Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology

Daniel Kahn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317420194
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This dissertation, first published in 1980, is concerned with the role of the syllable in generative grammar. Kahn argues that the syllable is a necessary element in phonological descriptions by identifying aspects of phonology that seem to call for analysis in terms of syllabic structure and demonstrating the superiority of syllabic analyses over possible alternative solutions. This title will be of interest to students of English language and linguistics.

Chapter I
Preliminaries

Introduction

My general goal in this chapter and the next is to provide a formal basis for two assumptions which have been pervasive in traditional discussions of phonology but which have by and large not been adopted by generative phonologists. These assumptions are (a) that there exists, on the phonetic level, a well-defined unit of perception and production larger than the segment and smaller than the word, and (b) that this unit plays a very significant role in conditioning distributional statements, sound changes, synchronic phonological rules, etc., i.e., that it is of general phonological significance. The unit is of course the syllable.¹

In Chapter II, I discuss a large number of phonological processes of English, the statements of which become simpler, intuitively more meaningful, and, most importantly, descriptively more adequate, if use Is made of a set of rules of syllable structure assignment ordered prior to the phonogical rules proper. This chapter provides the necessary preparation by discussing the general question of how the claim that, the syllable is a phonologically significant construct can be justified as well as by suggesting and defending certain general hypotheses concerning syllable structure and proposing a set of rules for assigning syllable structure to strings of segments in English.

Section 1 - Justifying Syllabic Phonology

1.1 It may prove helpful to approach the problem of how one might go about justifying the intuition that the syllable has an important phonological role to play by first considering an analogy. Let us evaluate several possible solutions to a well-known problem of Sanskrit phonology, that of accounting for the class of segments /r, u, k, i/ as the leftward environment of a retroflexion rule. Assuming that this class of segments is somewhat unnatural when expressed in terms of a given distinctive-feature framework, what sort of observation could eliminate the problematical status of the "ruki" rule?

Suppose it were suggested that there exists some previously undiscovered feature, [±F_χ], such that /r, u, k, i/ are [+F_χ] ^aH other segments [—F_χ], or that Sanskrit contained a rule inserting the hitherto unknown boundary ç in the environment /r, u, k, i/ —, and that the correct environment for the ruki rule is simply

or ç —. Obviously these proposals are of absolutely no theoretical value as solutions to the problem under consideration and represent no more than their proposer's prejudice as to where a solution will eventually be found. In the case of the new-feature "solution," no evidence has been given for the appropriateness of the feature beyond its use in simplifying the very rule we wish to understand, while the new-boundary "solution" eliminates a problematical retroflexion rule environment at the cost of replacing it with an equally problematical boundary-insertion rule environment.

Suppose, however, that the proposer of either of these solutions could go further and show (contrary to fact, as far as I know) that [F_χ] or ç as defined above could be used to condition not only the ruki rule, but several other rules of Sanskrit phonology as well. How would we reevaluate the claims under consideration?

It is clear that in contrast to the earlier situation we would now have to acknowledge that a discovery had been made - the discovery of a relationship between rules not previously recognized and of a probable need for modification of the theory, since by hypothesis /r, u, k, i/ is an unnatural class. However the situation remains the same with regard to the particular solutions put forward: we have been offered no basis on which to select one and not the other, or either rather than some third possibility.

In order to make a truly adequate case for either of the proposed solutions, its defender must go beyond the realm of phonological rules and establish a link to other phenomena relevant to the type of solution being proposed. For the new-feature solution, what would be required is the existence of particular articulatory or acoustic/perceptual properties corresponding to the proposed feature, a demonstration that the feature properly distinguished between /r, u, k, i/ and all other segments of the language, and evidence that the feature is appropriate in the phonological descriptions of other languages. In the case of the new-boundary solution, we would demand either the existence of some sort of special phonetic juncture at the points where ç is found or else a demonstration that the points of ç-insertion are well-defined from the point of view of the syntax of the language.

Keeping this discussion in mind, let us turn from the problem of the Sanskrit ruki rule to a problem of the type for which I would support a syllable-based solution.²

1.2 In the so-called r-less dialects of English, words like car, cart, cartel, but not rack, and carry, are pronounced without phonetic [r]. The environments in which [r] is missing, from the point of view of etymology and the r-retaining dialects, is that given in (1).

• (1)
  

This environment is problematical because the class of consonants (abbreviated by C in (1)) and word-boundary (#) do not form a natural class in fact they have in common no features at all. (The theoretical framework assumed here is that of Chomsky & Halle, 1968.)

Regarding this problem, the hypothetical discovery discussed in the second part of the ruki analogy has already been made: /r/-loss is not an isolated example of the occurrence of the strange environment of (1). As has often been noted (for example, by Lightner, 1972:333), rules of this type are quite common in the world's languages; I offer detailed discussions of several such rules in English, including /r/-loss, in Chapter II. We have thus uncovered a problem for the theory of phonology.

As was the case with ruki, there are two obvious directions in which one might look in order to understand rules with environments such as (1). One might try to modify the distinctive feature system in such a way that consonant and word-boundary would constitute a natural class. Or one might look into the possibility that some sort of boundary is typically found immediately to the left of these units. Suggestions of both of these types have in fact been made, and in the remainder of this section I show how such proposals have failed to meet the level of adequacy outlined at the end of the ruki discussion.

1.3 Among others, Lass (1971) and Lightner (1972) have suggested that boundaries be specifiable for features normally taken to be reserved for segmental units. In particular, they would expand the feature specification of word-boundary in such a way that it and the class of obstruents would form a natural class. I find this proposal unacceptable for two major reasons.

First of all, there is no hope of independently justifying the segmental features imposed on word-boundary in terms of articulatory or acoustic considerations. This is so because word-boundary is simply not articulated and is not present in the acoustic signal. Lightner (1972) tries to associate word-boundary with silence (p. 332), but of course this correlation fails in general: there is no cessation of vocal cord vibration and sound output at the points of sentence-internal word-boundary in the phrase John#is#a#bum as normally spoken.

Thus segmental feature specifications would have to be assigned to word-boundary purely on the basis of maximal simplification of phonological rules. That this is indeed Lightner's tactic in spite of his attempt to describe the articulation of word-boundary is made clear in the following quote (p. 334), which is typical of several statements he makes: "In many languages glottalized consonants lose their glottal quality before non-glottalized consonants and word-finally. Apparently # must be specified [-glottal]." It should be clear that Lightner has observed that many languages have

rules, not explained why they do. Similarly, Lass' (1971) only motivation for viewing word-boundary as an obstruent is that it allows the simplification of certain rules (pp. 24, 27).

It might be countered that if it were possible to specify for word-boundary a single value of each of the. distinctive features in such a way that this set of specifications were of universal phonological usefulness, a major theoretical contribution would be involved even if no explanation external to phonological rule-systems could be given as to why word-boundary takes on these particular specifications. However, the hope of determining a unique universal set of segmental feature specifications for word boundary seems unrealizable. In English alone, for example, there exist both [C, #] and (V, #] rules; an example of the latter is a rule which tenses vowels in — [V, #]. (See also Halle, 1971.)

A second major objection to specifying word-boundary for segmental features is that boundaries do not participate in phonological processes the way segments do. In particular they do not occur in focus position in rules. Having boundaries bear segmental features weakens the theory by implying that segments and boundaries are phonologically on a par and opening up the unrealized possibility of rules which change the segmental feature specifications on boundaries.

Furthermore if word-boundary, which is allegedly [-syllabic], occurred in an environment in which glides becomes vowels, would its specification be changed to [+syllabic] and would it henceforth behave as a vowel rather than as a non-syllabic? Presumably not, leading to the need for complication of a general vocalization rule to...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Chapter I - Preliminaries
• Chapter II - Syllable-Structure Conditioning in Phonological Rules
• Chapter III - On Word-Based Generalizations with Syllabic Conditioning
• Bibliography