Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:30:01.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-distinctive features and their use1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Tore Janson  and
Richard Schulman
Tore Janson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Stockholm
Richard Schulman
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Stockholm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The basis for phonological analysis is the notion of distinctiveness. In the structuralist period, attention was focussed on distinctions between phonemes. Since the beginning of the generative period, the primary unit has rather been the distinctive feature. The fundamental notion remains the same. It is constituted by the idea that a phonetic difference is to be regarded as a phonological difference if and only if it is linked with a difference in meaning. Thus, in the final analysis, the evidence for distinctiveness is to be found in linguistic communication. If a certain phonetic distinction is regularly used to convey distinctions in meaning, it is phonologically distinctive.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 321 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Costa, P. & Mattingly, I. G. (1981). Production and perception of phonetic contrast during phonetic change. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 69, Suppl. 1, p. S 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, G. (1973). Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1941). Phonologie. Archiv für vergleichende Phonetik 5. 170–200.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York, etc.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, G. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (1979). Vowel duration, vowel quality, and perceptual compensation. Journal of Phonetics 7. 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janson, T. (1981). Identical sounds and variable perception. Phonologica 1980, Dressler, W., Pfeiffer, O. & Rennison, J. (eds), 215–222. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (1983). Sound change in perception and production. Lg 59. 18–34.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (forthcoming). Sound change in perception: an experiment. To be published in Experimental Phonology, Ohala, J. (ed).Google Scholar
Johansson, I. (1976). Nordsvenska vokaler. Umeå: Mimeo (= Stadsmål i övre Norrland, No. 10)Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Lg 57. 267–308.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: US Regional survey.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1963). On vowel reduction. Stockholm: Mimeo.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., Murray, T. & Spens, K.-E. (1969). Övningsmaterial i akustisk fonetik. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1979). Psychological reality in phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, P., Svensson, B. & Öhman, S. (1971). Ljudstruktur. Lund: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Schane, S. (1971). The phoneme revisited. Lg 47. 503–521.Google Scholar
Schulman, R. (forthcoming). Vowel categorization by the bilingual listener. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1977). Modern phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trubetskoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1974). Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. In Bruck, A., Fox, R. A. & Lagaly, M. W. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 346–374.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1978). Rule inversion and lexical storage: the case of Sanskrit visarga. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton. 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar