No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
CORONALS AND THE PHONOTACTICS OF NONADJACENT CONSONANTS IN ENGLISH
Abstract
This chapter discusses coronals and the phonotactics of nonadjacent consonants in English and presents a distinction between morpheme structure constraints (MSCs) and syllable structure constraints (SSCs). Hooper argued against the existence of MSCs altogether. Hooper contended that all MSCs are expressible as, and so reducible to, syllable structure constraints. Hooper's argument for replacing MSCs with SSCs comes largely from Spanish data. A way of determining whether a constraint is an MSC rather than an SSC is by examining polysyllabic monomorphemic words. For example, if a constraint is posited between two segments based on monosyllabic monomorphemic words and that constraint is also relevant for the same segments in polysyllabic monomorphemic words, then that constraint is an MSC rather than an SSC.
... In standard linear generative phonology, in which the notion 'syllable' did not play a role, phonotactic restrictions were expressed as morpheme structure conditions (MSCs), whereas Hooper (1972) argued that all MSCs could be replaced with syllable structure conditions (SSCs). Hooper's position is clearly too strong since languages also exhibit restrictions on combinations of segments within morphemes that are valid whether these segments belong to the same syllable or not (McCarthy 1986, Davis 1991. ...
... For instance, a form like ordner /ordnar/ 'file' is very marked compared with ander /andDr/ 'other', and the effect is that a consonant cluster before a schwa often has the form of a well-formed syllable coda. 35 Another constraint on the segmental composition of Dutch morphemes (a constraint observed for English by Davis (1991)) is that in the sequence sCVC identical non-coronal obstruents are avoided. It does not play a role whether the two identical Cs belong to the same syllable or not. ...
... Subsequently, typological studies demonstrated dissimilation as a synchronic phonological process in various languages (Bye, 2011;Suzuki, 1988;Walter, 2007). It was also found that dissimilation is present in the lexicon as a phonotactic constraint (Davis, 1991;Gallagher, 2010;MacEachern, 1999;McCarthy, 1986;Yip, 1989). Recently, probabilistic dissimilatory patterns in the lexicon were discovered to influence morphophonological processes in Korean (Ito, 2014;Kang & Oh, 2019;Kim S., 2016). ...
... The epentesis of a particular phoneme, usually one that is related to its environment, is inserted into a word. For example in Indonesian, there is the word sampi next to cow, ax next to ax, jumble beside the number (Davis, 1991). ...
Morpheme is the smallest grammatical unit that has meaning. Traditional grammar does not recognize morpheme concepts or terms because morphemes are not syntactic units, and not all morphemes have philosophical meanings. The concept of morphemes was only introduced by structuralists at the beginning of the twentieth century. To determine whether a unit of form is morpheme or not, we must compare the form in its presence with other forms. If this form turns out to be repeated in other forms, then that form is a morpheme. In morphological studies, a formed unit that has the status of a morpheme is usually denoted by sandwiching it between curly brackets. For example, the word book is denoted as {book}, the word rewrite is denoted to be {re} + {write}. In every language there is a shape (like a word) that you can cut into smaller pieces, then cut back into smaller pieces that you cannot cut anymore.
... Lastly, consider Snumm, quoted above in (2). Along with Snimm (a proper name from Too Many Daves) this coinage violates a phonotactic principle discussed in Davis (1991): English avoids the occurrence of similar or identical consonants in the C positions of the formula sCVC. Davis' constraints include, for instance, bans on /spVp/ and /skVk/ (spip or skeck would be odd as English words). ...
The children's books of Dr. Seuss abound in words that the author invented. Inspection shows that these coinages are not arbitrary, raising the challenge of specifying the linguistic basis on which they were created. Drawing evidence from regression analyses covering the full set of Seuss coinages, I note several patterns, which include coinages that are phonotactically ill-formed, coinages meant to sound German and coinages that assist compliance with the meter. But the primary coinage principle for Seuss appears to have been to use words that include phonesthemes (Firth 1930), small quasi-morphemic sequences affiliated with vague meanings. For instance, the coinage Snumm contains two phonesthemes identified in earlier research, [sn-] and [-ʌm]. Concerning phonesthemes in general, I assert their affiliation with vernacular style, and suggest that phonesthemes can be identified in words purely from their stylistic effect, even when the affiliated meaning is absent. This is true, I argue, both for Seuss’s coinages and for the existing vocabulary.
... English restricts the consonants that can co-occur in the onset and coda of a syllable (Fudge, 1969;Davis, 1984 Davis (1984Davis ( , 1991, I will interpret the absence of *skake and *spape words as evidence that these are not possible words of English (see also Browne, 1981;Clements and Keyser, 1983;Fudge, 1969;Lamontagne, 1993 , which of these two forms will be more and which will be less word-like? There is nothing in the phonological grammar of English that speaks to this question directly. ...
In this paper, I discuss the results of word-likeness rating experiments with Hebrew and English speakers that show that language users use their grammar in a categorical and a gradient manner. In word-likeness rating tasks, subjects make the categorical distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical – they assign all grammatical forms equally high ratings and all ungrammatical forms equally low ratings. However, in comparative word-likeness tasks, subjects are forced to make distinctions between different grammatical or ungrammatical forms. In these experiments, they make finer gradient well-formedness distinctions. This poses a challenge on the one hand to standard derivational models of generative grammar, which can easily account for the categorical distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical, but have more difficulty with the gradient well-formedness distinctions. It also challenges models in which the categorical distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical does not exist, but in which an ungrammatical form is simply a form with very low probability. I show that the inherent comparative character of an OT grammar enables it to model both kinds of behaviors in a straightforward manner.
... An example of a sequential constraint that holds both for tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic sound sequences, observed for English by Davis (1991), and for Dutch by Booij (1995: 46), is that in the sequence sCVC the two Cs should not be identical, unless they are coronal. Here are some Dutch examples with labial and coronal consonants (such sequences of velar consonants do not occur for independent reasons): ...
Morpheme structure constraints are constraints on the segmental make‐up of the morphemes of a language. A textbook example of such a constraint is that bnik is an impossible morpheme of English, whereas blik is a possible English morpheme that happens not to exist. Hence, bnik is a systematic gap in the morpheme inventory of English, whereas blik is an accidental gap in this inventory. This can be taken to imply that there is a morpheme structure constraint that prevents English morphemes from beginning with a /b/ followed by a nasal consonant.
... This ranking appears to correlate with the extent to which the structures are attested in existing words. 2 Homorganic oral stops in this context are completely unattested when they are labials, are somewhat more common when they are velars (especially if intervening nasals and liquids are included), and are quite common when they are coronals (see e.g. Davis 1991, Lamontagne 1993. Examples appear in (6). ...
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
... For these reasons, coronals are often not specified for a place of articulation. Yet in other cases coronal obstruents must be more fully specified underlyingly (Davis 1991). For example, there is a constraint that prohibits homorganic consonants from occurring in the same root morpheme. ...
... The OCP prohibits consecutive identical autosegments (Leben 1973(Leben , 1978Goldsmith 1976Goldsmith , 1984Pulleyblank 1986), segments (Steriade 1982;Schein & Steriade 1986;Hayes 1986;Prince 1984) or syllables (Yip 1993). It is generally taken to constrain the application of rules as well as the shapes of underlying morphological representations (McCarthy 1988;Clements 1988;Davis 1991). ...
What influence do syntax and phonology have on one another ? Two types of answer to this question appear in the literature. The consensus view is probably best expressed by Zwicky & Pullum (1986) (see also Myers 1987; Vogel & Kenesei 1990), who claim that the relation is one-way: although phonological phrasing above the word is affected by syntactic structure, syntax itself is phonology-free.
... This approach, however, allows evidence for their relative ranking to come from gradient phonotactics and psycholinguistic data. Coetzee (2009) compares the grammaticality of English homorganic stops after [s], noting that coronals are attested, as in state, but labials and dorsals are not, as in *skake or *spape (see also Davis 1984Davis , 1991Frisch 1996;Frisch et al. 2004). ...
... English and German, like many other Indo-European languages, disallow roots of the type CC i VC i. Thus, English has speak, smell, and plate, but not *speap, *smemm, and *plale (Fudge, 1969;Davis, 1989Davis, , 1991). Likewise, Speck[ʃpɛk]'bacon', schmal[ʃmɑ:l]'narrow', and platt[plɑt]'flat' are attested in German, but *Spep[ʃpɛp], *schmam[ʃmɑm] , and *plall[plɑl]are not. ...
How are violations of phonological constraints processed in word comprehension? The present article reports the results of an event-related potentials (ERP) study on a phonological constraint of German that disallows identical segments within a syllable or word (CC(i)VC(i)). We examined three types of monosyllabic late positive CCVC words: (a) existing words [see text], (b) wellformed novel words [see text] and component (c) illformed novel words [see text] as instances of Obligatory Contour Principle non-word (OCP) violations. Wellformed and illformed novel words evoked an N400 effect processing in comparison to existing words. In addition, illformed words produced an enhanced late posterior positivity effect compared to wellformed novel words. obligatory contour Our findings support the well-known observation that novel words evoke principle higher costs in lexical integration (reflected by N400 effects). Crucially, modulations of a late positive component (LPC) show that violations of phonological phonotactic constraints influence later stages of cognitive processing even constraints when stimuli have already been detected as non-existing. Thus, the comparison of electrophysiological effects evoked by the two types of non-existing words reveals the stages at which phonologically based structural wellformedness comes into play during word processing.
The term “The Emergence of the Unmarked” (TETU), originally coined by McCarthy and Prince (1994), refers to situations where some marked structure is generally allowed in a language, but banned in particular contexts; the complementary unmarked structure thus “emerges.” In Nuu‐chah‐nulth (Wakashan, referred to by McCarthy and Prince by its former name, Nootka), for example, syllables can generally have codas; reduplicants, however, are exceptional in that codas are banned. This results in words like [tʃi‐tʃm.s'iːħ] ‘hunting bear’ and [waːwaːs.tʃiɬ] ‘naming where’, in which unmarked (codaless) syllables emerge in reduplicants despite the presence of marked codas in bases.
The present volume consists of eight studies dealing with various aspects of Prosodic Phonology (see Booij 1983, Nespor & Vogel 1986 and much current work). The languages dealt with below include English, German, Italian, Luganda, Ndebele, Persian, Polish, Spanish, and Tamil.
This chapter provides a review of evidence that occurrence frequency has an influence on phonological patterns. The examination of quantitative or statistical patterns in phonology, and grammar more generally, pre‐dates the development of modern linguistic theory. For example, Zipf (1965) examined statistical properties of texts and noted a variety of effects that still have relevance in current theoretical discussions, such as the tendency for reduction of high‐frequency words. Bolinger (1961) and Herdan (1962) discussed gradience and statistical distribution as a natural middle ground between the grammatical extremes of the acceptable and the unacceptable. However, given the limitations both in the understanding of language structure and in the computational resources for conducting quantitative studies, this type of research did not gain much traction in the field of linguistics more generally. With the availability of lexical and usage corpora now available, and armed with the descriptive and theoretical advances of modern linguistic theory, a variety of authors are now arguing for the influence of frequency on phonological patterns in synchronic phonology and morphophonology, phonological acquisition, and diachronic phonology. In many ways, phonology is the ideal domain in which to study the potential role of frequency effects in grammar (Herdan 1962). The set of basic phonological units (phonemes or features) is relatively limited, these units are routinely combined in a reasonably static set of fixed forms (the lexicon), and productive combinations of these units in morphology are also limited in their variety of combination by that same fixed set of units. Morphophonological changes are triggered by phonological environments defined by features ( chapter 17: distinctive features ) or phonemes ( chapter 11: the phoneme ) and the results of the changes are within the same set of featural or phonemic varieties.
چكيده
زبان پديدهاي است اجتماعي و هر زبان گوناگونيها و تنوعاتي گسترده دارد كه به سبكها
و گونههاي اجتماعي متفاوت اشاره دارند. پژوهش حاضر به مقدار حذف همخوان پاياني
كلمات در بين دانشآموزان دختر و پسر مقطع اول ابتـدايي شـهرري و نيـز شـهر تهـران
پرداخته و در واقع گونه زباني دانشآموزان دو طبقه اجتماعي پايين و بالاي شهر را بررسي
كرده است. در اين شاخص براي تعيين طبقه اجتمـاعي از عوامـل فرهنگـي، اجتمـاعي و
اقتصادي و عواملي مانند محل سكونت، تحصيلات و شغل والدين استفاده شده است. اين
پژوهشباروشتوصيفي- تحليليدريك جامعةآماري شامل 200 دانشآموز دختر و پسر
از دو منطقه جنوب و شمال شهر تهران انجام شـده اسـت. در ايـن پـژوهش، متغيرهـاي
مستقل طبقه اجتماعي و جنسيتاند و متغير وابسته متغير زباني است و تمام مباحث برپايه
نظريه بازيل برنشتاين است. دادههاي پژوهش بـا اسـتفاده از پرسـشنامـهاي 60 سـئوالي
گردآوري و با استفاده از آزمون لون (Leven ،(t و آمار توصيفي تحليل كمي و كيفي شـد.
نتايج اين پژوهش حاكي از آن هستند كه در تمام موارد حذفهاي پايـاني دانـشآمـوزان
مناطق پايين شهر بيش از دانشآموزان مناطق بالاي شهر بوده و بهطور كلي پسـران(هر دو
منطقه) بيش از دختران(هر دو منطقه) عمل حذف را انجام ميدهند.
In the past few years, a number of articles have argued that the default articulator for consonants is Coronal (see, for example, Kiparsky 1985; Iverson and Kim 1987:187; Shaw 1988; Avery and Rice 1989; and the contributors to Paradis and Prunet 1991). Paradis and Prunet (1993b), with a view to strengthening and formalizing this proposal, have expressed the Weak Coronal Hypothesis (WCH) in (1).
This paper presents evidence that speakers of Cochabamba Quechua are aware of non-local restrictions on ejectives in their language. A repetition task was run to investigate the synchronic status of two restrictions in Quechua: the co-occurrence restriction on ejectives, which prohibits roots with two ejectives (e.g., *[k’ap’i]), and the ordering restriction on ejectives, which prohibits roots with an initial plain stop and a medial ejective (e.g., *[kap’i]). Medial ejectives are generally attested in the language, but only occur in roots with an initial fricative or sonorant (e.g., [mat’i] ‘forehead’). Native Quechua speakers were asked to repeat a mixture of real and nonsense words with medial ejectives, where the nonsense words were either phonotactically legal but unattested roots or phonotactically illegal roots that violated either the co-occurrence restriction or the ordering restriction. Medial ejectives are accurately repeated significantly more often in nonce roots where the medial ejective is phonotactically legal than when it is illegal. There is variation among subjects as to whether accuracy differs greatly between the co-occurrence and ordering category targets. Additionally, there is variation in how roots that violate the ordering restriction are repaired: both de-ejectivization, e.g., target [kap’i] produced as [kapi], and movement of ejection, e.g., target [kap’i] produced as [k’api] are common. This variation in repair strategy has implications for the formal analysis of the restriction, which must predict all well-attested repairs.
In many languages the issue arises as to whether an onglide patters as part of the syllable onset or forms the first part of a (rising) diphthong with the immediately following vowel. If it is part of the syllable onset, the structure of a CGV syllable would be as in (1), but if it forms the first part of a diphthong the structure of a CGV syllable could either be as in (2a) with a monomoraic diphthong (where the glide is ‘co-moraic’ with the following vowel) or as in (2b) with a bimoraic diphthong (C = consonant, G = glide, V = vowel, μ = mora, and σ = syllable).
In this paper, I examine sonority and place of articulation constraints on the syllabification of consonants in clusters. I argue that (i) both sonority and place of articulation relationships are important in determining the syllabification of consonants in clusters, (ii) well-formed sonority and place relationships are detectable both through phonotactics and through repair strategies that apply if the constraints on sonority and place are not met, (iii) sonority and place constraints are both structurally determined and (iv) place of articulation does not form part of the sonority relationship between consonants as the structural conditions for the licensing of sonority and for the licensing of place of articulation may differ (see Clements 1990a: 313). However, place of articulation restrictions, while independent of sonority restrictions, are, like sonority restrictions, structurally defined.
Phonological underspecification plays an important role in phonological theory. Some features are left blank in underlying representations. If they are relevant to the pronunciation of a segment, they are filled in at some point in the derivation; otherwise, they are left blank permanently. When underspecification was reintroduced to phonological theory in the 1980s, researchers originally assumed that all information that could be considered predictable had to be underspecified in underlying representations (Kiparsky 1982; Archangeli 1984). Information can be considered predictable in one of two ways. First, information is predictable if it is redundant or allophonic; the voicing and nasality of the vowel in the word grin [grin] in English are predictable (because vowels are always voiced, and are always nasalised before a nasal) and omitted from underlying representations. Second, given that a feature is binary, it is possible to leave one value of the feature blank in underlying representations; if the segment is not specified as e.g. [+ F], then it must be [− F], by default. The approach that defines predictability in this fashion is known as RADICAL UNDERSPECIFICATION
The relationship between phonetics, phonology, and applied linguistics continues to be a paradoxical one. On the one hand, these fields of linguistics lend themselves more readily to applicationthan others since they deal with something more tangible and material than morphology, syntax, semantics, or historical research. On the other hand, there is something esoteric in phonetics and phonology: The objects they handle–sounds, articulatory features, acoustic spectra, stress degrees or melodies–are more elusive and hard to observe for the non-specialist than, say, suffixes, word order, or even meanings. Their terminology is rich and often forbidding, and they may sometimes seem to insist on pedantic distinctions or irrelevant detail (Dieling 1992). The validity of the phonetics–phonology dichotomy itself may be questioned when it comes to their application; however, the two fields continue to develop separately and grow further apart. Thus the application of the “sound sciences”, phonetics and phonology, is partly more advanced and partly more rudimentary than that of other linguistic branches. The purpose of the present survey is to demonstrate the importance of phonology and its applications in TEFL. To do so, this survey will examine current development in both phonetics and phonology, and then suggest implications for instructional contexts.
The German uvular /R/ probably shows more surface variation than any other segment in the language. (1) illustrates that /R/ has a vocalic allophone [A], which can surface either as a glide or a vowel, a sonorant consonant allophone, which is pronounced as a uvular trill or approximant, and two obstruent allophones:
In the present study I focus on the rules producing the consonantal allophones of /R/ in both Standard German and in certain dialects of the Lower Rhineland (henceforth LRG).
This dissertation investigates the phonetic realization and phonological behaviour of the class of retroflexes, i.e. sounds that are articulated with the tongue tip or the underside of the tongue tip against the postalveolar or palatal region. On the basis of four articulatory properties, a new definition of retroflexes is proposed. These properties are apicality, posteriority, sublingual cavity, and retraction; the latter is shown to imply that retroflexes are incompatible with secondary palatalization. The phonetic section gives an overview of the factors responsible for the large articulatory variation of retroflexes and discusses putative counterexamples of palatalized retroflexes. In addition, it describes the acoustic realization of retroflexes and proposes the common characteristic of a low third fomant. The phonological section discusses processes involving retroflexes from a large number of typologically diverse languages. These processes are shown to be grounded in the similar articulatory and acoustic properties of the retroflex class. Furthermore, this section gives a phonological analysis of the processes involving retroflexes in an Optimally Theoretic framework with underlying perceptual representations, based on Boersmas Functional Phonology. Evidence is presented for the non-universality of the retroflex class, and for the non-necessity of innate phonological features. This study is of interest to phonologists and phoneticians, especially to those working on the phonetics-phonology interface.
Previous research on spoken word recognition has demonstrated that identification of a phonetic segment is affected by the lexical status of the item in which the segment occurs. W. F. Ganong (1980) demonstrated that a category boundary shift occurs when the voiced end of 1 voice-onset time continuum is a word but the voiceless end of another series is a word; this is known as the "lexical effect." A series of studies was undertaken to examine how lexical neighborhood; in contrast to lexical status, might influence word perception. Pairs of nonword series were created in which the voiced end of 1 series had a higher frequency-weighted neighborhood density, whereas the reverse was true for the other series. Lexical neighborhood was found to affect word recognition in much the same way as lexical status.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.