Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:51:02.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invariant syllable skeleton, complex segments and word edges1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

TOBIAS SCHEER
TOBIAS SCHEER*
Affiliation:
Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, CNRS 7320
*
Author's address: Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, Campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, Laboratoire Bases, Corpus, Langage (BCL), 24, avenue des Diables Bleus, F-06000 Nice, France[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

San Duanmu's Syllable Structure: The Limits of Variation raises a number of questions that are of general interest for phonological theory. Of special interest here are: the genesis and management of linearity in complex segments, the place of analogy (or paradigm uniformity) in grammar, the role of morphology in accounting for phonological patterns, the balance of static (distributional patterns) and dynamic (phonological processes) evidence for syllable structure, the role of stress in syllabification, and the import of corpus-based data for phonological analysis. In each case, Duanmu's proposals are evaluated according to their intrinsic consistency, the empirical record and the relevant body of literature. Alternative ways of handling the phenomena are offered, and these are fairly traditional in most cases. Duanmu's book is particularly relevant in the current constitution of the field where the see-saw movement between computation and representations seems to swing back in direction of the latter after having long been immobilised on the computational end. Standing clearly on the representational side, the theory exposed in the book aims to show that all surface strings may be reduced to a fixed and invariant syllable template, C(onsonant)V(owel)X. This enterprise is interesting especially in presence of another representationally-oriented theory, CVCV (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004), which also aims at reducing surface variation to an invariant syllabic skeleton, made of a monotonic sequence of CV units. However, the CVX and the CVCV templates are quite distinct, and the strategies that are used in order to accommodate the surface string are opposite (shrinking in the former case, expanding in the latter).

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 685 - 726
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This article was greatly improved by comments from Andrew Nevins and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, all of whom I am indebted to. Many thanks also to Ewa Jaworska for thorough, competent and efficient proofreading.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Language 52, 326–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & Gulikers, Leon. 1993. The CELEX lexical database (CD ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman, Jill, Urbanczyk, Suzanne & Dickey, Laura Walsh (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), 77–136. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2010. Review of Syllable structure: The limits of variation by San Duanmu, 2009. Linguistic Typology 14, 287–291.Google Scholar
Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. Dordrecht: HIL.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6, 201–251.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representation. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol. 1, 123–141. Salford: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 1996a. A Phase Window Framework for articulatory timing. Phonology 13, 139–169.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 1996b. Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics 24, 209–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 2005. Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Asli. 1994. Vowel harmony and switching in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 4, 31–52. [Also in Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann, 29–56. Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin, 1996.]Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1999. Affricates as noncontoured stops. In Fujimura, Osamu, Joseph, Brian D. & Palek, Bohumil (eds.), LP ’98: Item Order in Language and Speech, vol. 1, 271–299. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 2003. Feature economy in sound systems. Phonology 20, 287–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 2009. The role of features in phonological inventories. In Raimy, Eric & Cairns, Charles (eds.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory, 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1983. CV Phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2010. Complexity scales and licensing in phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, François. 1973. Les règles et les sons. Paris: Hermann [2nd edn. in 1985].Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Alan Hall, T. & Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2005a. Introduction: The role of paradigms in phonological theory. In Downing, et al. (eds.), 1–16.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.). 2005. Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San. 1994. Against contour tone units. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 555–608.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques, Slater, Catherine & Wise, Hilary. 1987. Observations on schwa in Southern French. Linguistics 25, 983–1004.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin. 1982. The internal structure of complex segments. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations: Part 2, 27–67. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47, 27–52.Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu & Lovins, Julie B.. 1978. Syllables as concatenative phonetic units. In Hooper, Joan Bybee & Bell, Alan (eds.), Syllables and segments, 107–120. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Gregová, Renáta. 2009. Book review: Duanmu 2009, Syllable structure: The limits of variation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 6, 93–99.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. A[lan]. 2001. The distribution of superheavy syllables in Modern English. Folia Linguistica 35, 399–442.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1999a. The phonology of English: A prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1999b. English stress and cranberry morphs. Presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the LSA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. A tale of two cities: London glottaling and New York City tapping. The Linguistic Review 7, 251–274.Google Scholar
Herbert, R. K. 1977. Language universals, markedness theory, and natural phonetic processes: The interaction of nasal and oral consonants. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 1985. Linearisation and the Single-Segment Hypothesis. In Guéron, Jacqueline, Obenauer, Hans & Pollock, Jean-Yves (eds.), Grammatical representation, 87–100. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hoard, James E. 1967. On the foundations of phonological theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hoard, James E. 1978. Syllabication in Northwest Indian languages, with remarks on the nature of syllabic stops and affricates. In Bell, Alan & Hooper, Joan Bybee (eds.), Syllables and segments, 59–72. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hualde, José. 1988. Affricates are not contour segments. The Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 7), 77–89.Google Scholar
Hualde, José. 1991. Basque phonology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2004. The phonological lexicon. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.), Optimality Theory in phonology, 552–568. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar & Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17, 187–235.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1976 [1922]. Nature, évolution et origines du langage. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 2006. The insufficiency of paper-and-pencil linguistics: The case of Finnish prosody. In Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, 287–300. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [ROA #818]Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan Derek. 1985. On the syllable structure of certain West African languages. In Goyvaerts, Didier (ed.), African linguistics: Essays in memory of M. W. K. Semikenke, 285–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. Government in phonology: The case of Moroccan Arabic. The Linguistic Review 6, 131–159.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1995. Derivations and interfaces. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.), Frontiers of phonology, 289–332. London & New York: Longman. [Also in SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3, 90–126 (1993).]Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 2001. Working with licensing constraints. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (ed.), Constraints and preferences, 251–268. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7, 193–231.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang. 2002. Phonological representation and phonetic phrasing: Affricates and laryngeals. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol. 1, 363–393. Salford: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon. 1997. The phonological representation of affricates: Evidence from Korean and other languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon. 2001. A phonetically based account of phonological stop assibilation. Phonology 18, 81–108.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William Orr (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576–649. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2009. The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
La Charité, Darlène. 1993. The internal structure of affricates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Gregory A. 1993. Syllabification and consonant cooccurrence conditions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa & Cohn, Abigail C.. 1999. Sequisyllables on English: The structure of vowel-liquid syllables. The 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 14), 109–112.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1990. The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol. 2, 419–441. Salford: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Ploch, Stefan (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye, 339–363. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1989. Prenasalized stops and speech timing. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 19, 57–66.Google Scholar
Marotta, Giovanna. 2008. Lenition in Tuscan Italian (Gorgia Toscana). In Brandão de Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 235–271. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1939. Un ou deux phonèmes? Acta Linguistica 1, 94–103.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Downing, et al. (eds.), 170–210.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan 1996. Prosodic morphology 1986. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1991. Persistent rules. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 315–344.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ohlander, Sölve. 1976. Phonology, meaning, morphology. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Passino, Diana. 2008. Aspects of consonantal lengthening in Italian. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Rennison, John R. 1998. Contour segments without subsegmental structures. In Cyran, Eugeniusz (ed.), Structure and interpretation: Studies in phonology, 227–245. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 1997. Theoretical issues in comparative Ethio-Semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam. 1992. Prenasalized stops and feature geometry. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Luschützky, Hans, Pfeiffer, Oskar & Rennison, John (eds.), Phonologica 1988: The 6th International Phonology Meeting, 249–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1994. Affricates as strident stops in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 119–143.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth Caroline. 1986. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology, vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2007. On the status of word-initial clusters in Slavic (and elsewhere). In Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena & Savchenko, Ulyana (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting 2006, 346–364. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2008. Syllabic and trapped consonants in (Western) Slavic: The same but yet different. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Szucsich, Luka, Junghanns, Uwe & Meyer, Roland (eds.), Formal description of Slavic languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003, 149–167. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2009a. Representational and procedural sandhi killers: Diagnostics, distribution, behaviour. In Dočekal, Mojmír & Ziková, Markéta (eds.), Czech in formal grammar, 155–174. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2009b. External sandhi: What the initial CV is initial of. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 47, 43–82.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2010a. What OT is, and what it is not. Review article on The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 2007. Journal of Linguistics 46.1, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2010b. How to marry (structuralist) contrast and (generative) processing. Review of The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology by Wolfgang Dresher, 2009. Lingua 120, 2522–2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. Aspects of the development of generative phonology. In Botma, Bert, Kula, Nancy & Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.), The Continuum companion to phonology, 397–446. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ségéral, Philippe & Scheer, Tobias. 2008. Positional factors in lenition and fortition. In Brandão de Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 131–172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Closure, release, and nasal contours. In Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 401–470. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1994. Complex onsets as single segments: The Mazateco pattern. In Cole, Jennifer & Kisseberth, Charles (eds.), Perspectives in phonology, 203–291. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2007. Contrast. In Lacy, Paul de (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 139–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szigetvári, Péter & Scheer, Tobias. 2005. Unified representations for the syllable and stress. Phonology 22, 37–75.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1987. Floating schwas and closed syllable adjustment in French. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Luschützky, Hans, Pfeiffer, Oskar & Rennison, John (eds.), Phonologica 1984, 311–317. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1988. A propos de l'ajustement de e en français. In Verluyten, Paul (ed.), La phonologie du schwa français, 89–131. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen. 1992. Basque affricates and the Manner–Place dependency. Lingua 88, 129–147.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen. 1993. The Manner–Place dependency in complex segments. Linguistics 31, 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen. 1996. Segmental structure and complex segments. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1998. Nasalization, neutral segments and opacity effects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie. 2002. Aggressive reduplication. Phonology 19, 395–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar