Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:35:23.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological events1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Steven Bird  and
Ewan Klein
Steven Bird
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
Ewan Klein
Affiliation:
Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the major innovations within post-SPE generative phonology has been the development of frameworks where phonological units are organized in a non-linear fashion. Taking autosegmental phonology (Goldsmith, 1976) as our main exemplar of such frameworks, we wish to address the following question: What is the appropriate interpretation of autosegmental representations? There is, of course, a further question about what we mean by INTERPRETATION: formal, phonetic or computational interpretation? Although we will concentrate on the first of these, we believe that all three aspects should be regarded as closely inter-connected and mutually constraining. The question of interpreting autosegmental representation has in fact been recently posed by Sagey (1988), and we shall take her proposal as our starting point. While it is uncontroversial to suppose that the relationship between units on a given autosegmental tier is one of temporal precedence, Sagey claims that it is more problematic to pin down what is meant by association between tiers. She argues, cogently we believe, that if association is taken to be a relationship of simultaneity between durationless units, then standard analyses of complex segments and gemination lead to logical inconsistency. Instead, association should be taken as temporal OVERLAP between units with duration.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 33 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Batóg, Tadeusz (1967). The axiomatic method in phonology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bennett, Michael & Partee, Barbara (1972). Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Benthem, Johan van (1983). The logic of time – a model-theorelic investigation inlo the varieties of temporal ontology and temporal discourse. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Benthem, Johan van (1985). A manual of intensional logic. Second Edition. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Lecture Notes Number 1.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Lg 24. 3–46.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1926). A set of postulates for the science of language. Lg 2. 153–164. Reprinted in Martin Joos (ed.) Readings in linguistics I: the development of descriptive linguistics in America 1925–56. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 26–31.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine & Goldstein, Louis (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219–252.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine & Goldstein, Louis (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1984). Principles of tone assignment in Kikuyu. In Clements, George N. & Goldsmith, John (eds.) Autosegmental studies in Bantu tone. Dordrecht: Foris. 281–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1987). Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. In Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara & Schiller, Eric (eds.) Papers from the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part Two: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 29–50.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. (1986). Segmental and suprasegmental structure. In Durand, J. (ed.) Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 203–222.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. (1979).]Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1959). An axiomatization of the phonologic aspect of language. In Gross, L. (ed.) Symposium on sociological theory. New York: Evanston. 437–480.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1988). On deriving the well-formedness condition. LIn 19. 319–325.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LIn 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hoberman, Robert D. (1988). Local and long-distance spreading in Semitic morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1984). On the weightlessness of syllable onsets. In Brugman, C. & Macaulay, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley. 1–14.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark (1988). Attribute-value logic and the theory of grammar. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Lecture Notes Number 16.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri (1984). Features and values. Tenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 28–33.Google Scholar
Kasper, Robert T. & Rounds, William C. (1986). A logical semantics for feature structures. 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1989). The phonology-phonetics interface. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Volume I: 281–302.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald & Noll, Craig (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1983). Phonology – an introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moshier, M. Drew & Rounds, William C. (1987). A logic for partially specified data structures. ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages. Association for Computing Machinery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Beckman, Mary (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1976). Rule interaction and the organization of a grammar. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elisabeth (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elisabeth (1988). On the ill-formedness of crossing association lines. LIn 19. 109–118.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart (1986). An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and.Information, Lecture Notes Number 4.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1972). Axiomatic set theory. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Taylor, Barry (1977). Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy. 1. 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar