English allows 'strength' (str-ɛŋkθ) as a single syllable. Which structural analysis correctly identifies its components?
AOnset: str-, Nucleus: ɛ, Coda: -ŋkθ — a complex onset and complex coda
BOnset: s-, Nucleus: tr-, Coda: -ɛŋkθ — with liquids as nuclei
COnset: none, Nucleus: strɛŋkθ — English allows vowel-free syllables
DOnset: str-, Nucleus: ɛŋ, Coda: -kθ — the nasal is part of the nucleus
The syllable nucleus is the vowel ɛ; the onset is the initial consonant cluster 'str-' (fricative + stop + liquid, which satisfies the sonority sequencing principle: /s/ < /t/ < /r/ with rising sonority toward the nucleus); the coda is the complex cluster 'ŋkθ' (nasal + stop + fricative). Option D is wrong: nasals are not part of the nucleus — they are consonants that appear in codas or onsets. Option B confuses liquids with vowels; liquids can be syllabic in some contexts but not here. This word demonstrates that English permits maximally complex onsets and codas within phonotactic limits.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Japanese is often described as a CV language — nearly every syllable has the shape consonant-vowel. Using Optimality Theory, what does this tell us about Japanese constraint ranking?
AMAX-IO dominates NOCODA, allowing codas when the input contains them
BNOCODA and ONSET dominate MAX-IO and DEP-IO, so the grammar deletes coda consonants and inserts vowels rather than violating CV structure
CJapanese has no underlying coda consonants, so NOCODA never needs to be ranked
In OT, the output syllable pattern reflects which constraints dominate. Japanese's near-universal CV syllable structure means the grammar strongly prefers no codas (NOCODA is highly ranked) and prefers syllables have onsets (ONSET is highly ranked). When input consonant clusters would create codas, the grammar inserts vowels (epenthesis, violating DEP-IO) or deletes consonants (violating MAX-IO) rather than produce marked coda structures. The high ranking of markedness constraints (NOCODA, ONSET) over faithfulness constraints (MAX-IO, DEP-IO) generates CV-dominant output. Option D has it backwards: high-ranking faithfulness preserves input structure; high-ranking markedness simplifies it.
Question 3 True / False
Phonotactic constraints are just memorized lists of permissible and impermissible sound sequences, with no underlying principle.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Phonotactic patterns follow the sonority sequencing principle: within a syllable, sonority should increase toward the nucleus and decrease away from it. This is not a memorized list but a principled constraint that predicts which clusters are universally preferred, which are marked, and which are prohibited. English allows 'pr-' (stop + liquid, sonority rises: obstruent → liquid → vowel) but not 'rp-' as an onset (sonority would fall: liquid → obstruent → vowel, violating sequencing). The cross-linguistic patterns of cluster permissibility are too systematic and too universally graded to be merely lists — they reflect an underlying hierarchy of sonority that shapes phonotactics across unrelated languages.
Question 4 True / False
Syllabification is a phonetic description of how sounds happen to group in speech, with no independent effect on grammar.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Syllabification is phonologically active — it determines where many grammatical processes apply. English aspiration distinguishes syllable-initial stops ('pit' has aspirated p; 'spit' does not, because /p/ follows /s/ in the same syllable onset) from coda stops. American English flapping turns /t/ and /d/ into a tap, but only when they are syllable-initial (intervocalic /t/ in 'butter' = [bʌɾər] because the /t/ is ambisyllabic or syllable-initial in the second syllable). Stress systems refer to syllable weight. Reduplication in many languages copies exactly one syllable. None of these patterns can be stated correctly without reference to syllable boundaries — syllabification is a grammatical input, not a phonetic output.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does the sonority sequencing principle predict which consonant clusters are permissible as syllable onsets? Give an example where it explains a contrast between two clusters.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The sonority sequencing principle requires that sonority increase monotonically from the onset edge toward the nucleus. This predicts that a cluster like 'pr-' (obstruent < liquid < vowel, rising) is a well-formed onset while 'rp-' is not (liquid > obstruent, falling — sonority decreases before the nucleus). The principle thus derives phonotactic contrasts from a single sonority scale (obstruents < nasals < liquids < glides < vowels) rather than requiring separate stipulations for each disallowed cluster. It also explains why violations are gradient: clusters that violate sequencing more severely are more universally prohibited, while mild violations may be tolerated in some languages.
The sonority hierarchy captures a cross-linguistic regularity: sounds higher on the sonority scale (vowels, glides) are better nuclei and worse onset edges, while sounds lower on the scale (stops, fricatives) are better onset edges and worse nuclei. The sequencing principle emerges from this: a well-formed syllable has a sonority profile that peaks at the nucleus. Cross-linguistic variation in phonotactics reflects different thresholds for how steeply sonority must rise — some languages tolerate 'flat' rises (like /sn-/) while others require steeper gradients.