Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T13:31:18.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three theses concerning phonological representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

John Anderson  and
Charles Jones
John Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh
Charles Jones
Affiliation:
Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. Some recent work in phonology/phonetics has tended to reaffirm the relevance of larger-than-segment (non-syntactico-morphological) structural units like the syllable: that is, that phonological representations are per se more highly structured than has generally been supposed in the immediate past. On the one hand, it has been argued that various ‘prosodic’ phenomena have as their domain non-arbitrary groupings of segments, including in particular groupings of ‘syllable size’ (e.g. Cheng, 1966; Lehiste, 1970), and that ‘morpheme structure conditions’ and redundancy conditions in general are most naturally interpreted as in large part constraints on syllable structure (cf., e.g., O'Connor & Trim, 1953; Fudge, 1969; Sampson, 1970; and the works they refer to). There have, on the other hand, been a number of studies particularly of co-articulation and of malfunctioning in production (stuttering, spoonerisms, etc.) whose import seems to be that ‘the unit of articulatory programming is larger in size than the segment, and makes it difficult to believe that articulation consists merely in the concatenation of phonemes’ (Kim, 1971: 60) - cf. the work surveyed by Kim and by Fromkin (1968).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Andersen, J. M. (1969). Syllabic or non-syllabic phonology? JL 5. 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, J. M. (1971a). Dependency and grammatical functions. FL 7. 30–37.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. M. (1971b). Outline of a proposal for the lexicalization of complex structures. SL 25. 1–8.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. M. (1972). A study of grammatical functions in English and other languages. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. M. & Jones, C. (forthcoming). Historical English phonology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. (1888). A comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages, Vol. I. London: Nutt.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). An Old English grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, R. L. (1966). Mandarin phonological structure. JL 2. 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dingwall, W. O. (ed.) (1971). A survey of linguistic science. University of Maryland: Linguistic Program.Google Scholar
Dobson, E. J. (1968). English pronunciation 1500–1700, 2nd edn.London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, J. (MS). Systematic morphophonemics.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. (1968). Speculations on performance models. JL 4. 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1969). Syllables. JL 5. 253–286.Google Scholar
Hays, D. D. (1964). Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Lg 40. 511–525.Google Scholar
Higginbottom, E. (1964). Glottal reinforcement in English. TPhS, 129–142.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (1972). Introduction to Middle English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kim, C.-W. (1971). Experimental phonetics. In Dingwall W. O. (ed.) 16–128.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1966a). Towards a phonological theory. Lingua 16. 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1966b). Is the syllable 3 phonological universal? JL 2. 207–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1967). Modem English phonology. Lingua 19. 145–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1970a). Palatals and umlaut in Old English. AL 13. 75–98.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1970b). Two-parameter matrices in phonology: Or why glottal stops are real stops and [h] is an obstruent. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1971). Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal strength hierarchies. JL 7. 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. & Andersen, J. M. (MS). Studies in Old English phonology.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1914–1940). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1971). Temporal organization of spoken language. Form and Substance: phonetic and linguistic papers presented to Eli Fischer-Jorgensen, Hammeriich, L. L., Jakobson, R. & Zwirner, E. (eds.). 159–169. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Maas, U. (1971). Dependenztheorie. Grundriss zur Literatur und Sprachwissenschaft, Arnold, H. L. & Sinemus, V. (eds.). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Marcus, S. (1967). Algebraic linguistics: analytic models. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D. & Trim, J. L. M. (1953). Vowel, consonant and syllable – a phonological definition. Word 9. 103–122.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1970a). Dependency structure and transformational rules. Lg 46. 259–285.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1970b). Case, category and configuration. JL 6. 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sympson, G. (1970). On the need for a phonological base. Lg 46. 586–626.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg 44. 695–708.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (1972). Distinctive features and natural classes in phonological theory. JL 8. 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, H. A. (1971). Neurolinguistics. In Dingwall W. O. (ed.) 136–244.Google Scholar