Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:30:22.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonotactics, markedness and lexical representation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Charles E. Cairns
Charles E. Cairns
Affiliation:
Queens College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory proposed here, the Markedness Theory of Syllable Structure (MTSS), provides an account of syllabic phonotactics, wherein not only are features defining phonological content underspecified, but also those which determine the number and order of segments. The descriptive basis of MTSS in this paper consists of the minimally redundant underlying representations (URs) of stressed syllables in English. These forms are parsimoniously accounted for by a theory in which content features are associated with prosodic nodes in UR, and which contains an algorithm which maps UR prosodic nodes, specified for feature content, into strings of timing units (x's on the skeletal tier), with fully specified syllabic structures on the prosodic tier.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , August 1988 , pp. 209 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1971). Some patterns of occurrence and formation of syllable structures. Stanford Working Papers on Language Universals 6.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. (1987). Syllable codas in English and syllabification. Ms, AT&T Bell Laboratories and University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cairns, C. (1986). Word structure, markedness and applied linguistics. In Eckman, F. R., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.) Markedness. New York: Plenum. 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, C. & Feinstein, M. (1982). Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. LI 13. 193–225.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
Cohen, P. D. (1966). Presyllables and reduplication in Jeh. In Thomas et al. (1966). 31–40.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1969). Syllables. JL 5. 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1987). Branching structure within the syllable. JL 23. 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. V. (1978). On the correlation of stops and fricatives in a phonological system. In Greenberg et al. (1978). 9–46.Google Scholar
Gradin, D. (1966). Consonantal tone in Jeh phonemics. In Thomas et al. (1966). 41–53.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In Greenberg et al. (1978). 243–279. (Reprinted from Linguistics 18. (1965). 5–34.)Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.) (1978). Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kean, M. L. (1975). The theory of markedness in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C. C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds.) Nordic prosody II. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–164.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. PhY 2. 85–138.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
Menn, L. (1978). Phonological units in beginning speech. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. (eds.) Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 157–171.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Syllable structure and lexical strata in English. PhY 2. 139–155.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. 2nd edn. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Segmental rules of English cyclic phonology. Lg 60. 21–54.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–606.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (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
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. D., Hoà, Nguyen Dình & Blood, D. L. (eds.) Mon-Khmer Studies II. Saigon: Linguistic Circle of Saigon and The Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar