Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:34:42.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assimilation, deletion paths and underspecification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ken Lodge
Ken Lodge
Affiliation:
Centre for Research in Linguistics and in Language learning, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that underspecification of lexical-entry forms enables us to restrict phonological theory to declarative statements about the structure of lexical items, and to avoid having recourse to feature-changing and deletion rules. The realizations of lexical items are mapped onto their underlying forms by means of filling-in, redundancy rules of two basic types, predictive and default. Predictive rules derive (at least) one feature from (at least) one other feature, given in the lexical entry form, and default rules provide a feature, if no other rule has applied. Rules are both universal and language-specific. Since all filling-in is accounted for by these redundancy rules, there is no need for a post-lexical component of the phonology.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 13 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Anderson, J. M. (1986a). Suprasegmental dependencies. In Durand, J. (ed.) Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 55–133.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (1986b). The English prosody /h/. In Kastovsky, D. & Szwedek, A. (eds) Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, vol. II: Descriptive, contrastive and applied studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (1987). The limits of linearity. In Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (eds) Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (to appear). Contrastivity and non-specification in Dependency Phonology.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (1986). Dependency phonology. In Durand, J. (ed.) Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 1–54.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (1988). Underspecification in dependency phonology. In Bertinetto, P. M. & Loporcaro, M. (eds) Certamen phonologicum I, Proceedings of the Cartona Phonology Meeting, 1987. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 3–36.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Ewen, C. J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1976). Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Lg 52. 326–344.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of Underspecification theory. Phonology 5. 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, P. & Rice, K. (1989). Segment structure and coronal Underspecification. Phonology 6. 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, M. C. (1985). A palatographic study of connected speech processes. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Bird, S. & Klein, E. (1990). Phonological events. JL 26. 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockhaus, W. (1990). Colourful leagues: a government phonology approach to final obstruent devoicing in German. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 270–297.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219–252.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (1972). Phonological rules and dialect variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haas, W. G. (1988). Phonological implications of skeleton and feature underspecification in Kasem. Phonology 5. 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. (1987). On the phonological status of glides: the evidence from Malay. In Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (eds) Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 79–107.Google Scholar
Durand, J. & Anderson, J. M. (to appear). Segments non-spécifiés et sous-spécifiés en phonologie de déependence: le Yawelmani et les autres dialectes du Yokuts. In Laks, B. & Rialland, A. (eds) Architecture et géométrie des représentations phonologiques. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Foley, J. (1977). Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1980). An introduction to the pronunciation of English, 3rd edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1985). Vowel harmony in Khalkha Mongolian, Yaka, Finnish and Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 2. 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Griffen, T. D. (1985). Aspects of dynamic phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashim, A. (1986). Aspects of colloquial Malay phonology. Unpublished MA thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich.Google Scholar
Hashim, A. & Lodge, K. R. (1988). The phonological processes of Malay: a preliminary statement. UEA Papers in Linguistics 28. 1–28.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1984). The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 318–328.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986). Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. LIn 17. 467–499.Google Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1985). The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J. & Local, J. (1986). Long-domain resonance patterns in English. IEE Proceedings of the Conference in Speech Input/Output.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. & Local, J. (1989). Doing phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. (1985). A sociophonetic study of connected speech processes in Cambridge English: an outline and some results. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. H. (1977). Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1982). A course in phonetics, 2nd edn.New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Local, J. (to appear). Modelling assimilation in non-segmental rule-free synthesis. In Docherty, G. & Ladd, R. (eds) Papers in laboratory phonology II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1978). A Stockport teenager. JIPA 8. 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1981). Dependency phonology and English consonants. Lingua 54. 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1983). The acquisition of phonology: a Stockport sample. Lingua 61. 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1984). Studies in the phonology of colloquial English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1986a). The English velar fricative, dialect variation and dependency phonology. In Durand, J. (ed.) Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 269–279.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1986b). Allegro rules in colloquial Thai: some thoughts on process phonology. JL 22. 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (1989). A non-segmental account of German Umlaut: diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Linguistische Berichte 124. 470–491.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (to appear). Underspecification, polysystemicity and non-segmental representations in phonology: the case of Malay.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. (in prep.). Issues in non-segmental phonology.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (1984). Continuant spreading in Basque, Catalan and Spanish. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 287–298.Google Scholar
Onn, F. (1980). Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology. Bangi: University of Malaysia.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (1989). On coronal transparency. Phonology 6. 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1988a). Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. LIn 19. 233–270.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1988b). Underspecification, the feature hierarchy and Tiv vowels. Phonology 5. 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. (1988). Casual speech rules and what the phonology of connected speech might really be like. Paper presented to the LAGB Spring meeting, University of Durham, April, 1988.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. J. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1986). The interaction of sociolinguistic and phonetically-conditioned CSPS in Cambridge English: auditory and electropalatographic evidence. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity. LIn 19. 65–100.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1989). Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6. 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar