… languages have special restrictions for the word-initial and word-final positions that are not valid for every syllable onset and coda, respectively.
Standardized
IF a phonotactic constraint holds for a syllable-edge, THEN it also holds for a corresponding word edge, but not vice versa.
Keywords
word, syllable, phonotactic constraint
Domain
phonology, morphology
Type
implication
Status
achronic
Quality
absolute
Basis
convenience sample; lgs discussed in the relevant theoretical literature
This question is part of the more general issue of what kinds of units can be domains for phonological rules, phonotactic constraints, minimality constraints, prosodic regularities. A restrictive position, as advocated by Booij among many others, is that words can be such domains (and also morphemes, especially stems), but syllables can’t. In this view, the Standardized implicational formulation above is in fact incorrect: syllables can’t be domains at all, unless they happen to be coextensive with words (at surface level, to take the strictest view).
This question is part of the more general issue of what kinds of units can be domains for phonological rules, phonotactic constraints, minimality constraints, prosodic regularities. A restrictive position, as advocated by Booij among many others, is that words can be such domains (and also morphemes, especially stems), but syllables can’t. In this view, the Standardized implicational formulation above is in fact incorrect: syllables can’t be domains at all, unless they happen to be coextensive with words (at surface level, to take the strictest view).