{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01853997682502897, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.171428571428572, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Vowel elision is not always onset-driven

Within standard generative phonology, deletion in a hiatus context can be seen as a response to an onset violation. This paper presents arguments and evidence against this position. The evidence is primarily drawn from hiatus resolution strategies in Yoruba. It is demonstrated that the application of deletion is subject to prosodic restrictions on words: in a vowel + vowel sequence, deletion removes hiatus if the word supplying the first vowel contains a single syllable; if this morpheme has two or more syllables, then the vowels in hiatus are retained and hiatus is resolved by assimilation. To explain the different patterns of hiatus resolution, the paper argues that hiatus-resolving strategies are subject to foot-based minimality conditions, satisfaction of onset or the lack thereof are merely epiphenomenal.