Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:31:49.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vowel system universals and typology: prologue to theory*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Roger Lass
Roger Lass
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Considering all the work done on vowel system typology and universals in the past half-century (Trubetzkoy 1929, 1939; Hockett Sedlak 1969; Crothers 1978), my title may seem rather arrogant. There are after all theories of vocalic organisation about, or at least models and taxonomies; there are even attempts to explain why certain implicational universals seem to hold (from Jakobson's [laws of solidarity] (1968) to the more sophisticated treatments in Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972; Kim 1973; etc.).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 1 , May 1984 , pp. 75 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Abercrombie, D., MacCarthy, P. A. D., Scott, N. C., Fry, D. B. & Trim, J. L. M. (eds.) (1964). In honour of Daniel Jones. Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. (1951). Some prosodic aspects of retroflexion and aspiration in Sanskrit. BSOAS 13. 939–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) (1974.). Historical linguistics. Vol. a. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ántonsen, E. H. (1972). The proto-Germanic syllabics (vowels). In van Coetsem & Kufner (1972). 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, K. (1977). Quantity in Icelandic: a historical and comparative study. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. (1980). Quantity in historical phonology: Icelandic and related cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, P. (1981). A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (1967). Descriptive analysis of Tulu. Poona: Deccan College.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1979). Metaphor and theory change: what is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for? In Ortony (1979b). 356–408.Google Scholar
Bruce, G. (1970). Diphthongization in the Malmö dialect. Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University 3. 1–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coetsem, F. van & Kufner, H. L. (eds.) (1972).Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell. Crothers, J. (1978). Typology and universals of vowel systems. In Greenberg et al. (1978). 93–152.Google Scholar
Davenport, M., Hansen, E. & Nielsen, H. F. (eds.) (1983). Current topics in English historical linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Doke, C. (1960). Textbook of Zulu grammar. 6th edn. Cape Town: Longman.Google Scholar
Einarsson, S. (1945). Icelandic. Grammar, texts, glossary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Elert, C. C. (1964). Phonologic studies of quantity in Swedish. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (1980). Aspects of phonological structure, with particular reference to English and Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1962). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1961). Introduction to descriptive linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Goyvaerts, D. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.) (1975). Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. (eds.) (1978). Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. & Broeders, A. (1976). The pronunciation of English: a coursefor Dutch learners. Nijmegen: Wolters-Noordhoff-Longman.Google Scholar
Hari, A. M. (1979). An investigation of the tones of Lhasa Tibetan. (Language Data, Asian-Pacific Series 13). Huntington Beach, Ca: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. (1982). The implication of stuttering for speech production. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics I.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1979). Implicational universals as predictors of word-order change. Lg 55. 618–648.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverley Press.Google Scholar
Honikman, B. (1964). Articulatory settings. In Abercrombie et al. (1964). 73–84.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der & Smith, N. (eds.) (1982). The structure of phonological representations. 2 vols. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1968). Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. & Halle, M. (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jeffery, C. (1982). Review of Lanham & Macdonald (1982). The standard in South African English and its social history. Folia Linguistica Historica 3. 251–263.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (1950). The phoneme: its nature and use. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. et al. (eds.) Issues in linguistics. Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Keller, R. E. (1961). German dialects. Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, C.-W. (1973). Opposition and complement in phonology. In Kachru et al. (1973). 409–417.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1978). Janus, a summing up. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1966). Three areas of experimental phonetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. et al. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1974.). Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy. In Anderson & Jones (1974). 311–352.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1975). How intrinsic is content? Markedness, sound change, and ‘family universals’. In Goyvaerts & Pullum (1975) 475–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Synchronic and diachronic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1977). Internal reconstruction and generative phonology. Transactions of the Philological Society. 1–25.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980a). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980b). On some possible weaknesses of strong naturalness. In Thrane et al. (1980). 93–102.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1983a). Velar /r/ and the history of English. In Davenport et al. (1983). 67–94.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1983b). Quantity, resolution and syllable geometry. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 10. 33–66. Revised version in Folia Linguistica Historica 4. 151–180.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. & Anderson, J. M. (1975). Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1980). The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979a). Review of C. Li (1977), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Lg 55. 381–395.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979b). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, J. & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839–862.Google Scholar
Lindau, M. (1975). [Features] for vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 30.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1967). Le rôle d'un système de traits phonologiques dans une téorie du langage. Languages 8. 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Lg 46. 286–299.Google Scholar
Makkai, V. B. (1972a). Vowel harmony in Hungarian reexamined in the light of recent developments in phonological theory. In Makkai (1972b). 634–647.Google Scholar
Makkai, V. B. (ed.) (1972b). Phonological theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. (1982). The environment for open syllable lengthening in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3. 29–58.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (1979a). Metaphor: a multidimensional problem. In (1979b). 1–18.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (ed.) (1979b). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E. & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. JASA 32. 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1943). Phonetics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1957). Aspects of prosodic analysis. Proceedings of the University of Durham Philosophical Society I, Series B, I. 1–12.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. (1943). Notes on Hungarian vowel phonemes. Lg 19. 161–164.Google Scholar
Sedlak, P. (1969). Typological considerations of vowel quality systems. Stanford Working Papers on Language Universals I.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syllable. In van der Hulst & Smith (1982: vol. 2). 337–385.Google Scholar
Sigurd, B. (1961). The code shift in Old Norse. Studia Linguistica 15. 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1977). Modern phonology. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–435.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. H. (1976). Graphic representation of models in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P. & Barritt, C. W. (1951). Some Old English graphemic-phonemic correspondences. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 4.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. R. (1966). Systems in Welsh phonology. Studia Celtica I. 93–127.Google Scholar
Thrane, T. et al. (eds.) (1980). Typology and genetics of language. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 20.Google Scholar
Trager, G. & Smith, H. L. (1951). An outline of English structure. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 3.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1929). Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen Vokalsysteme. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague I. 39–67. Reprinted in Vachek (1964b).Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.Google Scholar
Vachek, J. (1964a). On some basic principles of ‘classical’ phonology. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 17. 409–435.Google Scholar
Vachek, J. (ed.) (1964b). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English.: Beyond the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (1974). The articulatory description of vowels. Lingvistiska Månadsmeddelanden, Juni-Juli 1974. Lund: Department of General Linguistics, Lund University.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, S. (1975). The weakness of the tongue-arching model of vowel articulation. Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University 11. 55–507.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (1979). A radiographic analysis of constriction locations for vowels. Journal of Phonetics 7. 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar