Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:07:46.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three queries concerning one thesis concerning phonological representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Nigel Vincent
Nigel Vincent
Affiliation:
Italian Studies Section, University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first thesis concerning phonological representations enunciated by Anderson and Jones (henceforth A&J)(1974: 8) is ‘that phonological representations are more highly structured than the standard theory would claim’, where the level of structure with which they are particularly concerned is that of bracketing into syllables. The principles in terms of which this bracketing is assigned are given as (I) (= their (19)):

(I) (a) Medial clusters are composed of a syllable-final preceding a syllable- initial sequence. (b) ‘Precede’ includes overlap where possible.

A couple of points of elucidation are necessary here. First, it should be noted that a previous formulation of (Ia) in the same paper (4) states: ‘We claim that medial clusters are combination of clusters that can be final in monosyllables and clusters that can be initial.’ This reference to word-final and initial clusters must be borne in mind if (Ia) is not to be construed as either circular or trivial.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (1974). Three theses concerning phonological representations. JL 10. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hall, R. A. (1948). Descriptive Italian grammar. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1974). Aspects of natural generative phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, J. (1948). Contribution à la théorie de la syllable. Reprinted in Kurylowicz, J. (1960). Esquisses linguistiques. Wroclaw–Krakow: Polish Academy. 193–220.Google Scholar
Muljačić, Z. (1969). Fonologia generale e fonologia della lingua italiana. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D. & Trim, J. L. M. (1953). Vowel, consonant and syllable – a phonological definition. Word 9. 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulgram, E. (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1974). On phonotactically motivated rules. JL 10. 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar