ordiphthong except �. Major syllables are always bimoraic, as vowels are long in opensyllables, and short in closed syllables.

(7) Bimoraic major syllablesa. khà: ‘shake’b. khàN ‘undergo’c. kha� ‘draw off’

Since vowel length is not contrastive in Burmese, the output khà: can correspond to aninput /khà/; the vowel is lengthened in an open syllable in order to achieve a bimoraicfoot. In optimality-theoretic terms, this can be expressed as compliance with FTBIN (8)at the cost of violating DEP(µ) (9).5

4 See Trigo (1988) for a full discussion of the behavior of placeless nasals (she calls them nasal

glides) across languages.5 See McCarthy & Prince (1995) on the MAX and DEP families of constraints. I consider only In-

put-Output correspondences in this paper, and use MAX and DEP as shorthand for MAX-IO and DEP-IO.

5

(8) FTBIN (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 47)Feet are binary at some level of analysis (σ, µ).

(9) DEP(µ)Every mora in the output has a correspondent in the input.

The constraint requiring a pword to contain at least one foot belongs to the HEADEDNESS

family (Selkirk 1995).

(10) HEADED(ω)A pword dominates a foot.

The ranking HEADED(ω), FTBIN » DEP(µ) leads to vowel lengthening in open syllables,as shown in the tableau in (11). No lengthening is necessary in closed syllables, asshown in (12). A pword is demarcated by [ ]ω, and a foot is demarcated by parentheses( ).

(11) /khà/ HEADED(ω) FTBIN DEP(µ)

[khà]ω * ![(khà)]ω * !

� [(khà:)]ω *

(12) /khàN/ HEADED(ω) FTBIN DEP(µ)

[khàN]ω * !� [(khàN)]ω

[(khà:N)]ω * !

2.2 Diphthongs and mid monophthongs

The phonotactic restrictions on the rhymes of major syllables are the following: Thediphthongs ei ai ou au must be closed by one of the coda consonants � or N (13); themid monophthongs e o � must occur in open syllables (14); ε may occur in an open syl-lable or a syllable closed by �, but no syllable may end in εN (15).

(13) Diphthongs only in closed syllablesa. �ei� ‘sleep’ �èiN ‘house’ *�èib. shai� ‘arrive’ thàiN ‘sit’ *t�àic. t�hou� ‘sew’ t�hòuN ‘overspread’ *t��òud. t�au� ‘stone’ t�àuN ‘cat’ *t�àu

(14) e, o, � only in open syllablesa. �è: ‘be cold’ *�e� *�èNb. t�hò: ‘be sweet’ *t��o� *t��òNc. t���: ‘fry’ *t��� *t���N

6

(15) ε in open syllables and before �a. θwε �: ‘connect by thread etc.’b. θwε� ‘be fluent’c. *θwε �N

This complementary distribution of e o � with ei ou au can be explained by prohibitingall singly linked place features from the right edge of a syllable. The Coda Condition(Steriade 1982, Itô 1986, 1989, Yip 1991) was devised as a way of restricting the occur-rence of features in the coda; for example, by prohibiting place features. A Coda Condi-tion doing just this was formalized by Itô (1989) as in (16).

(16) Coda Condition* C ]σ

|PLACE

Burmese patently obeys this constraint, as the only permissible coda consonants, � andN, are both placeless. The Coda Condition has traditionally applied only to consonantalplace features, as in Itô’s (1989) illustration with Japanese. In that language, the onlycoda consonants allowed are the placeless nasal N (e.g. hoN ‘book’) and the first halvesof geminates (e.g. kitte ‘stamp’) and homorganic nasal-stop clusters (e.g. tombo ‘drag-onfly’). The latter two cases are not violations of the Coda Condition, Itô argues, be-cause the place features are licensed by the onset position, and the coda consonantsmerely share the onset consonants’ place features. This situation obtains in Burmese aswell, where coda � and N tend to assimilate in place to a following consonant, as illus-trated in (17).

(17) Place assimilationa. jakkwε� < ja�kwε� ‘area, quarter’

seitthìN < sei�thìN ‘opinion’lousza� < lou�za� ‘fictitious story’

b. pjáuŋkòuN < pjáuNkòuN ‘alter completely’��pjìnthwε� < ��pjìNthwε� ‘go outside’θà�dei� < θàNdei� ‘iron hook’

As in Japanese, coda place features in Burmese must be licensed by being linked withan onset consonant, as illustrated in (18).

7

(18) Linked coda consonantsσ σ σ σ

µ µ µ µ µ µ µ µ

[+nas] [+nas]j a kw ε � p j á u k ò u

jakkwε� pjáuŋkòuN

However, unlike Japanese, Burmese apparently prohibits not only consonant place fea-tures but also vowel place features from the right edge of a syllable. This extension ofthe Coda Condition to vowel place features can explain the complementary distributionof diphthongs and monophthongs seen above. Specifically, if all place specifications arebarred from the right edge of the syllable, diphthongs can be excluded from open sylla-bles, because to allow diphthongs in open syllables is to allow the place features of thesecond element of the diphthong to occur at the syllable’s right edge. Vowel place fea-tures are allowed at ]σ only if they are linked also to the preceding syllable-internalmora, where they are licensed. This is illustrated in (19).

(19) t�hò: ‘be sweet’ (14)bσ

µ µ

t�h o

An optimality-theoretic constraint called CODA-COND, excluding all place features from]σ, can be formulated as in (20).6 Also relevant is MAX(seg), which prohibits deletion ofinput segments.

(20) CODA-COND

* µ]σ|

PLACE

(21) MAX(seg)Every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output.

Let us consider a form such as t�hò: ‘be sweet’ (19), and assume the diphthong ou to bein the input; in this case, the ill-formed structure shown in (22)a violates CODA-COND

6 A positive statement of the Coda Condition along the lines of Itô & Mester (1994, 1999) is not

possible under my analysis. A constraint Align-L([PLACE], σ) would not able to judge between well-formed t�hou� ‘sew’ and ill-formed *t�hou with regard to the place features of u. The extension of the pro-hibition on place features at ]σ to vowels renders the name Coda Condition rather unfortunate, but I willretain it here nevertheless in order not to break with tradition.

8

by placing the place features of u in the second mora. In the well-formed structure,(22)b, the second mora is filled by the o of the first mora (which licenses place features),and the u is simply omitted from the output.

(22) Diphthongs prohibited in open syllables

(a) * σ (b) σ

µ µ µ µ

t�h ò u t�h ò

As shown in the tableau in (23), the constraint ranking CODA-COND » MAX(seg) causesmonophthongization in open syllables.

(23) /t�hòu/ CODA-COND MAX(seg)

(22)a = (t�h[ò]µ[u]µ) * !(22)b = � (t�h[ò]µµ) *

On the other hand, when the diphthong is followed by a (placeless) coda consonant, asin t�hou� ‘sew’ (13)c, the diphthong is no longer in syllable-final position. I hypothesizethat the diphthong is placed under a branching nucleus. As shown in the tableau in (25),this violation of *COMPLEX

Nuc is less serious than a violation of MAX(seg) caused bydeleting part of the diphthong.

(24) *COMPLEXNuc (Prince & Smolensky 1993, 87)

The nucleus of a syllable is nonbranching.

(25) /t�hou�/ CODA-COND MAX(seg) *COMPLEXNuc

� (t�h[ou]µ[�]µ) *(t�h[o]µ[�]µ) * !

This explanation will hold for the other monophthong/diphthong pairs, seen above in(13)–(14): �è: vs. �èiN, �ei�; t���: vs. t�àuN, t�au�. Thus we may conclude that themonophthongs e o � are output allophones of input ei ou au.7

Since ε and ai both occur before � (e.g. shε� ‘offer respectfully’ vs. shai� ‘arrive’;tε� ‘go up’ vs. tai� ‘attack’), they are separate phonemes /ε/ and /ai/, but the distinctionbetween them is neutralized as ε: in open syllables. It should be emphasized, however,that since no phonological or morphological process in Burmese will convert an opensyllable into a closed syllable, it is impossible to determine whether words like θwε�:‘connect by thread’, bε: ‘duck’, z�bwε: ‘table’, nε�: ‘district’, wε�: ‘buy’, pε: ‘peas’, etc.,

7 The alternative hypothesis, that input monophthongs /e o �/ have diphthongal output allophones,

would have grave difficulties motivating diphthongization in closed syllables.

9

have input /ε/ or /ai/.8 From the point of view of the principle of Lexicon Optimization(Prince & Smolensky 1993), therefore, it is preferable to assume that learners do notposit lexical forms with /ai/ in an open syllable. English words with a in an open sylla-ble acquire an epenthetic coda consonant when borrowed into Burmese, e.g. tai�phúN‘typhoon’, dàiNjà:rì: ‘diary’, nε�tàiN ‘necktie’, etc.

We may regard the absence of εN as an accidental gap, since the other monoph-thongs permit a nasal coda: iN, uN, aN are all well formed. The set of Burmese inputfull vowels is shown in (26).

(26) Input full vowels of BurmeseMonophthongs Diphthongs

i u ei ouε a ai au

2.3 Monosyllabic feet

Following standard definitions of feet (Allen 1973, Prince 1990, Hayes 1995, inter alios),we may assume that heavy (µµ) syllables are in fact feet; they may in principle be eitheriambs or moraic trochees. Although most words in Burmese are either [L H] or [H] (L =light syllable, H = heavy syllable), there is good reason to suppose that the foot in Bur-mese is not an iamb – either (L H) or (H) – but rather a single heavy syllable (H) only. Inthis case, light syllables in [L H], [L L H], and [H L H] words would remain unfooted,as shown in (27).

(27) Monosyllabic feet in Burmesea. (bε �:) ‘duck’ d. z�(bwε �:) ‘table’b. (páN) ‘flower’ e. th�m�(jè:) ‘rice-water’c. (n�i�) ‘year’ f. (méiN)m�(wu�) ‘women’s clothing’

Now, according to Grouping Harmony (Prince 1990), for both iambs and moraic tro-chees, (L L) is as harmonious a foot as (H); the two should be equivalent. But although aBurmese word may consist of a single heavy syllable, as shown above, no Burmeseword consists of two light syllables; *[L L] is not a possible word shape, and thereforepresumably not a possible foot. This fact may be attributed to a constraint againstbranching feet, which can be dubbed MONOσ. In general, branching structure may beconsidered more marked than nonbranching structure, and therefore such a constraintfinds a natural home in markedness theory.

(28) MONOσA foot is nonbranching (is monosyllabic).

One result of the absence of bisyllabic feet is that it is impossible to determine whetherthe (H) foot of Burmese is a trochee or an iamb. If (L L) feet were allowed, the issue

8 Historically, Burmese ε: has three Proto-Tibeto-Burman sources, namely *e, *ai, and *āi, as

shown, for example, by pε �: ‘peas’ < TB *be, lε �: ‘change, exchange’ < TB *lai, and nε �: ‘knead’ < TB *nāi(Benedict 1972, 59 ff.).

10

would be resolved by the placement of stress: (�L L) would mean a trochaic system,(L �L) an iambic system. (H) alone is ambiguous, but van de Vijver (1998) argues thatthe iamb is not a primitive of metrical phonology and that UG contains no constraintrequiring right-headed feet. If this is correct, the (H) foot of Burmese can be regarded asa trochee “by default”.

Every pword in Burmese must end in a major syllable, i.e. a foot. This impliesthat both MONOσ and ALIGN-R (29) are undominated and inviolable in Burmese. Fur-ther discussion of their effect on the grammar will be deferred to § 3.

(29) ALIGN-R (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 32)Align-R(ω, ƒ): The right edge of every pword is aligned with the right edge ofsome foot.

2.4 Tone and the foot

Modern Burmese is generally analyzed as having a four-way tone contrast in major syl-lables, as illustrated by the minimal quadruplet in (30).

(30) The four tones of Burmese (Okell 1969, 5)a. Low k�à: ‘shake’b. High k�á: ‘be bitter’c. Creaky k�a�: ‘fee’d. Checked k�a� ‘draw off’

In syllables with a nasal rhyme, only three tones are possible. The Checked tone is ex-cluded from such syllables.

(31) Three tones in nasal rhymesa. Low k�àN ‘undergo’b. High k�áN ‘dry up’c. Creaky k�a�N ‘appoint’

Wheatley (1987, 842) sums up the acoustic correlates of the four tones as follows:9

Tone in Burmese has a complex realisation of which pitch is only one feature. Inthe case of the checked tone, segmental features of vowel quality and final con-sonantism as well as suprasegmental features of pitch and duration are involved.The relative presence of these features varies with context. It has been observed,for example, that in disyllabic words such as za�pwε�: ‘(a) play’, the pitch of thechecked tone (high, in citation) may range from high to low. The same kind ofvariation is characteristic of creaky tone as well.

In citation form, the three tones that appear in smooth syllables [i.e. opensyllables and those ending in -N –ADG] have the following features: the ‘creaky’:tense or creaky phonation (sometimes with final lax glottal stop), medium dura-tion, high intensity and high, often slightly falling pitch; the ‘low’: normal pho-nation, medium duration, low intensity and low, often slightly rising pitch; the

9 I have altered Wheatley’s phonetic transcription to conform with the system I use.

11

‘high’: sometimes slightly breathy, relatively long, high intensity and high pitch,often with a fall before a pause.

Detailed phonetic studies of the Burmese tones include Mehnert & Richter (1972–77,part 3) and Thein Tun (1982). On the basis of these phonetic descriptions, I suggest thattwo binary distinctive features are responsible for tone in Burmese: [±constricted glottis]and [±tense]. Creaky and Checked tones both involve a certain amount of glottal con-striction, therefore they are both [+c.g.]; High and Low tones are [–c.g.]. Creaky andHigh tones are both characterized by high intensity, therefore they are both [+tense];Checked and Low tones are [–tense].

(32) Distinctive features of the Burmese tones[constricted glottis] [tense]

Low – –High – +Creaky + +Checked + –

The use of these features, which are normally considered laryngeal features, rather thanthe tonal features like [±upper register] and [±high pitch] often proposed for other lan-guages (Yip 1980, Duanmu 1990), is justified by Wheatley’s comment, quoted above,that pitch is only one phonetic correlate of tone in Burmese, and is variable in the [+c.g.]tones anyway.

The morphology of Burmese is such that tones do not really interact with eachother; there is no tone spreading, tone sandhi10, or other phonological process affectingtone in Burmese. Burmese does, however, have a morphological process called “in-duced Creaky tone,” which changes a Low tone, and sometimes a High tone, to a Creakytone in a variety of expressive, formative, and grammatical environments. A few exam-ples are shown in (33); see Okell (1969, 18–21) and Wheatley (1987, 848–849) for morediscussion.

(33) Induced Creaky tone (Okell 1969, 18–21)a. θóuNzε �: ‘thirty’

θóuNzε �:ŋá: ‘thirty-five’

b. là:dε �: ‘came’là:dε �: lù: ‘the man who came’

c. nè:mε �: ‘will stay’nè:mε �: �èiN ‘the house (one) will stay in’

d. t��n��: ‘I’t��n��:gò: ‘to me’

e. nìN ‘you’ni �N ��mè: ‘your mother’

10 Except for the falling pitch of the High tone before a pause, which is almost certainly a phonetic

rather than phonological effect.

12

f. ma�: θáN ‘Ma Than’ma�: θa�N lwε �:-�ei� ‘Ma Than’s shoulder bag’

g. �ìNm�tàN ‘very’�ìNm�ta�N �ìNm�tàN ‘tremendously, very very’

Induced Creaky tone is less common on (originally) High-toned syllables than on Low-toned syllables, and it does not happen at all on Checked-toned syllables. On originallyCreaky-toned syllables, induced Creaky tone is of course vacuous. These facts may sup-port the featural analysis in (32): induced Creaky tone, i.e. the replacement of the origi-nal tone with [+c.g., +tense], is most likely to occur when the original tone is maximallydistinct from Creaky, namely Low tone, which is [–c.g., –tense]. High tone, whichshares [+tense] with Creaky, is less likely to be affected, and Checked tone, whichshares [+c.g.] with Creaky, is not subject to induced Creaky tone at all.

In other languages, the tone-bearing unit (TBU) has been argued to be the moraor the syllable. For example, Odden (1995) argues that the TBU of African Languages isthe mora, Zec (1988) shows that the TBU of Lithuanian is the mora when it dominates avowel or sonorant consonant (but not when it dominates an obstruent), and Duanmu(1990) argues that the TBU of Chinese languages is the mora, while Yip (1995) arguesfor the syllable as the TBU of Chinese languages.

What is striking about Burmese is that only major (i.e. bimoraic) syllables carrytone at all. If the TBU of Burmese were the mora, we would expect minor syllables tocarry a simple tone and major syllables to be able to carry either a simple or a contourtone. If the TBU of Burmese were the syllable, we would expect both minor and majorsyllables to carry a simple tone. But in fact, minor (monomoraic) syllables carry no toneat all, and major (bimoraic) syllables carry only a simple tone. This suggests that theTBU of Burmese is the foot.

The phonetic implementation of Low, High, and Creaky tones is found primarilyon the vowel of the foot with which the tone is associated. The phonation, duration, in-tensity, and pitch of the vowel are all affected. The chief aspect of the phonetic imple-mentation of Checked tone, however, is the syllable-final glottal stop. The vowel of aChecked-tone syllable is significantly shorter than vowels in all other syllables: TheinTun (1982, 89) demonstrates that the average duration of a monophthong in Checkedtone is 84 ms shorter than that of a monophthong in Low tone, 109 ms shorter than thatof a monophthong in High tone, and 53 ms shorter than that of a monophthong inCreaky tone. Thus I suggest that the vowel of a Checked-tone syllable is monomoraic,while the glottal stop itself fills the second mora of the syllable, as shown in (34).

(34) ƒ

σ +c.g.–tense

µ µ

n� i �

13

As mentioned above, syllables that end in the placeless nasal N do not appear inChecked tone in Burmese. This fact can be analyzed by assuming that N and � are bothrequired to stand in coda position, but Burmese phonotactics do not allow complex co-das. Thus one of the consonants must be deleted when they are in conflict.

However, Burmese lacks phonological processes that allow us to know what theoutput of a hypothetical input like /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ would be. The most plau-sible candidates are θàN (where [+c.g.] has become [–c.g.]), θa�N (where [–tense] hasbecome [+tense]), and θa� (where [+nasal] has been deleted). But learners do not en-counter any alternations that would motivate the input /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ for anyof these outputs, so that Lexicon Optimization predicts that such inputs are not createdby speakers in the first place. If such a form were to be present in the input, however,the decision would have to be made on the basis of the ranking of faithfulness con-straints on the features [nasal], [c.g.], and [tense]. Unfortunately there is no independentevidence for what this ranking might be, and the question what the output of the hypo-thetical input /θa[+nasal][+c.g., –tense]/ remains unanswerable.

2.5 The rhymes of major syllables

The complete inventory of rhymes of major syllables, including tones, is shown in (35).The high vowels i u are pronounced lax in closed syllables (N, �; �N, ��) (Wheatley1987, 840), but as this is not relevant to syllable structure I transcribe such rhymes sim-ply as iN, i�; uN, u�.

(35) The fifty rhymes of major syllables (adapted from Thein Tun 1982)Nonnasal rhyme Nasal rhyme

Low High Creaky Checked Low High Creaky/i/ 1. ì: 2. í: 3. i : 4. i� 5. ìN 6. íN 7. i N/u/ 8. ù: 9. ú: 10. u�: 11. u� 12. ùN 13. úN 14. u�N/a/ 15. à: 16. á: 17. a�: 18. a� 19. àN 20. áN 21. a�N/ε/ 22. ε �: 23. ε �: 24. ε �: 25. ε�

/ai/ 26. ai� 27. àiN 28. áiN 29. a�iN/ei/ 30. è: 31. é: 32. e�: 33. ei� 34. èiN 35. éiN 36. e�iN/au/ 37. ��: 38. ��: 39. ��: 40. au� 41. àuN 42. áuN 43. a�uN/ou/ 44. ò: 45. ó: 46. o�: 47. ou� 48. òuN 49. óuN 50. o�uN

3. Minor syllables

Minor syllables contain only the vowel � in Burmese. They contain neither tone norcoda consonants, do not allow complex onsets, and may never appear in the final posi-tion of a word. As we have seen, major syllables are bimoraic; it is reasonable to supposethat minor syllables are monomoraic. This supposition is borne out by the phonetic evi-dence of Mehnert & Richter (1972–77), who show that the duration of minor syllables hasa range of 25–50 ms, while the duration of major syllables has a range of 150–600 ms.

Minor syllables often occur as the initial syllable of a bisyllabic monomorphemicword like k��lou� ‘knob’. In this case, the toneless schwa is probably already repre-sented as such since the learner is confronted with no alternations that would justify anyother input. But minor syllables arise also in a kind of compound word that I refer to as

14

a “reducing compound.” In a reducing compound, the last syllable of a nonfinal memberof the compound is reduced from a major to a minor syllable. Some examples of reduc-ing compounds are shown in (36). (The obstruent voicing seen on the final element ofsome of these compounds will not concern us here, as it does not affect prosodic struc-ture.)11

(36) Reducing compoundsa. t�áN + pó: > t��bó: ‘floor’ + ‘insect’ > ‘bug’

b. ŋá: + �u�: > ŋ��u�: ‘fish’ + ‘egg’ > ‘fish-spawn’

c. θwá: + jè: > θ�jè: ‘tooth’ + ‘juice’ > ‘saliva’

d. th�míN + jè: > th�m�jè: ‘rice’ + ‘water’ > ‘rice-water’

e. k�lá: + pjè: > k�l�bjè: ‘Indian’ + ‘country’ > ‘India’

f. lu� + pì: + lá: > lu�p�lá: ‘free’ + ‘is’ + Q > ‘is (one) free?’

g. nè: + mε �: + lá: > nè:m�lá: ‘stay’ + IRREALIS + Q > ‘will (one) stay?’

h. pja�: + tíN + pau� > p�díNbau� ‘show’ + ‘tighten’ + ‘opening’ > ‘window’

i. méiN + ma�: + wu� > méiNm�wu�‘woman’ + fem. + ‘clothing’ > ‘women’s clothing’

j. láN + ma�: + t��: > láNm�d��: ‘road’ + ‘main’ + ‘honorific’ > ‘main road’

As can be seen from these examples, a number of phonological processes happen underreduction: tone is lost; all vowel place features are lost, leaving only placeless � behind;a coda placeless nasal is lost (cf. (36)a, d); and an onset cluster is simplified (cf. (36)c,h). All of these processes find a single explanation if we assume that minor syllables areunfooted, an assumption that can be attributed to the role of MONOσ and ALL-FT-R (37).As discussed above, MONOσ is undominated in Burmese; both it and ALL-FT-R cru-cially outrank PARSE-σ (38) and DEP(µ). The domination of ALL-FT-R cannot be dem-onstrated with this tableau, but in § 4.2 we will see that it can be violated.

(37) ALL-FT-RAlign-R(ƒ, ω): The right edge of every foot is aligned with the right edge ofsome pword. 12

(38) PARSE-σSyllables are parsed into feet.

11 Examination of the glosses in the examples (especially (36)f, g) reveals that many “compounds”

in Burmese are not compounds in the traditional sense at all, but rather “concatenation[s] of lexical wordsand grammatical formatives, presumably under a single X-bar category (X°)” (Bennett & Lehman 1994,where the reader is referred also to Lehman 1986 and 1993).

12 The UG constraint ALL-FT-L is ranked too low in Burmese ever to play a role.

15

(39) /ŋá+�u�/ MONOσ ALL-FT-R PARSE-σ DEP(µ)[(ŋá:)(�u�:)]ω * ! **

[(ŋá.�u�)]ω * !� [ŋ�(�u�:)]ω * *

As we saw in § 2.4, the TBU of Burmese is the foot. When foot structure is lost, tone isnecessarily lost with it. The other three phonological processes found in reducing com-pounding – loss of vowel place features, loss of the coda nasal, and onset simplification– are also attributable to the loss of foot status under syllable reduction. In what followswe shall analyze each of these processes in turn; we begin with the loss of vowel placefeatures.

3.1 Loss of vowel place features

Under the widespread assumption that � is a placeless vowel, the fact of its occurrenceto the exclusion of all other vowels in minor syllables in Burmese can be attributed toCODA-COND. As defined in (20), this constraint bans place features not specifically fromthe coda position of the syllable but rather from the right edge of the syllable. In open,monomoraic syllables, the nucleus vowel is at the right edge of the syllable and there-fore subject to CODA-COND. When a syllable surfaces as a minor syllable, for examplein reducing compounds, the vowel is reduced to � in compliance with CODA-COND andin violation of lower-ranking MAX(Place) (40). An example comes from the word ŋ��u�:‘fish-spawn’ (36)b, as shown in the tableau in (41).

(40) MAX(Place)Place features in the input have correspondents in the output.

(41) /ŋá+�u�/ CODA-COND MAX(Place)ŋa.(�u�:) * !

� ŋ�.(�u�:) *

Extending the coda condition so that it applies not only to syllable-final consonants butto vowels as well thus accounts simultaneously for the prohibition on diphthongs inopen syllables and the reduction of all vowels to � in minor syllables.

3.2 Loss of the coda nasal

It is generally accepted that heavy syllables are more marked than light syllables, so thata constraint banning heavy syllables is predicted.

(42) NOHEAVY

A syllable contains only one mora.

In fact, of course, most syllables in Burmese are major syllables, and therefore bimoraic.But provided FTBIN outranks NOHEAVY in Burmese, a syllable may be bimoraic only inorder that FTBIN not be violated, as illustrated in (43).

16

(43) /khà/ FTBIN NOHEAVY

[(khà)]ω * !� [(khà:)]ω *

NOHEAVY thus predicts that unfooted syllables must be monomoraic, since FTBIN is notan issue. This is the reason why the first syllable in a reducing compound such as/t�áN+pó/ t��bó: ‘bug’ (36)a loses its coda nasal: a bimoraic syllable would induce anextra violation of NOHEAVY, and footing the first syllable would violate ALL-FT-R (37).Undominated MONOσ prevents the two syllables from forming a (L L) foot. The rankingMONOσ, FTBIN » ALL-FT-R » PARSE-σ, NOHEAVY » MAX(seg) is shown in the tableauin (44). (The relative ranking of NOHEAVY and PARSE-σ cannot be determined, butNOHEAVY crucially dominates MAX(seg).)

(44) /t�áN+pó/ MONOσ FTBIN ALL-FT-R PARSE-σ NOHEAVY MAX(seg)

[t��(bó)]ω * ! * *� [t��(bó:)]ω * * *

[(t��bó)]ω * ! *[t�aN (bó:)]ω * **!

[(t�áN)(bó:)]ω σ !

MONOσ and FTBIN both appear to be unviolated in Burmese: there is no circumstanceunder which either a (L L) foot or a (L) foot is permissible.

3.3 Onset simplification

One of the many differences between major and minor syllables in Burmese is that ma-jor syllables allow onset clusters while minor syllables do not. If a major syllable with acomplex onset becomes minor in a reducing compound, the second consonant of theonset is lost, as shown in (45) (Okell 1969, 15).

(45) Onset cluster simplification in reducing compoundsa. nwá: + no �: > n�no�: ‘cow’ + ‘udder’ > ‘milk’b. θwá: + jè: > θ�jè: ‘tooth’ + ‘juice’ > ‘saliva’c. pja�: + tíN + pau� > p�díNbau� ‘show’ + ‘tighten’ + ‘opening’ > ‘window’

To account for this fact I suggest that onset clusters are permitted only in foot-initialposition in Burmese, and that the first consonant of such clusters is linked directly to thefoot. Following arguments formalized in Green (2002), I propose that a universallyranked subhierarchy on onset clusters includes a string *σ[CC » *ƒ[CC, i.e. a cluster atthe left edge of a syllable is universally more marked than a cluster at the left edge of afoot. In Burmese, this ranking is interrupted by MAX(seg), i.e. *σ[CC » MAX(seg) »*ƒ[CC, allowing cluster simplification at the syllable level but not the foot level. Alsolow ranked is EXHAUSTIVITYƒ (Selkirk 1995, 443), which militates against dominationby feet of anything other than syllables. The ranking is exemplified in the tableaux in(49) and (50).

17

(46) *σ[CCA sequence of two consonants is forbidden in syllable-initial position.

(47) *ƒ[CCA sequence of two consonants is forbidden in foot-initial position.

(48) EXHƒ

A foot immediately dominates only syllables.

(49) /nwáno �/ *σ[CC MAX(seg) EXHƒ *ƒ[CC.nw�.(no�:.) * !� .n�.(no�:.) *

In the tableau in (50), the consonant in italics is extrasyllabic, being linked directly tothe foot.

(50) /nwá/ *σ[CC MAX(seg) EXHƒ *ƒ[CC(.nwá:.) * ! *

(.ná:.) * !� (n .wá:.) * *

Thus, all of the phonological processes that major syllables undergo when they aretransformed into minor syllables under reducing compounding are linked to the loss offoot status. Tone is lost, because the TBU of Burmese is the foot. A coda nasal and allvowel place features are lost, because an unfooted syllable must be light, and place fea-tures are banned from the right edges of syllables. And complex onsets are simplified,because only feet tolerate complex onsets.

3.4 Distribution of minor syllables

Next, let us examine the constraint interactions that prohibit � from occurring word-finally. I have already said that FTBIN, MONOσ, and ALIGN-R are undominated, unvio-lated constraints in Burmese. This means that every pword must end in a (H) foot.

Under the principle of Richness of the Base (Prince & Smolensky 1993), theinput must be allowed to contain forms that cannot surface, such as words with final � inBurmese. When there is no output for a given input, the constraint M-PARSE (51) isviolated. This absence of output is also called the null parse.

(51) M-PARSE (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 112)Morphemes are parsed into morphological constituents.

The null parse – the candidate in which there is no morphological structure and no pho-netic realization – violates no constraints except M-PARSE, and is optimal only when allother candidates violate undominated constraints. The null parse is indicated in the tab-leaux by the term no output. The tableaux in (52)–(57) show the interaction of M-PARSE

with other constraints. (52) shows that an open syllable must be made long, in violation

18

of DEP(µ) and NOHEAVY, in order to meet FTBIN.

(52) /bε �/ FTBIN M-PARSE DEP(µ) NOHEAVY

� [(bε �:)]ω * *[(bε �)]ω * !

no output * !

In Burmese, � is never long and never has a tone. The most straightforward explanationfor this is to suggest that � can never be footed in Burmese. This is reminiscent of Cohn& McCarthy’s (1998) analysis of Indonesian, where � resists footing, where possible, byvirtue of a constraint NON-FOOT(�), which states that a syllable headed by � has no met-rical projection, in effect prohibiting the inclusion of � in a foot (53).

(53) NON-FOOT(�) (Cohn & McCarthy 1998)Schwa-headed syllables have no metrical projection.

In Burmese, this constraint is undominated, since all light syllables contain � in theirnuclei, and all light syllables are unfooted. In (54), we see that because a syllable with �cannot be footed, but all pwords must have a foot at their right edge, the null parse is theoptimal candidate for an input form whose only vowel is �.13

(54) /b��/ FTBIN ALIGN-R NON-FOOT(�) M-PARSE DEP(µ) NOHEAVY

[(b��)]ω * ! *[(b��:)]ω * ! * *

[b�]ω * !� no output *

(55) shows that a [L L] word cannot be footed (L L) because of MONOσ; since the lastsyllable contains a full vowel (i.e. not �), it can be lengthened in violation of DEP(µ) inorder to be footable.

(55) /θ�j��/ FTB

IN

NO

N-F

T(�)

MO

NOσ

M-P

AR

SE

DE

P(µ)

NO

HE

AV

Y

PA

RS

E-σ

� [θ�(j��:)]ω * * *[(θ�j��)]ω * ! *[θ�(j��)]ω * ! *

no output * !

13 One possible output for an input /b��/ would be something like bε �:, where vowel place features

have been added to make the vowel footable. Lexicon Optimization, however, asserts that learners wouldposit the input /bε �/, not /b��/, for such a form.

19

(56) shows that because of the unfootability of �, a [L L] word in which both syllablescontain � can never surface; the null parse is optimal.

(56) /k�l��/ FTB

IN

AL

IGN

-R

NO

NF

T(�)

MO

NOσ

M-P

AR

SE

DE

P (µ

)

NO

HE

AV

Y

PA

RS

E-σ

[(k�l��)]ω * ! *[k�(l��)]ω * ! * *

[k�(l��:)]ω * ! * * *[(k��:)l�]ω * ! * * * *

[k�l�]ω * ! **� no output *

In (57) we see that the undominated constraints prevent any input that ends with � hav-ing a grammatical output; again, the null parse is optimal.

(57) /lwèip�/

AL

IGN

-R

NO

N-F

T(�)

MO

NOσ

M-P

AR

SE

DE

P(µ)

NO

HE

AV

Y

PA

RS

E-σ

[(lwè:)p�]ω * ! * * *[(lwè.p�)]ω * ! *[lwe(p��:)]ω * ! * * *

� no output *

4. Polypodic words

One salient property of Burmese prosodic phonology is that every prosodic categorypreferably contains exactly one of the next lower category. Unfooted syllables are neces-sarily monomoraic because NOHEAVY, prohibiting bimoraic syllables, is dominated onlyby FTBIN (cf. (44)). All feet are monosyllabic in Burmese, because MONOσ is undomi-nated. And, as we have seen, most pwords contain exactly one foot, because of high-ranking ALL-FT-R (cf. (44)). Such words are called “monopodic,” and examples of themare shown in (58). Thus there is a strong preference for nonbranching prosodic catego-ries in Burmese.

(58) Monopodic words in Burmesea. [(θwá:)]ω ‘go’b. [(lè:)]ω ‘be heavy’c. [(sà:)]ω ‘writing’d. [(�èiN)]ω ‘house’e. [θ�(j��:)]ω ‘mock, satirize’f. [kh�(lou�)]ω ‘knob’g. [t��m�(jè:)]ω ‘rice-water’

20

Nevertheless, there are some words in Burmese that contain more than one foot (“poly-podic words”). These are chiefly compounds (59)a or loanwords (59)b. A very few non-compound polypodic words do not appear to be loanwords (59)c. I shall refer to non-compound polypodic words, such as (59)b–c, as “superlong” words.

(59) Polypodic words in Burmesea. (nè:)(thàiN) = (nè:) + (thàiN) ‘reside’ = ‘stay’ + ‘sit’b. (t�h��:)k�(lε�) ‘chocolate’ < Englishc. (mòuN)(dáiN) ‘storm’

In this section I shall argue that polypodic words are prespecified for some prosodicstructure: compounds like (59)a contain pword structure in the input, and superlongwords like (59)b–c contain foot structure in the input.

4.1 Nonreducing compounds

Above in § 3 we saw a type of compounding called reducing compounding. Burmesealso has nonreducing compounding, in which the elements of the compound undergo nophonological changes.14 Nonreducing compounds are thus quite straightforward: two ormore words are strung together to form a single word. The individual members of thesecompounds probably retain their original pwords, which are then parsed recursively intoa single, larger pword, as shown in (60).15

(60) Nonreducing compounds: ω + ω > [ω ω]ωa. [(nè:)]ω + [(thàiN)]ω > [ [(nè:)]ω [(thàiN)]ω ]ω

‘stay’ + ‘sit’ > ‘reside’

b. [(jáuN)]ω + [(wε �:)]ω > [ [(jáuN)]ω [(wε �:)]ω ]ω‘sell’ + ‘buy’ > ‘trade’

c. [(t�ε�)]ω + [(shìN)]ω > [ [(t�ε�)]ω [(shìN)]ω ]ω‘fowl’ + ‘elephant’ > ‘turkey’

d. [��(jè:)]ω + [��(t�híN)]ω > [ [��(jè:)]ω [��(t�híN)]ω ]ω‘qualification’ + ‘quality’ > ‘standard’

e. [(po�:)]ω + [(pho�:)]ω + [(kháiN)]ω > [ [(po�:)]ω [(bo�:)]ω [(kháiN)]ω ]ω‘send’ + ‘to’ + ‘tell’ > ‘tell (him) to send (it)’

f. [(t�i :)]ω + [(lo�:)]ω + [(káuN)]ω > [ [(t�i :)]ω [(lo�:)]ω [(káuN)]ω ]ω‘look’ + ‘-ing’ + ‘be good’ > ‘be good to look at’

14 It is not unusual for a language to have more than one type of compound. Mohanan (1982,

1986), Aronoff & Sridhar (1983), Sproat (1986), and Inkelas (1989) discuss compounds in Kannada andMalayalam, where “sub-compounds” and “co-compounds” have different phonological effects from eachother. Unlike Kannada and Malayalam, Burmese does not seem to have an obvious semantic distinctionbetween the two types of compounds.

15 See Inkelas (1989) and McCarthy & Prince (1993) on the recursiveness of the pword.

21

g. [(kau�)]ω + [(pε �:)]ω + [��(θí:)]ω + [��(n�àN)]ω > [ [(kau�)]ω [(pε �:)]ω [(θí:)]ω [(n�àN)]ω ]ω‘paddy’ + ‘peas’ + ‘fruit’ + ‘grain’ > ‘crops’

h. [(�ó:)]ω + [(�ìN)]ω + [(khwε�)]ω + [(jau�)]ω > [ [(�ó:)]ω [(�ìN)]ω [(khwε�)]ω [(jau�)]ω ]ω‘pot’ + ‘bowl’ + ‘cup’ + ‘ladle’ > ‘household goods’

(I am not concerned here with certain effects of compounding, such as voicing, as seenin (60)e, or the loss of the prefix ��- in some forms like (60)g, but not in others like(60)d.)

Compound words consisting of more than one pword are well attested: in Igbo(Zsiga 1992), Malayalam (Sproat 1986, Inkelas 1989), Sanskrit (Selkirk 1980), andTurkish and Hungarian (Nespor & Vogel 1986), for example, certain compounds con-tain more than one pword. Also in the history of Welsh, as described by Jackson (1953,367, 436, 514, 579), external sandhi processes are found between the members of acompound, and are distinct from internal sandhi processes found within a simple pword.This implies that the members of the compound are separate pwords in that language aswell.

Whether a Burmese compound will be of the reducing or nonreducing type can-not be determined phonologically. There is no phonological reason why (60)a ‘reside’must be nè:thàiN, not *n�thàiN, nor why (36)a ‘bug’ must be t��bó:, not *t�áNbó:. In-deed, there seems to be dialectal variation on this point. Okell (1969, 15) reports re-duced t��jè: ‘toddy juice’ from Upper Burma beside nonreduced t�áNjè: from LowerBurma. Instead, the decision between reducing and nonreducing compounds must bemade already in the lexicon, for example by prespecifying pwords in nonreducing com-pounds. Under this analysis, a nonreducing compound like nè:t�àiN is lexically specifiedas containing two pwords, thus /[nè]ω+[t�àiN]ω/, while reducing compounds like t��bó:do not contain prosodic prespecification, thus /t�áN+pó/. And the word for ‘toddy juice’is lexically represented as /t�áN+jè/ in Upper Burmese dialects and /[t�áN]ω+[jè]ω/ inLower Burmese dialects.

Two constraints relevant for this analysis are MAX(ω) (61) and NONRECω (62).

(61) MAX(ω)A pword in the input has a correspondent in the output.

(62) NONRECω (Selkirk 1995, 443)No pword dominates a pword.

In Burmese, MAX(ω) dominates NONRECω, which means that a pword may be recursiveonly in order to avoid deleting a prespecified pword. The result is that reducing com-pounds have no recursivity in the output, while nonreducing compounds do have recur-sivity, as shown in the tableaux in (63)–(64).

22

(63) /t�áN+pó/ MAX(ω) NONRECω

[[t�áN]ω [bó:]ω]ω * !� [t��bó:]ω

(64) /[nè]ω+[t�àiN]ω/ MAX(ω) NONRECω

� [[nè:]ω [t�àiN]ω]ω *[n�t�àiN]ω * !

As for dialectal variation between Upper Burmese and Lower Burmese dialects, this isprobably due to different lexical specifications in the different dialects rather than todifferent constraint ranking. Okell (1969, 15) says, “weakening [i.e. reduction in com-pounding –ADG] is said to be more common in Upper than in Lower Burma” and givesthe t��jè: ~ t�áNjè: ‘toddy juice’ example as an illustration; but to argue that UpperBurmese has the ranking NONRECω » MAX(ω) would be to predict that Upper Burmesenever has nonreduced compounds, which cannot be inferred from Okell’s statement.

4.2 Noncompound polypodic words

In addition to compounds, Burmese has a few superlong words, by which I mean mor-phologically simplex (i.e. not compound) polypodic words. Most but not all of them areloanwords. Some examples are shown in (65).

(65) Superlong words in Burmesea. (t�a�uN)(t�a�:) ‘be anxious’b. (mòuN)(dáiN) ‘storm’c. (thà:)p�(nà:) ‘enshrine’ < Pāli ţhapanād. (bou�)(da�:) ‘Buddha’ < Pāli buddhae. (�à:)(kà:)(θa�:) ‘space, universe’ < Pāli ākāsaf. ��p�(rí:)��(jei�) ‘appreciate’ < Englishg. (t�h��:)k�(lε�) ‘chocolate’ < Englishh. (�ìN)(dìN) ‘engine’ < English

Just as nonreducing compounds are analyzed as having prespecified pwords, these su-perlong words can be analyzed as having prespecified feet: the input of thà:p�nà:, forexample, is /(thà)p�nà/. In order to prevent syllable reduction from applying, we need toassume that a faithfulness constraint MAX(ƒ) (66) outranks ALL-FT-R, as illustrated in(67).

(66) MAX(ƒ)A foot in the input has a correspondent in the output.

(67) /(t�à)p�nà/ MAX(ƒ) ALL-FT-R MAX(Place)[t��p�(nà:)]ω * ! *

� [(t�à:)p�(nà:)]ω σσ

Polypodic words are exceptional in Burmese, and arise only when some prosodic struc

23

ture (pword, foot) is prespecified in the input. Where no prosodic structure is prespeci-fied, Burmese constraint ranking ensures that pwords are monopodic, in accordancewith the more general tendency toward nonbranching prosodic categories in this lan-guage.

5. Conclusions

In this paper I have discussed several aspects of the prosodic structure of Burmese andhave addressed several problems. Both the complementary distribution of diphthongsand mid monophthongs and the fact that placeless � is the only vowel allowed in lightopen syllables are explained by hypothesizing that the Coda Condition in Burmese ap-plies to both vocalic and consonantal place features. Tone is licensed by the foot inBurmese, and the absence of complex onsets from minor syllables is attributable to aconstraint interaction allowing consonant clusters only in foot-initial position. Finally,both pwords and feet can be prespecified in the input, accounting for the contrast be-tween monopodic words (including reducing compounds) and polypodic words (in-cluding nonreducing compounds).

ReferencesAllen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 12. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Aronoff, Mark, and S. N. Sridhar (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or, Atarizing

Reagan. CLS 19.2, 3–16.Benedict, P. K. (1972). Sino-Tibetan: A Conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bennett, J. Fraser, and F. K. Lehman (F. K. L. Chit Hlaing) (1994). Towards an optimality-theoretic ac-

count of Burmese sandhi effects. Paper presented at Southeast Asian Linguistic Society IV.Bernot, Denise (1963). Esquisse d’une description phonologique du birman. Bulletin de la Société de

Linguistique de Paris 58, 164–224.Bernot, Denise (1980). Le prédicat en birman parlé. Langues et civilisations de l’Asie du sud-est et du

monde insulindien 8. Paris: SELAF.Cohn, Abigail C., and John J. McCarthy (1998). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology.

Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 12, 53–137.Duanmu, San (1990). A Formal Study of Syllable, Tone, Stress and Domain in Chinese Languages. Diss.,

MIT.Esche, Annemarie (1976). Wörterbuch Burmesisch–Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Green, Antony Dubach (2002). Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness. In C. Féry & R. van

de Vijver (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.238–253.

Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Henderson, E. J. A. (1952). The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School ofOriental and African Studies 14, 149–174.

Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Diss., Stanford University.Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Diss., UMass–Amherst.Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7, 217–259.Itô, Junko & Armin Mester (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and alignment. In J. Merchant, J. Padgett &

R. Walker (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz III. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, Univer-sity of California. 27–46.

Itô, Junko & Armin Mester (1999). Realignment. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst & W. Zonneveld, TheProsody–Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188–217.

24

Jackson, Kenneth (1953). Language and History in Early Britain: A Chronological Survey of the Brit-tonic Languages, First to Twelfth Century A.D. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Lehman, F. K. (1986). Problems in the syntax of verb concatenation in Burmese. Paper presented to the19th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.

Lehman, F. K. (1993). Some detailed examples of phonemes and their phonetic realizations. Ms., Univer-sity of Illinois.

McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince (1993). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfac-tion. Ms., UMass–Amherst and Rutgers University.

McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. N. Beckman, L.W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of MassachusettsOccasional Papers, vol. 18. Amherst: GLSA, UMass–Amherst. 249–384.

Mehnert, Dieter, and Eberhardt Richter (1972–77). Untersuchungen zur Phonetik und Phonologie desmodernen Burmesischen. Teil 1, Zeitschrift für Phonetik 25, 306–325. Teil 2, ZPhon 26, 675–690. Teil 3, ZPhon 29, 145–166. Teil 4, ZPhon 30, 514–534.

Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. Diss., MIT.Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Odden, David (1995). Tone: African languages. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological

Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 444–475.Okell, John (1969). A Reference Grammar of Colloquial Burmese. 2 vols. London: Oxford University

Press.Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 32.2, 355–398.Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative

Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In M. Aronoff & M.-L.

Kean (eds.), Juncture, 107–129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. N. Beckman, L. Walsh

Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers inOptimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.

Shorto, H. L. (1960). Word and syllable patterns in Palaung. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Afri-can Studies 23, 544–559.

Sproat, Richard (1986). Malayalam compounding: a non-stratum ordered account. WCCFL 5, 268–288.Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Diss., MIT.Thein Tun, U (1982). Some acoustic properties of tones in Burmese. In D. Bradley (ed.), Papers in South-

East Asian Linguistics 8: Tonation. Canberra: Australian National University. 77–116.Trigo, R. Lorenza (1988). On the Phonological Derivation and Behavior of Nasal Glides. Diss., MIT.van de Vijver, Ruben (1998). The Iambic Issue: Iambs as a Result of Constraint Interaction. Diss., Free

University Amsterdam.Wheatley, Julian K. (1987). Burmese. In B. Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. New York:

Oxford University Press. 834–854.Yip, Moira (1980). The Tonal Phonology of Chinese. Diss., MIT. Published New York: Garland Press,

1991.Yip, Moira (1991). Coronals, consonant clusters, and the coda condition. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet

(eds.), The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. San Diego: AcademicPress. 61–78.

Yip, Moira (1995). Tone in East Asian Languages. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonologi-cal Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 476–494.

Zec, Draga (1988). Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Diss., Stanford University. PublishedNew York: Garland Press, 1994.

Zsiga, Elisabeth C. (1992). A mismatch between morphological and prosodic domains: evidence from twoIgbo rules. Phonology 9, 101–135.