RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH

TRUNCATION

ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE

Fairfield University
agrausempere@[Link]

Resumen Abstract
Se sabe que la palabra mínima en español It is well known that the minimal size of a
contiene una sola sílaba que domina a dos content word in Spanish is bimoraic monosyl-
moras. También se ha demostrado que el pie lable. It is also well established that the mini-
métrico mínimo en español es monosilábico mal size of a Spanish foot is also a monosylla-
bimoraico. Así, este estudio sostiene que el ble, as long as it is bimoraic. Accordingly, this
tamaño mínimo de los truncamientos en es- study defends that the shape of Spanish trun-
pañol es igualmente monosílabico bimoraico y cated words is minimally a bimoraic single
ofrece un análisis basado en la Teoría de la syllable as well, and offers an optimality theo-
Optimidad retical analysis of the data

PALABRAS CLAVE: truncamientos, espa- KEY WORDS: truncation, Spanish, mini-

ñol, palabra mínima, pie mínimo, Teoría de la mal word, minimal foot, Optimality Theory.
Optimidad.

1. Moraic minimal word in Spanish

It is well proven that Spanish requires the smallest word to contain no fewer than
two moras: rés ‘head of cattle’, pán ‘bread’, séd ‘thirst’, cán ‘dog’1. In optimality theoreti-
cal terms, FOOTMINσ is dominated by PRWD-TO-FT2.

1
Examples follow Spanish spelling conventions, except stressed syllables, which are always marked
with a stress mark over the vocalic nucleus ‘á,’ regardless of spelling.
2
In Optimality Theory (henceforth OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993), unlike other earlier develop-
ments in Generative Phonology, there are no rules or derivations. The right output is obtained
through the interaction of different components or functions of the grammar: The function
GEN(erator) generates for every possible linguistic entry e, the group of possible linguistic analyses or
candidates (A, B, C…). Furthermore, the function EVAL(autor) evaluates the candidates through a
ranking of constraints. The grammar of every language is one possible ordering of the same universal
set of constraints, or CON. There are two kinds of OT constraints, markedness constraints, which
penalize a certain type of surface structure; and faithfulness constraints, which preserve input-output

ELUA, 27, 2013, págs. 121-143

122 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

(1) PRWD-TO-FT » FOOTMINσ

a. PRWD-TO-FT (a. k. a. Rooting, Hammond, 1997: 44): a Prosodic Word must
dominate at least a foot. (One * per footless PrWds).
b. FOOTMINσ: feet are minimally disyllabic. (One * per monomoraic feet).
(2) PRWD-TO-FT » FOOTMINσ

Input: res PRWD-TO-FT FOOTMINΣ

a. (rés) *
b. rés *!

Stressed monomoraic examples exist, but are restricted to the following categories
(based on Dunlap, 1991: 75):
(3) Spanish monosyllabic monomoraic words
a. Functional words: á ‘to’
dé ‘of’
b. Interjections: jó ‘whoa!’
tá ‘beware’
c. Onomatopoeia: cló ‘cluck’
d. Irregular verbs: dá ‘(s)he gives’, imperative ‘give’
dí ‘I gave’, imperative ‘say’
vé ‘(s)e sees’, imperative ‘go’
ví ‘I saw’
vá ‘(s)he goes’
sé ‘I know’, imperative ‘be’
e. Personal pronouns yó ‘I’
tú ‘you’
f. Other words: fé ‘faith’
té ‘tea’
pré ‘soldier’s daily pay’
gró ‘grogram’
pró ‘profit’

or base-truncated form identity. Graphically, OT uses evaluation tableaux. Input and the set of candi-
dates are located at the leftmost vertical column. Constraints are in the top horizontal line divided by a
solid line to represent domination. Violations are marked with an asterisk ‘*’. Fatal violations are
marked with ‘!’. The winner candidate is marked with ‘ ’. Shadowed boxes indicate the evaluation is
irrelevant since the winner has previously been decided.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 123

Examples in subsections a-c are non-lexical words and are not subject to minimal
word requirements. Only a small number of imperatives and other non-verbs are truly
exceptional. According to Dunlap (1991: 75), a search of approximately 70,500 words
only yielded a handful of truly monosyllabic monomoraic words and shortenings (gró,
pró) in subsection f. In conclusion, despite the existence of a few counterexamples, the
hypothesis that the minimal content word in Spanish is bimoraic is solid.
The minimal word in the world’s languages is usually a foot (Kager, 1999: 144, but
see Crowhurst, 1991/2). Accordingly, it has been proposed for Spanish that the minimal
word is a bimoraic monosyllable (among others, Dunlap, 1994). However, as seen abo-
ve, monomoraic minimal content words are possible in Spanish. Any monosyllabic
content word forms a foot, and consequently a PrWd, regardless of its weight.
The hypothesis that all Spanish content words are stressed implies that even light
monosyllabic prosodic words build a foot. The claim this study supports is that this
behavior is the result of PRWD-TO-FT, and MAX and DEP constraints outranking
FOOTMINμ.
(4) PRWD-TO-FT » FOOTMINμ
FOOTMINμ: feet are minimally bimoraic. (One * per monomoraic feet)
A monomoraic word like Spanish té is put under the scrutiny of the previous ran-
king.
(5) PRWD-TO-FT » FOOTMINμ

Input: te PRWD-TO-FT FOOTMINΜ

a. (téμ) *
b. téμ *!

Spanish offers no evidence of vowel lengthening to satisfy minimal word require-

ments as in Italian (D’Imperio and Rosenthall, 1999). A highly ranked constraint such
as NOLONGVOWELS would eliminate surface sub optimal long vowels in this language.
The next ranking is responsible for this pattern.
(6) NOLONGVOWELS » FOOTMINμ
NOLONGVOWELS (Rossenthall, 1994: 15): vowels are only dominated by one
mora. (One * per long vowel).
We can see the effects of the previous ranking in the next tableau.
124 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

(7) NOLONGVOWELS » FOOTMINμ

Input: te NOLONGVOWELS FOOTMINμ

a. (téμ) *
b. téμμ *!

Dep constraints penalizing segmental epenthesis are also needed to account for can-
didates that add an additional syllable to comply with FOOTMINσ. DEP IO V disallows
the addition of vowels, while Dep IO C does not tolerate the epenthesis of consonants.
These constraints crucially dominate FOOTMINσ and FOOTMINμ.
(8) DEP IO C, DEP IO V » FOOTMINμ
a. DEP IO C: output consonants must have input correspondents. (One * per
every output consonant without an input correspondent).
b. DEP IO V: output vowels must have input correspondents. (One * per every
output vowel without an input correspondent).
(9) DEP IO C, DEP IO V » FOOTMINΣ, FOOTMINμ

Input: te DEP IO C DEP IO V FOOTMINμ

a. (té) *
b. (tée) e!
c. (téte) t! e!

The next section explores Spanish main stress assignment in non-verbs and conclu-
des that Spanish also accepts monosyllabic bimoraic feet.

2. Moraic minimal foot in Spanish regular non-verbal main stress assignment

According to the principles of regular non-verbal stress assignment accepted by

many linguists, summarized below, the minimal foot in Spanish is bimoraic3.
(10) Spanish regular non-verbal stress assignment
a. Final heavy syllables form a monosyllabic bimoraic foot, i.e., me(lón)Ft ‘melon’,
pen(dón)Ft ‘slut’

3
Among others, Harris (1983, 1992, 1995); Den Os and Kager (1986); Dunlap (1991); Morales Front
(1994); Rosenthall (1994); D’Introno et al (1995); Eddington (2000); Piñeros (2001); Bárkányi (2002a,
b); Alvord (2003); Face (2004).
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 125

b. Final light syllables form a disyllabic trochaic foot with the preceding syllable,
i.e., pre(sénte)Ft ‘present’, computa(dóra)Ft ‘computer’
c. According to the previous generalizations the possible regular feet in Spanish
are (σ L) and (H), where σ stands for any stressed syllable, regardless of weight, L
for a light syllable and H for a heavy syllable.
The OT formalization of the previous generalizations requires FOOTMINσ be ou-
tranked. First, the ranking of TROCHEE and FOOTMINμ over FOOTMINσ ensures the
emergence of a monosyllabic bimoraic candidate, even if it violates syllable binarity.
(11) TROCHEE, FOOTMINμ » FOOTMINσ
TROCHEE(a. k. a. RHTYPE = T, Kager, 1999: 172): feet have initial prominence.
(One * for every iambic foot).
(12) TROCHEE, FOOTMINμ » FOOTMINσ

Input: melón TROCHEE FOOTMINμ FOOTMINσ

a. me(lón) *
b. (melón) *!
c. (me)lón *!

The candidate c (mé)lon would also be ruled out by highly ranked WSP and AFR.
AFR prevents a heavy penultimate syllable to form a monosyllabic foot, whereas the
action of both constraints guarantees a heavy stressed ultimate or penultimate syllable.
(13) WSP, AFR » FOOTMINσ
a. WSP: (Kager 1999: 155): heavy syllables are stressed. (One * for every heavy
unstressed syllable).
b. AFR (ALIGN (FOOT, RIGHT, PRWD, RIGHT), Kager, 1999: 163): every foot
stands at the right edge of the PrWd. (One * per segment between the right edge
of a foot and the right edge of the PrWd
(14) WSP, AFR » FOOTMINσ

Input: presente WSP AFR FOOTMINσ

a. pre(sénte)
b. presen(té) *! *
c. pre(sén)te t!e *

(15) WSP, AFR » FOOTMINσ

Input: pedón WSP AFR FOOTMINσ

a. pen(dón) *
126 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

b. (pen)dón *! d!on *
c. (pendón) *! e!

The next section outlines some Spanish productive truncatory patterns and conclu-
des that the shape of Spanish truncated words is minimally bimoraic, the size of the
minimal word/foot in the same language4.

3. Major Spanish truncatory patterns

Truncation is the process in which a source word or base, usually a noun or adjecti-
ve, is shortened not in an arbitrary way, but to conform to a process specific shape tar-
get. In Spanish we find truncation patterns where segmental material from the edges of
some prosodic words is removed, producing typically disyllabic paroxytone truncated
words, as in, (Trunc. = Truncated form, …= at least one syllable)5. In this study, trunca-
ted words that omit segmental material from the right and left edges of a base word will
be referred to as Type A and B respectively, as seen in examples a-b below.6
(16) Truncation patterns

Type A Type B
Base a. [σ σ … ] b. [… σ σ ]

Trunc. σ σ σ σ
Examples
Base a. Ra fa él b. Ma no lí ta

Trunc. Rá fa Lí ta

4
This pattern seems to coincide with Spanish ancestor Latin. According to the data in Biville (1989),
Latin truncated hypocoristics are normally two syllables long, e.g., Áphro < Aphrodíta. However, the
few monosyllabic nicknames attested are bimoraic, e.g., Pól < Poledépol.
5
See Feliu (2001) for a trisyllabic truncation pattern.
It is unusual, but we can find a handful of examples of Spanish truncated hypocoristics that omit
segmental material from both edges: Elizabéth > Líz, Fernándo > Nán, Hipólito > Póli, Pólo. The mi-
nimal size of these examples seems to be bimoraic.
6
Segmental changes in the syllabic onset are not dealt with in this study since they do not affect sylla-
bic weight.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 127

3.1. Type A

The majority of Type A truncated words are disyllabic. Canonical penultimate stress
is displayed in the abbreviated form. Examples of hypocoristics include Rafaél > Ráfa,
Alejándro > Álex, Javiér > Jávi, Francísco > Fráncis. This process occurs in common
nouns such as bicicléta > bíci ‘bicycle’, profesór > prófe ‘professor’, motocicléta > móto
‘motorcycle’, película > péli ‘film’, or in the adjective divertído > díver ‘fun’.
The second major Type A truncation pattern found in Spanish coincides with its
Type B counterpart and includes monosyllabic bimoraic truncated words, which nor-
mally keep the leftmost edge of their source. The study of the Spanish hypocoristic data
found in Boyd Bowman (1955), van Wijk (1964), Urawa (1985), Hoffman (1969), Cos-
tenla Umaña (1982), Casado Velarde (1984, 1999), Albaigés Olivart (1984, 1995), Fajar-
do (1990), Hamans (1996) and Roca & Felíu (2003a) brings into light too many exam-
ples to ignore
(17) Type A monosyllabic bimoraic examples

Albérto > Ál Cristína > Crís Fermína > Fér Gustávo > Gús Orlándo > Ór
Alfónso > Ál Crístina > Críst Fernándo > Fér Jórge > Jór Paulína > Páu
Artúro > Ár Cristóbal > Crís Francísca > Frán Nélson > Nél Raymúndo > Ráy
Bárbara > Bár Édgar > Éd Francísco > Frán Norbérto > Nór
Costánza > Cós Eugénia > Éu Gilbérto > Gíl Norbérto > Nóy

There seems to be a difference between the creation of truncated hypocoristics and

the truncation of common nouns, in which monosyllabic truncated forms are very unu-
sual. Some exceptions, which may receive a morphological explanation, are: exmarido
‘ex-husband’ / exmujer ‘ex-wife’ / exnovio, -a ‘ex-boyfriend’, ‘ex-girlfriend’ > ex. Other
examples are: propagánda > próp ‘propaganda’, publicidád > púb ‘commercial break’.
Spanish generally disfavors Type A monosyllabic truncated words ending in a vowel.
Examples are scarce; the study of the Latin American and Spanish hypocoristic data in
Boyd Bowman (1955), van Wijk (1964), Urawa (1985), Hoffman (1969), Costenla
Umaña (1982), Casado Velarde (1984, 1999), Albaigés Olivert (1984, 1995) Fajardo
(1990), Hamans (1996) and Roca & Felíu (2003a) only yields a handful of examples: Clé
< Clementína, Dí < Diána, Fló < Florencio, -a, Sú < Susána, Ró > Rocío, Pe < Penélope.
This asymmetry (bimoraic but not monomoraic monosyllabic truncated words are
possible) supported by the observation of the data so far, suggests that only truncated
words that adhere to the minimal bimoraic word-size requirement are possible.
128 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

3.2. Type B

In Type B truncated words, the stressed syllable of the base and the final unstressed
syllable, in paroxytone base words, are kept. In other words, according to the principles
of regular non-verbal stress assignment previously outlined, Type B truncated words
discard material not contained within the main stressed foot.
In the following chart, example a displays paroxytone-based Type B truncation,
whereas example b exhibits the truncation of a monosyllabic foot in oxytone base
words.
(18) Spanish Type B truncation

Base a. [… ( σ L )Ft ] b. [… ( H )Ft ]

Trunc. ( σ L )Ft ( H )Ft

Examples
Base a. Fe ( lí pe )Ft b. Je ( sús )Ft

Trunc. ( Lí pe )Ft ( Sús )Ft

There is dialectal variation in truncated hypocoristics obtained from bases with an

oxytone stress. Peninsular Spanish generally retains the last stressed closed syllable of
the base in the truncated form. The stressed syllable in the truncated word matches the
stressed syllable in the base in all dialects. On the other hand, some Latin American
Spanish dialects may add an epenthetic gender marking ending (-o or -a), as seen in
below, to some truncated hypocoristics formed from oxytone bases ending in a conso-
nant7.
(19) Latin American Spanish
Model Example
Base a. [… ( H )Ft ] b. I… ( nés )Ft
]

Trunc. ( L L )Ft ( Né cha )Ft

<o, a>

7
It must be noticed that all these hypocoristics are attested in Peninsular Spanish as well
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 129

The addition of an extra vowel affects the prosodic structure of the truncated form
by adding an extra syllable that is not present in the source. More examples of this pat-
tern are the following: Joaquín > Quíno, Isabél > Béla, Valentín > Tíno, Jesús > Súso,
Ramón > Móncho.
Piñeros (2002) notes this variation among Spanish dialects regarding monosyllabic
Type B truncated words and proposes the use of two optimality theoretical coda condi-
tion constraints (CODACOND), a “strict” version that bans any coda with any point of
articulation and a “relaxed” version, which allows coronal codas to surface. Piñeros
suggests that the dialects in which the strict version of CODACOND dominates, an
epenthetic vowel is inserted, thus forming a disyllabic truncated word (Tín<o>). Con-
versely, in the dialects that allow monosyllabic truncated words, the relaxed
CODACOND constraint prevails.
Roca and Felíu (2003a, 2003b) reject Piñeros’ phonological analysis and the use of
relaxed CODACOND constraint for different reasons. First, the constraint is ad-hoc,
motivated only to take care of the epenthetic vowel in truncates. Second, Piñeros’ analy-
sis does not explain cases in which the final vowel changes: Matílde > Tíla, Silvéstre >
Véto. The same authors claim morphology plays a decisive role in the shaping of Spa-
nish truncated words. First, the usual epenthetic vowel in Spanish is e. Second, the se-
lected epenthetic vowel seems to coincide with the masculine or feminine gender desin-
ence: a for feminine names and o for masculine names. For instance, considering the
examples seen above, Joaquín > Quíno are male names and Isabél > Béla are feminine
names. Therefore, the masculine desinence –o is assigned to the former and the femini-
ne desinence –a is asigned to the latter. According to Felíu and Roca, the desinences are
not present in the base form since they are lexically marked desinenceless.
More Type B examples displaying paroxytone stress include the following: Ernestína
> Tína, Enriquéta > Quéta, Manolíta > Líta, Teodóra > Dóra. On the other hand, there
are a considerable number of oxytone-based Type B truncation examples:
(20) Type B monosyllabic bimoraic examples

Abigáil > Gáil Concepción > Chón Froilán > Lán Manuél > Mél Samuél > Mél
Agustín > Tín Daniél > Nél Hernán > Nán Martín > Tín Sebastián > Tán
Anáis > Náis Delfín > Fín Inés > Nésh Moisés > Chés Sebastián> Tián
Ascensión > Chón Efraín > Pín Isabél > Bél Montserrát > Rát Senén > Nén
Asunción > Chón Efrén > Frén Ismaél > Mél Omár > Már Tomás > Más
Babét > Bét Elisabét > Bét Jesús > Chús Pantaleón > Lón Valentín >Tín
Beatríz > Tíz Encarnación > Chón Joaquín > Quín Rafaél > Fáy
130 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

Beatríz > Tísh Estér > Téy Leonór > Nóy Ramón > Món
Benjamín > Mín Fermín > Mín Marilín > Lín Salomón > Món

Notice that all the previous examples are hypocoristics. There are very few examples
of Type B truncated common nouns attested: autobús > bús ‘bus’, compañéro > néro
‘mate’, chiquíllo, -a > quíllo, -a ‘boy/girl.

3.3. OT analysis

The following chart displays a summary of the Spanish truncatory patterns discus-
sed in the previous section:
(21) Spanish truncatory processes and shapes

Type A Type B
Disyllabic Fernándo > Férnan Enriquéta > Quéta
Monosyllabic
a. Bimoraic Fernándo > Fér Valentín > Tín
b. Monomoraic __ __

Type A truncated words yield both monosyllabic and disyllabic truncated results
(e.g., Frán < Francísco, Ráfa < Rafaél). The minimal word/foot size requirements play
the role of allowing both types of feet to surface. The stressed syllable invariantly con-
forms to the trochaic pattern. This analysis explains why closed but not open syllables
can constitute a truncated word in Spanish. The size of an open monomoraic syllable
does not adhere to the minimal word, and foot, requirements, which is the reason why
it almost never surfaces.
(22) Spanish Type A truncation

Base Form
a. Monosyllabic (bimoraic) truncated form: Fér *Fé
Fernándo
b. Disyllabic truncated form: Férnan

As supported previously, oxytone words ending in a heavy syllable form a monosy-

llabic bimoraic foot, whereas a final light syllable forms a disyllabic trochaic foot with
the previous syllable. Therefore, Type B hypocoristics such as Nór < Leo (nór)Ft and
disyllabic Type B forms, e.g., Tína <Ernes (tína)Ft, also truncate the main foot of the
source, conforming to the original trochaic pattern (Piñeros, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002).
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 131

(23) Spanish Type B truncation

Base Form Main foot Type B Truncated form

a. Final bimoraic syllable Leo (nór)Ft Nór
b. Final monomoraic syllable Ernes (tína)Ft Tína

This model just outlined differs from other studies. Before the work of Piñeros
(1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002) there was consensus among the different linguists who ana-
lyzed Spanish truncatory morphology. They all agreed in considering that the template
to which Spanish truncated words conform was disyllabic. Weeda (1992) analyzed
Types A and B truncated forms in Costa Rican Spanish and concludes that their tem-
plate is a syllabic trochee. Prieto i vives (1992) and Lipski (1995) offered a templatic
analysis that relied on prosodic circumscription (McCarthy and Prince 1990, 1993,
1995a, Lombardi and McCarthy 1991) and templatic morphology to account for the
data. Colina (1996), based on Prieto i Vives’ (1992) Type A data also supports a disylla-
bic trochaic template and analyze the data from an optimality theoretic standpoint.
On the other hand, Piñeros (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002) support a trochaic (bimoraic
or disyllabic) template and analyze the data from an optimality theoretic standpoint.
For instance, Piñeros (2002) offers an optimality theoretic analysis of mainly Type B
truncatory process in Spanish that relies on the ranking of different constraints to ob-
tain binary trochaic truncated words. For his analysis, Piñeros (2002) follows Benua
(1995) in applying some truncation-specific correspondence constraints. In Piñeros’
(2002) analysis, the undominated hierarchy FOOTBIN, PARSE-σALIGN-FT-R (also known
as RESTRICTOR, responsible for delimiting or “restricting” the size of the prosodic word,
McCarthy and Prince 1995) is responsible for a prosodic word of exactly two syllables
or two moras long in Spanish. On the other hand, foot-sensitive Type B truncation is
treated in a different manner. Piñeros assumes a constraint MAX FT BT that in the out-
put form preserves the integrity of the foot already present in the base.
The effects of the Restrictor hierarchy, FOOTBIN, PARSE-σ, ALIGN-FT-R, are exempli-
fied next with the input bicicléta ‘bicycle’ and its Type A truncated word bíci8.
(24) Restrictor constraints (Piñeros, 2002: 442)
a. FOOTBIN (PIE-BINARIO in Piñeros’ article): metrical feet are binary at a mo-
raic or syllabic analysis.

8
This ranking exemplifies the effects of RESTRICTOR constraints only. Any disyllabic candidate would
win. Further analyses are needed to obtain the right optimal candidate.
132 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

b. PARSE-σ (AFILIAR-σ): syllables are parsed into feet.

c. ALIGN-FT-R (ALINEAR(PIE)): the right edge of a foot coincides with the right
edge of a prosodic word.
(25) FOOTBIN, PARSE-σ, ALIGN-FT-R (Piñeros 2002: 442)

Base: bicicleta FOOTBIN PARSE-σ ALIGN-FT-R

a. (bici) (cleta) (bici)!
b. (bi) (ciclé) bi!
c. (bíci)
d. (bi) *!

The only possible prosodic word resulting from the RESTRICTOR filter is, then, disy-
llabic or bimoraic. ALIGN-FT-R rejects candidates consisting of more than one foot,
Parse-σ filters out candidates with unparsed material and FOOTBIN is responsible for
eliminating candidates with feet that are too small or too big. The winning candidate is
obtained at the cost of violating MAX BT SEG, as some segmental material from the base
is erased after truncation takes place. For this reason, Piñeros states that truncation
needs MAX BT SEG to be outranked by RESTRICTOR (citing Benua, 1995). As expected
by the previous ranking, the analysis of bases starting with a heavy syllable adequately
predicts the emergence of either a monosyllabic bimoraic or a disyllabic truncate.
(26) FOOTBIN, PARSE-σ, ALIGN-FT-R (Piñeros, 2002: 442)

Base: Raymúndo FOOTBIN PARSE-σ ALIGN-FT-R

a. (Ray) (múndo) (múndo)!
b. Ray (múndo) Ray!
c. (Ráy)
d. (Ráymun)

In addition, Piñeros notes that the observation that all truncated words are trochaic
implies that the Trochee constraint is undominated.
(27) Additional constraints in Piñeros’ (2002) analysis
a. MAX BT SEG (MAX): every segment in the (B)ase has a correspondent in the
(T)runcated form
b. TROCHEE (TROQUEO): every foot is left prominent
The resulting ranking TROCHEE, RESTRICTOR » MAX BT SEG is put to the test in the
following tableau with an input colégio ‘school’ and its Type A truncated word cóle.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 133

(28) TROCHEE, RESTRICTOR » MAX BT SEG (Piñeros, 2002: 443)

Base: colégio TROCHEE RESTRICTOR MAX BT SEG

a. co(légio) co! (PARSE-σ)
b. (cóle) gio
c. (colé) *! gio
d. (có) *! legio

In accord with the ranking in, the resulting prosodic word is a moraic syllabic
TROCHEE. Trochee rejects disyllabic candidate c. However, when analyzing bases with a
heavy initial syllable, the previous ranking does inadequately predict the emergence of
only a disyllabic candidate. MAX BT Seg imposes a preference for longer truncates, thus
disallowing monosyllabic attested truncated words such as Ráy, as seen in the following
tableau.
(29) TROCHEE, RESTRICTOR » MAX BT SEG (Piñeros, 2002: 443)

Base: Raymúndo TROCHEE RESTRICTOR MAX BT SEG

a. (Ray) mun do!
b. (Ráymun) do
c. (Raymún) *! do

The analysis proposed in this essay attempts to correct Piñeros’ inadequacy just out-
lined above. In addition, it provides a coherent OT formalization of the data, including
word minimality and stress assignment. As previously explored, this study supports the
hypothesis that the minimal size of not only the foot and the word, but also the trun-
cated word is bimoraic. An OT formalization in line with the previous analyses on word
minimality and stress assignment occupies the rest of this section.
The ranking of ALL FEET LEFT (AFL) and ALL FEET RIGHT (AFR) over MAX BT Seg
determines the preference for hypocoristics to form only one foot, as seen in the next
tableau. The winning truncated candidate necessarily violates MAX BT SEG.
(30) AFR, AFL » MAX BT SEG
a. AFR (ALIGN (FOOT, RIGHT, PRWD, RIGHT), Kager, 1999: 163): every foot
stands at the right edge of the PrWd. (One * per segment between the right edge
of a foot and the right edge of the PrWd).
b. AFL (ALIGN (FOOT, LEFT, PRWD, LEFT), Kager, 1999: 163): every foot stands
at the left edge of the PrWd. (One * per segment between the left edge of a foot
and the left edge of the PrWd).
134 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

c. MAX BT SEG (Benua, 1995: 80): every segment in the base has a correspondent
in the truncated form. (One * per deleted element).
(31) AFR, AFL » MAX BT SEG

Base: Enriqueta AFR AFL MAX BT SEG

a. (Queta) en ri
b. Enri (quéta) en!ri
c. (Enri) (quéta) que!ta en!ri

The previous ranking partially establishes the preference for Spanish truncated
forms to form a single foot, eliminating unparsed syllables or secondary feet, at the cost
of minimally violating BT Maximality. Furthermore, MAX BT SEG is ranked below
FOOTMAXμ to prevent the surfacing of a candidate that forms a long foot, as in the next
tableau.
(32) FOOTMAXμ: feet are maximally bimoraic. (One * for every mora in excess of
two in a foot).
(33) FOOTMAXμ » MAX BT SEG

Base: Enriqueta FOOTMAXμ MAX BT SEG

a. (Queta) en ri
b. (Enriquéta) *!**
c. (Riquéta) *! en

Type B hypocoristics discard the segmental material to the left of the main foot of
the base. This generality is partially captured by highly ranked HEADMATCH, which
preserves the head of the main foot from the base in the truncated form, over MAX BT
SEG.
(34) HEADMATCH » MAX BT SEG
HEADMATCH (McCarthy, 2000: 183): if α is in H’ (PrWd) and α ℜ β, then β is in
H’ (PrWd). (One * for every segment between the head of PrWd in B and the
head of PrWd in T)

HEADMATCH ensures the head of the base form is the same in the truncated form, as
in the next tableau.9

9
An additional candidate *Riqué, which adheres to HEADMATCH, is banned by highly ranked
TROCHEE.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 135

(35) HEADMATCH » MAX BT SEG

Base: Enriqueta FOOTMAXμ MAX BT SEG

a. Queta en ri
b. Ríque qu!e en
c. Énri n!rique que

Type B nicknames ending in a heavy stressed syllable only keep the stressed mono-
syllabic foot from the base form, thus violating FOOTMINσ, e.g., Tín < Valentín. A pos-
sible candidate Léntin, which respects foot binarity without having to epenthesize any
segments, is banned by HEADMATCH.
(36) HEADMATCH » FOOTMINσ

Base: Valentín HEADMATCH FOOTMINσ

a. Tín *
b. Léntin !*

In addition to this ranking, TROCHEE » IAMB prevents disyllabic iambic hypocoris-

tics from appearing, e.g., *Lentín. Given the results of the previous rankings, no seg-
ments to the left of the stressed syllable in the base are maintained in the Type B trunca-
ted form in Spanish.
Type B nicknames ending in a heavy stressed syllable do not keep only the rightmost
foot in some Latin American Spanish dialects, as candidate b shows in the tableau be-
low. Instead, some segmental material is epenthesized to comply with foot syllable mi-
nimalism.
(37) DEP BT SEG: (Benua, 1995: 80): every segment in the truncated form has a cor-
respondent in the base. (One * for each epenthetic segment).
(38) FOOTMINσ » DEP BT SEG

Base: Valentín FOOTMINσ DEP BT SEG

a. Tíno o
b. Tín !*

On the other hand, for Spanish dialects that do not need to epenthesize any seg-
ments to comply with syllable minimalism DEP BT SEG outranks FOOTMINσ, allowing a
monosyllabic bimoraic nickname.
136 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

(39) DEP BT SEG » FOOTMINσ

Base: Valentín DEP BT SEG FOOTMINσ
a. Tín *
b. Tíno o!

ALIGN HEAD RIGHT and FOOTMINσ are not strictly ranked with one another; in so-
me instances, ALIGN HEAD RIGHT dominates FOOTMINσ producing monosyllabic re-
sults and in other cases, the ranking is reversed, yielding the more productive foot sen-
sitive results, contradicting the OT principle of strict domination. Strict domination is
one of the main principles in OT, which states that a constraint C1 can be ranked with
another constraint C2 in two ways: either C1 » C2 or C2 » C1. C2, C1 occurs when no
empirical data supports either ranking.
The issue of variation has not been dealt with satisfactorily in OT. Different approa-
ches have been put forward within OT to answer to variation. One way to analyze varia-
tion in OT is to posit co-phonologies (among others, Inkelas and Orgun, 1995), or diffe-
rent constraint rerankings within one grammar, where each co-phonology selects a
different output.
(40) Co-phonologies

Co-phonology 1 Output 1
Input

Co-phonology 2 Output 2

According to Kager (1999: 405), this approach has the disadvantage of predicting
that each co-phonology is independent from one another, allowing co-phonologies to
produce very different outputs. Kager concludes that this prediction is inadequate as
candidates in variation are usually similar.
Free ranking of constraints (Anttila, 1997, Anttila and Cho, 1998) is another solu-
tion to variation in OT. When two constraints are freely ranked, the evaluation branches
in two directions: in one branch, C1 » C2 and in the other branch, C2 » C1. Kager
(1999: 406) offers a formal definition of free ranking, copied here:
(41) Interpretation of free ranking of constraints C1, C2
Evaluation of the candidate set is split into two subhierarchies, each of which se-
lects an optimal output. One subhierarchy has C1 » C2 and the other C2 » C1.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 137

The principle of strict domination is preserved under free ranking in each subhie-
rarchy. On the other hand, Kager (1999: 407) notes that the main disadvantage of free
ranking is that it is not clear whether free ranking grammars are learnable or not.
Back to truncation, the same constraint ranking responsible for Type B truncates is
active in Type A.
(42) AFR AFL » MAX BT SEG

Base: Saturníno AFR AFL MAX BT SEG

a. Sátur nino
b. (Sátur) nino ni!no
c. (Sátur) (nino) ni!no sa!tur

As in Type B, Type A truncated forms only build one foot due to the action of highly
ranked constraints AFR/L over MAX BT SEG. Unparsed syllables or additional feet are
not allowed. The winning candidate a minimally violates MAX BT SEG. Another coinci-
dent ranking is FOOTMAXμ » MAX BT Segwhich avoids the surfacing of long footed
words such as *(Saturníno) complying with MAX BT SEG. Additionally, the ranking
TROCHEE » Iamb is active to ensure the occurrence of trochaic feet.
Highly ranked anchoring constraints are crucial for Type A truncation. ANCHOR BT
Ldominates ANCHOR BT R to preserve the left edge of the base form, as shown in the
tableau below.
(43) ANCHOR BT R » ANCHOR BT L
ANCHOR BT R/L (McCarthy and Prince, 1995: 123): Any element at the
right/left periphery of B has a correspondent at the right/left periphery of T.
(One * per any epenthesized or erased segment).
(44) Anchor BT L » Anchor BT R

Base: Saturníno ANCHOR BT L ANCHOR BT R

a. Sátur nino
b. Níno s!atur
c. Túrni s!a

The previous ranking allows truncated forms to keep the segmental material to the
left edge of the prosodic word.
Contrary to Type B truncated words, the winning candidate in the previous ta-
bleaux, Sátur, forms a disyllabic foot that does not preserve the right-aligned stress in
138 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

the base form. For this reason, highly ranked HEADMATCH is outranked by TROCHEE
and ANCHOR BT L, as in the tableau below.
(45) ANCHOR BT L, TROCHEE » HEADMATCH
The following tableau exemplifies the effects of this ranking.
(46) ANCHOR BT L, TROCHEE » HEADMATCH

Base: Saturníno ANCHOR BT L TROCHEE HEADMATCH

a. Sátur tur
b. Saní *!
c. Turní s!a *!

Candidate b conforms to ANCHOR BT L by keeping the first syllable of the base and
to HEADMATCH by adding the head in the base. However, the result is an iambic foot,
penalized by Trochee.
The optimal candidate Sátur departs from Type A stress assignment and Type B
truncation by not complying with highly ranked WSP, a constraint that does not allow
unstressed heavy syllables. In Type A truncation, as the result of TETU, respecting the
syllable constituency of the base prevails over general foot-wellformedness considera-
tions10. To account for this behavior, this study proposes a constraint WT-IDENT BT σ,
modified from Wt-Ident BT, previously described in Kager (1999), which penalizes
shortening or lengthening of vowels from input to output and also applies to syllables,
preventing BT syllable shortening, e.g., Sátur > *Sátu, to observe WSP.
(47) WT-IDENT BT σ » WSP
WT-IDENT BT σ (modified from Kager, 1999: 269): if α ∈ Domain (f); If α is
monomoraic, then f(α) is monomoraic; If α is bimoraic, then f(α) is bimoraic.
(One * for every shortened or lengthened syllable in the truncated form).
The next tableau displays the effects of the previous ranking and establishes the pre-
ference for a nickname Sátur, even if it disobeys WSP.

10
Nevertheless, notice that Spanish present unpredictable variation in truncated forms ending in a
consonant. These final consonants are optional in some Spanish forms, e.g., Spanish Ródol ~ Ródo <
Rodólfo. Final consonants are either left behind, as in Máti < Matílde, or they are obligatorily present,
e.g., Róber < Robérto. This unpredictability may be the result of the free ranking of WT-IDENT BT σ
and WSP.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 139

(48) WT-IDENT BT σ » WSP

Base: Saturníno WT-IDENT BT σ WSP

a. Sátur *
b. Sátu *!

To account for Spanish monosyllabic bimoraic Type A truncatory pattern, the cons-
traint Align Head Right is freely ranked with FOOTMINσ, as in the next tableau.
(49) ALIGN HEAD RIGHT (ALIGN (HEAD, RIGHT, PRWD, RIGHT)): every prosodic word
ends with the head of the main foot. (One * per syllable between the head of the
main foot and the right edge of PrWd)
(50) TROCHEE, ALIGN HEAD RIGHT » FOOTMINσ

Base: Fernándo TROCHEE ALIGN HEAD RIGHT FOOTMINσ

a. Fér *
b. Férnan nan!
c. Fernán *!

The constraint FOOTMINμ, dominating ALIGN HEAD RIGHT also prevents the exis-
tence of monosyllabic monomoraic truncated words in Spanish. In addition, the next
tableau motivates the domination of Trochee over Align Head Right. For instance, a
name such as Spanish Rafaél can only produce a Type A hypocoristic Ráfa, as
FOOTMINμ bans a potential candidate *Rá, as seen in the next tableau.
(51) FOOTMINμ, TROCHEE » ALIGN HEAD RIGHT

Base: Rafaél FOOTMINμ TROCHEE ALIGN HEAD RIGHT

a. Ráfa *
b. Rá *!
c. Rafá *!

The previous two tableaux support the observation that Spanish only allows Type A
monosyllabic truncated words when the leftmost syllable is heavy: highly ranked
FOOTMINμ only allow monosyllabic bimoraic truncated forms to occur11.

11
The possibility of making the leftmost light syllable in the base heavy in the truncated form by lengt-
hening is banned in Spanish by WT-IDENT BT, which prohibits lengthening or shortening of syllables
in a BT correspondence.
140 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

In sum, the promotion of ALIGN HEAD RIGHT in Spanish explains the surfacing of
monosyllabic truncated forms. In Spanish, FOOTMINμ is ranked over ALIGN HEAD
RIGHT, allowing only monosyllabic bimoraic truncated forms to surface.

Summary of conclusions

The analysis of Spanish truncation processes provided in this study supported the
view that they conform to the moraic word/foot minimum. Type B truncated words
copy a version of the main stress foot of the source word. These truncations can be
disyllabic or monosyllabic, depending on the stress placement of their source. Paroxy-
tone source words build a disyllabic foot and, thus, yield a disyllabic trochaic truncated
form. Oxytone bases form a monosyllabic bimoraic foot that may be preserved in the
abbreviated form. On the other hand, Type A truncated words can be disyllabic or mo-
nosyllabic, provided they are bimoraic.
Recibido: 02-X-2012
Aceptado: 20-V-2013

References

Albaigés Olivart, J. M. (1984): Diccionario de nombres de personas. Barcelona, Publica-

cions i Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.
Albaigés Olivart, J. M. (1995): Enciclopedia de los nombres propios. Barcelona, Planeta.
Alvord, S. M. (2003): “The psychological unreality of quantity sensitivity in Spanish:
experimental evidence”, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 22 (2), 1-12.
Anttila, A. (1997): “Deriving variation from grammar”. In Hinskens, F., R. van der
Hout and L. Wetzels (eds.): Change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, págs. 35-68.
Anttila, A. and Young-mee, Y. C. (1998): “Vatiation and change in Optimality Theory”,
Lingua, 104, 31-56.
Bárkányi, Z. (2002a): “A fresh look at quantity sensitivity in Spanish”, Linguistics, 40
(2), 375-94.
Bárkányi, Z. (2002b): “Primary stress in Spanish”. In Satterfield, T. et al. (eds.): Current
issues in Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17-31.
Benua, L. (1995): “Identity effects in morphological truncation”. In Beckman, J., L.
Walsh and S. Urbanczyk (eds.): University of Massachusetts occasional papers in
Linguistics, 18. Amherst: GLSA, 77-136.
Biville, F. (1989): “Un processus dérivationnel méconnu du Latin: la dérivation par
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 141

troncation”, L’information Grammaticale, 42, 15-22.

Boyd-Bowman, P. (1955): “Cómo obra la fonética infantil en la formación de los hi-
pocorísticos”, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 9, 337-366.
Casado Velarde, M. (1984): “Acortamientos léxicos en español actual”, Iberorromania,
20, 1-8.
Casado Velarde, M. (1999): “Otros procesos morfológicos: acortamientos, formación de
siglas y acrónimos”. In Bosque, I. and V. Demonte (eds.): Gramática descriptiva de
la lengua española. Madrid, Spain: RAE-Espasa Calpe, 5075-5096.
Colina, S. (1996): “Spanish truncation processes: the emergence of the unmarked”,
Linguistics, 34, 1199-1218.
Costenla Umaña, A. (1982): “Los hipocorísticos costarricenses”, Estudios de Lingüística
Hispánica, B (1), 5-51.
Crowhurst, M. J. (1991): “Minimality and foot structure in metrical phonology and
prosodic morphology”, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Tucson, Arizona, The
University of Arizona. (Distributed by The Indiana University Linguistics Club,
Bloomington, 1992).
D’Imperio, M. and S. Rosenthall (1999): “Phonetics and phonology of main stress in
Italian”, Phonology, 16, 1-28.
D’Introno, F., E. del Teso y R. Weston (1995): Fonética y fonología actual del español.
Madrid, Cátedra.
Den Os, E. and R. Kager (1986): “Extrametricality and stress in Spanish and Italian”,
Lingua, 69, 23-48.
Dunlap, E. (1991): “Issues in the moraic structure of Spanish”, Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation. Amherst, Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts.
Eddigton, D. (2000): “Spanish stress assignment within the Analogical Modeling of
Language”, Language, 76, 92-109.
Face, T. L. (2004): “Perceiving what isn’t there: non-acoustic cues for perceiving Span-
ish stress”. In Face, T. L. (ed.): Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology. Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 117-141.
Fajardo, A. (1990): “Truncamientos léxicos en español actual”, Lebende Sprachen, 35
(3), 132-133.
Felíu, E. (2001): “Output constraints on two Spanish word-creation processes”, Linguis-
tics, 39, 871-891.
Hamans, C. (1996): “A lingo of abbrevs”, Lingua Posnaniensis, 38, 69-78.
Hammond, M. (1997): “Optimality Theory and prosody”. In Archangeli, D. and D. T.
Langendoen (eds.): Optimality Theory. An overview. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
33-59.
142 RECONSIDERING SYLLABIC MINIMALITY IN SPANISH TRUCCATION

Harris, J. W. (1983): Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. A non-linear analysis.

Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Harris, J. W. (1992): Spanish stress: The extrametricality issue. Bloomington, IN, Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Harris, J. W. (1995): “Projection and edge marking in the computation of stress in
Spanish”. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.): The handbook of phonological theory. Cam-
bridge, MA, Blackwell, 867-887.
Hoffman, R. J. (1969): “The derivation of Spanish hypocoristics”. In Binnick, R. I. et al.
(eds.): Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic. Chicago, IL,
University of Chicago Press, 366-373.
Inkelas, S. and [Link] Orgun (1995): “Level ordering and economy in the lexical pho-
nology of Turkish”, Language, 71, 763-793.
Kager, R. (1999): Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press.
Lipski, J. M. (1995): “Spanish hypocoristics: towards a unified prosodic analysis”, His-
panic Linguistics, 6-7, 387-434.
Lombardi, L. and J. J. McCarthy (1991): “Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw mor-
phology”, Phonology, 8, 37-71.
McCarthy, J. J. (2000): “The prosody of phase in Rotuman”, Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 18, 147-197.
McCarthy, J. J. and A. Prince (1990): “Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Ara-
bic broken plural”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 209-283.
McCarthy, J. J. and A. Prince (1993): “Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction
and satisfaction”, Unpublished Manuscript. Amherst, Massachusetts, University of
Massachusetts.
McCarthy, J. J. and A. Prince (1995): “Prosodic morphology”. In Goldsmith. J. A. (ed.):
The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 318-366.
Morales-Front, A. (1994): “A constraint based approach to Spanish phonology”, Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, University of Illinois.
Piñeros, C. E. (1998): “Prosodic morphology in Spanish: constraint interaction in word-
formation”, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Uni-
versity.
Piñeros, C. E. (2000a): “Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in Spanish truncation”,
Linguistics, 38, 63-98.
Piñeros, C. E. (2000b): “Foot-sensitive word minimization in Spanish”, Probus, 12, 291-
324.
Piñeros, C. E. (2001): “Vowel weightlessness and stress retraction in Spanish”, Unpub-
lished manuscript. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa.
ANTONIO GRAU SEMPERE 143

Piñeros, C. E. (2002): “Truncamientos en español”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 79 (4),

437-459.
Prieto i Vives, P. (1992): “Truncation processes in Spanish”, Studies in Linguistic Sci-
ences, 22 (1), 143-158.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (1993): “Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction
in Generative Grammar.” Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University and The
Johns Hopkins University.
Roca, I. and E. Felíu (2003a): “Morphology in truncation: the role of the Spanish desi-
nence”. In Booij, G. and J. van Marle (eds.): Yearbook of morphology 2002.
Dordrecht, Germany, Kluwer, 187-243.
Roca, I. and E. Felíu (2003b): “Morphology and Phonology in Spanish word trunca-
tion”. In Booij, G., J. DeCesaris, A. Ralli and S. Scalise (eds.): Topics in morphology:
selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, Sep-
tember 20-22, 2001). Barcelona, Spain, IULA, 311-329.
Rosenthall, S. (1994): “Vowel/glide alternation in a theory of constraint interaction”,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachu-
setts.
Urawa, M. (1985): “Muestra de hipocorísticos en el español bogotano”, Thesaurus, 40,
51-102.
Van Wijk, H. L. A. (1964): “Los hipocorísticos hondureños”, Romanistisches Jahrbuch,
15, 302-312.
Weeda, D. S. (1992): “Word truncation in prosodic morphology”, Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas.