Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T07:23:11.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The consequences of dissimilation in Sundanese*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Abigail C. Cohn
Abigail C. Cohn
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Studies of phonological assimilation have played a central role in the development of current phonological theory. As widely discussed in the literature, assimilation is an extremely common phonological process cross-linguistically and therefore an adequate phonological theory should represent it simply and naturally. This has led to the current view of assimilation as spreading (Clements 1976; Goldsmith 1976; Hayes 1986; among others). Much less work has addressed itself to the issue of dissimilation, but recently it has been suggested that dissimilation should be analysed as delinking followed by default fill-in (Odden 1987; Poser 1987; McCarthy 1988; Yip 1988).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , August 1992 , pp. 199 - 220
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, S. R. (1972). On nasalization in Sundanese. LI 3. 253–268.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1991). Wackernagel's revenge: clitics, morphology and the syntax of second position. Ms, The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5. 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1986). The content and structure of phonological representations. Ms, University of Arizona & University of Southern California. Forthcoming as Grounded phonology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1989). Yoruba vowel harmony. LI 20. 173–217.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1976). Vowel harmony in nonlinear generative phonology. Distributed 1980, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (1990). Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Also appeared as UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 76.Google Scholar
Eringa, F. S. (1949). Loetoeng Kasaroeng. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 8.Google Scholar
Ewing, Michael (1991). Plural concord in Sundanese. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goodman, Beverley (1992). Takelma dissimilation and the form of the OCP. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 7. 41–63.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1986). Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. LI 17. 467–500.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1988). Modern Greek continuant dissimilation and the OCP. Ms, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Basa, Lembaga & Sunda, Sastra (1985). Kamus Umum Basa Sunda, cetatan kelima. Bandung, Indonesia: Penerbit Tarate Bandung.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (1985). Features and tiers: the structure of Semitic roots. Paper presented at MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John (1989). Linear order in phonological representation. LI 20. 71–99.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plurals. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. (1977). On rules of infixing. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1987). Dissimilation as deletion in Chuckchi. ESCOL '87. 235–246.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. (1987). An autosegmental theory of dissimilation. Paper presented at the 6th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1959). Nominal and verbal derivation in Sundanese. Lingua 8. 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. (1987). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339–362.Google Scholar
Van Syoc, W. B. (1959). The phonology and morphology of the Sundanese language. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1988). The OCP and phonological rules: a loss of identity. LI 19. 65–100.Google Scholar