Luna Qian

Student number: 1009179817

LINC02

Feb 8, 2026

The /m/ Infix in Four Western Austronesian

Languages

Introduction

This paper examines the /m/ infix in four Western Austronesian languages. In all four

languages, the infix is inserted after the first consonant of the base. At first glance, this looks

straightforward. But once we compare the surface forms more closely, we notice that the

languages react differently to the same infix. Some delete segments, some assimilate, and

some insert vowels. So clearly the infix itself is not the whole story.

In this paper, I’ll use Optimality Theory to explore why these differences emerge. Rather than

assuming each language just has its own separate rules, OT gives a way to compare them by

looking at how the constraints are ranked. When I put the four languages side by side, I started

to notice that they are dealing with very similar problems. The infix is inserted in the same

position in each language, but the outcomes are not the same. This made me think that the

difference probably does not come from the infix itself, but from how each language ranks its

constraints.

Sarangani Blaan

In Sarangani Blaan, the infix normally surfaces without much complication:

● tiis → tmiis

● saloʔ → smaloʔ

● dado → dmado

Clusters like /tm/ and /sm/ are allowed. However, in the form:

● bunal → munal

We do not get “bmunal”. Instead, the initial /b/ deletes. At first I thought maybe the language just

avoids clusters in general. But that does not really work, because other clusters like /tm/ and /sm/ are

clearly allowed. So it cannot simply be about clusters as such. There has to be something more specific

going on here. So the issue must be more specific.The problematic cluster would be “bm”, which

contains two labial consonants. It seems reasonable that the language avoids adjacent consonants with

the same place of articulation. A constraint like *LAB-LAB (or OCP-Place) could capture this.If

*LAB-LAB outranks MAX-IO, deletion will occur.

Ranking: *LAB-LAB >> MAX-IO

/bmunal/

*LAB-LAB

MAX-IO

☞ munal

*

bmunal

*!

The faithful candidate fatally violates the markedness constraint. Even though deletion violates

MAX-IO, it is tolerated. It is also worth considering assimilation as an alternative. For example,

/bmunal/ could hypothetically become *mmunal. But this would still involve adjacent labials and

would not actually solve the markedness problem.

/bmunal/

*LAB-LAB

MAX-IO

mmunal

*! *

☞munal

*

I also wondered whether assimilation could work—say, turning */bmunal/ into something like

*mmunal. But that would still leave two labials side by side, which doesn’t really fix the

problem. So in the end, deletion turns out to be the only repair that actually works here.

Timugon Murut

In Timugon Murut, the infix also appears after the first consonant:

● tuun → tumuun

● gajo → gumajo

But in:

● patoj → matoj

● bigod → migod

Here, instead of deletion, the nasal changes to match the following consonant. This looks like place

assimilation. Compared to Sarangani Blaan, this language does not delete segments. Instead, it

modifies features. This suggests a different ranking.

If the language prefers adjacent consonants to agree in place, then:AGREE-PLACE >> IDENT-PLACE

/pmatoj/ AGREE-PLACE IDENT-PLACE

☞ matoj

*

pmatoj

*!

The faithful candidate violates agreement. The assimilated form violates IDENT-PLACE but

wins. What’s interesting here is how Timugon Murut chooses feature change over deletion.

Compared to Sarangani Blaan, which just removes the segment, this language tweaks the

features instead—almost like it’s trying to preserve material while still avoiding a bad cluster.

Kulalao Piiwan

Kulalao Piiwan initially looks similar:

● tulək → tmulək

● kan → kman

But in:

● pili → pnili

● burəs → bnurəs

The clusters appear somewhat unstable. It is not entirely clear whether the key issue is place agreement

or cluster complexity. At first I considered whether assimilation might explain it, but the data do not

consistently show clear place matching. Instead, the cluster structure itself seems marked.

So a constraint like *COMPLEXONSET may be relevant here. If *COMPLEXONSET outranks

DEP-IO, the language will avoid certain complex onsets even if that means altering the output.

Ranking: *COMPLEXONSET >> DEP-IO

/pmili/

*COMPLEX

DEP-IO

☞ pnili

*

pmili

*!

Deletion is another logical possibility, so we should consider it.

/pmili/

*COMPLEX

MAX-IO

☞ pnili

*

p ili

*!

Deletion would violate MAX-IO. Since deletion does not occur, MAX-IO must outrank the deletion

option. I’m not fully certain whether place features alone explain these forms. It is still not completely

clear to me whether the main issue here is place agreement or just general cluster complexity. The

patterns seem to point toward syllable structure being important, but I am not entirely certain that this

captures everything in the data.

Tjuabar Paiwan

In Tjuabar Paiwan, we see vowel insertion:

● təkəɭ → təməkəɭ

● pajsu → pənajsu

Here, the language takes a different route: it inserts a vowel. That means it’d rather add

something new than delete or alter what’s already there—which tells me something about how

it prioritizes syllable structure. This suggests that ONSET (or related syllable well-formedness

constraints) outrank DEP-IO.

Ranking: ONSET >> DEP-IO

/tməkəɭ/ ONSET

DEP-IO

☞ təməkəɭ

*

tməkəɭ *!

Insertion violates DEP-IO but avoids a more serious structural violation.

Discussion

All four languages insert the same /m/ infix in the same position. But the repair strategies differ:

Language High Constrain

Strategy

Sarangani Blaan

*LAB-LAB Deletion

Timugon Murut AGREE-PLACE

Assimilation

Kulalao Piiwan *COMPLEX

Cluster repair

Tjuabar Paiwan ONSET

Insertion

Looking across the four systems, it seems that markedness constraints are generally ranked above

faithfulness in some way. But the exact constraint that drives the repair is not the same in each

language. That is probably why we see deletion in one case, assimilation in another, and vowel

insertion elsewhere. At first these patterns look unrelated, but once the rankings are compared more

carefully, they do not seem random. I initially expected the four languages to behave more similarly,

but the data suggest that the interaction between markedness and faithfulness can produce quite

different outcomes.

Conclusion

The /m/ infix behaves differently across the four languages because each language ranks constraints

differently. Overall, this comparison shows that even small changes in constraint ranking can affect the

surface forms quite noticeably. Even though the /m/ infix is placed in the same position, each language

repairs the resulting structure differently. There may be additional constraints involved that are not

fully explored here, but the ranking differences seem to account for the main patterns in the data.

References

McCarthy, J. J. (2008). Doing optimality theory: Applying theory to data. Blackwell Publishing.

Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in

generative grammar. Blackwell.

Zec, D. (2007). The syllable. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp.

161–194). Cambridge University Press.

51作业君版权所有