Jason Shaw (Yale) and I are interested in how languages syllabify the consonant clusters after V1 is deleted in C1V1C2V2 configuration, especially word-initially. There are two strategies:
C1V1.C2V2 => C1C2V2
(2) C1 keeps its syllabicity
C1V1.C2V2 => C1.C2V2
Our Facebook-based search, to our surprise, showed that there are more studies that argue for (2) than (1). For example, in English the word initial schwa in “support” can delete, yielding [s.phort]. We suspect that [s] is not resyllabified because the following [p] is aspirated (Kaisse and Shaw 1985). Similar arguments have been made for French (Rilland 1986), Lushootseed (Urbancyzk 1996) and Trique (DiCarnio p.c.). The only example of resyllabification (1), which seems more “intuitive” to us, found so far is Latvian.
Any papers relevant to this issue are welcome. Any intuition-based data are welcome too, if you speak/study a language with vowel deletion.
Of course, in the languages that have been claimed to have the pattern in (2), there are arguments that vowels are not completed deleted—they can be either (heavily) reduced or devoiced. That sort of counterargument is welcome as well. Evidence for syllabification may be hard to come by in some languages, and people may just assume (1) or (2). That is fine and we would like to know those languages, although more explicit evidence would be welcome; we are interested in what kind of evidence has been used for syllabification in this sort of situation.
All the best,
Shigeto Kawahara (Keio University)