three theses concerning phonological representations

Three Theses concerning Phonological RepresentationsAuthor(s): John Anderson and Charles JonesSource: Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 1-26Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175225 .

Accessed: 22/05/2014 01:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofLinguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.94.199.68 on Thu, 22 May 2014 01:32:29 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175225?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


JLio (I974) 1-26 Printed in Great Britain

Three theses concerning phonological representations JOHN ANDERSON & CHARLES JONES

Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh (Received 8 January 1973)

i. Some recent work in phonology/phonetics has tended to reaffirm the relevance of larger-than-segment (non-syntactico-morphological) structural units like the syllable: that is, that phonological representations are per se more highly structured than has generally been supposed in the immediate past.' On the one hand, it has been argued that various 'prosodic' phenomena have as their domain non-arbitrary groupings of segments, including in particular groupings of 'syllable size' (e.g. Cheng, I966; Lehiste, I970), and that 'morpheme structure conditions' and redundancy conditions in general are most naturally interpreted as in large part constraints on syllable structure (cf., e.g., O'Connor & Trim, I953; Fudge, I969; Sampson, 1970; and the works they refer to). There have, on the other hand, been a number of studies particularly of co-articulation and of malfunctioning in production (stuttering, spoonerisms, etc.) whose import seems to be that 'the unit of articulatory programming is larger in size than the segment, and makes it difficult to believe that articulation consists merely in the concatenation of phonemes' (Kim, I97I: 6o) - cf. the work surveyed by Kim and by Fromkin (I968).

It might be objected that the latter kind of evidence does not necessarily bear upon linguistic 'competence'. However, since the empirical status of the alleged distinction between 'competence' and, say, an error-free performance device is, to say the least, problematical (cf. Whitaker, 1971), we feel this rejection is rather premature. We shall, nevertheless, not pursue this question here; we shall in what follows in this section be concerned rather with some evidence for the relevance of an independently motivated bracketing into syllables to the formulation of certain other phonological regularities, in particular of stress assignment. In the course of this discussion, we shall propose a resolution of the problem posed by the apparent indeterminacy of syllable boundaries, which is the major obstacle to the incorporation of the syllable into the phonology as a unit with respect to which redundancy constraints can be formulated. The character of the bracketing arrived at provides an explanation for what is otherwise an anomaly in the stress assignment rules for English.

Consider those subparts of the Main Stress Rule (MSR) of Chomsky and

[i] An earlier version of this paper appeared in Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics, No. i, and parts of it were presented at the Linguistics Association of Great Britain meeting at Sheffield, November 1972. We are grateful to the editors and to Roger Lass for comments and suggestions; we are, of course, solely responsible for remaining perversities.

I



JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS

Halle (I968: ch. 3, 55 3, 5, 6) which allow for the placement of stress in nouns and derived adjectives. Earlier, they formulate a MSR for verbs like those in (i):

(i) (a) astonish (b) erase (c) torment promise decide adapt

which depends on the observation that 'the verbs with penultimate stress [(ia)] end in a nontense vowel followed by a single consonant, while the verbs with final stress have a tense vowel or a diphthong in the last syllable [(ib)] or they end in two consonants' [(ic)] (I968: 70-71). The MSR is as formulate5i in (2), which contains two disjunctively ordered subparts:

(2) V---+ [i stress]/- co[tv n]Co ] LCO J

They then consider the nouns in (3):

(3) (a) cinema (b) arena (c) veranda Arsenal aroma utensil

and observe that 'we have here a stress pattern that is identical with that exemplified in [(i)] except for the final extra syllable, which, it will be observed, consists in each case of a nontense (lax) vowel followed by zero or more consonants' (I968: 72). Further, 'secondary adjectives' - i.e. those segmentable into stem plus adjectival suffix - pattern like the nouns in (3), as shown in (4):

(4) (a) medicinal (b) desirous (c) dialectal vigilant anecdotal dependent

whereas 'primary adjectives' show the same regularities as the verbs in (i):

(5) (a) solid (b) remote (c) corrupt vulgar inane immense

These are all accounted for if we extend the MSR as in (6), with an 'inner' and an (outer' environment, both of these containing disjunctively ordered subparts:

I C0- tense] CIA (6) V ' [i stress]/ C { te / I [Vtense }

Lco j v.es]ON

('+'is formative boundary.) This can be collapsed in an obvious way in terms of the angled bracket notation discussed by Chomsky and Halle (I968: 76-77): see their formulation (53) on p. 84. This latter also incorporates a restriction intended to insure that MSR applies only within words.

None of these considerations need concern us here: what we want to direct

2



PHONOLOGICAL REPRESENTATIONS

our attention to is another modification to (6) which is incorporated into Chomsky and Halle's formulation (53), a modification which arises from the apparently anomalous stress placement displayed by nouns and derived adjectives like those in (7):

(7) (a) ailgebra (b) luidicrous eloquent

whose penultimate syllable, which terminates in two consonants, should, in accordance with (6), bear primary stress. Instead, stress is placed on the ante- penultimate syllable, as it would if the penultimate were weak - i.e. of the character specified in the first disjunction in the 'inner environment' in (6). Chomsky and Halle therefore propose to extend the notion of weak syllable in such a way as to allow the single final consonant in such to be optionally followed by [r] and [w], as in (7). [j] need not be excluded by the formulation, in the absence at this stage of post-consonantal instances of such. But a reverse anomaly appears to arise in the case of [1]. In the examples in (8):

(8) cerebellar morbillous medullar

the syllable terminated by [I] 'acts like' a strong syllable in taking stress. Chomsky and Halle thus argue (I 968: 82-83) that these instances are underlyingly geminate and that [Cl], unlike [Cr], does not constitute a weak cluster. Some support for this position comes, they suggest, from stress placement in instances like those in (9):

(g) eephalous perilous scurrilous

where if we claim that in these instances (as opposed to those in (8)) the [1] is non- geminate and the syllable it terminates therefore weak, then stress assignment is perfectly regular. (Observe too that the notion of geminate consonants in English is not invented purely for this type of instance: Chomsky and Halle discuss a number of other cases elsewhere: see e.g. p. 204 - we shall return to this below. There are, nevertheless, possible objections to such an analysis, particularly in view of the absence of phonetic realization of the posited geminate/simplex distinction. We shall not pursue this here.)

We need, then, according to Chomsky and Halle's argument, to modify the notion of weak syllable to include sequences of nontense vowel plus consonant plus [r, w]. Chomsky and Halle suggest the following characterization (I968: 83):

(I 0) [-tense] Cl

L oc]speeiiesthe'lasofiantj

[cnispecifies the 'class' of liquids and glides, and [- ant] is intended to

3




exclude [1]. It seems to us that both of these specifications are questionable: on the former, see e.g. Wheeler, 1972: 5 3.1. But our main objection is that such a notion of weak syllable is entirely ad hoc. The characterization embodied in (io) is almost (but not quite - see below) observationally adequate, but it does not emerge as any more natural than a variety of other possible sequences. Why do just such sequences constitute a weak cluster? We shall argue that the notion of weak syllable depends directly upon independently motivated bracketing into syllables, and that the weak/strong syllable distinction itself can in this way be given a much more natural interpretation.

In terms of (io), the penultimate syllables in (3a), (4a), (7) and (9) are all weak, whereas those in (3c), (4c) and (8) are strong. Notice that examples like those in (ii) are, as Chomsky and Halle (I968: 83) note, also strong:

(i i) fraternal detergent observant

and thus are assigned primary stress. That is, [rC] is strong, but [Cr] is weak. This renders the formulation in (io) apparently even more ad hoc. But notice that the clusters following the penultimate vowel in the cases where the syllable is strong - i.e. the instance we have just cited - share one characteristic which is lacking with the weak clusters. Namely, they are sequences which could as a whole follow the vowel in a monosyllabic formative, whereas they are not permissible as a sequence pre-vocalically; only the second segment could be taken to belong to the following syllable. With the weak clusters, either the reverse is the case (7), or there is only one segment involved ((3a), (4a), (9)).

We claim that medial clusters are combinations of clusters that can be final in monosyllables and clusters that can be initial. This is plausible only if we permit overlap: i.e. there is not a proper bracketing. A particular segment in a medial cluster will belong to both the preceding and the following syllable if permissible syllable-final and syllable-initial clusters are thus created. Constraints on medial clusters are reducible to a combination of those on final and initial groupings. Accordingly, examples like those in (3a) are bracketed (in the relevant respects) as in (I2):

(I2) [iCi [2n]le [3m]2a]3

The [n] and the [m] belong to both the preceding and the following syllables since such clusters can be both initial and final in monosyllables. In accordance with the same principle, the clusters in (4a), (7) and (9) are divided as in (I3):

(I3) [1me [2d]ii [3c]2i [4n]3al]4 (4a) [lal [2g]ie [3b]2ra]3 (7) [Be [21]l0 [3q]2uent]3 (7) [ipe [2r]ti [31]20us]3 (9)

In algebra the [br] cluster belongs to syllable 3, but only the [b] to syllable 2, since

4




[br] can be syllable initial but not final. Likewise, the bracketings associated with the clusters in (3c), (4c), (8) and (II) are as in (I4):

(14) [IU [2t]len [3S]2il]3 (3c) [,de [2p]len [3d]2ent]3 (4c) [ice [2r]le [3b]2el [41]3ar]4 (8) [Ifra [2t]ler [3n]2al]3 (I I)

The [nd] and [rn] in the (4c) and (I I) examples respectively belong to syllable 2,

since such clusters can be final in a monosyllable, but only the [d] and the [n] can belong to syllable 3, since [nd] and [rn] are not permissible initial clusters.

Our assignment of a final geminate to the (8) example in (14) requires some comment. Chomsky and Halle (I968: 204) argue for a medial geminate in words like pulley, bullet, bullock on the grounds that otherwise we would expect the [u] in the first syllables to become [i] (in the context '- CV' - cf. (52) on p. 195) and subsequently [yuiw]. These words, and others like pull, full, fail to shift to [A]

(cf. pun, duct, fund). Since Chomsky and Halle include this shift as part of the vowel shift (though this is problematical - cf. Wang, I968), bullet, pull, etc., are excluded by virtue of having been unrounded previous to the application of

vowel-shift and thus failing to meet the [ar oud] condition on the latter ((4I) on

p. I90). Whatever the defects of Chomsky and Halle's treatment, undoubtedly bullet, pull, etc., clearly share a development distinct from that for pun, duct, etc. Thus, their characterization of the set of forms that undergoes the proposed unrounding rule remains valid. The relevant parts of this are reproduced in (I5):

(I15) - nasal- I

+ ant ul 1 (a) -cor (b)

Case (a) includes bullet, etc.; case (b) pull, etc. If pull also contains a geminate [11], case (b) can be removed. This follows from a redundancy condition whereby a word-final [1] immediately following a tense vowel is single, but after a lax vowel must be geminated. Our bracketing of (8) in (14) depends on such an assumption, i.e. that there are final geminates in English. Otherwise, the bracketing (i6) is appropriate:

(i6) [Ice [2r]le [3b]2el]3 [4lar]4

This is the obvious characterization of medial geminates where both initial and final geminates are excluded. Such a bracketing would require us to somewhat modify the definition of weak syllables that we are about to propose; it seems to us that the modified version would be somewhat less natural, but (i6) remains significantly distinct in bracketing from (I2)-(I3).

Such syllable bracketings seem to us the natural form of expression for the

5




generalization that the set of permissible medial clusters is not independent of the constraints on initial and final clusters. We shall return in 52 to a rather more careful consideration of the form of the rules which impose bracketing. All we need to establish at this point is, in general, the plausibility of interpreting the structural conditions governing medial clusters as reducible to a combination of the constraints on final and initial clusters, and, in particular, the appropriateness of the bracketings we assigned in (I2)-(I4) above. If this is granted, then a very natural characterization of the notion weak syllable is at once apparent. A weak syllable is one in which the lax vowel is followed by one segment only before a right syllable bracket intervenes, as in the penultimate syllable of all of (I2)-(I3) (and the final syllables in (ia)). In the examples in (I4), two segments intervene between the vowel in the penultimate syllable and the bracket closing that syllable.

Observe further that such an interpretation of the weak/strong syllable distinction enables us to allow (without modification) for certain exceptions to the formulation in (io). The [- ant] in the final segment in (io) is intended to exclude [Cl] as a weak cluster. And the appropriateness of this seems to be confirmed by the examples with geminate [1] in (8). But in fn. 32, Chomsky and Halle (i968: 83) concede that 'there also seem to be some cases where the sequence VCI acts as a weak cluster', and they refer us to n. 82 and pp. I40 and I97. In n. 82, they

1 3 1 observe that the alternation [lejaslAt3v] / [lejaslatav] depends upon the sequence [Vsl] constituting a weak cluster. On p. I40 they note 'that in disciplinary we must regard pl as a weak cluster'. The evidence of p. I97 is inconclusive: the sequence [Vkl] may or may not constitute a weak cluster. None of these examples involve a geminate [11]. Moreover, crucially, the sequence concerned in the two clear exceptions is one that, unlike [11], may constitute an initial, but not a final cluster. Compare the bracketings in (I7):

(I7) (a) VI [1] (b)V[s]l V[p]l

The differential 'behaviour' (with respect to the stress rules) of the two kinds of [Cl] cluster follows once more from the natural bracketings (given our hypothesis concerning the structure of medial clusters). (17a) is a strong cluster, by our definition; (I7b) is weak. Chomsky and Halle's formulation (io) fails to distinguish these two types of cluster. Of course, it can be extended to do so, but only by rendering it still more ad hoc. Its failure is due not to mere ineptness in manipulation of the notation: it is a failure IN PRINCIPLE to come to grips with the weak/strong syllable distinction, which, we claim, depends essentially on syllabic bracketing and not directly on the character of the segments involved.

Thus, we need not substitute the sequence in (io) for the relevant subpart

6




of the first disjunction in (6). Rather, we might substitute for it as a first approxi- mation the alternative in (I8):

(I8) [-tense] Cl]

where the final bracket marks the terminal boundary of the syllable. In terms of this, the penultimate syllable in all of (I2)-(I3), and the final syllable in (I) and (5), will be treated as weak. (We turn in a moment to a class of examples not yet considered which require that (I8) be revised.)

We are thus claiming that the following principles govern the character of medial clusters:

(I9) (a) Medial clusters are composed of a syllable-final preceding a syllable- initial sequence.

(b) 'Precede' includes overlap where possible.

From these we predict that unique medial sequences - i.e. sequences that cannot be decomposed in terms of (I9) - are abnormal; and that within the set of medial clusters that conform to (Iga) the more marked instances are (other things being equal) where overlap is excluded.

Observe, in connection with (Igb), the tendency to epenthesize a vowel between the [0] and [1] in words like athlete or pentathlon, in which overlap is otherwise excluded, since [01] is neither an initial nor a final sequence:

[20] [1ath]1 [2lete]2

The effect of vowel epenthesis is to create a new syllable between syllable 1 and syllable 2, such that [0] and [1] now both involve an overlap. Obviously, there are other relevant considerations, since not all proper bracketings are equally sus- ceptible of such a resolution; but this does seem to be a necessary condition. Other cases apparently involving this kind of epenthesis where there is an overlap, as in some pronunciations of struggling, rather show the retention of the second syllabic nucleus of struggle, in which [g] is 'ambivalent' and [1] syllable-final.

Notice now, however, that an example like pentathlon, with stress on the penultimate, constitutes a counter-example to our characterization of weak syllables in (i8). According to it, the penultimate here is weak; but in order to account for stress placement it must be strong. We suggest the revised characterization formulated as (2I):

(2I) FV 1 (C' # L-tensej s

The bracketed 'C' #' allows for word-final weak syllables like those in (i);

otherwise, a weak syllable contains a lax vowel immediately preceding a left syllable bracket.

7




Such a principle of overlap as we have outlined in (I9) has already been observed in a number of earlier studies. Compare, for instance, among more recent studies, Kohler's (I966a: 346-347; i966b; I967: I56) 'interlocking'. (He deploys this, however, as part of an argument that the syllable is non- viable as a phonological unit - a conclusion which we consider unwarranted - see Anderson, I969; Fudge, I969.) Consider too observations like those made by Higginbottom (I964: I39-I40) concerning various speakers of R.P.: she observes that a medial sequence like [tr] in petrol has 'syllable-initial and syllable-final characteristics'. In particular, the [r] is voiceless as in initial [tr] clusters, but there is also glottal reinforcement of the [t], as in final position. This is, of course, not to deny the existence of allophones, like the flap [D] of Midwestern American English (Lehiste, I97I: i6i), unique to intervocalic position, which is after all in terms of simple sequence itself unique. Notice finally in this regard that it is clear that certain morphological boundaries favour non-overlap; consider longer (with overlap) and longing (in most dialects, without): a non-overlapping [g] is eventually deleted after [e].

We shall, as we have indicated, take up the form of the bracketing rules in the following section. But we conclude this one with one instance of the kind of distributional argument that seems to lend some support to our concept of overlapping bracketings. It has often been noted that phonetically only tense (or long) vowels occur finally in a stressed monosyllable: thus buy, bough, etc., but not [bA], [be], etc. This is also characteristic of vowels in hiatus; the sequence [VV] requires the first segment to be tense, as in bias, lion. Is there a generalization to be captured here? In terms of syllable bracketing, these two sets of stressed vowels, share final syllabic position,as indicated in (22):

(22) (a) [buy] (b) [bi] [as]

In a stressed syllable, a lax vowel requires a closing consonant - i.e. a consonant belonging solely to that syllable or shared with the following one, as in butter or petrol. This distribution is captured in a very natural way in terms of the notion of syllable structure we have proposed.

We have argued in this initial section, then - and this is our first thesis - that phonological representations are more highly structured than the standard theory would claim. And we have tried to show the relevance of one aspect of this structure, viz. (possibly overlapping) bracketing into syllables, to the formulation of one of the rules of stress assignment for English. In the following two sections, we shall briefly examine the redundancy constraints associated with this bracketing, and then proceed to try to show the role of our proposed structures in relation to some rules of word-level phonology. At the same time we shall develop further our characterization of the structures themselves. The next step in this development brings us to thesis number two.

8




2. We must now consider the character of the 'constructions' whose limits we have indicated by the bracketing notation introduced in section one. It is our intention to try to show that the characteristics of 'dependency grammar' familiar since Hays (I964), at least, in the domain of syntax are appropriate to the representation of these phonological 'constructions', i.e. syllables, and of the 'higher-level constructions' into which they enter. This will involve us in an exposition of the major properties of dependency representations. What we want to argue in the first place is that each syllable is a simple structured string.

Consider the set, S, of strings constituting syllables. Let sES, s = a1 a2 . . .an. Associated with the string s, is a binary irreflexive and asymmetric relation, R., the dependency relation, defined in the set N, of all ordered pairs (ai,ai> (I < i < n, I <j < n): the ordered pair (s,R.> is a structured string. If aiRsaj then a. depends upon a1. We denote by Rs the transitive closure of Rs in Ts: if a.R aj, then aj is subordinate to a;. We follow e.g. Marcus (I967: 204) in saying that (s,Rs) is simple if three conditions are fulfilled: (a) there exists a term ai in s which depends on no term of s; (b) for any j # i (I j < n), there exists an integer k (i< k< n), uniquely determined, such that aj depends upon ak; (c) for any integer m = i (I <m<n), am is subordinate to a;. ai is the centre of the simple structured string thus defined.

Now, such a characterization of syllables is appropriate if we can provide an empirical interpretation of subordination such that for any syllable there is a determinate centre (i.e. an element which meets conditions (a) and (c) above) to which all other elements are subordinate. We claim that syllabilicity, and, more generally, degree of sonority, are just such an interpretation, and that the syllabic element is the centre of each syllable. Associated with each syllable there is a unique sonority peak whose identification is available to native speakers, and enables them, for instance, to count the number of syllables in an utterance. It is clear too that the syllabic element is the crucial pivot in the determination of e.g. the English Main Stress Rule: it is the syllabic and the sequence following it which distinguish weak from strong clusters. And as we shall see later in this section, identification of the syllabic element is a necessary preliminary to the assignment of syllable structures. Similarly, the viability of the generalizations attemped in ?3 depends on the kind of interpretation of the structure of syllables we are advocating. We are proposing, then, that in a syllable like, say, bit there is a syllabic centre [i] to which the other elements are subordinate, indeed dependent. The structure of bit can be represented as in (23):

(23) b1 12 t3

in which * marks the centre of the string. It will be convenient for our subsequent discussion if at this point we introduce

a graph-theoretic interpretation of dependency structure. We note in the first

9




instance that (s,R.) is simple if, and only if, the graph G, associated with (s,R,) is a proper tree (Marcus, I967: 206); and the centre of G, is the centre of (s,Rs). The graph associated with (22) is as in (24a), or (24b):

(24) (a) 2 3

b i t

(b) i2 bi t3

Following standard usage, a graph is defined as a figure consisting of nodes (or vertices) some or all of which are connected by lines (edges). It is a connected graph if each pair of distinct nodes is connected. In addition (24) are directed graphs, in that they contain directed edges (or arcs) whose direction is indicated by the relatively higher and lower position of the nodes which are connected. The direction is imposed by the relation RS, in that if aiRsaj then ai and aj are connected by an arc diverging from ai (the higher node) and converging on aj. We shall henceforth say that ai aj in such a case; in the development of our characterization of syllables we shall want to consider other relations than simple dependency. We shall denote the transitive closure of as ; if ai-+aj then there is a path from ai to a. By the degree of convergence (divergence) of a node we mean the number of arcs that converge (diverge) on that node. A connected graph, G, is a proper tree of centre ai if: (a) no arc converges on ai (it has a degree of convergence of o); (b) any node aj (j # i) has a degree of convergence of i; (c) G has no circuit. A circuit is a path that converges on a node from which it diverges. (24) is a proper tree of centre [i2].

It has similarly been argued that various semantico-syntactic syntagms, or such syntagms in general, can be appropriately characterized as dependency trees (see more recently, for instance, Robinson, I97oa, I97ob; Anderson, I97Ia; Maas, 197I). Thus, the syntagms in (25) have centres as indicated there:

(25) [isit' [joni [Isoftl]lcushionSk ]k]j]lI

In each instance the centre is a single element whose presence is obligatory (for the existence of the syntagm) and characteristic (in distinguishing the syntagm from others). The corresponding tree is represented in (26):

IO




(26)

I k

I I 1 1

sit on soft cushions

As in (24) and (26), we shall henceforth continue to represent direction of subordination by vertical placement in the graph. In (24) [i] [t], [i] [b]. Horizontal placement is associated with the binary reflexive and antisymmetric relation of precedence, represented as [b] < [i] < [t]. We shall return in a moment to develop these notions somewhat further. Before we can so proceed, however, two related considerations deriving from the treatment of successions of syllables proposed in section one require our attention. One of these concerns the notion of overlap. But firstly let us consider the structure of strings that can be analysed into more than one (non-overlapping) syllable.

Take again a word like athlete. Its first and second syllables might have the structure represented in (27a) and (27b) respectively:

(27) (a) (b) a i

0 1 t

But what is the structure of the complete string? In particular, does a dependency relation hold between [a] and [i]? Clearly one does: the former is more prominent than the latter; it is the characteristic element in the stressed formative. Thus, in athlete [a] [I]. Relative stress, as well as syllabicity, is, we propose, to be characterized in such terms. Accordingly, an appropriate representation for the structure of athlete is as in (28):

(28) a

0 1 t

We can say that [a] is of a dependency degree of o, [i] of I, and [0, 1, t] of 2.

(By convention, all non-syllabics are of one degree greater than the numerically highest syllabic.) If we think of the input to the MSR as a sequence of un- connected syllabics of degree o, then its function is to select one and subordinate

II




the others to it. Indeed, we can interpret the stress rules in general in this fashion, such that primary stress = degree o, secondary stress = degree i, etc.

However, as we observed in ? i, the case of the formative whose structure is represented in (28) is not typical. There are, we have argued, empirical motivations in languages with final and initial clusters for proposing as normal syllabic bracketings that are not proper. This requires that we drop condition (b) formulated above, that nodes that are not of a degree of convergence of o (i.e. are not central) be of degree i. Thus, the structure of rabbit should be represented as in (29):

(29) a

r b t

We say that [b] is bidependent on [a] and [i], [a] [b] [i]. Just the instances of bidependency we envisaged in section one are allowed for if (a) the degree of convergence is limited to <2, (b) only non-syllabics can be bidependents and (c) projectivity is required. Projectivity of a string is ensured if arcs or arcs and projection lines (the discontinuous ones in (23)) intersect only at nodes (cf. Marcus, I967: ch. 6, ?? 9-IO).

Conditions (a) and (c) appear to be empirically fairly well motivated. (b) is ad hoc. We shall not investigate here what motivations there might be for this, or for the converse. Nor shall we consider the degree of empirical support for further instances of increased connectivity and degrees of dependency, for example, within clusters like the final ones in bend, belt, apt, etc. (i.e. for the notion 'cluster' and 'centre of cluster'), though it seems to us that there is quite strong evidence for dependency within certain clusters. For the present discussion, we have assumed the minimum of connectivity and of degree of dependency required by the evidence surveyed particularly in ? i. It would, we suspect, prove a useful strategy to explore what empirical support there might be for the opposite assumption, that of maximum connectivity compatible with projectivity.

We are now in a position to sketch out the character of the constraints on syllable structure. (For a somewhat more extended discussion and exemplifica- tion see Anderson and Jones, forthcoming: Ch. 4.) We have interpreted rules assigning primary stress as distinguishing between competing zero degree elements and designating only one as such. Similarly, if we envisage lexical representations as unstructured (in syllabicity), the first part of structure assignment involves designating the syllabic elements - i.e. what is to be the zero degree element in each syllable. This status is conferred on any vowel not immediately preceded by one other vowel (if, as we argue in ? 3, we interpret 'tense vowels' as geminate). Given a redundancy-free and structure-free [rabit], the two vowels will

12




be designated V. The syllable boundaries are assigned in accordance with the constraints on syllable-final and syllable-initial clusters; the boundaries are 'pushed out' from each V as far as the constraints permit, as exemplified in (30):

(30) [rA[b]'it]

The MSR subordinates [i] to [a], as indicated in (29), or (31):

(3 I ) [[ra'[b]i't]]

This encloses the whole string in a single bracket and marks [a] as its centre. Further rules (like the Alternating Stress Rule - Chomsky & Halle, I968: ch. 3, ? 4) may shift the centre and thus modify the bracketings, which are continu- ously adjusted.

The addition of syllable structure assignment to the phonology is thus com- pensated for by the elimination of sequential constraints on medial clusters; and, as we argued in ? i, there are further regularities (like the MSR) whose formulation depends in a natural way on such structural properties. Consider further here, as one other example, the kind of representations proposed for the monosyllabic bit ((23) and (24)) and the disyllabic rabbit ((29)). These correlate in an obvious way with the length compensation phenomena described by Lehiste (I97I). She observes (1971: I65) that in the case of disyllabics like steady, skiddy and skitty, as compared with stead, skid and skit, 'it seems that ... the duration of the second vowel is adjusted to the duration of the first', whereas with the monosyllables there was 'temporal compensation between a vowel and the following consonant'. In each case (the monosyllabic and the disyllabic) there apparently exists a negative correlation between the respective durations of the dependency degree o element (the (first) vowel) and the following element of degree i, either the second vowel, if the word is disyllabic, or the final consonant, if monosyllabic. As Lehiste (I971: I69) observes, 'It is obvious that a simple distinctive features description . . . would not reveal the essential differences in the temporal structure of the two word types'.

We conclude this section with a discussion of some proposed refinements to the notions of dependency and precedence assumed above, refinements in part motivated by the thesis of ? 3. There we try to show (following particularly Foley, Ms) that certain segments are complex in the sense that they can be decomposed into simultaneous complexes of more elementary elements that elsewhere occur as independent segments. Thus a dark [1], for instance, might be decomposed into [u,d]; and in general liquids and nasals are [V,C]. Moreover, we argue that such complexes preserve the dependency relation, such that in the case of [I], ul 4 Idl. Let us assume that these observations are just: what we are concerned with in the present section is their characterization. With respect to this, we propose the following.

I3




If the precedence relation is defined as antisymmetric, then if a < b and b < a, a = b, i.e. a is identical to b. However, this identity is identity of precedence only; we interpret a = b as 'a is coincident in precedence with b, but not necessarily identical with b'. 'Absolute identity' requires another condition to be fulfilled, whose character we return to in a moment. In terms of our interpretation, we want to allow for cases where a = b but a b or b a. These distinctions are illustrated by the graphs represented in (32), wherein a<b indicates 'strict precedence'.

(32)(a) a<b, a>b a

b (b) a <b, a b b

a (c) a > b, a b a

b (d1) a > b, a 1) b

a

(e) a =b1), a b a

(C) a-= h, a I) h a b) a~~~~~~

In (32a) and (32c), b is adjoined to a; in (32b) and (32d), a is adjoined to b; in (32e), b is subjoined to a; and in (32f) a is subjoined to b. This distinction (between adjunction and subjunction) is introduced in Anderson (I97Ib) where it is argued that the derivation of a sentence like John helped me involves an operation which subjoins what appears as the direct object in John gave me help to its governing verb. Elsewhere (Anderson, 1972: Ch. 8), it is argued that not all instances of syntactic subjunction are transformationally derived.

Now, suppose we also relax the irreflexive requirement on dependency, such that circuits are introduced but only of < 2 arcs (and composites of such), such that a4a. Identity then depends upon the following two conditions: (a) a = b (a and b are coincident) (b) a4b, b4a, i.e. a<b, a and b are co- dependent. If conditions (a) and (b) are fulfilled, a_b, a and b are identical. There is a further possibility now apparent whose empirical interpretation, as reasonably transparent, we shall not explore but which we shall devote a little space to delineating. Consider the graph associated with the following conditions: (a) a :$ b, say a< b; (b) a b. I.e. a and b are not coincident - say, for example,

I4




a strictly precedes b - but they are co-dependent. We can represent the appropriate graph as in (33):

(33) a<b, alb a-b

wherein a and b are said to be conjoined. The most immediately apparent empirical application for such a notion is in the case of the heads of (syntactic) coordinate conjoined syntagms. However, as we have indicated, it is not our concern to pursue this possibility in the present work.

In this section, to sum up, we have argued that various structural properties required of phonological representations can be provided with a very natural characterization in terms of a variant of dependency stemmata. This constitutes our second thesis.

3. Our third thesis arises, we should like to claim, as a direct consequence of the other two. We have been arguing that there are good reasons for at least postulat- ing the need for a 'more highly structured' phonological model than the one set out within the Chomsky-Halle (I968) paradigm. The consequences of adopting this standpoint (however imperfectly it has been presented here) are twofold: in the first place, we shall show that our 'model' has the power to capture generalizations within processes (containing apparently unreducible sub-parts) resistant to the 'standard' generative phonological theory; second (and in consequence), and herein lies the basis for our third thesis, a claim for 'more structure' within the phonology will enable underlying similarities and relationships between phonological processes to be brought out, phenomena which the Chomsky-Halle model (as well as most others) can only treat as unique or unrelated. Our claim is that our set of hypotheses allows for the demonstration of the existence of phenomena such as 'phonological recurrence' between and within synehronic grammars. 'Sound change' can be shown to be subject to repetition at different historical periods with (we claim) related and predictable alterations (extensions and restrictions) to both SDs and SCs. Stated in our terms, at any rate, such repetitions can be in direct relationship to the intrinsic content of environmental elements. At the same time, the postulation of global workings underlying temporally separate grammars will have implications for the status of the 'same' rules wherever they recur in the context of current synchronic grammars.

The extra structure we have added to the phonological apparatus has been essentially concerned with two principal aspects of phonological primes. Phono- logical segments are non-linearly as well as linearly ordered in relation to each other and the relationships into which they enter are dependency (4) and precedence (<). At the same time, phonological segments (represented as simple single-column matrices in a Chomsky-Halle type model) can be complex. That is, individual segments may incorporate sub-trees containing more than a

I5




single node; a segment may be characterized by a set of nodes rather than by a single node. These nodes exist in relationship to one another in a subjunctive dependency, but are equivalent in precedence. Recall, in this connection, our suggestion that liquid consonants were complex in just this way. They can be characterized as involving both a consonant and a vowel node in a non-simple sub-tree. 'Dark' [l], for instance, might be thus represented:

(3 4) u

I d

where we claim that Idj is subjoined to Jul but equivalent to it in precedence; i.e. where Iu I dI but Iu =Idj. Individual segments can thus be characterized as complex, and their degree of complexity may vary (within the framework of constraints to be outlined below). Indeed, the sub-tree component configura- tions of some segments (like [l] above) may contain sub-parts that themselves elsewhere characterize an independent segment - thus the IuI and IdI in the instance above.

We claim, following this last suggestion, that vowels are likewise complex in some instances, especially mid vowels, and front rounded vowels in a vowel system containing both front unrounded and front and back rounded vowels. Mid vowels, for example, are formed from various combinations of the three principal underlying and abstract 'characteristics' involved in vowel formation - ul 'roundness', lil 'frontness' and lal 'lowness', thus:

(35) i u I [e] j [o] a a

a a

![c]/[a] J [c] I ~ ~~~ U3 u

Likewise, front round vowels are complex in that they involve combinations of the 'major class' characteristics so that:

(36) u u a

[y] I [0] [c1l' i a ui

! ! In other words, Jul alone contrasts with unround, lil with unfront. Consider how in English [y] (for instance in 'borrowed' French words) often develops to [ju]. We can claim this to be a phonologically natural development in terms of the

i6




internal structure we have proposed for front round vowels. We can represent the change:

(37) u u

1 1

That is, while the dependency relationship remains constant, (lu 4i ) the precedence relationship is altered; simultaneity gives way to IiI < Iu.

The phenomena we shall examine in what follows crucially depend on such interpretations of the nature of some segments, as well as upon an acceptance of a non-linear (hierarchical) relationships between phonological primes. The burden of this section, and therefore of our third thesis, will be to attempt to justify the claim that very many apparently unrelated phonological developments (so treated by more traditional models) can, in fact, be characterized as involving the 'strengthening' of a vowel which has another vowel dependent upon it. That is, apparently heterogeneous (and temporally isolated) phonological processes have, we shall show, as part of their SD a configuration like (38):

(38) VI

V2

(i.e. V1 4 V2) in which environment the V1 is 'strengthened' to be realized (we claim in predictable contexts and with non-ad hoc variance of output) by various qualitative and quantitative manifestations, such as vowel raising, vowel fronting, vowel lengthening and vowel epenthesis. We are not concerned here to justify the use of the term 'strengthening' (for discussion, see Lass, 197I; Lass & Anderson, MS; Foley, 197I and Ms), but rather to attempt to capture 'global' changes that are identifiable from their SDs as involving the subjunction or adjunction of one V element to another (governing) V.

In what follows we shall select for examination a few of the more important and obvious historical phonological shifts that have occurred in English with the view to providing them with a more unified description than possible by mini- mally structured models. At the same time, we shall try to show that, since all the examples chosen crucially involve a similar type of SD, they can be regarded as manifestations of 'rule repetitions' along the temporal trajectory. We begin by looking at some of the characteristics of a well-known Old English 'sound change' called i-umlaut (OEIU) (Campbell, 1959: 71-85; Luick, 1914-40: i66-i86). Leaving aside the realizations of diphthong inputs to the process (although they do not materially affect our main conclusions - see Anderson & Jones, forthcoming), OEIU shows up synchronically in a number of alternation types involving long and short vowel inputs, thus:

I7




(39) (a) (trum > firm (trymman) to strengthen

(dast > dust (dystig> dusty

(dohter > daughter (dehter > id. dative singular

(d6m) judgment (deman> to judge

(faran > to go (farp > he goes

(an > one (<nig > any

(b) (cwal) he died <cwellan) to kill

This range of alternants apparently involves two distinct processes. Those in

(39a) show the FRONTING of a long or short stressed back vowel to its front

(round) congener: [u]-+[y], [o]-+[o] (later unrounded, as the (e> spelling in (dEman) suggests) and [a]-- [a]: the RAISING of low front stressed vowels such that [ae]-*[e], as in (39b). This development occurred in the environment of an [i] in the next syllable, which vowel is synchronically in many Old English dialects subsequently obliterated from the output or reduced to [a], spelled (e). The regularities of the derivational (and inflexional) processes in Old English suggest that the umlaut-producing [i] was still realized in the phonological structures for the items involved, and that no restructuring of the dictionary was brought about by the deletion and reduction processes. XWe can, in terms of a Chomsky-Halle model, express this phenomenon in the following formulation:

(40) Old English i-umlaut

[-back]/ + back] + son F ] 2 1> (V) C2 -back

low] L+lo + high

where the two sub-parts of the rule within the braces must be applied simul- taneously, the output of the first part being unavailable to the second. The rule is slightly more extended than it need be for the data provided, since it has a rather wider range of occurrence than we have suggested. However, as it stands at present, it presents us with some rather difficult questions: if OEIU is to be regarded as a unitary process (and it has been traditionally treated as such in the literature) say as 'an assimilation to [i]', then our rule fails to capture the fact that any homogeneous process exists - it merely states that there are two phenomena, with partial overlap in their SDs.

There is a further difficulty. In terms of Chomsky and Halle's (I968: Ch. 9) 'markedness theory', [y] is more marked than [i]. In consequence, the unmarked output to OEIU, if linked to the appropriate marking convention, should be [i]. In order to overrule the application of this convention, the rule for OEIU mtust be modified to:

I8




(4[bak + b][ arondk F ? son 1

)V` jL around J L around (V) C2 -back

-low] / [ w] [ +high i

But [u]--[y] is a natural process: the output is marked, but the process is a natural assimilation; the crucial assimilatory properties for [i] involve place of articulation (height and frontness) rather than rounding. The revised formulation for OEIU, which makes the shift from [u]-+[y] more 'marked' than the [u]-*[i] shift, obscures this by collapsing the expression of the markedness of the output with the naturalness of the process.

OEIU may be characterized using as primes vowel segments with a possible complex structure (with sub-trees containing more than one node) as in (42):

(42) u <trum > u (trymman >

[y]

u <dohter > u <dehter >

I [?] I a a [0]

(where [e] represents the output of the rounded congener of [0] after unrounding has subsequently taken place - i.e. where the roundness segment Jul has been obliterated)

a <faran > a <faerp )

I [s]

a (cwl > i <cwellan >

!([e] I [e] a

The SD for the developments shown in (42) essentially involves the structural characteristic:

(43) V

which (in the terms of what we have said earlier in relation to V V contexts) en- tails a subsequent 'strengthening' of the governing V element - in this instance

19




(an epenthesis) realized by the subjunction of the dependent [i] to the governing V node:

(44) V

Our above data with forms showing the operation of OEIU (those on the right hand side) demonstrates the naturalness of representing the process of assimilation as the addition of an iJ to the sub-tree involved.

However, we are still left with the difficulty of the last instance, where the raising of [x]-+[e] is involved. It seems to be quite unique in relation to the other cases in that it involves a reversal of the dependency between its segments, and not the addition of the frontness characteristic. The governing node has become the governed. Nevertheless we maintain that this is the consequeiice of an operation identical to the other instances, namely the subjunction of i' so that the complex output tree results as in (45):

(45) a

At this point we introduce into our argument the notion of well-formedness (according to what are probably in part language-specific constraints) of complex subjunction sub-trees. For English at any rate, the one above is regarded as OVER-STRONG and is resolved by a reduction of the unit in the direction of the nearest well-formed complex to the direction in which the excess of strength has occurred. That is, in this case, in the direction of the trajectory towards Jil. The tree is thus simplified to:

(46) i

I a

which is one step closer to Jil than the original. We shall see immediately below that this is a quite general principle which can be successfully applied to a whole range of both quantitative and qualitative stressed vowel change phenomena. We can therefore characterize OEIU as a unitary process such that:

(47) Old English i-umlaut SD V Cl i; V4i SC V-+V= i

20




Let us suppose that the strengthening environment in the SD of OEIU can be generalized to include instances where either the C element was optional or indeed completely absent: in other words that the strengthening was the result, as indeed we have been arguing, of the dependency relationship existing between the two Vs. In the historical phonology of English there are manifestations of the strengthening of vocalic segments in just such an environment, i.e. a stressed vowel immediately preceding (with no intervening C) a dependent V, stressed long vowels and diphthongs. The strengthening SD could be thus modified to read:

(48) V1 C0 V2; VI V2

Characteristic of such an environment is the well-known English Great Vowel Shift (GVS): this change (see also Foley, MS) we shall not, according to our third hypothesis, regard as an 'isolative' one involving stressed long (tense) vowels, but rather view it as an extension (or repetition with modification) of the strengthening involving the insertion of a V in a given vocalic dependency relationship such as that characteristic of OEIU. The GVS is clearly in its historical manifestations a very complex set of changes and what is presented here is grossly over-simple (see Chomsky & Halle, I968, Chapter Six; Dobson, I957; Zachrisson, I9I3) but in general terms it represents the raising of non-high geminate vowels by one 'degree' of height, whereas vowels with a [ + high] specification have their first element lowered by at least a similar amount. The presence of this change as apparently a part of the synchronic grammar of English is attested by such now familiar alternants as opaque/opacity, serene/serenity, define/definitive, school/ scholar. The early Modern English change involving [-high] vowels can be represented thus:

(49) [ve]-+[ee] profane [aa] [oa] vaunt [ee][ii] serene [3,] [oo] cone

[oo] [uu] school

(although there is, needless to say, considerable controversy over the underlying and superficial representations associated with the above data, which must be regarded as highly idealized; for discussion, see Anderson & Jones, forthcoming; Dobson, I958). Within our terms of reference, the GVS might be represented as involving the changes shown in (50).

(5o)

(a) a a (i.e., eV iV)

2I




a a >i

I I a (b) a (i.e., aV --> eV)

a > a (c) I| 0 (e, aV > :DV)

u

aa > a u

I (d) u u a (i.e., 3V _>OVT)

u

u -> u > u

(e) A I (i.e., oV > uV)

u

That is, we have the addition of a vowel element subjoined to the initial V of a two-vowel nucleus. If the initial V contains lil then the subjoined V is also lil, if not, then the subjoined V is Jul. The addition of the subjoined V results in most cases in the formation of overstrong subjunction paths which are subsequently simplified in accordance with the principle outlined above. In each instance there results a segment one step closer to IiI or IuI than the output, producing sequences [ie, ea, 3a, o0, and uo] which in turn are realized as geminates by an English convention ruling out nuclei the second element of which is further from Jul or IiI than the first (on this convention in relation to Old English, cf. Lass & Ander- son, MS: Chs. III & VI). (But note in Middle High German vowel-shifted spellings such as (hier > ModE here, (fuoz ) ModEfoot.) We can thus characterize the GVS (for non-high vowels) as follows:

(5 i) Great Vowel Shift SD V1 V2; VJV2 SC (a) Vi-*V1

I V3

(b) Vl=I:V3=i V1 I , V3 u

(where I is a subjunction path containing lil). The similarity of this process to OEIU should be evident; both involve the addition of a V subjoined to another,

22




governing V, but in the case of the GVS the SD is widened to include any dependent V, and narrowed to exclude any intervening consonantal segment. We have, of course, omitted any reference to the GVS manifestation of vowels which have the characterization [+ high], but (as is shown in Anderson & Jones, forthcoming), their behaviour in no way invalidates the principles argued here.

Obviously, one of the likeliest environments in which our vowel strength schema might be realized is that of stressed vowels in 'open syllable' structures ( CV(C) ), given that the lower the value for C in (48), the more likely is strengthening to occur. And indeed in such we do find in the history of English many instances (including, of course, OEIU) of both qualitative and quantitative stressed vowel change. The Old English 'sound change' known as u-umlaut (OEUU) and the Middle English stressed vowel lengthening in open syllables (MEOSL) are clear instances. In the former, the (post-consonantal) dependent V (cf. OEIU) has non-front characteristics (i.e. is Jul or la]); such 'weaker' segments (in relation to the 'strong' Jil; see Foley, MS) entail not a subjunction to the governing V element, but an incomplete assimilation - i.e. adjunction. Thus, we find alternants like (gatu >/ (geatu > where the (ea> is traditionally accepted to represent [aa]. Thus, from a structure like (52):

(52)

u

g t

with its V 4 V strengthening environment, we can achieve the following:

(53) u

where (as with OEIU) the V segment produced as the result of the strengthening (this time adjunctively) copies the governed vocalic element, so that it appears, at least initially, as Jul. The new stressed complex nucleus (fxl 4 ul), with non- equivalence in precedence of its components (Jxl < Jul), is realized, by a later rule involving height adjustment of the non-syllabic segment to the syllabic, as [aea].

MEOSL on the other hand, represents an SD containing less restriction on its V elements than either OEIU or OEUU. Both front and back vowels can act as input to the rule, and a vowel of any backness co-efficient may appear in the non-syllabic slot. However, essentially the same strengthening environment is involved, V1 4V2 (with intervening C), with the result that VI-+VIV3, where V1< V3. Thus, again:

23




a a

/ -> /

n m n m

The adjoined epenthetic segment in this (extended - compared with OEUU) environment is made to agree in toto with V1, so that lengthening occurs; [nama]

[naama] name.

Before closing, we shall examine one more common process in the history of English phonology which, although it shows input and output conditions similar to some (notably OEUU), appears superficially at any rate completely uncon- nected to any of the instances above. Our argument here will be that it is in essence similar and again (this time as a result of the interpretation we have afforded to liquid consonants) has an environmental characteristic involving V4 V. The following restricted data can be used to exemplify the Old English phenomenon of Breakintg (OEB) (before liquids) or Fracture (Campbell, I959:

54-60; Luick 1914-40: 138-I44). Part of this process involves the diphthongiza- tion of front vowels before liquid consonants followed by another consonantal segment, so that (leaving aside [+ high] inputs, which introduce other considerations): [oe]-+[xa], (as in (heard> hard, <bearn> 'child') and [e]-*[eo] (as in (eorl> earl, <eorpe> earth). Part of our earlier argument was that liquid consonants were to be interpreted not as unique item segments, but as complexes, crucially involving a V and C segment in a simultaneous precedence relationship. The sub-tree incorporated in 'dark' [1] we suggested was:

(55S) u

I d

Now, for reasons we cannot enter into here (but see Lass & Anderson, MS for a full discussion) liquid consonants in Old English (at least in such an environment) can plausibly be interpreted as [+back], i.e. uvular [}I] and velarized dental [1], so that their vocalic node will be I. Typically then we have in such environments a situation in which once more we find a V (this time as part of a bi-noded sub-tree) dependent upon another V element. Thus:

I C

The result of the presence of this configuration is, as we might by now expect, a strengthening of the upper V element, this time by adjunction, the adjoined

24




element being a copy of the I in the structure. OEB might thus be characterized, not unlike OEIU and OEUU, as:

(57) Old English Breaking SD I (I) I = C C1; I I SC I (I)-*I (I) -I

Thus, our 'more structured' formulation enables us to capture generalizations resistant to the standard theory, generalizations which suggest the recurrence throughout the history of English phonology (with different SD constraints and with - we would claim predictable - SC modifications) of manifestations of what we have termed a vowel strengthening schema:

(58) Vowel Strengthening Schema SD V1 Co<V2; VlV2 SC Vl-+Vl1V3

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. (I969). Syllabic or non-syllabic phonology? JL S. I36-I42. Anderson, J. M. (197Ia). Dependency and grammatical functions. FL 7. 30-37. Anderson, J. M. (197 ib). Outline of a proposal for the lexicalization of complex structures.

SL 25. I-8. Anderson, J. M. (I972). A study of grammatical functions in English and other languages.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (forthcoming). Historical English phonology. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Brugmann, K. (i888). A comparative grammar of the Indo-Germanic languages, Vol. i.

London: Nutt. Campbell, A. (959). An Old English grammar. London: Oxford University Press. Cheng, R. L. (I966). Mandarin phonological structure. YL 2. 135-158. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1 968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Dingwall, W. 0. (ed.) (I97i). A survey of linguistic science. University of Maryland:

Linguistic Program. Dobson, E. J. (I968). English pronunciation 1500-1700, 2nd edn. London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press. Foley, J. (Ms). Systematic morphophonemics. Fromkin, V. (I968). Speculations on performance models. YL 4. 47-68. Fudge, E. C. (I969). Syllables. JL 5. 253-286. Hays, D. D. (I964) Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Lg 40.

5II-525. Higginbottom, E. (I964). Glottal reinforcement in English. TPhS, 129-I42. Jones, C. (1972). Introduction to Middle English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kim, C.-W. (197I). Experimental phonetics. In Dingwall, W. 0. (ed.) I6-128. Kohler, K. J. (I966a). Towards a phonological theory. Lingua I6. 337-35I. Kohler, K. J. (I966b). Is the syllable a phonological universal? JL 2. 207-208. Kohler, K. J. (I967). Modern English phonology. Lingua 39. I45-176. Lass, R. (I97oa). Palatals and umlaut in Old English. AL 13. 75-98. Lass, R. (I97ob). Two-parameter matrices in phonology: Or why glottal stops are real

stops and [h] is an obstruent. Unpublished. Lass, R. (197I). Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal

strength hierarchies. YL 7. 15-30.

25




Lass, R. & Anderson, J. M. (Ms). Studies in Old English phonology. Luick, K. (1914-40). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Vol. i. Stuttgart:

Tauchnitz. Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Lehiste, I. (I97i). Temporal organization of spoken language. Form and Substance:

phonetic and linguistic papers presented to Eli Fischer-Jorgensen, Hammeriich, L. L., Jakobson, R. & Zwirner, E. (eds.). 159-I69. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

Maas, 0. (I97I). Dependenztheorie. Grundriss zur Literatur und Sprachwissenschaft, Arnold, H. L. & Sinemus, V. (eds.). Miinchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.

Marcus, S. (I967). Algebraic linguistics: analytic models. New York & London: Academic Press.

O'Connor, J. D. & Trim, J. L. M. (I953). Vowel, consonant and syllable - a phonological definition. Word 9. 103-122.

Robinson, J. J. (Ig7oa). Dependency structure and transformational rules. Lg 46. 259-285.

Robinson, J. J. (i97ob). Case, category and configuration. YL 6. 57-80. Sympson, G. (I970). On the need for a phonological base. Lg 46. 586-626. Wang, W. S.-Y. (I968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift.

Lg 44. 695-708. Wheeler, M. (1972). Distinctive features and natural classes in phonological theory. YL 8.

97-102. Whitaker, H. A. (I97i). Neurolinguistics. In Dingwall, W. 0. (ed.) 136-244.

26



three theses concerning phonological representations

Documents