Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T13:44:24.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the category Supralaryngeal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Gregory K. Iverson
Gregory K. Iverson
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this essay I suggest that the conventional bifurcation of geometrically organised feature bundles into ‘Laryngeal’ and ‘Supralaryngeal’ categories, advocated most prominently in the provocative work of Clements (1985, 1987), Sagey (1986) and Archangeli & Pulleyblank (forthcoming), should be modified to eliminate the Supralaryngeal element altogether. Specifically, the proposal is that the category Place and the features of manner be removed from subordination under the Supralaryngeal node, as in the conventional configuration displayed in (1), and instead be subsumed directly under Root, as depicted in (2):1

Type
Thematic Papers
Information
Phonology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , August 1989 , pp. 285 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Archangeli, & Pulleyblank, D. (forthcoming). The content and structure of phonological representations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1985). Underspecification in underlying representation, In Youmans, G. (ed.) In memory of Roman Jakobson: papers from the 1984 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Columbia, Mo.: Linguistic Area Program. 3–15.Google Scholar
Àrnason, K. (1986). The segmental and suprasegmental status of preaspiration in Modern Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 9. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, M. A. R. (1964). Klamath grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cairns, C. (1988). Phonotactics, markedness and lexical representation. Phonology 5. 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chene, B. de (1988). Japanese γ-epenthesis and inflectional boundary buffer-segments. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1987). Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. CLS 23:2. 29–50.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1987). On the phonological status of glides: the evidence from Malay. In Anderson, J. & Durand, J. (eds.) Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 79–107.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. & Port, R. (1986). Stop epenthesis in English. Research in Phonetics and Computational Linguistics, Departments of Linguistics and Computer Science, Indiana University 5. 37–71.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In Dinnsen, D. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 202–222.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1986b). Autosegmental and metrical phonology: a new synthesis. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986a). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–351.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986b). Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. LI 17. 467–499.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & Kim, K.-H. (1987). Underspecification and hierarchical feature representation in Korean consonantal phonology. CLS 23:2. 182–198.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. (1974). Korean consonantal phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. (1986). Studies in Korean linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory: synchronic and diachronic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. C. (1987). Phonological feature hierarchy. (Revision of Sagey 1986.) Ms, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Schein, B. & Steriade, D. (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–744.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1988). A two-root theory of length. Paper presented at the 19th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1987). Locality conditions and feature geometry. NELS 17. 595–617.Google Scholar
Thràinsson, H. (1978). On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1. 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, T. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The OCP and phonological rules: a loss of identity. LI 19. 65–100.Google Scholar