Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-76l5x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T10:06:19.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shortening and Ambisyllabicity in English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Jerzy Rubach
Jerzy Rubach
Affiliation:
University of Iowa/University of Warsaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article investigates the role of the syllable in the phonology of English. In particular, it centres on the problem of shortening and ambisyllabicity. The latter has sometimes been equated with resyllabification (Borowsky 1986; Myers 1987). In this view, ambisyllabicity is a phonetic phenomenon and it is resyllabification that plays a role in phonology. We demonstrate that shortening and ambisyllabicity/resyllabification are, counter to the currently held belief, entirely independent of each other, even though quantity-related processes (shortening and lengthening) are set in syllabic terms.

This study continues the general line of generative research on English begun originally by Chomsky & Halle (1968, hereafter SPE) and developed in a number of later contributions, notably by Rubach (1984), Halle & Mohanan (1985), Myers (1987) and Yip (1987). Attention is focused on the latter two papers. The interpretations presented in these papers are revised and expanded in a number of substantial ways. The database has been broadened to cover the facts of British English, in particular Received Pronunciation (RP), as reported in the standard sources, such as Gimson (1970), Jones (1972), Jones & Gimson (1977) and Harris (1994). While in most cases the choice of the dialect of English plays no role, there are some rules and facts that refer exclusively to RP (Schwa Insertion, Tapping, the distribution of [I]/[ə]). For the sake of consistency, all the transcriptions cited in this article are drawn from RP.

The presentation is organised as follows. § 1 introduces the problem of shortening. §2 presents a complete list of the relevant classes of data and a partial critique of the analyses by Yip (1987) and Myers (1987).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , August 1996 , pp. 197 - 237
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

Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (1974). Three theses concerning phonological representations. JL 10. 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, D. & Pulleyblank, D. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bethin, C. Y. (1992). Polish syllables: the role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LI 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Borovvsky, T. (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. (1989). Structure preservation and the syllable coda in English. NLLT 7. 145–166.Google Scholar
Broadbent, J. (1991). Linking and intrusive r in English. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 281–302.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fallows, D. (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. JL 17. 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, O. & Lovins, J. (1978). Syllables as concatenative phonetic units. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. (eds.) Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 107–120.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1970). Introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1986). English plosive allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma 1. 119–141.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Idsardi, W. (1995). Constraints and rules in phonology: some case studies. Handout of a paper given at the Rules and Constraints Conference, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. (1982). Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 83–105.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1982). Foot domain rules and metrical locality. WCCFL 1. 207–218.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der & Smith, N. (eds.) (1982). The structure of phonological representations. 2 parts. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jassem, W. (1971). Podrecznik wymowy angielskiej Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. (1993). English phonology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (1973). Linking and intrusive /r/ in English: a case for a more concrete phonology. Studio Linguistica 27. 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1972). Outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Jones, D. & Gimson, A. C. (1977). English pronouncing dictionary. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalisations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenyon, J. S. & Knott, T. A. (1953). A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Rubach, J. (1987). The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Lg 63. 463–497.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 171–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). Elsewhere in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–442.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1981). Vowel harmony. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst & smith (1982: part 1). 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levergood, B. (1984). Rule-governed vowel harmony and the Strict Cycle. NELS 14. 275–293.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1991). Synchronic rule inversion. BLS 17. 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38. 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A., Foulkes, P. & Tollfree, L. (1994). Gestural representations and Lexical Phonology. Phonology 11. 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Syllable structure and lexical strata in English. Phonology Yearbook 2. 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S. (1985). The long and the short of it: a metrical theory of English vowel quantity. CLS 21. 275–288.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English. NLLT 5. 485–518.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. & Singh, R. (1985). The phonology of epenthetic segments. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 30. 415–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F. (1986). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. JL 12. 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (1977). Changes of consonants in English and Polish. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Segmental rules of English and cyclic phonology. Lg 60. 21–54.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1986). Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: the yers. The Linguistic Review 5. 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (1993). The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (1990). Syllable structure assignment in Polish. Phonology 7. 121–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syllable. In van der Hulst & Smith (1982: part 2). 337–383.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Smalley, W. A. (1968). Manual of articulatory phonetics. Ann Arbor: Cushing-Malloy.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1972). How I spent my summer vacation. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L. & Bloch, B. (1941). The syllabic phonemes in English. Lg 17. 223–246.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1994). French liaison and elision revisited: a unified account within Optimality Theory. Ms, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. (1982). On theoretical bases of phonology. Paper presented at the 1982 GLOW Colloquium, Paris.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearley, J. (1994). Jer vowels in Russian. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1987). English vowel epenthesis. NLLT 5. 463–484.Google Scholar