Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:50:31.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering [consonantal]*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2010

Elizabeth Hume  and
David Odden
Elizabeth Hume
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
David Odden
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the fundamental claims of modern phonology is that generalisations about phonemes are based on a small, universal set of phonetically defined features. The theory of distinctive features is a very powerful idea, insofar as it predicts that sets of phonemes will act together in specific ways within and across languages, allowing the voiceless stops [p t k] to serve as a unified target or trigger class, but ruling out the possibility that [p r y a] will function as a unitary class. Much of the appeal of distinctive features lies in the fact that the rich array of segments and processes encountered in the world's languages can be understood in terms of a very small number of features. Numerous hypotheses have been advanced regarding what that set of features is – see Jakobson et al. (1952), Chomsky & Halle (1968), Sagey (1990) and Clements & Hume (1995), inter al. The ideal set of features must be rich enough to express phonemic contrasts which actually exist, and must otherwise be capable of capturing generalisations about sound structure. Equally important, a theory of features should be maximally impoverished – it should use the minimum resources necessary to describe languages.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , December 1996 , pp. 345 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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, S. (1971). On the description of ‘apicalized’ consonants. LI 2. 103–107.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, J. (1960). Some problems of segmentation in the phonological analysis of Terena. Word 16. 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, A. (1991). The phonology of the velar glide in Axininca Campa. Phonology 8. 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, G. (1970). Diphthongization in the Malmö dialect. Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University 3. 1–19.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1974). Phonological features: problems and proposals. Lg 50. 52–65.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu & Inkelas, Sharon (1993). Major class alternations. WCCFL 12. 3–18.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 282–333.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1991). Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: a unified theory. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5. 77–123.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, Samuel J. (1983). CV phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail (1990). Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Distributed as UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 76.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail (1993). The status of nasalized continuants. In Huffman, M. K. & Krakow, R. A. (eds.) Nasalsy nasalization, and the velum. Orlando: Academic Press. 329–367.Google Scholar
Cole, D. T. (1955). An introduction to Tswana grammar. Cape Town: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Cole, D. T. (1967). Some features of Ganda linguistic structure. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar (1971). Notes on the Swedish vow, el system. In Hammerick, L. L., Jakobson, R. & Zwirner, E. (eds.) Form and substance: phonetic and linguistic papers presented to Eli Fischer-Jorgensen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 259–268.Google Scholar
Feinstein, M. (1979). Prenasalization and syllable structure. LI 10. 245–278.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In Dinnsen, D. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 202–222.Google Scholar
Gudschinsky, Sarah, Popovich, Harold & Popovich, Frances (1970). Native reaction and phonetic similarity in Maxakali phonology. Lg 46. 77–88.Google Scholar
Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991). Spoken Uyghur. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Clements, G. N. (1983). Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1990). Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7. 255–300.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff (1995). The elements of phonological representation. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.) Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures and derivations. London: Longman. 34–79.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–351.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Herman, Rebecca (1994). La double vie de W or the status of [w] in Karuk. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26. 233–244.Google Scholar
Herzallah, R. (1990). Aspects of Palestinian Arabic phonology: a non-linear approach. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Distributed 1990 as Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 4.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin (1973). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hulst, H.van der, & Smith, N. (1982). Prosodic domains and opaque segments in autosegmental theory. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 311–336.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (1990). Front vowels, palatal consonants and the rule of umlaut in Korean. NELS 20. 230–243.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (1994). Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. New York: Garland. (1992 PhD dissertation, Cornell University.)Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (1995). Representing the duality of glides. In Tsoulas, G. & Nash, L. (eds.) Actes du congrès: Langues et Grammaire. Paris: Department of Linguistics, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Odden, David (1995). The superfluity of [consonantal]. NELS 25. 245–261.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. (1973). The feature [grave] in phonological theory. JPh 1. 329–337.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1992). Can [consonantal] spread? Lg 68. 313–332.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1996). The prosodic environment of s-weakening in Argentinian Spanish. In Zagona, K. (ed.) Grammatical theory and Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 123–134.Google Scholar
Kamprath, Christine (1986). The syllabification of consonantal glides: post-peak distinctions. NELS 16. 217–229.Google Scholar
Kari, James (1979). Athabaskan verb theme categories: Ahtna. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.Google Scholar
Kari, James. (1990). Ahtna Athabaskan dictionary. Fairbanks: University of Alaska.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. (1969). Urhobo. In Dunstan, E. (ed.) Twelve Nigerian languages. New York: Africana Publishing Corporation. 153–161.Google Scholar
Kolesnikova, V. D. & Konstantinova, O. A. (1968). Negidalʼskij jazyk. In Jazyki narodov severʼe SSSR. Vol. 5: Mongolʼskie, tunguso-manʼ chzhurskie i paleoaziatskie jazyki. Moscow & Leningrad: Nauka. 109–128.Google Scholar
Konstantinova, O. A. (1964). Evenkijskij jazyk. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatelʼstvo Nauka.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Loos, E. (1969). The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lozano, M. (1979). Stop and spirant alternations: fortition and spirantization processes in Spanish phonology. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. (1978). A grammar of Lenakel. Canberra: Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
McConvell, P. (1988). Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurindji and related languages. Aboriginal Linguistics 1. 135–165.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. A. (1984). Consonant-glide-vowel alternations in Spanish: a case study of syllabic and lexical phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Morphy, Frances (1983). Djapu: a Yolngu dialect. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. (eds.) Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–188.Google Scholar
Newton, Brian (1972). Cypriot Greek: its phonology and inflections. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, D. (1978). Further evidence for the feature [grave]. LI 9. 141–144.Google Scholar
Odden, D. (1988). Anti antigemination and the OCP. LI 19. 451–475.Google Scholar
Ohala, John (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS 26:2. 319–338.Google Scholar
Okello, Jenny (1975). Some phonological and morphological processes in Lango. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Osborne, H. A. Jr (1966). Warao I: phonology and morphophonemics. IJAL 32. 108–123.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole (1992). Lexical phonology and morphology: the nominal classes in Fula. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Payne, David (1981). The phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa. University of Texas at Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Petrova, T. I. (1936). Ulʼchskij dialekt nanajskogo jazyka. Moscow & Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Uchebno-Pedagogicheskoe Isdatelʼstvo.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne (1992). Variability in feature dependency: the case of nasality. NLLT 10. 33–77.Google Scholar
Poletto, Robert (1993). The root node and labio-velar fortition in Wichita. In Kathol, A. & Bernstein, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.New York: Cornell University. 287–298.Google Scholar
Rich, F. (1963). Arabela phonemes and high-level phonology. In Studies in Peruvian Indian languages. Vol. 1. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics. 193–206.Google Scholar
Rood, David S. (1976). Wichita grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam (1994). Vowel/glide alternations in a theory of constraint interaction. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elisabeth (1990). The representation of features in nonlinear phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry & Steriade, Donca (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–744.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1993). Labial relations. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Sohn, Hyang-Sook (1987). Underspecification in Korean phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1984). Glides and vowels in Romanian. BLS 10. 47–64.Google Scholar
Sunik, O. P. (1985). Ulʼchskij jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ternes, E. (1973). Phonemic analysis of Scottish Gaelic. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. & Ladefoged, P. (1971). Phonetic features and phonological features. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 21. 13–24.Google Scholar
Waksler, Rachelle (1990). A formal account of glide/vowel alternation inprosodic theory. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (1994). Hierarchical opacity effects in nasal harmony: an optimality theoretic account. In Bernstein, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.New York: Cornell University. 318–329.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg 44. 695–708.Google Scholar
Wetzels, Leo (1995). Oclusivas intrusivas em Maxacali. In Wetzels, L. (ed.) Estudos fonologicos das linguas indigenas Brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro: Editora UFRJ. 85–102.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga (1988). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. (1969). Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Lg 45. 309–321.Google Scholar