Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:04:47.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Phonology and the distribution of German [ ç ] and [ x ]*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Tracy Alan Hall
Tracy Alan Hall
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the distribution of the palatal fricative [ç] and the velar fricative [x] in Modern Standard German. The data are significant with respect to the theory of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, 1985; Halle & Mohanan 1985; Mohanan 1986) because the rule of Fricative Assimilation (FA) which spreads the feature of backness from a vowel onto an immediately following tautomorphemic [ —voice, + high] fricative is a counterexample to Kiparsky's (1985) Structure Preservation hypothesis, according to which non-distinctive features must be introduced postlexically. It is also noteworthy that the present analysis produces both [x] and [ç] from a [— voice, + high] fricative which is unspecified for backness, contrary to the general tendency among previous researchers who have taken either /ç/ or /x/ to be the basic segment.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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. (1982). Where's morphology? LI 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. & Pulleyblank, D. (forthcoming). The content and structure of phonological representations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (1984). Review of Ian Maddieson (1984). Pattern of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phonology Yearbook 2. 343–354.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1930). German ç and x. Le Maître Phonétique (3rd series) 20. 27–28.Google Scholar
Dietrich, G. (1953). [ç] und [x] im Deutschen – ein Phonem oder zwei? Zeitschrift für Phonetik 7. 28–37.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1976). Morphologization of phonological processes: are there distinct morphological processes? In Juilland, A. (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 313–337.Google Scholar
Duden. Aussprachewörterbuch: Der Grosse Duden 6 (1962). Ed. Mangold, M.et al. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. (1985). Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, T. D. (1977). German [x]. Lingua 43. 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosses Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache (1982). Ed. Krech, E. et al. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Hall, T. (1986). German syllabification. Ms, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986). Review of Giegerich (1985). JL 22. 229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Issatschenko, A. (1973), Das Suffix -chen und der phonologische Status des [ç] im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 1.3, 1–6.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. (1976). A guide to sanguine relationships. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.) The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 22–40.Google Scholar
Janda, R. (1987). On the motivation for an evolutionary typology of sound-structural rules. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. & Stong-Jensen, M. (1984). Morphology is in the lexicon! LI 15. 474–498.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloeke, W. U. S.van, Lessen (1982a). Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloeke, W. U. S.van, Lessen (1982b). Externe Argumente in der Sprachbeschreibung. Linguistische Arbeiten 126. 171–182.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, K., Sanders, G. & Noll, C. (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1948). German ch. Lg 24. 179–180.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Meinhold, G. & Stock, E. (1982). Phonologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. & Mohanan, T. (1984). Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. LI 15. 575–602.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. (1947). Juncture in Modern Standard German. Lg 23. 212–216.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. (1962). The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Philipp, M. (1974). Phonologie des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde: vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache: reine und gemässigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch (1969). 19th edn. Ed. Helmut, de Booret al. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trim, J. L. M. (1951). German h, ç and x. Le Maître Phonétique (3rd series) 96. 41–42.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1968). German phonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1978). Universal syllabic phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 5. 175–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1982). Zur Silbenstruktur der deutschen Standartsprache. Linguistische Arbeiten 126. 261–305.Google Scholar
Werner, O. (1972). Phonemik des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, R. (1986). Schwa and the structure of words in German. Linguistics 24. 697–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1970). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1980). Phonologie: segmentale Struktur. In Heidolph, K. E., Flämig, W. & Motsch, W. (eds.) Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 898–1003.Google Scholar
Zacher, O. & Griŝĉenko, N. (1971). Hauchlaut–Achlaut–Ichlaut der hochdeutschen Gegenwartssprache in phonologischer Sicht. Folia Linguistica 5. 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar