Introduction

In this chapter, I present an introduction to the RCVP model, focusing on the ‘syntax’ of C/V combinations but without providing details of the segmental structure or empirical underpinning. In the following chapters, I will then go into the details for each class of phonological elements (manner, place, laryngeal) and provide empirical support from typological studies of segmental contrast and inventories, notably reported in MD, LM, Gordon (2016) and various databases that are available online. I show how the two RCVP ‘C’ and ‘V’ elements are phonetically interpreted by providing a set of interpretation functions. In this chapter, I will also provide the RCVP model of the syllable and discuss how segmental structure and syllable structure are connected.

An outline of Radical CV Phonology

The seg mental model

RCVP is an approach based on both DP) (AE) and GP (KLV85, KLV90); Harris & Lindsey (1995)). Roughly, RCVP shares its basic principles, as expressed in (1), with DP:

(1) Fundamental principles:

• a. Phonological primes are unary (they are called elements).

• b. Elements are grouped into units (‘gestures’ or ‘class nodes’).

• c.Each class is populated by the same two elements, C and V.

• d.When combined, elements enter into a head-dependency relation.

• e. All elements are used for both consonants and vowels.

• f. Some primes may occur in more than one class.

• g. Representations are minimally specified.

In (2) I represent the full RCVP geometry:

I will refer to element specification in head subclasses as primary specifications and specifications in the dependent class as secondary specifications. Both subclasses contain the two elements C and V; for convenience, the elements in the dependent are given in lower case when we explicitly consider them in secondary subclasses; when I refer to elements in general I will use upper case. Within each class, elements can occur alone or in combination (with dependency). A general characteristic of elements that are heads is their perceptual salience.

The motivation for regarding manner as the head class comes from the fact that manner specifications, specifically primary specifications, are determinants of the syllabic distribution of segments and of their sonority (which is of course related to syllabic distribution). Their relevance for sonority also correlates with the role of head in perceptual salience. Additionally, taking mobility (‘spreadability’) to be characteristic of dependents, I suggest that relative stability (resistance to ‘spreading’) is also a sign of heads.