Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:24:51.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological structure: segmental, suprasegmental and extrasegmental*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

John Anderson ,
Colin Ewen  and
Jørgen Staun
John Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Colin Ewen
Affiliation:
University of Leiden
Jørgen Staun
Affiliation:
Copenhagen University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the past few years a great deal of attention has been paid to the representation of suprasegmental phenomena in phonology, with the resulting development of a number of partly competing theories and models of suprasegmental representation – in particular, various versions of AUTOSEGMENTAL PHONOLOGY (see, for example, Goldsmith 1976; Halle & Vergnaud 1981; Clements & Keyser 1983) and METRICAL PHONOLOGY (Liberman & Prince 1977; Hayes 1980, 1982; Prince 1983; Giegerich 1985). Other frameworks have also been developed which allow for the representation of phenomena in this area, notably that of DEPENDENCY PHONOLOGY (Anderson & Jones 1974, 1977; Ewen 1980; Anderson 1984; Anderson & Ewen 1980, forthcoming).It has, moreover, become obvious that although these theories at first seemed very different, many of the differences are more apparent than real, so that in some respects the proposals are complementary rather than alternative - and in many areas it is clear that we are moving towards a situation where a single model can perhaps be developed from the various frameworks (cf. Leben 1982; Goldsmith this volume).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 203 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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. (1980). On the internal structure of phonological segments: evidence from English and its history. Folia Linguistica Historica I. 165–191.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (1984). Suprasegmental dependencies. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Revised version in Durand (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (1985). Structural analogy and dependency phonology. Linguistics Agency, University of Trier. Revised version to appear in Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (forthcoming a). Old English ablaut again: the essentially concrete character of dependency phonology.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (forthcoming b). The limits of linearity. In Anderson & Durand (forthcoming a).Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (forthcoming c). The English prosody /h/.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & J., Durand (eds.) (forthcoming a). Explorations in dependency phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (forthcoming b). Dependency phonology. In Durand (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Ewen, C. J. (1980). A sketch of dependency phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Ewen, C. J. (eds.) Studies in dependency phonology. Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 4, 9–40.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Ewen, C. J. (forthcoming). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (1974). Three theses concerning phonological representations. JL 10. 1–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (1977). Phonological structure and the history of English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (1972). Some remarks concerning the stød in a generative grammar of Danish. In Kiefer, F. (ed.) Derivational processes. Stockholm: KVAL. 5–30.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (forthcoming a). Stød-sandhi. To appear in Andersen, H. & Gvozdanović, J. (eds.) Sandhi phenomena in the European languages. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (forthcoming b). Stød in Modern Danish. Folia Linguistica 19.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology:agenerative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davenport, M. & Staun, J. (forthcoming). Sequence, segment and configuration: two problems in dependency phonology. In Durand (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Durand, J. (ed) (forthcoming). Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (1980). Aspects of phonological structure. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (1982). The internal structure of complex segments. In van der Hulst & Smith (1982: vol. 2). 27–68.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (forthcoming a). Segmental and suprasegmental structure. In Durand (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (forthcoming b). On prosodies and the interpretation of preaspiration. In Anderson & Durand (forthcoming a).Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. & van der Hulst, H. (1985). Single-valued features and the nonlinear analysis of vowel harmony. In Bennis, H. & Beukema, F. H. (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris. 39–48.Google Scholar
Gårding, E. (1977). The Scandinavian word accents. Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund 11. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. (1985). Metrical phonology and phonological structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1981). Harmony processes. In Klein, W. & Levelt, W. (eds.) Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1–22.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1980). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13, 227–276.Google Scholar
Heger, S. (1980). Stødregler for dansk. Danske Studier. 78–99.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der & Smith, N. S. H. (eds.) (1982). The structure of phonological representations. 2 vols. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. D., Lowenstamm, J. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1985). Vowel systems. Paper presented at the 1985 GLOW colloquium, Brussels.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. D. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1984). Dominance and complex segments. Paper presented at the 1984 GLOW colloquium, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical stress assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–442.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (forthcoming). Intradiphthongal dependencies. In Anderson & Durand (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Lass, R. & Anderson, J. M.(1975). Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leben, W. R. (1982). Metrical or autosegmental. In van der Hulst & Smith (1982: vol 1). 177–190.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. S. (1976). The origin of Scandinavian accentuation. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 91, 37–58.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Pedersen, P. (1973). An instrumental investigation of the Danish stød. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen 7, 195–234.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Rennison, J. R. (1984). On tridirectional feature systems for vowels. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 33–34. 69–94.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, K. (1978). Distribution af stød og tonal accent i danske dialektomrádot;der. In Gårding, E.Bruce, G. & Bannert, R. (eds.) Nordic prosody. Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund 13. Lund: Gleerup. 145–152.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, K. (ms). The stød and the Scandinavian tonal accents.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1984 a). Two English vowel movements: a particle analysis. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.) (1984). Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 32–51.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1984 b). The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook I. 129–155.Google Scholar
Smith, S. (1944). Stodet i dansk rigssprog. Copenhagen: Kaifer.Google Scholar