The well-known facts concerning the distribution of [r] in Eastern Massachusetts and other dialects of English have resisted explanatorily adequate analysis primarily because they involve the insertion of a generally unexpected epenthetic consonant, [r]. The fact that underlying [r] is also deleted in a complementary set of environments (and retained otherwise) is clearly relevant, as originally noted by Vennemann (1972), but no synchronic analysis of these facts to date has connected them to each other in a satisfactory way, claims to the contrary notwithstanding (see e.g. Halle & Idsardi 1997). I propose a novel interpretation of these facts within OT and lay out the details of an analysis of them that meets satisfactory standards of both descriptive and explanatory adequacy.

Following up on a proposal originally made by Kahn (1976:69-70; see also Broadbent 1991 and Gnanadesikan 1997:159-162), I analyze [r]-insertion as the diphthongization of a vowel, where diphthongization is here technically understood as a relation between one segment in the input and two segments in the output. This imperfect correspondence violates some IDENT[f] constraint(s), where 'f' is a feature or features not shared between [r] and the vowel it forms a diphthong with. Similarly, [r]-deletion is analyzed as the coalescence of [r] with a preceding vowel, where coalescence is a relation between two segments in the input and one segment in the output. This equally imperfect correspondence violates the same IDENT[f] constraint(s) that [r]-insertion violates, and it is this connection between the two processes that explains why [r] and not some other consonant is inserted in Eastern Massachusetts English speech.

(1) Iambic lengthening
/qayani/ --> [(qaya':)(ni)] 'his own kayak'

The standard theory takes the asymmetric (L H') iamb to be the perfect iamb, and iambic lengthening is taken to be a rule that strives for this ideal. In Hayes 1995, iambic asymmetry is built into the universal foot inventory in accordance with the Iambic/Trochaic Law, which states that iambic groupings naturally contrast in duration while trochaic groupings naturally contrast in intensity. Without further elaboration, this type of approach cannot account for dialectal variation in the quantitative adjustment of LH sequences in Yupik. One dialect, Chaplinski, behaves as expected: LH sequences are not adjusted and are footed as (L H'), as shown in (2a). Another dialect, St. Lawrence Island, foots LH sequences as (L S'), as shown in (2b). Finally, Central Alaskan Yupik dialects unexpectedly foot LH sequences as (H')(H'), as shown in (2c).

(2) Quantitative adjustments of LH
a. /qaya:ni/ --> [(qaya':)(ni)] 'in his kayak'
b. /qaya:ni/ --> [(qaya'::)(ni)] 'in his kayak'
c. /qaya:ni/ --> [(qa'y)(ya':)(ni)] 'in his kayak'

To account more uniformly for all of the quantitative adjustments in (1) and (2), I adopt a slightly modified version of the theory of foot typology proposed in Prince 1990, recast within Optimality Theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky 1993).

I argue that Grimshaw's OP-SPEC constraint ("syntactic operators must be in specifier position") must be decomposed into a universally-ranked subhierarchy of constraints defining a relational scale of different types of wh-phrases: arguments (quién 'who', qué 'what'), spatio-temporal locations (dónde 'where', cuándo 'when'), manners (cómo 'how') and reasons (porqué 'why'). The possible interactions that the members of this subhierarchy can have with constraints on movement are the source of the first observed conditioning factor on inversion: if less argument-like wh-phrases must be in specifier position and thus require inversion (= more movement), then more argument-like wh-phrases will also.

Grimshaw distinguishes a general constraint on movement (STAY) and another specifically prohibiting movement into the head of a subordinate clause, building on Rizzi & Roberts (1989) and McCloskey (1992). This distinction is the source of the second observed conditioning factor on inversion: if inversion is require in a subordinate clause with a particular type of wh-phrase, then it will also be required with the same type of wh-phrase in matrix clauses.

Employing Steriade's (1993) Aperture Theory, I propose that a constraint called Strong Onset, demanding that all syllables begin with oral closure, is high-ranked in Spanish, crucially dominated only by Contiguity. This analysis leads to a unified account of this alternation with the similar distribution of the tap and trill in Spanish. The paper concludes with some discussion of issues related to 'underlying form' in Optimality Theory.