Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:27:24.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological rules and phonetic explanation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Daniel A. Dinnsen
Daniel A. Dinnsen
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the last several years there has been increased interest in and reliance on the role of phonetics in explaining various aspects of phonology. Such notions as ‘natural rule’ and ‘phonetically explainable’ are commonly equated and are incorporated into arguments over the appropriateness of some given rule formulation or over the range of analyses permitted under alternative theoretical approaches. Those who have made the strongest, most explicit appeal to phonetics in this regard include Stampe (1969, 1973), Ohala (1971, 1972, 1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1978), Schane (1972), Harms (1973), and Hooper (1976). The common thread in these various appeals is the claim that some or all defensible phonological rules are phonetically explainable.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , September 1980 , pp. 171 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Anwar, M. S. (1974). Consonant devoicing at word boundary and assimilation. LSci 32. 6–12.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. B. (1968). Scientific explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brasington, R. W. P. (1973). Reciprocal rules in Catalan phonology. JL 9. 25–33.Google Scholar
Brasington, R. W. P. (1976). Have we inhibitions related to universal rules? JPhon 4. 75–81.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1973) On the formal expression of natural rules in phonology. JL 9. 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collinder, B. (1969). Survey of the Uralic languages. 2nd edition. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1976 a). On the explanation of rule change. Glossa 10. 175–199.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1976 b). Some preliminaries to atomic phonology. PCLS 12. 134–144.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1977a). A functional explanation of dialect differences. LSci 46. 1–7.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1977b). Some formal and empirical issues in atomic phonology. Communication and cognition 11. 427–440.Google Scholar
Also reprinted in Goyvaerts, D. L. (ed.), Recent advances in phonological theory. Antwerp: Story-Scientia. 1979. 143–156.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1979a). Atomic phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Press. 31–49.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1979b). On reciprocal rules and phonetic explanation. Unpublished MS., Indiana University.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Eckman, F. (1978). Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1977). New directions in phonological theory: language acquisition and universals research. In Cole, R. W. (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Press. 247–300.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. (1978). On the acoustic characteristics of NASAL+;FRICATIVE clusters in Catalan and English. Unpublished MS., Indiana University.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. V. (1975). On the correlation of stops and fricatives in a phonological system. Lingua 35. 321–362.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Studies of the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20. 157–177.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. (1973). Some non-rules of English. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Also appears in Jazayery, M.Polomé, E. C. & Winter, W. (eds), Linguistic and literary studies in honor of A. A. Hill. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. (1944). The grammar and vocabulary of the Eskimo language as spoken by the Kuskokwin and Southeast Coast Eskimos of Alaska. Bethelem (Penna.): The Society for propagating the gospel, the Moravian Church.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Houlihan, K. (1979). On assimilatory and non-assimilatory phonological rules. Glossa 13. 13–23.Google Scholar
Houlihan, K. & Iverson, G. (1979). Functionally-constrained phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Press, 50–73.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1978). Speech aerodynamics and phonological universals. Report of the Phonology Laboratory. University of California, Berkeley. No.2. 12–30.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D., Carney, P. J. & Severeid, L. R. (1974). Velar movement and timing: evaluation of a model for binary control. JSHR 17. 470–488.Google Scholar
Lintz, L. B. & Sherman, D. (1961). Phonetic elements and perception of nasality. JSHR 4. 381–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattoso, Câmara J. Jr, (1972). The Portuguese language, trans. Naro, A. J.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, B. & Wang, W. S-Y. (1967). Perceptual distance and the specification of phonological features. POLA, Second Series 1. 1–33.Google Scholar
Moll, F. de Borja. (1952). Gramática histórica catalana. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Moll, K. L. & Daniloff, R. G. (1971). Investigation of the timing of velar movements during speech. JASA 50. 678–684.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972). The generative interpretation of dialect: a study of modern Greek phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1971). The rôle of physiological and acoustic models in explaining the direction of sound change. POLA 15. 25–40.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1972). How to represent natural sound patterns. POLA 16. 40–57.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1974a). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds), Historical linguistics II. Theory and description in phonology. Amsterdam: North Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1974b). Phonetic explanation in phonology. In Bruck, A., Fox, R. A. & Lagaly, M. W. (eds), Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 251–274.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1975). Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, C. A., Hyman, L. M. & Ohala, J. J. (eds), Nasalfest: Papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project. 289–316.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1978). The contribution of acoustics to phonology. (To appear) in Lindblom, B. & Öhman, S. (eds), Frontiers in speech communication research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Port, R. (To appear) Combinations of timing factors in speech production.Google Scholar
Roca, I. M. (1975). Phonetics is not phonology. JPhon 3. 53–62.Google Scholar
Roca, I. M. (1976). Who is afraid of universal statements? JPhon 4. 83–90.Google Scholar
Roca, I. M. (1977). Ordering evidence from counter-feeding. LIn 7 718–724.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1972). Natural rules in phonology. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macauley, R. K. S. (eds), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Press. 199–229.Google Scholar
Smith, B. L. (1978). Effects of places of articulation and vowel environment on ‘voiced’ stop consonant productions. Glossa 12. 163–176.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representations. PCLS 5. 443–454.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1973). A dissertation on natural phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Thumb, A. (1912). Handbook of the modern Greek vernacular: grammar, text, glossary, trans. Angus, S. (2nd German edition). Edinburgh: Clark.Google Scholar
Walsh, T. J. (1977a). On the necessity of rule ordering in natural generative phonology. Presented at VII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Walsh, T. J. (1977b). A critical review of ‘Ordering evidence from counter-feeding’. Unpublished MS. Indiana University.Google Scholar