![]() ![]() Two types of change, affrication and aspiration, are the topic of §7, since both are treated as lenition by some, fortition by others. The relationship of lenition and neutralization is discussed in §6, showing that the two terms are not synonymous, and neither contains the other. With the help of this definition, lenition types are categorized in §4.3, the environments where lenition is expected and where it is not expected are collected in §5. Lenition and assimilation are delineated in §4, giving a formal definition for both, and discussing the status of these processes in an autosegmental framework working with privative phonological primes. However, such trajectories do no more than encode a corpus of observations, therefore they do not carry too much explanatory force, unless they can be shown to be usable in other domains of phonology. The next section (§3) discusses some lenition networks, which supersede sonority scales in being multi-dimensional, thus allowing for more than one direction for lenition to proceed. In fact, problems occur even in what is supposed to be the prime motivation for such scales, namely, sonority sequencing within the syllable. After a brief introduction to the taxonomic and theoretical interpretation of theoretical terms (§1), the role of sonority hierarchies in lenition is discussed in §2, with the conclusion that the traditional one-dimensional hierarchies are not fit for defining lenition trajectories. ![]() Evidence is drawn from processes of assimilation and debuccalization and from the assimilatory and dissimilatory effects of the Obligatory Contour Principle.read more read lessĪbstract: The chapter attempts at a pretheoretical definition of lenition. Within the Place node, the division is into major articulators, each with its own subordinate features. The manners of articulation – sonority, consonantality, nasality, and continuance – inhere in the segment itself rather than any of its subsidiary parts. Within the segment, it is argued, the major dichotomy is between a Laryngeal node and a Place node. This article reviews and expands the evidence for feature geometry. ![]() This ‘geometry’ resembles earlier theories that accomplish the same thing with multivalued features. Recent research has responded to this problem by proposing a hierarchical organization of the features into functionally related classes, grouped under nodes of a tree structure. ![]() These have been the subject of descriptive studies and surveys such as that of Greenberg (1978), which have brought to light a number of generalizations suggesting that certain syllable types are less complex or less marked than others across languages.read more read lessĪbstract: A fundamental problem in phonological theory is the fact that processes often operate on consistent subsets of the distinctive features within a segment, like the features that characterize place of articulation. Many linguists have noted the existence of cross-linguistic preferences for certain types of syllable structures and syllable contacts. The present study examines one question of traditional interest to both phoneticians and phonologists, with roots that go deep into modern linguistic theory. A new synthesis of the methodology of phonology and phonetics, integrating results from the physical, biological and cognitive sciences, is required if we are to make significant progress in this area. We are only beginning to assess the types of evidence that can decide questions of this sort, and a complete and fully adequate theory of the phonetics/phonology interface remains to be worked out. For instance, it is an empirical question to what extent the assignment of phonetic parameters to strings of segments (phonemes, tones, etc.) depends upon increasingly rich representational structures of the sort provided by autosegmental and metrical phonology, or upon real-time realization rules – or indeed upon some combination of the two, as many are coming to believe. A considerable amount of research has been devoted to determining where this transition lies, and to what extent the rule types and representational systems needed to characterize the two levels may differ (see Keating 1985 for an overview). Abstract: Introduction One of the major concerns of laboratory phonology is that of determining the nature of the transition between discrete phonological structure (conventionally, “phonology”) and its expression in terms of nondiscrete physical or psychoacoustic parameters (conventionally, “phonetics”). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |