As Mutaka & Hyman (1990) and Mutaka (1994) show, the Kinande reduplication patterns in (1) present several analytical challenges (eri- is the infinitive prefix; the reduplicant is underlined):

Russian exhibits several different types of palatalisation. These are exemplified in (1), where we look at voiceless stops and affricates.

(1) a. Velar Palatalisation (velars change into postalveolars): k→č

ruk+a ‘hand (FEM NOM SG)’ −ruč+išč+a (AUG NOM SG), ruč+en’k+a (DIM NOM SG)

b. Affricate Palatalisation (affricates become postalveolar): ts→č

konets ‘end’ −konč+i+t’ ‘to finish’

otets ‘father’ −otč+estv+o ‘patronymic’

c. Iotation (many disparate changes of consonants): t→č

šut ‘joker’ −šuč+u ‘I joke’

d. Surface Palatalisation (consonants become [−back, +high]): t→t’

xvost ‘tail’ −xvost+ik [t’] (DIM), xvost+e [t’] LOC SG)

brat ‘brother’ −brat+j+a [t’] ‘brothers (COLL)’

coherent analysis of these disparate effects is a formidable task, but one process seems to be easy: Surface Palatalisation is a straightforward spreading change. This change is particularly simple in the context of i and j since not only the feature [−back] but also the feature [+high] is spread from the triggering context onto the input consonant. In the following, I will restrict the scope of analysis to this simple case. That is, I will look at Surface Palatalisation applying in the context of i and j. I will demonstrate that standard Optimality Theory (henceforth OT: Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1995), with its insistence on parallel evaluation, cannot offer an adequate analysis of Surface Palatalisation. I will suggest that standard OT needs to be modified and to admit the possibility of a level distinction (a derivational step) in the evaluation of output forms.

It is well known that though reduplicative morphemes generally fill their content through copy from a base stem, some also display a portion of fixed material. Understanding the source of such fixed segmentism in reduplication has been a matter of controversy and the subject of ongoing research in phonological theory. A long-standing theoretical approach has attributed any fixed content to prespecified material (Marantz 1982, Yip 1982 and subsequent developments; see Alderete et al. 1999 for an overview). However, more recent work has presented an alternative. A fruitful line of inquiry has stemmed from the notion that fixed content in reduplicative affixation can be explained without prespecification, through the activity of phonological constraints that are well integrated into the phonotactics and segmental-featural system of the language (McCarthy & Prince 1994b, 1995, Urbanczyk 1996a, b, Spaelti 1997, Alderete et al. 1999). Alongside the issue of fixed segmentism stands the question whether templatic structures are required to determine the size and shape of reduplicative affixes or whether such properties can be made to follow from general constraints on prosodic structure (see work cited above; also McCarthy & Prince 1994a, Prince 1997, Gafos 1998a, b, Urbanczyk 1998; with foundation from McCarthy & Prince 1986, 1990).

This paper brings a study of Mbe affixation to bear on these issues.

The proper treatment of NON-DERIVED ENVIRONMENT BLOCKING (NDEB), also known as the Derived Environment Constraint, has long been the subject of debate by phonologists. Past approaches include the Strict Cycle Condition (Mascaró 1976), the Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1982) and underspecification (Kiparsky 1993). However, since the introduction of Optimality Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1993, 1994, Prince & Smolensky 1993), phonologists have tried to model NDEB in terms of parameterised constraints (e.g. Burzio 1997) or constraint conjunction (e.g. Łubowicz 1998).

In this paper I present a case of NDEB found in the stress patterns of Tohono O'odham words. Secondary stress is assigned to all odd-numbered syllables in derived words, but is blocked on word-final odd- numbered syllables in underived words. I claim that all the presented facts about Tohono O'odham stress can be accounted for in terms of co- phonologies (cf. Orgun 1996, Inkelas et al. 1997, Inkelas 1998). By showing the intricate interaction between, on the one hand, stress assignment to latent vowels and, on the other, their behaviour with respect to perfective truncation, I argue that Tohono O'odham stress can be viewed as being assigned ‘cyclically’ and also as exhibiting the effect of bracket erasure. These facts, as I will show, are captured naturally by the co-phonology model. This co-phonology analysis is contrasted with the mono-stratal, non-constituency-based optimality-theoretic account argued for in Fitzgerald (1996, 1997). It is demonstrated that the co- phonology analysis yields a simpler and more explanatory account of the Tohono O'odham facts than Fitzgerald's account.

I begin this paper with an illustration of the stress patterns of both underived and derived forms in §2. I will then provide a co-phonology account for NDEB in §3. An alternative analysis is considered in §3.5. In §4 I illustrate the interaction between stress, latent vowels and perfective truncation, and finally the formal analysis is presented in §5.

This delightful book is a descriptive presentation of all aspects of Armenian word phonology.I thank Sharon Hargus and Sharon Inkelas for valuable comments. Although the author assumes a particular theoretical stance, this does not in any way detract from the descriptive value of the book (more on this point below, where it is suggested that the strong theoretical commitment of the author in fact adds to the book's strength, even for a reader who does not subscribe to the same theoretical view as the author).

The book is part of the series on the phonology of the world's languages edited by Jacques Durand, and it closely follows the format of the other books so far published in the series. It starts with a concise but thorough and interesting chapter on the history, dialectology and basic descriptive facts of Armenian phonology. The second chapter introduces Rules and Representations Theory, which Vaux uses in his detailed theoretical accounts of phonological phenomena in subsequent chapters. Probably aware that most potential readers of the book (whether they are primarily interested in Armenian or in phonological theory) are unlikely to share his theoretical views, Vaux is careful to explicitly state all steps of theoretical reasoning in his analyses throughout the book. As a result, I have found later chapters on specific phonological phenomena perfectly readable without referring back to the second chapter.