SUBMITTED PARTIAL THE 6~summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/3017/b11526415.pdfby their relative...

PHONOLCGICAL CONSTRAINTS IN

SERBO-CROATIAN SYLLABLE MARGINS

and

MARKEMJBS I N GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY

Steven Uzelac P

BOA. ( ~ o n s , ) Simon Fraser University, 1969

TWO EXTENDED ESSAYS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEREE OF

MASTER 6~ ARTS

i n the Department

Modern Languages

a @ STEVEN UZELAC 1971

SIMON FRASER UNIVJBSITY

March, 1971

Name: Steven Uxelac

Degree8 Master o f Arts

APPROVAL

T i t l e s o f Extended Essays; 1. Phonological Constraints i n Serbo-Croatian S y l l a b l e Maxgins

2. Markedness i n Generative Phonology

Examining Committee r

N, J . Lincoln Chairman

Senior Supervisor

B . Newton

~e t e Approved, 47/

Acknowledgement

Work on the first essay ,

"Phonological Constraints i n Serbo-Croatian

Sy l lab le Margins",

was i n i t i a t e d under the supervis ion o f

m. Ross Saunders,

(iii)

ESSAY I

Phonological Constraints in ~erbo-~rbatiaa

Syllable Margins

Steven Uzelac

TABLE OF . CONTENTS

0.0 Introduction ............................................... .................................. 0.1 Statement of purpose

0.2 Summary of Contents ................................... ............................. 0.3 Descript ion of the Corpus

1.0 Segmentation procedures .................................... 1.1 Inter lude segmentation ................................ .................... 1.2 I so la ted Consonantal Microsegments

................ 2.0 The phonological s y l l a b l e of Serbo-Croatian

2.1 S t ruc tu re ............................................. .................. 2.2 inventory of Poss ib le Manifestat ions

3.0 The Constraint Granmar

3.1 Components of a Constraint G r a m m a r .................... 3.2 The Rule S e t ..........................................

..................... 4.0 Observations on t h e Juxtaposi t ion Rule 39

............................................. 4.1 The Rules 40

5.0 Concluding Observations .................................... 44

......................................................... Appendix 47

........................................................... Notes 50

Bibliography .................................................... 52

0,O INTRODUCTION

0 , l Statement of Purpose

The purpose of t h i s study is t o descr ibe t h e s t r u c t u r e of margins

of the Serbo-Croatian phonological s y l l a b l e i n terms of a cons t ra in t I

grammar, i , e . , a s e t of r u l e s which account f o r t h e p o s i t i o n a l and I

1 I sequent ia l c o n s t r a i n t s on the phonological primes within t h e limits I I 1 of the s t r u c t u r e of s y l l a b l e margins, and then t o examine t h e phono- ! I l o g i c a l phenomena t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e rules of t h i s g r w a r . 1 I

1 0.2 Summary of Contents I

There a r e f i v e major sec t ions i n add i t ion t o the Introduction

I

arid an Appendix,

Sect ion 1.0 conta ins a summary o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of the segment-

i a t i o n of t h e Serbo-Croatian u t t e rance i n t o successively smal ler s i z e

u n i t s ; the u t terance through phonemic phrases, macrosegments, phonolog-

i c a l words, microsegments, and f i n a l l y t h e phonological s y l l a b l e ,

Sect ion 2.0 conta ins a desc r ip t ion of t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e phono-

l o g i c a l s y l l a b l e with p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of the

various s i z e s of onse t and codas,

Sect ion 3.0 conta ins the c o n s t r a i n t grammar. The first subsect ion

desc r ibes the components of &he grammar and t h e second conta ins the r u l e

s e t s ,

Sect ion 4.0 conta ins an examination and d iscuss ion of t h e juxta-

pos i t ion r u l e s ,

Sect ion 5 , O conta ins the concluding observations of the phonological

cona t ra in t s with r e s p e d t t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e powers,

The Appendix conta ins a l is t of a l l the grammatical onse t s and codas

of Serbo-Croatian and a t a b l e i n which the juxtaposi t ion r u l e s a r e ranked

by t h e i r r e l a t i v e powers.

0.3 Description of the Corpus

The mater ia l comprising the corpus i n t h i s study is taken from

d i c t i o n a r i e s , grammars, and l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s of Serbo-Croatian, The

p a t t e r n of na t ive Serbo-Croatian phonemes is the main concern. Borrowings

from o t h e r languages w i l l only be considered if they conform t o t h e pa t t e rn

of Serbo-Croatian. If not , they w i l l n o t be allowed t o d i s r u p t the pa t t e rn ,

-- .bui u i i i be iisted ai. t h e enti of a pattern s e t and ciiscussea. m e same

holds t r u e f o r nonnative phonemes, which always occur in nonnative wonis,

p a r t i c u l a r l y /f/, which des t roy the language pa t t e rn , 2

1.0 Segmentation Procedures

The phonological s y l l a b l e is the r e s u l t of a segmentation procedure

which is e s s e n t i a l l y an I C a n a l y s i s such as or ig ina ted by Hockett 1953

and modified f o r the S lav ic languages by ~ u z e r a and ~ a u n d e r s . ~ The phono-

l o g i c a l s y l l a b l e is, "The smal les t u n i t o r r ecur ren t phonemic sequences

which make it poss ib le t o descr ibe t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of segmental phonemes 1

and conf igura t ive phonemic e n t i t i e s most e c o n o ~ i c a l l ~ , ~ ~ ~

It is unnecessary t o o u t l i n e the e n t i r e segmentation procedure here

4e because t h i s paper d i f f e r s i n no e s s e n t i a l f e a t u s from the above mentioned,

In summary, however, "the u t t e rance is segmented successively i n t o smaller

un i t s . From the u t t e rance through phonemic phrases, macrosegments,

phonemic measures, phonological words, and microsegments we a r r i v e at the

d e f i n i t i o n of the phonological s y l l a b l e as the smal les t u n i t of r ecur ren t

phonemic sequences. The cons t i tuen t s o f t h e s y l l a b l e are then defined as

the "nucleus" - t he i r r educ ib le minimum present i n any r ecur ren t phonemic

u n i t and the remainder as the "mazgin" of the s y l l a b l e , The margin i n

tu rn is broken down i n t o an op t iona l "onset", def ined as t h a t which occurs

between a d i s junc tu re and the first following nucleus and an op t iona l

"coda", defined as t h a t which occurs between t h e last nucleus and the

following d i s junc tu re , The margin between two nuc le i uninterrupted by

any occurance of d i s junc tu re i s an "interlude" and these a r e subsequently

divided i n t o onse t s and codas by a set of ordered ru les . " 5

Furthermore, "although s y l l a b l e s t r e s s is a property of the e n t i r e

s y l l a b l e , it reaches a maximum of i n t e n s i t y i n one por t ion of the s y l l a b l e

and f o r t h i s reason it can be s a i d t o s i g n a l the nucleus of the syl-lahlc?.,

Pi tch a l s o a t t a i n s peaks o f i n t e n s i t y i n exact ly the same loca t ion as does

S t ress . This permits us t o cha rac te r i ze the nucleus of the phonological

s y l l a b l e as the bearer of p i t c h and s t r e s s f o r - t h e s y l l a b l e as a uholeOn6

The nucleus of a s y l l a b l e i n Serbo-Croatian may c o n s i s t of any vowel

/i, e ,a ,o ,u/ o r the l i q u i d /r/ i n i t i a l l y before a consonant o r inter-con-

# r ++ nucleus / -3- C

A 1 1 o t h e r segmental phonemes / p,t,k,b,d,g,c,6,~,d,~,fps,~,h,v,z,i,r,l,

f , j ,m,n,6/ may only c o n s t i t u t e the margin o r part of the margin.

The op t iona l p a r t of t h e s y l l a b l e , the margin, may be divided i n t o

two p a r t s as s t a t e d above, the onse t (mO) and the coda (,c), Thus the

s y l l a b l e has the s t r u c t u r e ( m ~ ) N ( m ~ ) ,

There e x i s t s however, the problem of i n t e r l u d e d i v i s i o n when the re

is more than one nucleus between two successive d$sjunctures, The b a s i s

f o r in te r lude d iv i s ion s h a l l r e s t on t h e assumption t h a t i n t e r n a l s y l l a b l e s

have the same s t r u c t u r e as ex te rna l sy l l ab les . Therefore t h e i n t e r l u d e s

w i l l be segmented so as n o t t o c r e a t e any i n t e r n a l onset o r coda t h a t does

not e x i s t as an ex te rna l onset OF coda. When two a l t e r n a t e ways a r e found

t o be equally acceptable, i , e . , they do no t add t o the l ist of ex te rna l

o n s e t s o r codas, t hen t h e a l t e r n a t i v e ' t h a t has a h ighe r p r o b a b i l i t y of

occurrence i n t h e language is prefer red , The maximum segments t h a t an

e x t e r n a l o n s e t o r coda is found t o have i s three . Therefore any i n t e r l u d e

with more than six members would add a new a d d i t i o n t o t h e l ist of e x t e r n a l

onse t s and codas. The l a r g e s t i n t e r l u d e , however, has only f o u r members.

1.1 I n t e r l u d e Segmentation

With the a b b e c r i t e r i a i n mind t h e i n t e r l u d e s a r e segmented and given

i n o r d e r of preference i n t he fo l lowing lists

A 1 +e,..nm+<, a4 .,4 e . 4 .-.-A -..d-...-d '.A "" I I IU Y U U* . AU*V..O VAUF;ACjU

by preference

N C N

I

N C C N N C * C N

N C C C N N C * C C N

N C C'C N N'C C C N ii

N C C C.N di

N C C C C N

1.2 I s o l a t e d Consonantal Microsegments ( E M ' s)

As KuEera 1961, f o r ~ e e c h , a n d Saundern 1970, f o r Russian, had t o d e a l

with the problem of ICM1s so must t h e problem be d e a l t with he re f o r

Serbo-Croatian. 7

The segmentation of complex phonological words yields two types of

microsegments r

1. Word microsegments (capable of constituting simple phonological

words). \,

2, Isolated microsegmen ts ( incapable of constituting simple phono-

logical words), These are found to be prepositions in Serbo-Croatian,

Isolated microsegments are further subdivided into:

1, Isolated syllabic microsegments, which because they contain a

syllable nucleus are of no special concern.

2. Isolated consonantal microsegments, which are composed of one con-

sonant and are asyllabic.

In Serbo-Croatian there are two ICM'a, /k/ 'to' and /s/, 'with' or

'from'.

There are four alternate ways of dealing with ICM's.

1. "Leave them as they are, i.e., as asyllabic residues. I, 8

This would leave behind a residue unacccrunted for in the language.

2. "Consider ICM's as special types of syllables."9

This would mean that in this case two obstruents: a stop and a

fricative, would function as a syllable nucleus. This is unacceptable

because it would allow a stop to function as a syllable peak. 10

3 . "Consider the ICM and its following disjunctures as constituents

of the set of the following ~yllable."~~

This alternative would violate the hierarchy of levels, for the

syllable boundary would then extend beyond the boundary of the microsegment.

This alsd proves to be unsatisfactory, Saunders 1966, considered this

proposal the best, but abandoned it for the above reason in Saunders 1970.~~

4, "Suppress internal disjuncture and consider the ICM as a conotituent

of the onset of the following syllable,*13

This a l t e r n a t i v e is the l e a s t a t t r a c t i v e . F i r s t it would e l iminate

the microsegment boundary and the re fo re the concept of the microsegment,

secondly it would modify a genera l phonological r u l e i n Serbo-Croatian,

The r u l e states t h a t any c l u s t e r o f obs t ruen t s c o n s t i t u t i n g a s y l l a b l e

margin o r part of a margin and n o t separa ted by a nucleus w i l l have the

same q u a l i t y of voice, This r u l e would be v io la ted by such sequences ast

# k + bra tu # ' t o brother '

# s + h r z t n ~ # 'uith 5 n ~ t . h . d

where the /k/ and the /s/ do not a s s i m i l a t e i n voice t o the next segment

i n normal tempo,

O f t he f o u r a l t e n l a t i v e s the first seems the most s a t i s f a c t o r y , There-

f o r e ICM' s s h a l l be regarded here as Hockett, ~ u 8 e r a and ~Saunders regard them,

"as a s y l l a b i c r e s idues o r as ~ u z e r a calls them, s p e c i a l p resy l l ab ic seg-

"14 men ts ,

, 2.0 The Phonological Sy l l ab le of Serbo-Croatian

2.1 S t ruc tu re

The s t r u c t u r e of the s y l l a b l e s h a l l now continue t o be analysed down

t o the u l t imate phonological u n i t s of t h i s study, the phonemes of Serbo-

Croatian ,

2.11 The Nucleus

The nucleus of a phonological s y l l a b l e i n Serbo-Croatian always

c o n s i s t s of only one segmental phoneme, Therefore the re is no h ie ra rch ica l

s t r u c t u r e f o r the nucleus, '

2,12 The Margin

The margin of a phonological s y l l a b l e o f Serbo-Croatian is d i s -

continuous, and as s t a t e d above is divided i n t o an op t iona l onset and an ,

optional coda. The onset and codas a r e of three s i ses t

a, one member - one member onset <lo > - one member coda

b, two members - two member onset <lC > <Z0 > - two member coda (2C>

c, three members - three nembr onset <3O >

- three member . coda ec> 2.13 The Structure Onsets and Codas

Onsets and codas sha l l not be regarded as unstructured s t r ings of

segmental phonemes, but sha l l be viewed as s t ruc tura l un i t s so tha t

larger onsets and codas a re composed of smaller uni t s of smaller onsets

and codas, The fallowing is the specif ic s t ructure of the various onset

and coda types pbposed/ here f o r Serbo-Croatian.

A one member onset o r coda is composed of a s ingle segmental phoneme.

A two member onset o r coda is coraposed of tm, val id one member onsets o r

codas respectively. This is the only possible structuring f o r two member

onsets and codas, A three member onset o r coda is composed of a sequence

of a valid one member onset o r coda followed by a val id two member onset

o r coda respectively,

The above proposed structuring is based on the observation tha t

cer tain par ts of the s t r ings of phonemes with the lists of valid onsets

and codas displayed a greater power of recombination than others. Th i s

may be demonstrated by a representative list of valid three member onsets,

spl-

The recurr ing partial i n a l l f i v e cases is /a/ fol loued by a va l i d two

member onset. By equating the power o f recursion with s t r uc tu r a l u n i t s

the s t r uc tu r e of a th ree member onset involves the juxtaposit ion of

a va l i d one member onset followed by a va l i d two member onset,

There are a l t e rna t e ways of d t ructur ing th ree member onsets and codas.

One is t o regard them as a sequence of th ree va l i d one member onsets o r

codas,

This a l t e rna t i ve , however, does no t account f o r recurr ing p a r t i a l s and

represents the s t r uc tu r e as a mere s t r i n g o f phonemes, It therefore

must be discarded. The second a l t e rna t i ve is t o regard them as a sequence

of a va l i d two member onset o r coda followed by a va l i d one member onset

o r coda respectively,

This a l t e rna t i ve is a l s o discarded.

a new two member coda t o the list of

One reason is because it would add

va l i d two member codas. I t a l s o

c r ea t e s a s i t ua t i on within the s t r uc tu r e of three member onsets whereby

more new and more complicated juxtaposit ion r u l e s a r e created t o block

combinations t h a t would occur a t a lower s t r uc tu r e than would be needed \

with t he preferred s t ruc tu re ,

2.2 Inventory of Poss ib le Manifestat ions

Each onset and coda type has a number of p o t e n t i a l manifestat ions

based on the permutations of its s t r u c t u r a l un i t s . For example, the

p o t e n t i a l number of two member codas is e igh t ; the number of v a l i d

members of its first u n i t (4) mul t ip l i ed by the number of v a l i d members

of its second u n i t s (2). This may be represented by a matrix with the

first member on the hor izonta l axis and the second member on the v e r t i c a l

ax i s , However, only h a l f of t h e p o t e n t i a l number occur. The remainder

do n o t occur f o r th ree poss ib le reasonst

1, They a r e ungrammatical. They do n o t fol low the sound p a t t e r n

of Serbo-Croatian and a r e not employed in t he language,

the two member p o t e n t i a l onse t /&d-/.

2. They a r e ungrammatical but are employed by the

example is the two member p o t e n t i a l coda /-lm/ found i n

borrowing / f i l m / .

An example i s

language. An

t he r ecen t

3 , They are grammatical bu t a r e f o r t u i t o u s l y unemployed i n the

language ( these a r e F'ischer-~drgensen's acc iden ta l g8ps i n the languag$fj).

An example i s the two member p o t e n t i a l onse t /bz-/.

Using Vogt's terminology f o u r l e v e l s of grammaticality are posi tedt 16

1. Actual c lus te r s . These c l u s t e r s occur i n the corpbs and fol low

the sound p a t t e r n of Serbo-Croatian.

2, Vir tua l Clusters . These c l u s t e r s do n o t occur i n t h e corpus

b u t fo l low t h e sound p a t t e r n o f Serbo-Croatian.

3. Marginal Clus ters , These c l u s t e r s occur in the corpus but do

n o t fol low t h e sound p a t t e r n of Serbo-Croatian.

4, Inadmissable Clusters . These c l u s t e r s do n o t occur i n the

corpus nor do they fol low the sound p a t t e r n of Serbo-Croatian.

2.21 The Recovery of Missi~lq Cranunatical Clus te r s

The recovery of grammatical c l u s t e r s , the v i r t u a l c l u s t e r s , depends

upon two assumptions t

1. There a re c e r t a i n groupings of segmental~honemeswhich a r e more

n a t u r a l than o thers . Without any claims t o un ive r sa l a p p l i c a b i l i t y na tu ra l

s e t s appear t o be yielded i n Serbo-Croatian by the suspension of t h e d i s t -

i n c t i v e opposi t ion of voicing. The n a t u r a l a e t s area

3~ ~ a / t , d / , ~ V k , g /

c ~ / c / , E ' ~ f , d / , Zdc',j/ ~ 3 / f , v / , ~ a / s , a / , 3 , H J / ~ /

~3/m/, N N , / ~ / . i3/;/

W/, L / i / , Wr/, J >h/ 2. Analogical extension, If one member of a n a t u r a l s e t occurs i n

environments '-g', '-r', '-s', then a l l members of the n a t u r a l s e t w i l l

be allowed t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n . Only a r u l e t h a t involved a cons t ra in t on

t h e f e a t u r e voicing would disal low t h i s extension, f o r example, a r u l e

which s p e c i f i e s t h a t a two member onse t cannot c o n s i s t of two obs t ruents 31

of d i s s i m i l a r voice would inva l ida te the ana log ica l extension t o /sd-/

from /zd-/.

After a l l the grammatical c l u s t e r s have been recovered and marked i n

the matrix then the ungrammatical c l u s t e r s w i l l be represented by the

unmarked c e l l s . Rules must now be formulated t o account f o r t h e nonoccurence

of these ungrammatical c lus te r s . "This set of r u l e s speci fy ing the member-

s h i p of c l u s t e r s and the sequent ia l c o n s t r a i n t s which make c e r t a i n sequences

of segmental phonemes i n c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s inadmissable, w i l l be c a l l e d

a cons t ra in t grammar. "17

3.0 The Constraint Grammar

The constraint grammar has three major goals;

1. The assignment of each possible onset and coda to one of the levels

of grammaticality.

2, The examination of the phonological constraints which allow only

the grammatical clusters.

3 . A measure of confidence in quantitative terms of grammaticality

assignments.

Grammaticality should not be equated with accuring in the dictionary.

Thin definition of grammaticality has no predictive power and fails to

provide an explanation of why certain ungrammatical clusters seem to be

less grammatical than others, It also fails to provide any clues of

future phonological change.

Grammatical should be equated with conforming to the sound pattern

of the language, The assignment of clusters to grammatical and ungram-

matical occurs as sets of constraint rules, which permit only grammatical

sequences, are applied to all the manifestations of possible clusters.

Those clusters which are blocked are tagged ungrammatical, Ungrammatical

clusters are assigned to a level of grammaticality. If they do not occur

in the corpus they are inadmissable, If they occur they are mwginal.

Likewise the grammatical clusters are assigned to a level of grammaticality;

as virtual clusters if they do not occur in the corpus and as actual clusters . if they do occur.

3.02 Phonological Constraints

The second goal of the constraint grammar is an examination of the

phonological cohstraints. There are two aspects which a r e of importance;

1. The Rela t ive Power of a ru le . This is the percentage of pot-

e n t i a l onse t s and codas tagged ungrammatical by t h i s ru le .

2, The domain of a ru le . It is of i n t e r e s t t o knon if the domain

of a r u l e is l imi ted t o onsets o r codas o r can apply t o both. Rules

l imi ted t o onsets a r e 'onset r u l e s ' and r u l e s l imi ted t o codas a r e 'coda

r u l e s ' and r u l e s which apply t o both onsets and codas a r e 'universa l r u l e s ' ,

3.03 Measure of Confidence i n G r a m a t i c a l i t y Assignments

' A q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of confidence i n granunaticality assignments

Is accomplLshed by a combination of r u l e overlapping and r e l a t i v e r u l e

power within a r u l e s e t , Both r u l e power and r u l e overlapping a r e discussed

i n sec t ion 3.12.

3.1 Components of a Const ra in t Grammar

A c o n s t r a i n t gramaas is unl ike most grammars i n t h a t most o the r

grammars w i l l operate on an inventory of phonological primes t o generate

only the grammatical s t r u c t u r e s while a c o n s t r a i n t grammar a c t s as a ba t t e ry

o f f i l t e r s t o e l iminate the ungrammatical s t r u c t u r e s f r o m an inventory of

a l l p o t e n t i a l s t ruc tu res . There axe th ree main components t o the proposed

1. The i n i t i a l input ; the inventory of segmental phonemes of Serbo-

Croatian . , -

2, The s e t of r u l e s which r e s u l t i n the output.

3. The list of grammatical. onse t s and codas,

3.11 The Inventory of Segmental Phonemes

The phonemes of Serbo-Croatian axe regarded as bundles of d i s t i n c t i v e

f e a t u r e s which a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from a l l o t h e r phonemes of Serbo-Croatian

by the same s e t of d i s t i n c t i v e f ea tu res .

The

f e a t u r e s

f e a t u r e s

13

s e t of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s used h e r s a r e t h e ( a r t i c u l a t o r y )

found i n Chomsky-Halle 1968, These a r e p r e f e r a b l e t o Jakobsonian

because they a r e e a s i e r t o work with, e.g., MR1 ( s e e 3.21)

syl labic]

is used t o s epa ra t e a l l members of t h e s y l l a b l e margin from members of

t h e nucleus, I n Jakobsonian f e a t u r e s t h e same s e t is de f ined as:

The xa in disadvantage here is t h e g r e a t e r number of f e a t u r e s , fou r t een

i n s t e a d of twelve Jakobsonian f e a t u r e s , b u t t h i s is compensated f o r by

t h e s impler r u l e s .

The fol lowing mat r ix is f u l l y s p e c i f i e d , The redundancies a r e

brought o u t i n t he nA3s.

1, s y l l a b i c nonsy l l ab i c

2. sonorant a nonsonorant (obs t ruen t )

3. consonantal : nonconsonantal

4, n a s a l t nonnasal

5. l a t e r a l ; n o n l a t e r a l

6. cont inuant r noncontinuant

7, a n t e r i o r : nonan ta r io r

8, coronal : noncoronal

9, delayed r e l e a s e I ins tan taneous r e l e a s e

10, d i s t r i b u t e d t nond i s t r i bu ted

11. voiced t nonvoiced

12, low r nonlow

13, back

14. h igh

: nonback

t nonhigh

I

SY 1

son

cons

nas

l a t

I

-I

-

-

cant

a n t

cor

d e l r -

d i s

voice

low

back

high

-

i

..

-

-

-

-

-

-

The preceeding

every o t h e r phoneme

matrix is u s e f u l

and e s t a b l i s h i n g

f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g each phoneme from

boundaries f o r phonet ic v a r i a t i o n s

of phonemes. For example, the phoneme /p/ has a range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s

t h a t would never inc lude t h e o t h e r phonemes /t/ o r /b/,

However, the preceeding mat r ix has one drawback f o r phonotac t ic o r

syntagmatic i nves t iga t ions . In Serbo-Croatian a n a t u r a l c l a s s is formed

4

by t h e phonemes /v,h,m,n,6,r,l,lj,i,e,a,o,u/.ld~efore any ~f t he se phonemes <

t h e f e a t u r e voiced-nonvoiced is opera t ive . A l l o f t hese except /v/ a r e

p l u s sonorant and t h e r e f o r e can be e a s i l y recovered, Therefore t o fac-

i l i t a t e t he r u l e s /v/ s h a l l be regarded as p l u s sonorant i n a l l f u t u r e

d i scuss ion and r u l e s , /v/ is no longe r a member of t he s e t ~ 3 / f , v / .

Two new s e t s a r e formed ~ 3 / f / and /v/ 3 /v/,

3.12 The Phonological Cons t r a in t Rules

I t is seen i n 2.13 t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of onse t s and codas c o n s i s t s

of sequences o f sma l l e r o n s e t s and codas, This r e s u l t s i n an o rde r ing of

r u l e s ; those r u l e s r e s u l t i n g i n an inventory of v a l i d o n s e t s and codas

of sma l l e r s i z e preceding those r u l e s of t h e l a r g e r s i z e s o f o n s e t s and

codas.

There a r e two types of r u l e s i n t h e c o n s t r a i n t grammars

1. MemSership r u l e s

2. Jux tapos i t i on r u l e s

Membership r u l e s ae s ign t h e membership of each s t r u c t m a l u n i t as

seen i n 2.13. Jux tapos i t i on r u l e s then ope ra t e upon t h e membership of t h e

s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s t o d i s a l l o w a l l ungrammatical c l u s t e r s . For example,

a membership r u l e a s s i g n s a l l t h e nonsy l l ab i c phonemes of Serbo-Croatian

t o one member onsets . No jux tapos i t i on r u l e s apply because t h e r e is no

sequence af s t r u c t u r e s . The grammatical one member o n s e t s now se rve as an

i npu t t o t h e membership r u l e s f o r two member o n s e t s which a r e composed of

a sequence of two one member onse t s , Membership r u l e s f o r each u n i t of

t h e s t r u c t u r e a s s i g n s the membership t o each u n i t . Jux tapos i t i on r u l e s

ope ra t e on t h e p o t e n t i a l number of two member o n s e t s t o Slock a l l ungram-

ma t i ca l two member onse ts . T b grammatical one member and two member o n s e t s

s e rve as an inpu t t o t h e membership r u l e s of t h r e e member onse t s , Member-

s h i p r u l e s f o r t h r e e member

u n i t , The p o t e n t i a l number

p o s l t i o n r u l e s t o b lock a l l

Rule s e t s a r e ordered,

o n s e t s a s s i g n t h e memberships of each s t r u c t u r a l

of t h r e e member o n s e t s is a c t e d upon by juxta-

ungrammatical c l u s t e r s . Likewise f o r codas,

Th i s is t o prevent i n t e r f e r e n c e o r overlapping

of c o n s t r a i n t s a t h ighe r l e v e l s with those at lower l e v e l s .

Rules wi th in a s e t a r e unordered, If t h e r u l e s were ordered then

overlapping of r u l e s would d iminish t h e power of a l a t e r r u l e which shared

p a r t o f t h e same domain, P a r t o f t h i s s tudy is to a s c e r t a i n t h e t o t a l

number of c l u s t e r s cons t ra ined by each r u l e . This could hard ly be done if

t h e r u l e s were ordered f o r t h e above reason, Furthermore the overlapping

of unordered r u l e s g i v e s a measure of ungrammaticality. Fo r example, a A I .I

c l u a t a r cons t r a ined by f o u r rules is considered l e s s grammatical than a ,I

c l u s t e r c o n s t m i n e d by only one r u l e r I n a d d i t i o n , a c l u s t e r cons t r a ined

by one r u l e is more l i k e l y t o be vu lne rab le t o f u t u r e phonological change

than is a c l u s t e r cons t ra ined by many r u l e s . This could g ive one i n d i c a t i o n

of t h e d i r e c t i o n of phonological change. Another reason f o r c r e a t i n g an

unordered s e t o f r u l e s is t o a l low t h e r u l e t h e oppor tuni ty t o 'apply t o

every c l u s t e r i n t h e s e t , By a l lowing t h i s a r u l e may be ranked according

t o t h e percentage of c l u s t e r s it cons t r a ins .

3.13 The Form of t h e Rules

Both membership and j ux t apos i t i on r u l e s are w r i t t e n o u t i n f u l l

followed by a formulation of the r u l e statement,

of the r u l e formulae a r e e a s i l y recoverable from

Since t h e conventions

the r u l e s tatements and

t h e rules axe given i n exact ly t h e same manner as Saundero 1970, there is

no need to repea t an exp l i ca t ion of them here. However, in b r i e f r the

membership r u l e s des ignate the membership of each s t r u c t u r a l u n i t in

d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s and are followed by a l ist of segmental phonemes t h a t

r ep resen t the membership of each s t r u c t u r a l u n i t as given by the said ru le .

The juxtaposi t ion r u l e s a c t as c o n s t r a i n t s using d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s f o r

primes. The juxtaposi t ion r u l e s a r e followed by a statement of 'Onset

Power' (OP) or 'Coda Power' (CP) and possibly 'Total Power' (TP) which

s i g n i f i e s the number of onsets o r codas o r onse t s and codas, r e spec t ive ly ,

tagged ungrammatical by t h i s r u l e , and 'Relat ive Onset power' (ROP) o r

'Relat ive Coda Power' (RcP) o r both p lus 'Total Rela t ive

a r e percentages of the t o t a l of poss ib le onse t s o r codas

r e spec t ive ly , tagged ungrammatical within t h e r u l e s e t .

r u l e is followed by a list of t h e c l u s t e r s it has tagged

3.2 The Rule Se t

Power' (TRP) which

o r onse t s and codas,

Each juxtaposi t ion

ungrmmatical.

The r u l e s a r e presented by onset-coda l eve l s . F i r s t the membership

rules a r e given, followed by Universal Juxtaposi t ion Rules (UR) , i.e.,

r u l e s t h a t apply t o both onsets and codas of the same c l u s t e r s i ze . These

a r e i n t u r n followed by Onset Juxtaposi t ion Rules (OR) and then by Coda

Juxtaposi t ion Rules (CR) of the sme s e t . A t t he completion of a r u l e s e t

a list is given of a l l the onsets and codas t h a t remain untagged as ungram-

mat ica l and a r e therefore grammatical.

3.21 One Member Onsets and Codas

MR1 "The membership of one member onse t s and codas c o n s i s t s of a l l nonayllabic

segments ,

3,211 The list of grammatical one member onse t s and codas,

onsets ($0) codas (1~) 1

/ /

m . n , f k l , l , j m . n 9 & r , l , l . j

3.22 Two member onsets and codas

3,221 Membership Rules

MR2 "The membership of the f i r s t cons t i tuen t of a two member onset c o n s i s t s

of a l l the va l id one member onse t s except / f , 6,d

+ delayed r e l e a s e - d i s t r i b u t e d

+ continuant

- s y l l a b i c + sonorant - coronal

N (-consonantal)

MR3 "The membership of .the second cons t i tuen t of a two member onset c o n s i s t s

of a l l v a l i d one member onsets except /c,f/ , 2 0

- s y l l a b i c

- coht inuant

As a revuii of iG2 and ES3 only s i x t e e n of t n e vaiid one member o n s e t s

may se rve as t h e f i r s t c o n s t i t u e n t of two member o n s e t s and only twenty-

t h r e e can se rve as t h e second cons t i t uen t . The i n v e n t o ~ y of p o t e n t i a l

two member o n s e t s r e s u l t i n g from t h e permutat ions of t h e two c o n s t i t u e n t s

equa l s 368. I

MR4 nThe membership o f . t h e first c o n s t i t u e n t of two member codas c o n s i s t s

- sonorant + cont inuant + coronal

MR5 "The membership of t h e second c o n s t i t u e n t of two member codas c o n s i s t s

I - sonorant - cont inuant

I + coronal - delayed r e l e a s e I

A s a r e s u l t o f MR4 and MR5 only f o u r of t h e v a l i d one member o n s e t s

may se rve as t h e f i r s t c o n s t i t u e n t of two member codas and o n l y two may

se rve as t h e second cons t i t uen t . The inventory of p o t e n t i a l two member

codas r e s u l t i n g from t h e permutat ions of t h e two c o n s t i t u e n t s equa l s 8.

3.222 Universal Jux tapos i t i on Rules f o r two member o n s e t s and codas.

U R 1 "When two mcmber o n s e t s o r cddas c o n s i s t o f nonsonorants only, both

segments a r e e i t h e r voiced o r nonvoiced.

- sonorant d voiced I >

O P - 9 1 R O P - 2 4 , s C P - 4 R C P - 5 w T P z 9 5 RTP-25.yA

The folkowing p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s and codas a r e tagged ungram-

n a t i c a l by t h i s r u l e :

3.223 Juxtaposi t ion Rules f o r two member onsets.

OR1 "TRO member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of geminates".

< 2 ~ ) + <FIB configurat ion { < (iiF configurat ion I> 11 OP - 15 ROP = 4.15

The following p o t e n t i a l two menber onse t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r

W V Y u pp,tt,ss,HLI,~~,~,bb,dd,zz,z~,~~,~g,vv,hh,rnrn~

OR2 "Two member onsets cannot c o n s i s t of a p lus a n t e r i o r sonorant i+nd a

nonsonoran t . " .

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onse t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le :

u vp,vt,vs,v~,vf,v~,vk,cb,vd,vz,v~,vvh,v3,vg \ \

OR3 "Two member onsets cannot c o n s i s t of a nonanterior sonorant and a

nonsonorant except /t , d/, I'

+ oonorant - a n t e r i o r - sonorant -continuant + coronal - delayed

OP - 12 ROP = 3.3%

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onse t s are tagged ungrammatical by

t h i s ru le r

OR4 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a nonsonorant except a p lus

a n t e r i o r noncoronal and a p lus continuant nonsonorant."

+ continuant - I> l1

OP = 4 4 ROP - 18.2%

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onyets a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s r u l e ;

4 t s , G , t z , t z ,

OR5 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a nonconthuant p lus coronal

nonsonorant and a p lus coronal nonsonorant."

OP - 50 ROP = 13.696

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onse t s a r e tagged as u n g r ~ a t i c a l

by t h i s r u l e :

tt,ts,tl,tf,tc',ta,tz,tZ,trt,tj

U c t , c s , c ~ , c E , c S , cd, CZ, CZ, c&, c 5

0R6 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant p lus a n t e r i o r

nonsonorant and a plus a n t e r i o r noncoronal nonsonorant."

OP a 10 ROP = 2.7%

The following p o t e n t i a l two member c l u s t e r s a r e w e d ungrmaa t i ca l

- sonorant + a n t e r i o r - coronal

(20) + i(

OR7 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant p lus a n t e r i o r

1 11

- sonoran t - continuant + a n t e r i o r

p lus delayed r e l e a s e nonsonorant and a nonsonorant,"

L - sonorant - continuant + a n t e r i o r + delayed r e l e a s e

ROP = 3.85 1:

The following po ten t l a1 two member onsets axe tagged ungrammatical by

t h i s rulet

O R 8 nTwo member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a noncoronal nonsonorant and a

noncoronal nonsonorant,"

OP - 16 ROP = 4,3%

sonorant 11 coronal I

The following potential two member onsets are tagged ungrammatical by

this ruler

nonsonorant and a nonanterior plus coronal nonsonorant,"

OP = 30 ROP = 8.. l.%

The following potential two member onsets axe tagged ungrammatical by

11

this ruler

- sonorant - anterior + coronal -

Go} + <'; xz : ; + coronal

t%, td, tx, tz, tk, tj

) { {

4u w e U J ,, v d U

zs,zc,zc,zz,zd,zj

OR10 "Two member onsets cannot consist of a nonanterior noncoronal non-

sonorant and a nansontinuant plus coronal plus delayed release nondistributed

1

nonsonorant. "

r

- sonorant - continuant + coronal + delayed release - distributed

- sonorant - anterior - coronal

1

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onsets axe tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s rulea

O R 1 1 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a nonsonorant except a plus

continuant p lus a n t e r i o r and a p lus consonantal nonanterior noncoronal

- sonoran t <z0} ) +continuant, ) 1 ( 1 +consonantal +sonoran t

Iv (+anterior 1 I 1 \ 1 ::::;:y

OP - 14 ROP - 3.w

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onsets a r e tagged ungrammatical by

t h i s ru le r

OR12 "Two member onse t s cannot c o n s i s t of a nonsyllabic p lus a n t e r i o r

noncoronal and a p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal sonorant."


by t h i s r u l e r

O R 1 3 nTwo member onsets cannot c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant nonoonorant

I

11

except a nonanter ior noncoronal and a p lus nasa l nonanterior sonorant."

OP - 8 ROP = 2 . S

2 ) + < > { ( 1

E -coronal

+sonorant +anter ior -coronal

, The fol lowing p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s r u l e t

/ J / / 3 / p6, t;,cn,cn, b6,dn ~3

O R 1 4 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t of a nonsy l l ab ic p lus a n t e r i o r

noncoronal nonnasal and a p l u s n a s a l sonorant ."

OP = 9 ROP = 2.4%

The fol lowing p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s r u l e s

I bm, bn, bn

The onse t /pn/ is found t o be marginal as a r e s u l t of t h i s r u l e .

G R l 5 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t o f a noncontinuant p lus delayed

r e l e a s e nonsonorant and a p l u s - n a s a l co rona l sonorant ,"

OP - 6 ROP = 1.6%

-sonorant -cont inuant +delayed release

The fo l lowing p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s are tagged ungrammatical


+sonoran t +nasal +coronal

11

"Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t o f a noncontinuant p lus coronal

nonsonorant and a p l u s l a t e r a l non a n t e r i o r sonorant."

The fo l lowing

by t h i s r u l e :

ROP - 1.3% p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

- sonorant - cont inuant + coronal

OR17 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t o f a noncontinuant p l u s delayed

+ sonorant

r e l e a s e o r nonan ie r io r nonsonoran'c and a conconsonantai sonorant.':

1 11

Go) + - sonorant

( $ - consonantal + delayed

- an te r io r )

OP = 7 ROP - 1.5%



O R 1 8 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t o f a nonan te r io r p l u s coronal

nonsonorant and nonnasal p lus cont inuant p l u s coronal sonorant."


- ono or ant

by t h i s r u l e ,

I

OR19 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant p l u s a n t e r i o r

p l u s delayed r e l e a s e nonsonorant and a p l u s l a t e r a l p l u s coronal sonorant."

'2') " ( - a n t e r i o r , ! < + coronal

+ sonorant - n a s a l + cont inuant + c o r o n a l ,

11


by t h i s r u l e s /

c 1 , c l

OR20 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t of nonnasal sonorant and a p lus

coronal nasal ."

ROP = .@

- sonorant - cont inuant + a n t e r i o r

The.following p o t e n t i a l two member o n s e t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

+ sonorant

+ coronal


L+ delayed r e l e a s e . 11

O R 2 1 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t of a sonorant and a nonanter ior

nasa l .

<20) + ( I+ sonorant + n a s a l I - a n t e r i o r

OP - 3 ROP - .85



vn/,hd,m'

OR22 "Two member o n s e t s cannot c o n s i s t o f a nonnesal p l u s a n t e r i o r

sonorant and a nonan te r io r p l u s coronal sonorant."

I - n a s a l

I + a n t e r i o r

I 1

- a n t e r i o r + coronal

11


by t h i s ru le r

OR23 "Two member onsets cannot c o n s i s t of a nonanterior sonorant and a

nonconsonantal sonorant."

+ sonorant I + sonorant - t e o r 1 (1 - consonantal

ROP = . %

The following p o t e n t i a l two member onse t is tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r

The following list conta ins a l l the grammatical two member onsets

m d codas. Vir tua l c l u s t e r s a r e marked with an a s t e r i s k , This l ist is

followad by a l ist of t h e marginal two member onse t s and codas.

Grammatical Two Member C lus te r s

Codas : st

Marginal Two Member Clu s t e r s

Onsetsr Pn

sf , f r , f l

Codas a ps , k t

Marginal o n s e t s a r e all found only i n borrowings and fal l i n t o two

c l a s s e s ; .

1. /pn/, which utilLizes n a t i v e Serbo-Croatian phonemes.

2. /st,fr,fl/ vhich makes use of t h e phoneme /f/ which is n o t n a t i v e

t o Serbo-Croatian. /pn/ is tagged ungrammatical by OR14. The second

c l a s s /sf , f r , f l / is marginal because /f/ is not permitted t o e n t e r i n t o

phonotactic combinations on the m e l e v e l as na t ive Serbo-Croatian

phonemes because /f/ does no t a c t l i k e a na t ive phoneme. It does not

p a t t e r n l i k e its voiced counterpar t /v/. To al low a more genera l s t a t e -

went of the Serbo-Croatian sound pattern /f/ is n o t allowed to e n t e r

i n t o the input of phonotactic combinations. I t is blocked by MR2 and

MR3, Theref ore combinations containing /f/ a r e automati c a l l y termed

marginal.

Marginal c o b s a r e a l l found only i n borrowin@j. They contain only

phonemes na t ive t o Serbo-Croatian. Thei r cons t i tuen t phonemes a r e no t

allowed t o e n t e r i n t o phonotactic combinations because they i n t e r f e r e

with the genera l sound pa t t e rn of na t ive Serbo-Croatian codas. They a r e

blocked by MR4 and MR5,

3.3 Three Member Onsets and Codas

3.31 Membership Rules

M H ~ "The membership of the first cons t i tuen t of th ree nember onse t s is

l imi ted t o those v a l i d one member onse t s which c o n s i s t of1

a ) a plus continuant p l u s coronal nonsonorant

b) a nonanteriur noncoronal p lus voice nonsonorant Id

c ) a p lus consonantal nonanterior noncoronal sanorant.

I - ono or ant

+ continuant

4 coronal

- sonorant

- a n t e r i o r

coronal

vo ice

sonorant

consonantal

a n t e r i o r

coronal

MR7 There a r e e i g h t sub ru le s f o r t h e membership of t h e second c o n s t i t u e n t

of t h r e e member onse t s ,

MR7.1 "The membership of t h e second c o n s t i t u e n t of t h r e e member o n s e t s

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d two member o n s e t s which c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant

nonan te r io r o r p l u s coronal nonsonorant and a nonsy l l ab i c p l u s cont inuant

p l u s coronal sonorant."

I - s y l l a b i c + sonorant + cont inuant + coronal

MR7.2 "The membership of t h e second c o n s t i t u e n t of t h r e e member o n s e t s

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d two member o n s e t s which c o n s i s t o f a nonsy l l ab i c

p l u s an t e r io r ,_noncorona l sonorant o r nonvoiced noncontinuant nonsonorant

and a nonsyl lab ic p l u s cont inuant p l u s coronal ono or ant.^

- s y l l a b i c + a n t e r i o r - coronal

- s y l l a b i c + sonorant

t + coronal

MR7.2 y ie lds : pr,mr,vr

MR7.3 "The membership of the second cons t i tuen t of th ree member onse t s

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d ~ t w o member onset8 which c o n s i s t of a nonanterior

noncoronal nonsonorant and a nonsyllabic p lus l a t e r a l p lus a n t e r i o r

m7.4 "The membership of the second cons t i tuen t of th ree member onsets

- sonorant - a n t e r i o r - coronal

c o n s i s t s of tho+se v a l i d two member onse t s which c o n s i s t of a nonsyllabic

p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal nonnasal sonorant o r nonvoicea nonsonorant and a

nonsyllabic p lus l a t e r a l p lus a n t e r i o r sonorant."

+ a n t e r i o r

t

C I

- s y l l a b i c + a n t e r i o r - coronal - nasa l + sonorant) 1- - voice sonorant.)

- s y l l a b i c + sonorant + l a t e r a l

- syLlabic + sonorant + l a t e r a l + a n t e r i o r

MR7.4 y ie lds : p l , v l

MR7.5 "The membership of the second cons t i tuen t of th ree member onsets

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d two member onse t s which c o n s i s t of a noncontinuant

p lus coronal non delayed r e l e a s e nonsonorant and a nonsyllabic nonconsonantal

o r nonnasal p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal sonorant,"

I

- sonorant I - continuant I .q

1 + coronal 1 S I - delayed r e l e a s e I

- s y l l a b i c + sonorant

+ a n t e r i o r - coronal

MR7.5 yie ldsr tv,dv

t j , d j

~ ~ 7 . 6 nThe membership of the second conot i tuent of th ree member onsets

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d two member onsets which cons i s t of a nonsyllabic - plus consonantal nonanterior noncoronalnonvoiced and a nonsyllabic nonnasal

p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal sonorant,"

- s y l l a b i c

- an+arrinw Y1. ""I *"I - coronal - voice

- s y l l a b i c 6 sonorant

n s r - 1 I A C L Y 0 . A

+ a n t e r i o r - coronal

- s y l l a b i c + sonorant + a n t e r i o r - coronal

~ ~ 7 . 6 y ie ldsr kv,hv

MR7.7 "The membership of the second cons t i tuen t of th ree member onsets

c o n s i s t s of those v a l i d two member onsets which c o n s i s t of a nonsyllabic

p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal sonorant and nonsyllabic nonconsonantal."

# Wl1 { MR7.7 yie ldsr mj,vj

~ ~ 7 . 8 "The membership of the second cons t i tuen t of th ree member onsets

c o n s i s t s of those val id- two member onsets which cons i s t of a nonanterior

noncoronal p lus voiced nonsonorant and a nonsyllabic p lus nasa l nonanterior

t - s y l l a b i c - consonantal I

- a n t e r i o r ' + sonorant - coronal I I + nasa l + voiced - a n t e r i o r

AS a r e s u l t of 1rl~6 and MR7 only six of the v a l i d one member onsets

nay serve as the first cons t i tuen t of th ree member onse t s and only

twenty of the va l id two member onse t s may serve as t h e second const i tuent ,

The inventory of p o t e n t i a l two member codas r e s u l t i n g from the permutations

of t h e two cons t i tuen t s equal 120. m

h v r , v l , v j

hv

MR8 "The membership of the first cons t i tuen t of th ree member codas c o n s i s t s

of the v a l i d one member codas which is nonsyllabic n o n c o n ~ o n a n t a l ~ "

- s y l l a b i c - consonantal

P = 96 RP u 96%

MR8 y ie lds : j

MR9 "The membership of. t he second cons t i tuen t of t h r e e member codas

c o n s i s t s of t h e v a l i d two member coda which c o n s i s t s of a p lus continuant

p lus a n t e r i o r p lus coronal nonvoiced nonsonolant and a noncontinuant p lus

a n t e r i o r p lus coronal non delayed r e l e a s e nonvoiced nonsonorantmn

- sonorant + continuant + a n t e r i o r + coronal - voice

- sonorant - continuant + a n t e r i o r + coronal - delayed r e l e a s e - voice

MR9 yields8 st

A s a r e s u l t of MR8 and MR9 only one v a l i d one member c oda may serve

as the first cons t i tuen t of t h r e e member codas and only one v a l i d two

member coda may serve as the second const i tuent . This r e s u l t s i n the '

p o s s i b i l i t y of only one th ree member coda /jst/,

3.33 Juxtaposi t ion Rules f o r Three Member Onsets

OR24 "The juxtaposi t ion of the first and second cons t i tuen t s of th ree

- sonorant 4 voice

11 O P = 36 ROP = 30$

The following p o t e n t i a l th ree member onse t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r

sdv,sdr, s d j , sgn',sgr, sg l

OR25 "The juxtaposi t ion of the f i r n t and second cons t i tuen t s of th ree

member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanter ior and a sonorant."


by t h i s rules

u smr, Srn j, Zvr, &1,& j,%hv

u zmr,Gmj,~vr,ivl,Zvj,ZYhV

0~26 **The juxtaposi t ion of the first and second cons t i tuen t s of three

member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a geminate."

(+I) # (14 DF Configuration a W Configuration

OP - 4 ROP = 3 . s

The following p o t e n t i a l t h r e e member onse t s are tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r


member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanter ior noncoronal and a noncoronal."

OP = 28 ROP a 23.3%

The following p o t e n t i a l t h r e e member onse t s a r e tagged ungrammatical


hpr, hpl , hkv, hkr, hkl , hg6 ,hgr , h g l , hmr,hm j ,


member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanter ior noncoronal and a coronal and

a p lus consonantal. "

- anteriorl ) 1 ( 1 (P) + ( / - coronal - coronal 1 (-1 )

11 1

OP = 8 ROP = 6.7%

The following p o t e n t i a l th ree member onse t s are tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r

OR29 "The juxtaposi t ion of t h e first and second cons t i tuen t s of th ree

member onsets cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanterior and a p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal,"

I \ 4 (30) # (/ - a n t e r ~ o r + a n t e r i o r 1 i (1 - coronal (-1 ) 1 1 I I

OP - 28 ROP - 2 3 . s

The following p o t e n t i a l th ree member o r n e t s a r e tagged ungrammatical

by t h i s ru le r

OR30 "The juxtaposi t ion of the first and second cons t i tuen t s of t h r e e

member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanter ior p lus coronal and a plus

coronal and a non coronal, "

( + ( I - a n t e r i o r 1;; ( 1 + coronal ( I - c o m n a l l ) so> 11

OP = 8 ROP - 6.@

The following p o t e n t i a l th ree member onse t s a r e tagged ungrm~matical

by t h i s rule8

O R 3 1 "The juxtaposi t ion of the first and second cons t i tuen t s of th ree

member onse t s cannot r e s u l t i n a nonanter ior p lus coronal and a nonanterlor

and an alpha a n t e r i o r minus a lpha coronal."


by t r i i s r u i e t

e skv , &$, ghv

The following l is t conta ins a l l the grammatical th ree member onse t s

and codas, Vi r tua l c l u s t e r s a r e marked by an a s t e r i s k .

Grammatical Three Member C lus te r s

Onsets: spr,spl,stv,str,stj*,skv,skr,sk1,smr,smj,svr,svl,

zdv, zdr , zd j, zg6, zgr , zgl* ,en@, zra j*, z v f l , zvl* , zv j*,

Codas r jst

4.0 Observations on the Juxtaposi t ion Rules

The juxtaposi t ion r u l e s a r e discussed i n t h i s sec t ion i n s e r i a l order.

The emphasis of the d iscuss ion is on the nature of the cons t ra in t s , The

c o n s t r a i n t s a r e i n f e a t u r e s which fall i n t o f o u r c laseesr

1. Major Class Features

s y l l a b i c

sonorant

consonantal d

2, Cavity Features

nasa l

l a t e r a l

a n t e r i o r

coronal

d i s t r i b u t e d

low

back

high

3. Manner of Ar t i cu la t ion Features

continuant

delayed r e l e a s e

4. Source Features

voice

4.1 The Rules

The most s i g n i f i c a n t f e a t u r e i n each r u l e is underlined.

U R 1 Universal r u l e one is the only universa l ru le . It is a source f e a t u r e

ru le . It cons t ra ins nonsonorants of d i f f e r e n t voice. Its ROP is 24.9%

and its RCP is 5% and i ts RTP is 25.3%. It is a l s o the only cons t ra in t

r u l e f o r codas.

O R 1 Onset r u l e one is a mixed r u l e , i , e . , a r u l e whose cons t ra in t s

4 1

encompass f e a t u r e s i n more than one c l a s s . I t blocks geminate nonsyl lab ics .

Its ROP is 4.155.

OR2 Onset r u l e two is p r imar i ly a major c l a s s f e a t u r e r u l e . It blocks

l a b i a l ( p l u s a n t e r i o r noncoronal) sonorants and nonsonorants. Its ROP

i s 7.w.

O R 3 Onset r u l e t h r e e is p r imar i ly a major c l a s s f e a t u r e r u l e . It blocks

t h e nonan te r io r sonorants and nonsonorants except /t/, Its ROP is 3.s.

OR4 Onset r u l e f o u r is p r imar i ly a manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n r u l e . It

blocks nonsonorants except l a b i a l s and nonsonorant coninuants. I ts ROF

is 18.296.

O R 5 Onset r u l e f i v e is p r imar i ly a c a v i t y f e a t u r e r u l e . It blocks coronal

noncon t i n u a n t s nonoonorants and coronal nonsonorants. Its ROP is 13, @,

O R 6 Onset r u l e s i x is p r imar i ly a c a v i t y f e a t u r e r u l e . I t blocks

a n t e r i o r noncontinuant nonsonorants and l a b i a l nonsonorantg. Its ROP is

OR7 Onset r u l e seven is a manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n f e a t u r e r u l e . It blocks

a n t e r i o r a f f r i c a t e s and nonsonorants. Its ROP 18 3.8%.

OR8 Onset r u l e e i g h t i s a c a v i t y f e a t u r e r u l e , I t blocks noncoronal

nonsonorants and noncoronal nonsonorants. Its ROP is 4 . B .

OR9 Onset r u l e n ine is p r imar i ly a c a v i t y f e a t u r e r u l e . It blocks a n t e r i o r

coronal nonsonorants and coronal nonsonorants.

OR10 Onset r u l e t e n i s p r imar i ly a c a v i t y f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks

nonan ta r io r noncoronal nonsonorants and nond i s t r i bu ted a f f r i c a t e s ,

O R 1 1 Onset r u l e eleven is primari ly a major c l a s s f e a t u r e ru le . It

blocks nonsonorants except /s/ and the sonorant /h/, Its ROP is 3.8%.

OR12 Onset r u l e twelve is a cav i ty f e a t u r e r u l e , I t blocks l a b i a l s and

l a b i a l (p lus a n t e r i o r noncoronal) sonorants, Its ROP is 2.2%.

O R 1 3 Onset r u l e t h i r t e e n is a mixed r u l e i n t h a t i t blocks noncontinuant

nonsonorants except v e l a r s and a nonanterior nasal . This involves the

manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n f e a t u r e continuant and the cav i ty f e a t u r e nasal .

Its ROP is la%.

OR14 Onset r u l e four teen is a cav i ty f e a t u r e rule. It blocks a l a b i a l

nonsyllabic and a nasal . Its ROP is 2.2%. It tags the c l u s t e r /p-/

marginal, This c l u s t e r is found t o e x i s t only i n loan words,

O R 1 5 Onset r u l e f i f t e e n is primari ly a manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n f e a t u r e

r u l e and secondardily a cavi ty f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks a f f r i c a t e s

and coronal nasa ls , Its ROP is 1.6%.

0R16 Onset r u l e s ix teen is primari ly a cav i ty f e a t u r e ru le . It blocks

coronal nonconinuants and nonanterior l a t e r a l s , Its ROP is 1.3%.

OR17 Onset r u l e seventeen is a major c l a s s f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks

a number of nonsonorants and the nonsyllabic nonconsonantal., Its ROP is

OR18 Onset r u l e eighteen is a manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n r u l e , It blocks

nonanter ior coronals and the continuant sonorant /r/, Its ROP is 1.1$.

O R 1 9 Onset r u l e nineteen is a mixed ru le . It is p a r t cav i ty f ea tu re and

p a r t manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n . It blocks a n t e r i o r a f f r i c a t e s and l a t e r a l s .

Its ROP is 5.%. .

OR20 Onset r u l e twenty is a cav i ty f ea tu re ru le . It blocks nonnasal

sonorants and nasa l sonorants. Its ROP i s 1,s. - b

OR21 Onset r u l e twenty-one is pr imar i ly a cav i ty f ea tu re ru le . I t blocks

sonorants and nonanter ior nasalo. Its ROP is ,we

OR22 Onset r u l e twenty-two is a cav i ty f e a t u r e ru le . It blocks a n t e r i o r

a n t e r i o r nonnasal sonorants and nonanterior coronal sonorants. Its BOP

is .w.

OR23 Onset r u l e twenty-three is a mixed r u l e , It is p a r t major c l a s s and

part cav i ty f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks a nonanterior sonorant and a noncon-

s o n m t a l sonorant. Its ROP is .%.

OR24 Onset r u l e twenty-four is a source f e a t u r e ru le . It blocks nonson-

o r a n t s of d i f f e r e n t voice values, Its ROP is 30%

OR25 Onset r u l e twenty-five is pr imar i ly a cav i ty f e a t u r e r u l e , I t blocks

nonanteriors and sonorants. Its ROP is 2%.

0 ~ 2 6 Onset rule twenty-six is a mixed r u l e , It blocks geminates, However,

it may be said t o block geminate nonanteriors. Its ROP is 3.

OR27 Onset r u l e twenty-seven is a cav i ty f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks non-

a n t e r i o r noncoronals and noncoronals, Its ROP is 2 3 , s .

OR28 Onset r u l e twenty-eight is a major c l a s s f e a t u r e r u l e , It blocks

nonanter ior noncoronals and coronals and p lus consonantals. Its ROP is 6 , s .

OR29 Onset r u l e twenty-nine is a cav i ty f e a t u r e rule, It blocks nonanteriors

and p l u s a n t e r i o r noncoronals. Its ROP i o 2 3 , s .

OR30 Onset r u l e t h i r t y is a cav i ty f e a t u r e rule. It blocks nonanteriors

and p l u s coronals and noncoronals. Its ROP is 6 . s .

O R 3 1 Onset r u l e thir ty-one is a cav i ty f ea tu re ru le . It blocks nonanterior

p lus coronals and nonanteriors and a lpha a n t e r i o r minus a1p.h coronals ,

Its ROP is Y9$.

5.0 Concluding Remarks

One very obvious f a c t is t h a t a l l but one of the juxtaposi t ion r u l e s

apply t o onse t s only. UR1 is t h e only juxtaposi t ion r u l e needed f o r codas.

Serbo-Croatian has twenty-five one member onse t s and codas, bu t one hundred

and twenty-two two member onse t s t o only f o u r two member codas and t h i r t y -

f i v e three member onse t s t o only one th ree member c o b . It is c l e a r t h a t

Serbo-Croatian d i s t ingu i shes d i f fe rences t o a much g r e a t e r ex ten t a t the

beginning of s y l l a b l e s r a t h e r than a t the end.

5.01 Feature Observations

The f e a t u r e s may be ranked according t o the number of c l u s t e r s they

constrain. This is done by adding the ROP of each ru le . The ROP is added

aa a number n o t as a percentage. In each ru l e one f e a t u r e is the dominant

f ea tu re , If i n 4.1 two f e a t u r e s are underlined in a s i n g l e r u l e the ROP

is hivided equally between them. Feature c l a s s e s may be ranked i n the same

manner,

Features a r e ranked by cumulative r e l a t i v e power i n the following orderx

Rank - Cumulative r e l a t i v e power Feature

1 57 04 a n t e r i o r

coronal

voice

con t inuan t

Rank - Cumulative Rela t ive Power Feature

5 14 7 sonoran t

6 8.6 consonantal

nasa l .

delayed re lease

l a t e r a l

d i s t r i b u t e d

Feature c l a s s e s a r e ranked by cumulative r e l a t i v e power i n the following

order:

Rank Feature c l a s s 7

Cumulative Rela t ive Power

1 122.1 cavi ty

2 55.3 source

manner of art- i cu la t ion

major cav i ty

The f e a t u r e s exh ib i t ing the g r e a t e s t c o n s t r a b i n g powers a r e a n t e r i o r ,

coronal , and voice. Together these t h r e e fea turda account f o r about 75%

of the juxtaposi t ion c o n s t r a i n t s i n Serbo-Croatian. Anterior and coronal

account f o r about ha l f o f the cons t ra in t s . This high value is probably

due t o a l o s s of the f e a t u r e p a l a t a l i z a t i o n i n Serbo-Croatian which remained

i n some o the r S lav ic languages such as Russian. Thus Serbo-Croatian depends

more upon the place of a r t i c u l a t i o n (cav i ty f e a t u r e s ) than on manner of

a r t i c u l a t i o n . 21

Voicing is of course a major c o n s t r a i n t s ince c l u s t e r s of obs t ruents

cannot have d i f f e r e n t voice values within a microsegment, as is t r u e f o r

a l l S lav ic languages. Seven f e a t u r e s combine t o form the remaining quar t e r

of cons t ra in ts . The h ighes t , continuant , is separated from voice by

t h i r t y - s i x p o i n t s a t 19.3. It is fol lowed i n t u r n by sonorant 14.7,

consonantal 8.6, n a s a l 6, lateral 1.6, and d i s t r i b u t e d 1.1.

As c l a s s e s c a v i t y features account f o r abou t 9% of t h e j ux t apos i t i on

c o n s t r a i n t s i n Serbo-Croatian! source f e a t u r e s about 25%~ manner of ar-

t i c u l a t i o n f e a t u r e s 11% and major cavity f e a t u r e s 10%.

APPENDIX

Summary List of Grammatical Onsets and Codas of Russian

In the following list virtual clusters are marked by an asterisk

and marginal clusters are listed at the end of its respective set.

two member onsets

P~,PP,P;.P~,P~.P~.P~,P~ /

bd,bz*,b$*,b~;br,bl,bl, bj

M a r ~ i n a l two member o n s e t s

Two member codas

G t

z d

.I st

V zd

Marginal two member codas

W , k t

r c , l m , n t , n d , j s

Three member onse t s

~pr,~pl,~t~,~tr,~tj*,skv~skc,~kl,~mr,mj,svr,svl,svj,shv

zdv, zdr, zd j, zgA, zgr , zgl* , zmr" , zm j* , e v e , zvl* , zv j*, zhv*

J s t r ,%kr ,%kl+

Vzdr , Yzgx+, igl

g d j

h t j , hd j*

Three member codas

jst

Jux tapos i t i on Rules ranked by decreas ing r e l a t i v e power

Rank - Rela t ive Power Rule - OR24

Relative Power

25.3

23.3

Rank - Rule

Notes

The methodology he re i s t h e same as o r i g i n a t e d by R e Saunders, 19'70, i n h i s d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n Phonological Cons t r a in t s i n Hussian S y l l a b l e Margins. ( ~ r o w n u n i v e r s i t y )

This is an ex tens ion of t h e a t t i t u d e taken by ~ u x e r a 1958, where he d i s c u s s e s two phonemic systems i n Czech. One system is composed of n a t i v e phonemes and t h e o t h e r system has / g / a nonnatlve phoneme as i ts only member. This a l l ows ~ u 8 e r a t o make more gene ra l s t a t e - ments about Czech phonology.

Hockett 1955, o r i g i n a t e s t h e procedure pp.43-51. ~ u g e r a 1961, a p p l i e s t h e same methodology f o r Czech but a r r i v e s a t a more exac t d e f i n i t i o n of t h e phonological s y l l a b l e , pp.43-84, Saunders 1970, aga in uses t h e same methodology along with KuEera's d e f i n i t i o n of a phonological s y l l a b l e and a p p l i e s it t o Russian pp.4-47.

~ u g e r a 1961. Also s e e Pike 1947, p.144, where t h e phonological s y l l a b l e is def ined as the bas i c s t r u c t u r a l u n i t which s e r v e s b e s t as a p o i n t of r e f e rence f o r desc r ib ing t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e phonemes o f t h e language i n quest ion. Ne i the r ~ u g e r a nor Saunders makes note of P ike ' s Oef in i t ion .

Saunde rs , 1966, p .102.

Saunders , 1966, p .35.

Saunders, 1970, pp, 34* 42-47,

Hockett , 1955, PP. 55-59.

Saunders, 1970, p.45.

Ib id .

10. Greenberg, 1962, p.45.

Saunders, 1970, r e j e c t s t h i s proposal f o r the same reason.

11. Saunders, 1970, p.45.

12. Saunders, 1970, p.46. ".In my a r t i c l e , 'Asyl labic Residues i n Russian' , CJL 1122 (19b6), I favored t h e t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e whereby t h e ICM - p l u s i ts fo l lowing d i s j u n c t u r e were considered t o be c o n s t i t u e n t s of t h e fo l lowing s y l l a b l e . Th i s a l t e r n a t i v e , however, comes i n t o con- f l i c t with o u r not ion o f a h i e ra rchy of s i z e l e v e l s . Our p o s i t i o n was t h a t a u n i t o f a given s i z e l e v e l could n o t extend beyond t h e

boundaries of u n i t s of the next higher s i z e level . If we incorporate the ICM plus its following d i s junc tu re i n t o the onset of the following s y l l a b l e , we are doing prec ise ly what we j u s t e s t ab l i shed we could no t do, is*., extending a u n i t of one s i z e l e v e l , t he s y l l a b l e beyond the boundary of a u n i t on the next higher size l e v e l , the microsegment, Therefore t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e is unsat i s fac tory ,"

13. Saunders, 1970, p.45.

14. Saunders, 1970, p.47. i

15. ~ i s c h e r - ~ # r ~ e n s e n , 1952, pp. 36-38.

16. Vogt, 1 9 9 , pp .28 -9 ,

17, Saunders, 1970, p.55.

18, Hodge, 1946, includes /f/ i n this class, as does ~ m z d i d 1969, I, however, have found no evidence t o support t h i s ciaim, which I f e e l is made by analogy t o /v/, and have therefore excluded /f/ from t h i s c l a s s .

19, /f/ is excluded from t h i s s e t f o r reasons given i n 0.3,

20. Ibid.

21. For a c o n t r a s t i n Russian see Saunders 1970, sec t ion 5.0.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, G , , 1956, ' A phonological approach Lo vowel, consonant, and s y l l a b l e i n modern French,' Lingua, 5, pp.53-87.

Bach, E , , 1968, 'Two proposals concerning the s impl ic i ty metric i n phonology, ' Glossa 2, 128-49.

Bidwell, C., 1963, ' The phonemics and morphophonemics of Serbo-Croatian S t r e s s , ' S lav ic and East European Journal , 7, pp.160-5.

Chomsky, N , and Halle, M., 1965, 'Some con t rovers i a l ques t ions i n phon- o log ica l theory, ' Journal of L ingu i s t i c s 1, pp.97-138.

Chemeky, N,, 1967i 'Sme General Wogerties of phonological r u l e s , ' Language, 43, pp. 102-28.

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M., 1968, The Sound Pa t t e rn of English, ( ~ e w ~ o r k ) ,

De la t t r e , P. , 1967, 'Acoustic o r a r t i c u l a t o r y invariance?' , Glossa 1, PP. 3-25.

Denes, P., 1965, 'On the motor theory of speech perception, ' Proceedings of the F i f t h In te rna t iona l Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Mflnster 1964, (New York, 1965). pp.252-58,

Eliason, N , , 1 9 2 , 'On s y l l a b l e d i v i s i o n i n phonemics', Language 18, pp, 1W-46.

Fant , G., 1967, 'The nature of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s ' , To Honor Roman Jakobson h he Hague) pp.63-42.

F i l ipov ic , R., 1960, The Phonemic Analysis of English Loan-Words i n Croatian (Zagreb).

~ i s c h e r - ~ d r ~ e n s e n , E, , 1952, 'On t he d e f i n i t i o n of phoneme ca tegor ies on a d i s t r i b u t i o n a l basis', Acta L ingu i s t i c s 7 pp.8-39.

Fromkin, V., 1965, 'On system-structure phonology', Language 41, pp.601-9.

F r i e s , C.C. and Pike, K. 1%9, 'Coexistant Phonemic Systems, ' Language 25, PP. 29-50.

Greenberg, J . 1962, ' Is the vowel-consonant dichotomy universal? ' - Word 18, pp.73-81.-

------------ 1965, 'Some genera l i za t ions concerning i n i t i a l and f i n a l consonant c l u s t e r s , ' L ingu i s t i c 18, pp.5-34.

~ r o z d i g , 0. 1969, Serbo-Croatian ~&rnas: and Reader o on don) . Halle, M., 19.59, The Sound Pa t t e rn of Russian (The ~ a ~ u e ) .

I

53

Halle, Me, 1962, 'Phonology i n a g e n e r a t i v e grammar,' - Word 18, pp.9-72.

-------- 1964, 'On t h e b a s i s of Phonology', The S t r u c t u r e o f Language: Readings in t h e Philosophy o f Language e d i t e d by Fodor, J , and Katz, J . (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.) pp.324-33.

Harms, R. , 1966, 'The measurement o f phonological economy' , Language 42, pp. 602-11.

-------- 1968, In t roduc t ion t o Phonological T h e o q (Englewood Cliffs, N. J , j -

Haugen, E,, 1954, 'The s y l l a b l e i n l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n , ' F a r -- Roman Jakobson ( ~ h e ~ a g u e ) pp,213-21.

Hockett , C. , 1955, A Manual o f Phonology Memoir I1 ( ~ a l t i m o r e ) ,

Hodge, C. I 916, 'Serbo-Croatian Phonemes, ' Ianguage 22, pp. 112-20.

M i v i c , P. 1~61, 'A f unc t rona l y i e l d of p r o ~ o c i i c f e a t u r e s i n t h e p a t t e r n s of

Serbo-Croatian d i a l e c t s ' , - Word 17 , pp. 293-308.

Jakobson, R , , Cherry, E , , and Hal le , M . , 1953, 'Toward a l o g i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of languages i n t h e i r phonemic a s p e c t , ' Language 29 , PP* 34-46, .

Jakobson, R, , and Hal le , M. , 1956, Fundamentals of l ~ m g u a g e he ~ a g u e ) ,

Jakobson, R , , Fan t , G, and Hal le , M , , 1963, P r e l i m i n a r i e s t o Speech Analysis . (Cambridge, Mass, ) I

Javarek, V, and ~ u d j i 6 , M., 1963, Teach Yourself Serbo-Croatian ondo don) . Jones, L. 1956, 'Ehgl ish Consonantal D i s t r i b u t i o n , ' For Roman Jakobson,

1

1 I he ~ a g u e ) ,

King, H., l9&, 'Engl ish i n t e r n a l junc ture and s y l l a b l e d i v i s i o n , ' Languages and L i n g u i s t i c s ( ~ n n ~ r b o r ) pp. 199-211.

K i n g , R , , 1969, ' f i sh cha ins and drag cha ins , ' Glossa 3, pp, 3-21.

Kohler, K., 1566, 'Is t h e s y l l a b l e a phonological un ive r sa l ? ' , Jou rna l of L i n g u i s t i c s 1, pp.207-9,

KramsIry, J., 1965, 'On t h e a c o u s t i c i d e n t i t y o f t h e word', L i n g u i s t i c s 16, pp.42-50.

~ u z e r a , H e , 1950, 'An inqu i ry i n t o c o e x i s t e n t phonemic systems i n S l a v i c I

Languaegec,' American Cont r ibu t ions t o t h e Fourth I n t e r - n a t i o n a l Congress o f S l a v i s t s (The ~ a g u e ) pp.169-89.

The Phonology o f Czech he ~ a g u e ) .

'Entropy, reduhdancy and f u n c t i o n a l load i n Russian and czechl i American Cont r ibu t ions t o t h e F i f t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress of S l a v i s t s (The ~ w u e ) pp.191-219,

Ku&rn, H , , 1967, 'D i s t inc t ive f e a t u r e s , s impl ic i ty and desc r ip t ive adequacy, ' To Honor Roman Jakobson h he ~ a g u e ) - pp. 1114-27,

Ladefoged, P, , 1965, ' The Nature o f genera l phonetic theor ie s , ' Wonograph S e r i e s on Languages and Linguis t ics , 18 (washington D,C,) PP, 2 7 4 2 .

Lamb, S, 1966, 'Prolegomena t o a theory o f phonology,' Language 42, pp, 536-73.

Lehiste , I, , 1961, 'Acoustic s t u d i e s of boundary s igna l s , ' Proceedings of The Fourth In te rna t iona l Congress of Phonetic Sciences (He1sinki)pp. 178-87,

------------ 1964, ' Juncture, ' Proceedings of the F i f t h In te rna t iona l Congress of Phonetic Sciences ( M h s t e r ) pp, 172-200.

Lord, A,, l9&, Beaiming Serbo-Croatian h he ~ a g u e ) . Magner, T,, 1962, Introduction t o the Serbo-Croatian L a m e (Penn, S t a t e U , )

Halmberg, B. 1955, 'The phonetic b a s i s f o r s y l l a b l e d iv i s ion , ' S tudia Linguis t ice 9, pp. 80-87,

____---_---- 1964, 'Juncture and s y l l a b l e d iv i s ion , ' In Honour of Daniel Jones ond don) pp. 116-19,

Mart inet , A, , 1955, Economie des changernents phonetic ern),

------------- 1960, Elements de l i n g u i s t i c generale, (paris2 ,

Meil le t , A, and Vai l lant , A,, 1952, Grammaire de la Langue Serbo-Croate ( p a r i s ) .

Mileti6, B, , 1935, ' Les Ar t i cu la t ions Serbo-Croate , ' Bul le t in de l'academ i e des l e t t r e s , 1 ( ~ e o g r a d )

Mile t i6 , Be, 1952, Osnovi F o n e t i k i i Srpskog Jez ika ( ~ e o g r a d ) . V #

Paracic , 1904, Crammaire de la Langue Serbo-Croate ( p a r i s ) . Par t r idge , M, 1964, Serbo-Croatian P r a c t i c a l Craglglar and Reader (New York),

Pike, K, , lq47, Phonemics (Ann Arbor) ,

Pot te r , S., 1961, 'Syl lable Juncture ' , Proceedings of t h e Fourth I n t e q a t i o n a l Congress of Phonetic Sciences ( ~ e l s i n k i ) pp. 728-30,

Prince, J , 1950, Practical Grammar of the Serbo-Croatian Language ( ~ e w ~ o r k )

Rose t t i , A, , 1961, 'La Syllabe Phonologique,' Proceedings o f the Fourth In te rna t iona l Congress of Phonetic Sciences ( ~ e l s i n k i ) PP. 49-%.

Saporta, S,, 1955, 'Frequency of Consonant Clus ters , ' Languaqge 31, pp, 23-30,

------------ 1963, 'Phoneme d i s t r i b u t i o n and language universa ls , ' Univer- sals of Language (Cambridge, Mass.) pp, 61-72.

Saunders, R , 1966, 'Asyllabia r e s idues i n Russian,' Canadian Journal of L ingu i s t i c s 11, pp, 101-8, 4

------------ 1970, Phonological Const ra in ts i n Russian Sy l l ab le Margins (~rown u , ) (Ph.D. Thesis)

&um jan, S.K., 1961, ' Tuo-level theory of phonology, ' Proceedings of the Fourth In te rna t iona l Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Helsinki) , pp. 757-761.

Staa ley , R, , 1967, 'Redundancy r u l e s i n phonology', Xanguae;e 43, pp. 393-436.

Stevanovic, M e , 1964, Savremeni Srpskohrvatcki J e z i k ( ~ e o g r a d ) ,

Trnka, B., 1936, 'General laws of Phoneme combinations,' Travaux de Cercle Linguist ique de Prague 6, pp, 57-62.

Twadell, W,F, , 1935, 'On Defining the Phoneme' (=~anguage Monograph, No. 16). Reprinted i n Jooo, M , , 1958, Readings i n Linguis t ics , I (New york) PP, 55-79.

Vogt, H , , 1954, 'Phoneme classes and phoneme c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , ' - Word 10, pp. 28-34.

ESSAY II

MARKEDNESS I N GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY

Steven Uzelac

Table of Contents

Introduction Page 1

Source of data M e 1

Motivations of Marking Conventions Page 1

Purpose of t h i s Study Page 1

The Mwking conventions

Categories of Marking Conventions

1.11 Segment versus Non-segment Convention Page 2

1.12 Segmental S t ruc tu re Conventions Page 2

1.13 Naturalness Condition Conventions Page 3

2.0 Conclusions

Notes

Bibliography

page 10

Page 11

page 13

rj

1 I I 1

0.0 In t roduct ion I

I

0.1 Source o f data. The most comprehensive d iscuss ion of markedness i n ,

genera t ive phonology is t o be found i n Chomsky-ttrtlle 1968, and the re fo re

forms t h e b a s i s f o r the d iscuss ion i n t h i s study.'

0.2 Motivation. The concept of markedness i n a phonological theory

de r ives d i r e c t l y from t h e hypothesis t h a t , phonological " fea tu res have

i n t r i n s i c content."' That is t o say, t h e theory of d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s ,

such as presented in Chomsky-Halle 1968, assumes t h a t t h e phonology of a I

1

language should be analysed and described wi th c lose re~ard t n its 9h~nefj.c

propert ies . For example, -

"When a c h i l d has determined the phonetic representa t ion of a form, he has thereby determined a g r e a t p a r t of its phonological s t ruc tu re . n4

Chomsky 1968s 299-300 gave a l is t of about f o r t y binary d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s

spec i f i ed i n l a r g e l y a r t i c u l a t o r y terms which they propose t o use t o

descr ibe the phonology of any n a t u r a l language. Some o f these f e a t u r e

values, however, a r e bel ieved t o be more n a t u r a l than o the r s , i .e. , n a t u r a l I 11 111

i n the sense of being more Chonsky and Halle therefore propose

a system of marking conventions whereby segments composedof wore n a t u r a l

f ea tu re values a r e l e s s marked and those containing more l e s s -na tu ra l

f e a t u r e values a r e more marked. Only marked f e a t u r e va lues cont r ibute t o

t h e complexity of a greunmar. T h i s g ives a q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of t h e

na tu ra lness of a system, i.e., o f its devia t ion from the expected as defined. I

This means t h a t matr ices a r e no longer given in p lus o r minus f e a t u r e values .. . but i n - # (marked> and U - (unmarked) f e a t u r e values according t o the d i c t a t e s

of t h e marking conventions.

0.3 Purpose of t h i s study. The ma2king conventions s h a l l then here be

examined as t o t h e i r types and the funct ions they perform and then conclusions I

s h a l l be drawn as t o t h e i r usefulness.

1.0 The Marking Conventions

1.1 I d iv ide t h e marking conventiona i n t o th ree ca tegor ies :

(i) segment versus non-segment,

( i i ) segmental s t r u c t u r e

( i i i ) na tura lness of systems and r u l e s

1.11 Marking convention (I) is segment versus non-segment a

(1) Luseg] cj L-seg] 6

This convention s t a t e s t h a t the most n a t u r a l segment is a nonkegment,

which could be in te rp re ted as saying t h a t t h e most n a t u r a l speech is no

speech a t all.? In a milder form t h i s can be s t a t e d as s h o r t e r u t t e rances

a r e more n a t u r a l than longer onese8 However, the re may be another intention:

On page 371 [--eeeg] is an e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e i n d i s t ingu i sh ing a boundary.

On the same page Chomsky and Halle s t a t e t h a t they regard boundaries as

u n i t s i n the s t r i n g , "boundaries must be regarded as u n i t s i n the s t r i n g . " 9

They a r e required i n Chomsky and Hallees s t r e s s rules.1•‹ One k n 0 ~ universa l

is t h a t a l l languages have boundaries,'' Therefore it nay be s t a t e d t h a t

t h e most n a t u r a l th ing about language is t h a t it has boundaries.

1.12 Segmental s t r u c t u r e is d e a l t w i t h i n conventions (11 a b ) and (111 a

c d ) , They s t a t e t h a t t h e m a s t n a t u r a l segment to occur a f t e r a boundary

is a C (consonant) and the segment t h a t fol lows the C should raost n a t u r a l l y

be a V (vowel), i.e., + CV...+ is the most n a t u r a l multi-segmental s t r u c t u r e ,

This is a s y n t w a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p based on the p r inc ip le of maximal d i f -

f e r e n t i a t i o n , i ,e . , C is a t the opposi te pole of v.* Note t h a t t h i s may

be why Chomsky and Halle re in t roduce t h e f e a t u r e [vocalic] a f t e r e a r l i e r

r e j e c t i n g it i n favour of bysyllabic] ,13 This re in t roduct ion of LocalicJ

prevents s y l l a b i c l i q u i d s and n a s a l s f r o m being as n a t u r a l as a vowel. These

conventions, however, do n o t account f o r /a/ being the simplest ent ry i n

a lexicon ,14 unless, p r i o r i t y is given to convention (I) bseg'] --) Geeg]

and c i n convention (11 a ) @cons1 -+ E o n s ] /+- is wri t ten as [-seg] ,

But t h i s would have t h e unfortunate consequence of calling ksegl a C i n

which cacse it would be t h e most unmarked segment, bu t /a/ is claimed t o be

t h e most unmarked segsrent, "It was observed previously t h a t the l e a s t

marked segment, given the conventions ou t l ined here, is the vowel /a/."l5

The only so lu t ion is t o i n t e r p r e t convention (1) as saying s h o r t e r u t t e r -

ances are more natural than longer ones, in which case /a/ = +V+ is more

n a t u r a l than +CV...+.

1.13 The remaining conventions are na tu ra lness condi t ions on systems and

ru les . They a r e used f o r three purposes8 16

i ( i ) e l iminat ing l e x i c a l redundancies,

F ( i i ) securing optimal o r l e a s t marked phonemic systems, I t

I ( i i i ) l inking8 s impl i f i ca t ion of the statement of na tu ra l

!

I ru les , . v i s 1 v i s segmental r e l a t ionsh ips .

I" 1.131 Conventions such as

j ( v [+voc] -+ [+son]

I a r e l e x i c a l redundancy conventions. Convention ( i v ) w i l l make [+voc]

! segments unmarked f o r [son] because that value of [son] w i l l always be I

predic table , Convention ( v i i ) is a r e s t r i c t i o n based on a quas i - logica l

a r g m e n t which fol lows from the i n t r i n s i c n e s s assumption, i , e . , t h e body

o f the tongue is n o t high and low a t t h e same t h e . But t h i s is a quest ion

of segmentation. What if a diphthongwere t o be regarded as a s i n g l e segment?

Notice on page 288 i n t a b l e ' (8 ) where [T] j [my] . If it is t o be assuined

t h a t acty comprises only one segment, and it is less economical t o assume L 1 otherwise, ( peg] [seg] Geg] is a contrary and l e s s n a t u r a l process

according t o marking convention (1) bseg] 9 L-seg] ), then the segment

by] can be regarded as being both i+low] and [+hi&) .I8

1,132 In con junction with conventions (11 c d) and (111 b) ; conventions

(v-XII) produce l e a s t marked vowel systems and with conventions (XIII-XXVII)

produce the l e a s t marked t r u e consonantal system. Conventions (XXVIII-

XXXIV) produce the l e a s t marked l i q u i d and conventions (XXXIV-XXXIX)

d e a l with g l ides .

1,1321 Optimal vowel systems, Table (7) g ives a list of twelve vowels

with t h e i r marked and unmarked values.

(7 a i u s 3 e o i i i 2 6 ~ low u u u m m u u u u m u u high u u u u u w m u u u m m back U - + m u - + - + m - + round u u u u m u u m m m m m complexity 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

The complexity of a system is given i n (8)'

"The complexity of a system is equal t o the sum of the marked f e a t u r e s of its members,

/a/ is the l e a s t marked vowel followed by /i/ and /u/ which a r e only

marked f o r one fea ture . /a/ must then be included i n any optimal system,

Chomsky and Halle do n o t d i scuss an optimal two vowel system, Halle, i n

Halle 1970, however, recognizes the exis tence o f the optimal two vowel

system /a-3/.20 He agrees with and quotes Roman Jakobson t h a t /a-a/ a r e ,

"die a inr igcn, d i e nirgends fehlen dflrfen" ." With the information given

i n t a b l e (7) (above) an arbitrary decis ion would have t o be between /a,i/

and /a,u/ i n choosing an optimal two vowel system, This r a i s e s the quest ion

o f why Chomsky and Halle have not included /8/ i n t a b l e (7) . One reason,

of course, is t h a t /a/ is not accounted f o r - in the marking conventions,

The conventions account only f o r per iphera l vowels, Another reason is t h a t

Chonsky 'and Halle may n o t want t o include /g/, f o r if /a/ were t o be ln-

cluded and t o form part of the optimal two vowel system then i t would have

t o be incorporated i n any l a r g e r system in l i e u of f u r t h e r condit ions, and

r;

Chomsky and Halle do n o t include /a/ i n any l a r g e r system, The proposed

optimal th ree vowel system is /a i bl/ supported by s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t e r i a ,

"On the same b a s i s we can say t h a t the three-vowel system /a i u/ is the s imples t poss ib le , a conclusion t h a t seems t o be supported by its predominance over o t h e r three-vowel systems i n the languages of the world.

Condition (8), however, is unable t o s e l e c t an optimal f i v e vowel system

because the re i s no way t o choose among /a? 3 e o fl t/ a l l of which have

a complexity of 2. Chomsky and Halle, however, claim t h a t the optimal

f i v e vowel system is /a i u e o/. 23 Therefore f u r t h e r condi t ions a r e

added. Condition (9) e l iminates / a fi t e/ from (7).

NO vowel segment can be marked f o r the f e a t u r e 'round' unless some vowel segment i n t h e system is marked f o r the f e a t u r e 'high'."2b

A f u r t h e r condit ion, (10) , el iminates /ae/.

(10)"other th ings being equal, a system i n which more f e a t u r e s have only t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n u is preferable t o a system i n which fewer f e a t u r e s have ozly the spec i f i ca t ion

This leaves /e o/ t o jo in /a i u/ t o produce the des i red optimal f i v e

vowel system. Notice, however, the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of condi t ions (9) and

( l o ) , The only motivation i n formulat ing them is t h a t they produce the

des i red f i v e vowel system, In o rde r t o obta in t h e des i red f o u r vowel

system which is hypothesized as /a i u &/ Chomsky and Halle t a l k of

imposing, p a r a l l e l t o (lo), a,

"'symmetry' condit ion on systems which would be expressed i n terms of spec i f i ed f e a t u r e s r a t h e r than i n terms of markedness. This would be our analog t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l conception of ' f i l l i n g holes i n the phonological pa t t e rn ' ,

They do n o t develop t h i s because they do not ,

"have a s u f f i c i e n t understanding of tne empirical i s s u e s involved; i n p a r t i c u l a r , we are n o t c e r t a i n t h a t the system /a i u ae/ occupies t h e p r iv i l eged pos i t ion t h a t we have suggested it does."27

Such a condit ion would a l s o be necessary t o produce an optimal s i x vowel

system, which given condit ion ( l o ) , would be:

and no t the expected (given the optimal f o u r and f i v e vowel systems) t

Note t h a t condit ion (9) is no longer opera t ive because segments in the

systems, /e/ and /o/, a r e marked f o r high . The same indeterminacy

e x i s t s f o r vowel segments containing g r e a t e r numbers of segments. It

seems the re fo re that Chomsky and Halle a r e content t o be a b l e t o i d e n t i f y

j u s t t h e th ree and f i v e optimal vowel systems, which it seems a l l t h a t they

were concerned with ident i fy ing i n any event,

1,1322 Optimal consonantal systems, According t o the matrix (12) the re

a r e f i v e equally l e a s t marked They are /P t k s n/. Notice

t h a t among t h e vowels /a/ uas t he l e a s t marked, being marked f o r [seg]

only, bu t t h e r e is no such, "unmarked consonant". 29 Notice t h a t when

Chomsky and Halle g ive examples of the s imples t poss ib le l e x i c a l e n t r i e s

of more than one segment they use any of t h e f i v e optimal consonants and

a i e "/patax /tats/, /kta/, /sssa/, /nana/" .30 If the re were one

consonant, /cm/, t h a t was marked f o r only M seg then t h e simplest l e x i c a l

e n t r y of more than one segment would be /pa/, But when it came t o the

s imples t poss ib le en t ry then the re would be no way t o choose between /cm/

and /a/, So by making only /a/ marked f o r p lus segment and t h e consonants

a l l marked f o r a t l e a s t one more segment no such problem is encountered.

This a l s o l eads t o the conclusion that .vowels a r e more na tu ra l than con-

sonants, The f i v e above consonants a r e a l l marked f o r a t l e a s t one

fea tu re , Chomsky and Halle say t h a t ,

"In view of the f a c t t h a t the unmarked nasa l must be /n/ and the unmarked continuant /s/, the unmarked plosive - if the re t o be one - would have t o be /t/. Th i s conclusion, however, seems unacceptable t o us; i n p a r t i c u l a r , the choice of the d e n t a l over the l a b i a l p los ive appears in- correc t . '@

31 They do no t ca r ry t h e d iscuss ion any f u r t h e r t o a s c e r t a i n the l e a s t marked

consonant o r t o explain t h e i r preferance f o r a l a b i a l - which seems t o be

a l lud ing t o Jakobson 1968.31 Ynen a system containing more than f i v e

consonants is attempted the same impossible s i t u a t i o n is faced as was the

case i n t ry ing t o determine vowel systems with more than f i v e segments.

For example, the members of both /b d g z/ and /b c x f/ a r e only mazked

f o r one more f e a t u r e m 3 j The f i r s t s e t n a t u r a l l y being the more 'na tura l ' .

Chomsky and Halle say,

"Such conventions as those proposed f o r vowel systems (see (9) and (10)) might provide the c o r r e c t r e s u l t s i n t h i s case, but our understanding of the case is too 9 rudimentary f o r a d e t a i l e d proposal t o be of any value."

1.1323 The Optimal l i q u i d , "Conventions (XXIX) and (XXXI) speci fy t h a t

the unmarked l i q u i d is a dental." 35 *'Conventions (XXXIII) and (XXXIV)

specify t h a t the unmarked coronal l i q u i d is l a t e r a l (i. e. , /1/ r a t h e r than I

/ r / ) , and ont ti nu ant.")^ Notice t h a t Chomaky and Halle have f i n a l l y come

t o a decis ion as t o whether /r/ o r /1/ is a continuant and with no apparent

explanation, They had l e f t the quest ion open on page 318,

1.1324 The conventions a r e unable t o produoe an optimal g l i d e ,

1.1325 Now t h a t such an optimal consonant and vowel system e x i s t s , we may

ask of what use is i t ? If t h e purpose is t o g e t as few marked f e a t u r e s as

poss ib le i n a matrix then marking is a device whereby the segments i n an

u t t e rance a r e no t only cont ras ted but d i sp lay a degree of 'na tura lness ' i n

8

inverse proport ion t o t h e number of marked f e a t u r e s needed t o d i s t ingu i sh

them, i.e., t h e c l o s e r they approach the n a t u r a l o r optimal system the

more n a t u r a l they are. But of what use is t h i s ? This says nothing about

the grammar. This becomes meaningless un less Chomsky and Halle were t o

s t a t e t h a t languages s t r i v e f o r the unmarked s t a t e . Chomsky and Halle

have been ca re fu l i n avoiding such a statement, but without it the concept

o f markedness and optimal systems is worthless, except s t a t i s t i c a l l y . No

one could defend t h e statement t h a t languages s t r i v e f o r the unmarked with

such a tremendous number of examples where languages change from what

Chomaky and Halle c a l l unmarked t o marked. What Chomsky and Halle f a i l t o

no t i ce is t h a t t h e r e a r e two f o r c e s i n language; one towards the l e a s t

e f f o r t o r l e a s t r e s i s t a n c e , f o r ease of articulation^ and t h e o the r towards

more res is tance ' in o A e r to c r e a t e meaningful cont ras ts . 37 Yith t h i s i n

mind, i t becomes meaningless t o speak of 'optimal' systems derived from a

s t a t i s t i c a l survey. It mjght, however, be meaningful t o speak of n a t u r a l

systems f r o n a learning(chi1d-learning far example) o r physiological bas i s ,

but t h i s a l ready seems t o have been attempted by Roman Jakobson in 1%0.J8

1.33 Linking. Marking conventions are used t o s h p l i f y t h e more 'na tura l '

processes in some phonological r u l e s so t h a t l e s s f e a t u r e s have t o be s t a t e d

f o r the came ru le . This is the l inking function. For exsmple, in Slavic ,

the F i r s t Velar ~ l r l a t a l i a a t i o n is formulated i n the following r u l e ,

However, by making use of t h e l ink ing capaci ty of the marking conventions

the r u l e s may be reformulated ass

The output of t h i s r u l e is then l inked t o the output by r u l e s (XXIII b),

( X X V ~ a ) and (XXVII c ) 41, i.e.

Convention (XXIII b)

makes the output [+tor] Convention (XXVI a ) r- 7

rude1 h re;] @ d r + d e l , .- re11 / I - a n t a cor J

makes the output b e 1 re11

Convention (XXVII c )

makes t h e output k t r i d J

Rule (26) is now l inked t o the output. Therefore a process can be s t a t e d

more economically, i.e., by using fewer f ea tu res , i n t h i s case th ree fewer

f ea tu res , if it is compatible with the l ink ing processes found i n the marking

conventions, thus showing a 'na tura l ' process.

1.331 Linking r u l e s a r e supposed t o con t r ibu te t o t h e na tura lness of a

grammar. If they do, then the measure is an artificial one.42 In 1.133 it

was shown how a r u l e was shown t o be more n a t u r a l by ex t rac t ing c e r t a i n

processes and c a l l i n g these un ive r sa l n a t u r a l processes, thereby permit t ing

r u l e (25) t o be wri t ten with th ree less f e a t u r e s as ( ~ 6 ) ~ ' ~ But t h i s is

! E su re ly j u s t a paper saving device. What d i f f e rence does it make t h a t c e r t a i n 1

i e marking conventions a r e appl ied o r the 'na tura l ' processes a r e l e f t i n the

I I r u l e unless it can be shown t h a t t h i s is a necessary process?

Like t h e r u l e s which produce bptjmal vowel and consonant systems

the l i n k i n g r u l e s a r e only obse rva t iona l ly adequate because they are merely

t h e product of a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis .@ If Chomsky and Halle were t o

achieve d e s c r i p t i v e and explanatory adequacy then they must c o n s t r u c t a

theory t o exp la in why a 'na tu ra l ' system o r process should occur; t h i s theory

could then l o g i c a l l y be extended so changes i n systems could be shown t o be

necessary and p red ic t ab le , Chomsky-Halle 1968, however, a r e con ten t t o be

confined t o obse rva t iona l adequacy.

2.0 Conclusions

.,ent a 2.1 The marking convent ions i n Chornsky-Halle 1968 merely r e p r e p

s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of what is common t o a n unspec i f ied number of languages.

2,2 The marking convent ions found i n Chomsky-Halle 1968 a r e l i m i t e d t o

only obse rva t iona l adequacy because Chomsky and Hal le p u t forward no e x p l i c i t

theory t o expla in t

( i ) what n a t u r a l n e s s is.

( i i ) i f t h e n a t u r a l o r unmarked segments n e c e s s a r i l y manifest

themselves a t t h e expense of t h e unnatura l o r marked, i , e , ,

is t h e r e a necessary change from t h e marked t o t h e unmarked,

and why?

( i i i ) if (ii) is t r u e how can t h e r e v e r s e process be explained?

( i v ) t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f change i n ( i i ) and ( i i i ) ,

11

Notes

A l ist of the marking conventions is found i n Chomsky-Halle 1961; 4W-407. Also see Posta l 1968 Chapter 8 f o r a discussion of markedness.

Chomsky-Halle 1968 8400.

See Chomsky-Halle 196dr293-389 f o r the list and discussion of the d i s t i nc t i ve fea tures used here.

Posta l 1968 r 56.

Chomsky-Halle 1968r400-402,

Chomsky-Halle 1968r404.

See Fsomkin 1970r39.

Ibid.

Chomsky-Halle 1968; 371.

Ibid.

This was pointed out t o me by E.W. Roberts.

See Jakobson 1968 147-51, 68-71,

Chomsky-Halle 1968 1 3%.

Chomsky-Halle 19688414.

l5 Chomsky-Halle 1968 r 413-14.

l6 Chomsky-Halle 1968 r 400-402.

l7 Chomsb-Halle 1968r404-405.

See Roberts 1969-70"~hcinology l w f o r a discussion of a d i f f e r en t segmentation than found here.

l9 Chomsky-Halle 1968 1409.

20 Halle 1970895, 103.

21 Halle 39701 103.

22 Chomsky-Halle 1968 $409.

23 Ibid. 8410.

24 Chonsky-Halle 1968 $410.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

26 Chomsky-Halle 19681412.

29 Chomsky-Halle 1 ~ 6 8 8413.

3' Chomsky-Halle 1968a4.15.

31 Chomsky-Halle 19681413.

j2 See note 6.

33 Chonaky-Halle 19688414.

9 I b i d .

35 Ibid*

37 See Roberts 1969-70: Phonology 2, f o r a discussion of t h i s point ,

Also see Miller 1951 f o r the r e s u l t s of s similar study.

39 Chomsky-Halle 1968 1422.

40 Chomsky-Halle 1968 1423.

41 Chornsky-Hslle 1968 :424.

42 See Chonsky-Halls 1968a401 f o r what a na tura l r u l e should be as opposed t o an unnatural one. The only c r i t e r i o n of naturalness is the use of fewer features.

43 Chornaky-Halle 1 9 6 8 1 ~ h a ~ t b r 9.

W, See Choasky 1964863 f o r a discussion of t he three l eve l s of adquocyi 1. observation, 2. descr ipt ive , 3, explanatory.

Cairns, C, E. 1969, "Markedness n e u t r a l i z a t i o n and universa l redundancy ru les , " Language 45~863-85.

Chomsky, N.A. 1964s "Current I s sues i n L ingu i s t i c Theory," The S t ruc tu re of Language, ed, J. Rodor and J. Katz, pp, 50-118, Prentice-Halle, New Jersey,

------- and Halle, M , 1968, The Sound Pa t t e rn of English, Harper and Row, New York.

Fromkin, V. 1970, "The concept of na tura lness i n a universa l phonetic theory," Glossa 4~29-45.

Grc~nbarg~ J,!!, 1965, "Scme gencmlieatinns concerning i n i t i a l and final consonant sequences," L i n w i s t i c s 18 t 5-34.

Halle, M, 1970, "Is KaSardian a vowel-less language?" Foundations of Language 6 t 95-103.

Harris, J , U , 1969, "Sound Change i n Spanish and t h e theory of markedness,* Language 45s 538-52.

Jakobson. R. l % O , "Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze," -Se lec ted wri t ings I , Mouton, The Hague, (English t r a n s l a t i o n is 1968; Child Language Aphasia and Phonological Universals, Mouton, The Hague.)

Malone, J,L, 1970, "The defense of non-uniqueness of phonological representa t ions ," Language 46: 328-35.

Mil ler , G.A. 1951, L a w a g e and Communication,Chapter 71140-58 "The Verbal Behaviour of Children," McGraw-Hill, New York.

Pos ta l , P. 1968, Aspects of Phonological Theory, Harper and Row, New York.

Roberts, E, W. 1969-70, "Phonological Inves t iga t ions 1-7, " Simon F'raser Universi ty, (unpublished).

Sampson, G, 1970, "On t h e need f o r a phonological base, " Language 46: 586-626.

Shane, Soh. 1968, "On the non-uniqueness of phonological regresenta t ions ," Language 4 4 t 709-16.

Stanley, R , 1967, "Redundancy r u l e s in phonology, " Language 4 3 t 393-436.

Tmka, B. 1936, "General laws of phonemic combinations," Praksky Linguis t icQ KrouEek 6: 57-62,

Trubetzkoy , N, S, 1969, P r inc ip les of Phonology, Universi ty of Ca l i fo rn ia Press, Universi ty of Ca l i fo rn ia a t Los Angeles.

SUBMITTED PARTIAL THE 6~summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/3017/b11526415.pdfby their relative...

Documents

Transcript of SUBMITTED PARTIAL THE 6~summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/3017/b11526415.pdfby their relative...