摘要：Autosegmentalism invariably represents geminates in a symmetrical one-to-many relationship — as feature bundles or root nodes attached to two structural units: x-slots, moras, or C-slots. This symmetry, however, is often not reflected in their diachronic origin. For instance, in Blevins’ (2008) Type 1 pathway, only the second C of a consonant cluster (CC) ever determines the geminate: C x C y > C y C y , *C x C x (e.g. Latin > Italian). Moreover, although most synchronic processes identify geminates as symmetrical, there is an exception: geminate integrity. Unlike CCs and long vowels (LVs), geminates never ‘break’ by epenthesis: *C y C y > C y VC y . We propose that this is central to understanding the true nature of geminates, and present analyses in two frameworks. The first is ‘control by contiguity’, which uses head-dependent ‘control chains’ (Russo 2013). A control relation applies between a specified and an unspecified position: -C. Inalterability and integrity result from the asymmetry of the geminate’s positions. The second is based on Strict CV. This restricts a geminate’s melody to one of its two skeletal positions. Unlike CC and LVs, geminates do not involve a ‘trapped’ empty V position that could host epenthesis and cause breaking; the difference between LVs and geminates follows from framework-internal forces and suggests that melodic branching always requires licensing. These two approaches share the insight that the representation of geminates is not symmetrical, like that of long vowels.
其他摘要：Autosegmentalism invariably represents geminates in a symmetrical one-to-many relationship — as feature bundles or root nodes attached to two structural units: x-slots, moras, or C-slots. This symmetry, however, is often not reflected in their diachronic origin. For instance, in Blevins’ (2008) Type 1 pathway, only the second C of a consonant cluster (CC) ever determines the geminate: CxCy > CyCy, *CxCx (e.g. Latin > Italian). Moreover, although most synchronic processes identify geminates as symmetrical, there is an exception: geminate integrity. Unlike CCs and long vowels (LVs), geminates never ‘break’ by epenthesis: *CyCy > CyVCy. We propose that this is central to understanding the true nature of geminates, and present analyses in two frameworks. The first is ‘control by contiguity’, which uses head-dependent ‘control chains’ (Russo 2013). A control relation applies between a specified and an unspecified position: -C. Inalterability and integrity result from the asymmetry of the geminate’s positions. The second is based on Strict CV. This restricts a geminate’s melody to one of its two skeletal positions. Unlike CC and LVs, geminates do not involve a ‘trapped’ empty V position that could host epenthesis and cause breaking; the difference between LVs and geminates follows from framework-internal forces and suggests that melodic branching always requires licensing. These two approaches share the insight that the representation of geminates is not symmetrical, like that of long vowels.
