- Email: [email protected]
Towards a phonological theory
Liqwa
16 ( f9Q6) 337-351,
Not to be repraducod by photoprint
TOWARDS
North-Hdand
or microfilm
without
Publishing
A PHONOLOG1CA.L KLAUS
Co., A~dmhm
written permission
from the publisher
THEORYI)
KOHLER
In a paper I gave to the Edinbur& Phonetics Repartrnent in April 1965 on ‘Phonological Procedurtt and Phonological Theory’ 1 proposed some principles that I thoug It would .have to underlie a phonological description of any language. I irave since elaborated these basic assurmptions and tested them in a practical handling of the phonology of English. My work has been greatly influenced by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, although I have never been fortunate enough to see their research in actual progress, but have always had to rely on their publications, which, by the nature of things, are usually two years behind the developments. What I am presenting in this article differs formally and substantially to a very large extent from their ideas and results, but: it is needless to say that this in no way affects my admiration for their achievements. Chomsky has formulated rigorous and explicit assumptions about language in general which will make it possible to propose a model for a particular language such that it enumerates infinitely many sentences which a native speaker of the language regards as grammatical and which can thus be checked. These assumptions also allow the assignment of structural descriptions to these sentences in a non-arbitrary, i.e. mechanical way which does noL have recourse to the linguist’s intuition but is a direct outcome of the generating process, If these assumptions are general, i.e. not restricted to any one language or group of languages, if the model that is determined by them only generates grammatical sentences ;Ind no non-sentences, if the structural descriptions automatically assigned to these 1) This article owes a great de4 to the fruitful discussions I hai with Mr J. Anderson and Mr P. van Buren, both Edinbllrgh, and I should like to thank them for their valuable comments and criticisms.
337
KLAUS
KOHLER
sentences reflect the native speaker’s knowledge, i.e. if they indicate relations within and between sentences in a way that is relevant for him, and if an evaluation measure can be found that will select between several descriptions, we can say that the whole theoretical framework together with the structural descriptions it provides is a representation of the speaker’s competence. The important points of this theory are therefore (1 t that the assumptions should be explicit and general, (2) that the structure assignment should be non-arbitrary, (3j that there should be an evaluation procedure, (4) that the assumptions as well as the structural descriptions should reflect the native speaker’s intuition. These points guarantee that this theory as well as the descriptions following from it are testable rtnd falsifiable so that the original assumptions, which are Miens rather than hypotheses in Vaihingers sensez), nevertheless produce valuable results. Point (4) ensures descriptive adequacy; points (1) to (3) provide the principled basis for the selection of descriptively adequate grammars and therefore bring the theory to the level of explanatory adequacy?) If any of these requirements are disregarded linguistics cannot be successful in any meaningful sense. A phonological description is based on a phonological theory incorporating the same four points and requiring a general phonetic theory by its side. General phonetics studies the human possibilities of vocal sound production and reception, and a phonetic theory nrust be such that it delimits speech from what is not speech. It must also provide a general theoretical framework for dealing with an uninvestigated language and must make possible the assignment of its categories to phonological elements. It must furthermore allow the prediction of phonological universals. Since whatever the human ear cannot cope with is irrelevant for language such a general phonetic theory must be based on azedktory units rather than instrume&d ones. Speech perception is either purely auditory (in the case of pitch and loudness) or a list’ker subsequently re-interprets and therefore perceives an auditory signal in terms of some of the 2) H. Vaihinger, Die Philosopkie
des A I!SOb (Berlin, 19 11).
3) N. Chonzsky, M. Halle, ‘Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory’, Jownal of Lingzktics, 1 ( 1965) 9%
TOWARDS
A
PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
339
articulatory movements he would himself perform as a speaker, i.e. perception is then auditory-articulatory. If a phonetic theory is not on an auditory basis with the appropriate articulatory attributes wherever necessary, the specification of phonological elements in terms of its categories will be arbitrary because there is then no direct link with a human listener. This also means that the phonetic theory cannot be used to predict phonological universals and that it consequently loses a great deal of generality. Intrumental acoustic and instrumental articulatory phonetics can certainly contribute to auditory phonetics, but they have an ancillary role. In view of this, the distinctive feature framework within Chomsky/ Halle phonology does not seem to me to be adequate as a general @metic theory because it is acoustic rather than auditory (-articulatory). Furthermore, its rigorously binary approach can only deal very unsatisfactorily with an uninvestigated language and also deprives the phonetic theory of much of its explanatory power. An example illustrating the shortcomings on these two accounts will be discussed below. The phonetic theory I should like to put forward is audl.tory and auditory-articulatory and contains a fixed number of discrete categories, which are not necessarily arranged in twos, and five scales of an undefined number of sub-divisions (#ace scale along the palate, sfyicture scale within the stricture ‘frictionless’, time scale, pitch scale, lowhess scale). Among the discrete categories we get pulmonic - glottaliz - velaric ; oral - nasal - glottal ; complete closure - fricanarrowing; single tive - frictionless; central closure - cent4 repetitive. Of these only fricative and frictionfess are purely auditory, all othrs are auditory-articulator-y This pair must be on a purely auditory basis because the same effect can be produced either by narrowing/widening the stricture between the articulators or by increasing/decreasing the airpressure. This theory and the relation between phonetics an J phonology will be discussed in greater detail in separate articles. The discrete categories as well as the elements from the scales are taken into the phonological component of a description as _-fT,if, b :d only if, there are p&lonological oppositions and if all the elements symbolised in the same way have a common phonetic denominator statable in the terms provided by the general phonetic theory. If there is no such common phonetic feature the oppositions must be
340
KLAUS
KOHLER
numbered or expressed with the help of cover terms whose phonetic specifications are subsequently introduced into the description by various rules. fortis and Zenis are such cover terms with reference to oppositions like ,‘I, - b/, /t - d/, /I: - g/ in English, where no single phonetic feature can be found that characterises the difference of & /p/‘s from aI2 /b/‘s. Reference to force of articulation or something similar is too vague to be of any real (phonetic) value. fortis and Z&s are consequently not categories in the phonetic theory, but are abstract phonological terms which are given phonetic ‘exponents’ (e.g. glottalisation, devoicing, aspiration, length of preceding vowel) in later phonetic rules. Similar considerations apply to vowels in English. As /ai/ and /i/, Ii:/ and /e/, /ei/ and (a/, /ou/ and lo/, /au/ and /A/ enter into phi>nological relations they must be treated C.Spairs, but no phonetic fpntlwfw *vu"I-vY ran YUI. e_q-jress +,b*p,‘saIf?epaess’ -gitk;in
T&e.--. ++y' cu 3c pZi.KS. Lucy MY?
therefore at first only numbered (e.g. V1-+, V2--V2~ etc.), the feature assignment being left till later. The general assumptions underlying all phonological descriptions are formal and substantive universals. Among the formal universals we have the general condition that all phonological rules deal with sequential elemertts, i.e. places in sequence like beads on a string, and with componential elements, which in turn specify one or several sequential elements. Rhyme, assonance, alliteration, spoonerisms, distant assimilations and dissimilations, stammering, etc., all depend on the speaker’s and listener’s awareness of these two kinds of elements: places and their qualities. The former are $honological formatives, the latter phonological features specifying the formatives. This is a further difference from Chomsky/Halle, who do not recognise formatives .in their phonology. A. grammatical formative is re,presented phonologically in terms of both types of element or of componential elements only, but in each case the latter are related to and presuppose the former, not vice versa. Either componential elements specify one or several selquential ones within a grammatical formative, or if a grammatical formative I? stated as a componential feature only it must be related to the comuonentially specified places of othz grammatical formatives. An example of the second case is nasality as a marker of the category ‘first person’ in Tereno.4) -“) J. T. Ekndor-Samuel, ‘ Problems of Segmentation Aniaiysis of Tereno’, Wmd 16 ( 1960) 348ff.
in the Phonological
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGIC,QL
THEORY
341
‘The phonetic actualization is as follows: 5) (a) the nasalization of all vowels and semi-vowels in the word up the first stop or fricative. In words without stops or fricatives vowels and semi-vowels are nasalized, together with (b) a nasalized consonantal sequence replacing the first stop fricative in the word as follows: mb replaces fi, find replaces t, replaces k, NZ replaces both s and k, ~3 replaces both $ and lzy. Examples:
elmo.Jti lay0 low&u
‘his word’ 8m6.G ‘his brother’ I@6 ‘his house’ Wo’ygu ‘he went’ MkhO $!dlO a%ya?aJo ‘he desires’ ihqa?afo
to all or qg
‘my word’ ‘my brother’ ‘my house’ '1 went’ ‘X desire’
Chomsky and Halle have abandoned the requirement of biuniqueness in phonology, but stiii retain the distinction between features that are initially given as primes and are outside any general rules, and features that are assigned by rules. The former are the morphonemes, the latter the features assigned by F-rules. This in a way perpetuates the distinction between phonemic and allophonic features. It also misses out a great deal of the underlying structure and is thus descriptively less adequate. Furthermore, it leads to the undesirable and unnecessary concepts of fully and incompletely specified morphonemes, which becomes necessary as certain intramorphemically irrelevant features - which can therefore be covered by F-rules - become relevant inter-morphemically. I would like to suggest that the whole of t e phonological cornponent of a description should be given as generative rules. This is only possible if the phonology recognises sequential elements, i.e. formatives. A description of this kind has three advantages over one that makes use of initial feature specifications and subsequent Frules. (1) This system of rules generates an indefinitely large number of structures, Gtich arc all within the phonological possibilities of the language cclncerned, even if particular items are not recorded. It thus makes the fundamental structures explicit, which would otherwise only be incorporated implicitly in the redundancy rules, and separates them from alien structures. 5)
Ibid.
p.
350.
342
KLAUS
KOHLEX
(2) It integrates the syntactic and phonological comyonents more fully, as it provides a direct continuation from phrase-structure and transformational rules, the rules of phonology atowoperating dirWly on the grammatical formatives of the last line of a derived phrasemarker. Various degrees of information about the derivational history of these formatives are relevant for the adequate application of phonological rules. In some cases, the whole of the derivation may have to be known. The assignment of intonation patterns, for example, certainly presupposes a great deal of knowledge of the deep structure. (3) It makes feature specification of lexical entries simpler and avoids the distinction between fully and incompletely specified morphoncms, which is only required if we start from lexical entries. It is still necessary to have a lexicon in order to show which items from among the possible ones generated by the mechanism actually occur in the language under description. These entries provide a mi+mal specification so that the mechanism can handle and define them uniquely. 3%e phonological rules are formal universals and are of three types: (a) intra-formative rules, (b) inter-formative rules, (c) phonetic rules. The intra-formative rules operate on the formatives of the derived phrase-marker and take into account the derivational history to various degrees of depth (e.g. u;.se,noun or verb), the interformative rules consider the relations between these formatives when they are joined - again in association with the development of the grammatical tree .- and they operate in cycles starting from the smallest constituents. Intra- and inter-formative rules deal either with sequential elements, i.e. with phonological formatives,
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
343
fication, which are in turn re-written as themselves and another feature specification, etc. Componential features in these (phonological) rules are all binary, they are either + or -. The symbols for them are written after the symbol for a sequential element in a string, which is terminated by the symbol for the next sequential element. If a componential element is added to more than one sequential element, i.e. if more than one sequential element is re-written with the same feature at the same time, { } are put round the sequential elements. Ordinary parentheses are used to enclose optionally chosen items. Alternative replacements for a sym? ~1 are listed vertically within 1 1. Phonetic rules are only concerned with those componential specifications that cannot be given as binary oppositions by the other two types of rules. In the majority of cases they select values from a.mong the five scales. To mark these features as phonetic they are written in italics; if they are attributed to more than one sequential element the same device is used as above. The bulk of intra-formative rules come first, then interformative ones, and finally the phonetic rules. But they are not in complete succession. Some inter-formative rules may have to be stated before the intra-formative ones have all been enumerated, and similarly some phonetic rules may have to come in before the last interformative rule. I have so far only dealt with the formal universals of phonology, namely seqwhd and comfiolzential elemeds and intra-formative, hte+fwmative and @onetic r&es. I now cornt~ to the substantive universals of phonology. If componential y specified sequential elements could be combined in any possible way in a language, this language would be based on an extremely irregular phonological pattern. The demands on the human brain would therefore be enormous. As the resources of our memory are limited we must assume that the child can only learn, and the adult only master, his native language if there is the greatest Fossible regularity. Furthermore, it is only on the basis of this assumption that inherent combinative structures can be separated from alievl ones, a differentiation any speaker of any language is able to make. If combinations of sequential elements are only restricted in number without being regularised, nothing is gained, because the child still has to learn, and the adult to remember, every existing combination as a unique
344
KLAUS
KOHLER
item, outside any general pattern, and the distinction between native and foreign is still impossible. The greatest degree of efficiency is reached when there are two groups of componentially specified elements such that the combinations be#~eers the groups are very little restricted and that fairly strict and regular limitations are imposed on combinatiorial possibilities within the groups, the degree of restriction depending on the particular language in both cases, but being always lower in the former than in the latter. These two groups have been well known for hundreds, if not thousands, of years under the names of vowels and consonants. It follows from the above assumption of a simplicity criterion underlying all language that these two groups, V and C, must be universals, they are substantive universals. As the difference between them depends primarily on combinatorial possibilities they must be two different kinds of sequedd elements. On exactly the same principle some languages distinguish between different types among consonants: they are determined by the ways in which they combine with each other and with vowels. In English /h, j, w/ can on13 precede a vowel and only be joinecl to few other consonants withir the sarnegrammatical formative. (/ju/ in news, mews, fzdse, argue etc. is a single vowel, not CV.) /m, n, 1, r/ form another group because they combine ore freely with the remaining consonants than among themselves, and also because they are always nearer the vowel. (In bottle, bzcttovt, cable, hcafyM-8etc. we me -V lateral consonant and -V nasal consonant Gth an obligat-ory deletion of the vowel in certain cases, with an optional one in others.) I call /h, j, w/ Cc, /m, n, 1, r/ Cb and ve to consider the question of which componential eleor c;xnnot OCCUPwith the sequential universals V and C. The general phonetic theory contains the following categories relating to caviticz and strictures: oral - nasal - glottal and frictionless /\ c92”iral closure /\ le
cent r-a.1 narro?virsg
repetitive
as well as the stricture
central closure /\ single
central narrowing
repetitive
le within frictionless
central
narrowing.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEONY
345
On the basis of these we can set up the iollowing gradation of interference with the air stream, governed by strictural function:
(1) complete
interruption : oral closure + nasal closure / glottal closure fricative obstruction : (2) oral fricative? / nasal fricative / glottttl fricative or combinations (3) frictionless obstruction : (a) oral closure + nasal openin,; (b) oral central closure single / oral central closure repetitive (c) highest degree of oral central narrowing . m .
(n) lowest degree of oral central narrowing. This gradation determines the association of stricture and cavity features with vowels and consonants as comjmnentiai elements. Tlne top category cannot occur together wif;h vowels, the bottom one is absent from consonants. The lower the feature the more likely its combination with a vowel; the higher the feature the mo:e likely its combination with a consonant. It follows from this and from the fact that vowels and consonants are substantive universals of the sequential type that the two extremes, i.e. stops and open vocoids, must be substantive universzls as well, this time of the componential type* As regards the treatment of vowels and consonants I have thus departed from Chomsky and Halle in thretl respects. (1) For me vowels and consonants arc sequential elements, not different combinations of the features -4 vocalic and &- consonantal, because thevY are primarily . determined by their combinatorial powers. Frtrthermore, the underlying structures of the phonological component of a language are only made explicit if these categories, as well as sub-divisions within consonants that depend on serial arrangements, are treated as sequential, which leads, at the same time, to simpler descriptions. (2) The compo_nsntial specification of vowels and consonants is given with reference to an auditory (-articulatory) framework of strictural function, rather than to an instrumental-acoustic one. (3) In the yeneral phonetic theory this strictural function cannot be expressed as two binary oppositions, but requires a gradation. Only a phonetic theory which is based on auditory (-articulatory)
KLAUS
XOHLER
criteria and which does not rely exclusively on binary oppositions can evolve the concept of strictural function and produce a gradation of interference with the air stream. And it seems to me to follow quite conclu&ely from the above discussion that a general phonetic theory without such a gradation is much weaker as it does not develop the same degree of explanatory power, i.e. it cannot predict phonological universals and does not describe the facts so adequately. With the phonetic theory presented here we can predict that there will be more languages without ?zighvocoids (/j, w/) than without Zz$Gds as conson&.nts, and there will be still fewer, if any at all, that have no +ZP=G” consonants. Similarly we must assume that there are fewer languages without ?zQJzvocoids than without lipids or sasals as vowels, and that the languages with fricative vowels are very much limited if they exist at all. It is true that these considerations are not altogether absent from the distinctive feature framework since it distinguishes between vowel and consonant besides the pairs & vocalic and zt: consonantal, and this opposition is graded so that we get an optimal vowel, which is compact, and an optimal consonant, which is a mellow stop. This vowel/consonant ladder does not, however, follow in the same direct way from the categories of the general phonetic theory, but is rather accidental, since the theory does not recognise a gradation, and this consequently reduces its explanatory adequacy. The sy’riable is very often regarded as another substar.tive universal in phonology; but it can be demonstrated that the syllable is either an wmecessa~y concept, because the division of the speech chain into such units is known for other reasons, or an impassable one, as any division \:
. .
CVC2
where Cr stands for any non-arbitrary pre-vocalic, C2 for any nonarbitrary post-vocalic consnrrznt (cluster) and C for any consonant (cluster) between two vowels. Any part to the right of the arrow may be 2zro.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
C car, now be re-written
THEORY
347
as
c -+ Cl,
c2, c3, C2Cl
(C + ClC2 is impossible by definition.) If Cl # C2 and if C -+ Cl, C2, C&, a non-arbitrary syllable division is possible but is implicit in the definitions for Cl and C2: the syllable is therefore an unnecessary concept. If some Cl = C2 there are cases where a syllable division is not determinable, and the syllable is therefore an imfiossible concept. The same applies to C -it Ca, i.e. a consonant (cluster) that can only occur intervocalically and cannot therefore be uniquely determined as pre- or post-vocalic. If in any language the division ixrtri syllables clashes with morphemic divisions the concept of a syllable is k~m/til. It is also harmful if it obscures the underlying phonoiogicai structures in a ianguage. English qualifies on both accounts. In the words codisk, foolisli and Ballachdisk the sequences vowel + lateral are all different in certain accents of English: [ul.], [uj], [r$].*) If we say that on account of the distribution of clear and dark laterals the syllable division falls after the lateral in coolish., before it in Ballachdish, we cannot have it after the lateral in foolis& which is in direct contradiction with the morphology. In English, intervocalic consonant sequences are of any degree of frequency only if they are either pre- a& post-vocalk at the same time jbectter, master) or if one consonant is ambivaknt, i.e. is part of a Cr avtd part of a C2 simultaneous y (ma@ms, belirey). If there is clear separation between Cl and Cz the sequences are rare (aesthetic, cosmetic, Norway). The underlying structure of hi-vocalic . words in English therefore depends on syllabic indeterminacy; the introduction of the syllable into the analysis can only obscure this fact. In languages in which a non-arbitrary syllable-division is always possible because it is implicit in the conson;ci?t clustering and in which this division does not clash with grammatical cuts nor obscure the underlying structure, it is still possible to use the syllable as a unit for quick reference, although it is not necessary because the syllableis then not an independent entity. In all other languages 6) I owe these exarr;;pks to Professor A. E. Sharp.
348
KLA’JS
KOHLER
t.he syllable has no place in the phonology, and it is, consequently, not a phonological universal. I now illustrate, with a few examples, how a phonological description of English follows from the phonological theory using the formal and substantive universals discussed in this article, namely the general constraint on all phonological expositions that they must be in terms of sequential and componential elements and that they must be cast in intra-formative, inter-formative and phonetic rules, which, in turn, de4 with vowel ands consonants (the substantive sequential universals), open vocoids and stops (the substantive componential universals), other sequential elements, and further componential features introduced from the general phonetic framework. I distinguish between derivational and non-derivational Eormatives and enclose the 1, **er between [l 11. (i) (2) 1 treat /sp, st, sk/ as single sequential elements, not only because the interpretation of the stop section as /p, t, k/ would be arbitrary, but rather because this is the only way to separate the inherent structures /sp, st, sk/ from the alien ones /sf, sv/. Although /sf/ occurs in the very common word s+kere it is still an unusual structure in English and must therefore be distinguished from the regular pattern. This treatment also ties in with the alliteration rules of Old English.
Here again I differentiate between a ‘alien’ one. It is interesting to note that (C&&8 are of foreign origin: apt, act, instinct, delft, lynx, c&x, waltz, chintz, sex, be only one example for CbCbCa: world.
regular pattern and an most words of the type extinct, prompt, distinct, but wax. There seems to
(4) c, + c, -&top
(5) C, -+ C, *fortis
ca*stop
(6) c, --fofi-s j
*labia1
TOWARDS
(7) ca-stop-labial
A PHONOLOGICAL
+ C, -stop-labia&flat
(8) Ca -stop-labial-flat (9) C, +stoprf:labial
349
7)
-+ C, -stop-labial_flat&wide7) -+
(10) C, -)-stop-labial
(11)
THEORY
C, $-stop&-labial (-wide) I Cs +stop-labial+wide
(-wide) flat &wide
-+ C8 +stop-labial
+
C, -stop-labial I
7)
I
C, +stop-labial+wide
(-wide) &dorsal
+flat -stop-labial C, -+ &wide I I C,+stop-labial+wide -dorsal
(12) CD -=+Cb &-nasal (13)
cb -nasal
3
cb
-nasal&lateral
At this point a number of combinatorial introduced. I can only seiecta few here. C, -stop +wide only in contexts
(Welsh is interpreted
v(Cb --lateral)_ is treated n context
restriction _(Cb as
rules must bit
-1ateral)V
and
WaZes+ish
and
separately.) [ ‘_Cb
+ nasal
Ca -+ C, -stop-wide
LC, -+ C, -labial C, +labial C,C, --+ C, + fortis C, +labial cb
I ca I
+nasaica & +labial + {cb dorsal
+nasal
ca}
In v{cb +nasai -fortis} + labial “1 dele is not affected by t (ramble = cbvcbc,vcb In the above intra-formative rules the only grammatical information required is that they operate on non-derivational formatives. In other cases a good dzal more information about the derivational history is necessary, as in the following example. (20) [fC, + flat -
--+ [K, +flat-fortis - in adverbs and pronouns (they, thewz, the, that, thence, there etc.) [X, +flat+fortis . rn all other cases.
350
KLAUS
KOHLER
So far all the rules have been intra-formative and have been concerned with sequential and componential elements. The rules regarding the addition of the plural marker Ca -stop -wide are interformative and relate to componential elements. The following rule is - in part - inter-formative and concerns a sequential element. (21) If {Cb -t-nasal C&-fortis}
+dorsal is immediately followed by a morpheme boundary (except erecmp, estsUP, ate, ation) C8 -fortis is deleted; in all other cases it is retained: sing,
singe& singing, sings, kmged, Zmgish, @okmgable, kingdovn: anger, asgie, kg&t, d&t&g&h, A~~gkw, longest, ekwtgate, pmlongation.
length, tiger,
And finally, I add two phonetic rules : (22) If not immediately followed by V, i.e. in contexts * V(Cb)-
Cs +stop+fortis
3 C, +stop+fortis
g&M slo*
(23) Other + fortis -+ + fortis glottal fricative. The rules in this article are given as illustrations of various points of the phonological theory and I am aware of the dangers of isolating them from an integrated net-work. A more detailed account of English phonology will, however, appear in a separate publication. Departme~tt cf Phonetics, University of Edinbwgh
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHOMSKY,N., ‘Current Issues in Linguistic Theory’, in: The Stmsctwe of Language, J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.), 1965, 50ff. HALLE, M., ‘On the Bases of Phonology’, ibid., 324, ff. HALLE, M., ‘Phonology in Generative Grammar’, ibid., 334 ff. HALLE, M., TJte Sowd Pattem of RussiasP, The Hague, 1959. CHOMSKY,N., M. HALLE, Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory, Journal of Lhgwis‘tics, 1 (1965) 97ff. HARHIS, 2. S., Simultaneous Components in Phonology, Larrgwage 20 (1944) iaiff. HKXLNBOTTOM,E., ‘Glottal Reinforcement in English’, TPS, 1964, 129ff.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
351
HULTXBN, L. S., ‘Consonant Clusters in English’, America% Speed, Febr. 1965, 5ff. JAKOBSON, R., C. G. M. FANT‘ and M. HALLE, Prcliminaties to Speech AR&&, MIT, 1963. JAKOBSON, R. and &I. HALLB, Fun&a weals of Kasgwge, The Hague, 1956. JAKOBSON, Ii. and M. HALLZZ,‘Phonology in Relation to Phonetics’, in L, Kaiser ed. MUWWZof PRonetics, Amsterdam, 1957, 215ff. JONES, L. G., E@is~ Co~~~nllll Dishvdbutiorr, For Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 19.%, 245ff. O’CONNOR, J. I). and J. L. I&I.TRIM, ‘Vowel, Consonant, and Syllable - A Phonological Definition’, Word 9 ( 1953), 103ff. PIKE, E. V., ‘Phonetic Rank and Subordination in Consonant Patterning and Historica Change’, Mist, Phowha, II (1954) 25ff. PIKE, K. L,, BOW&S, Ann Arbor, 1943. TAPIR, E., ‘Sound Patterns in Language’, Language f (1925) 37ff. des phonhmes’, Journal de #xyclroSAPIR, E., ‘La r&alit& psychologique hgie, 30 (1933) 247ff. ,
16 ( f9Q6) 337-351,
Not to be repraducod by photoprint
TOWARDS
North-Hdand
or microfilm
without
Publishing
A PHONOLOG1CA.L KLAUS
Co., A~dmhm
written permission
from the publisher
THEORYI)
KOHLER
In a paper I gave to the Edinbur& Phonetics Repartrnent in April 1965 on ‘Phonological Procedurtt and Phonological Theory’ 1 proposed some principles that I thoug It would .have to underlie a phonological description of any language. I irave since elaborated these basic assurmptions and tested them in a practical handling of the phonology of English. My work has been greatly influenced by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, although I have never been fortunate enough to see their research in actual progress, but have always had to rely on their publications, which, by the nature of things, are usually two years behind the developments. What I am presenting in this article differs formally and substantially to a very large extent from their ideas and results, but: it is needless to say that this in no way affects my admiration for their achievements. Chomsky has formulated rigorous and explicit assumptions about language in general which will make it possible to propose a model for a particular language such that it enumerates infinitely many sentences which a native speaker of the language regards as grammatical and which can thus be checked. These assumptions also allow the assignment of structural descriptions to these sentences in a non-arbitrary, i.e. mechanical way which does noL have recourse to the linguist’s intuition but is a direct outcome of the generating process, If these assumptions are general, i.e. not restricted to any one language or group of languages, if the model that is determined by them only generates grammatical sentences ;Ind no non-sentences, if the structural descriptions automatically assigned to these 1) This article owes a great de4 to the fruitful discussions I hai with Mr J. Anderson and Mr P. van Buren, both Edinbllrgh, and I should like to thank them for their valuable comments and criticisms.
337
KLAUS
KOHLER
sentences reflect the native speaker’s knowledge, i.e. if they indicate relations within and between sentences in a way that is relevant for him, and if an evaluation measure can be found that will select between several descriptions, we can say that the whole theoretical framework together with the structural descriptions it provides is a representation of the speaker’s competence. The important points of this theory are therefore (1 t that the assumptions should be explicit and general, (2) that the structure assignment should be non-arbitrary, (3j that there should be an evaluation procedure, (4) that the assumptions as well as the structural descriptions should reflect the native speaker’s intuition. These points guarantee that this theory as well as the descriptions following from it are testable rtnd falsifiable so that the original assumptions, which are Miens rather than hypotheses in Vaihingers sensez), nevertheless produce valuable results. Point (4) ensures descriptive adequacy; points (1) to (3) provide the principled basis for the selection of descriptively adequate grammars and therefore bring the theory to the level of explanatory adequacy?) If any of these requirements are disregarded linguistics cannot be successful in any meaningful sense. A phonological description is based on a phonological theory incorporating the same four points and requiring a general phonetic theory by its side. General phonetics studies the human possibilities of vocal sound production and reception, and a phonetic theory nrust be such that it delimits speech from what is not speech. It must also provide a general theoretical framework for dealing with an uninvestigated language and must make possible the assignment of its categories to phonological elements. It must furthermore allow the prediction of phonological universals. Since whatever the human ear cannot cope with is irrelevant for language such a general phonetic theory must be based on azedktory units rather than instrume&d ones. Speech perception is either purely auditory (in the case of pitch and loudness) or a list’ker subsequently re-interprets and therefore perceives an auditory signal in terms of some of the 2) H. Vaihinger, Die Philosopkie
des A I!SOb (Berlin, 19 11).
3) N. Chonzsky, M. Halle, ‘Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory’, Jownal of Lingzktics, 1 ( 1965) 9%
TOWARDS
A
PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
339
articulatory movements he would himself perform as a speaker, i.e. perception is then auditory-articulatory. If a phonetic theory is not on an auditory basis with the appropriate articulatory attributes wherever necessary, the specification of phonological elements in terms of its categories will be arbitrary because there is then no direct link with a human listener. This also means that the phonetic theory cannot be used to predict phonological universals and that it consequently loses a great deal of generality. Intrumental acoustic and instrumental articulatory phonetics can certainly contribute to auditory phonetics, but they have an ancillary role. In view of this, the distinctive feature framework within Chomsky/ Halle phonology does not seem to me to be adequate as a general @metic theory because it is acoustic rather than auditory (-articulatory). Furthermore, its rigorously binary approach can only deal very unsatisfactorily with an uninvestigated language and also deprives the phonetic theory of much of its explanatory power. An example illustrating the shortcomings on these two accounts will be discussed below. The phonetic theory I should like to put forward is audl.tory and auditory-articulatory and contains a fixed number of discrete categories, which are not necessarily arranged in twos, and five scales of an undefined number of sub-divisions (#ace scale along the palate, sfyicture scale within the stricture ‘frictionless’, time scale, pitch scale, lowhess scale). Among the discrete categories we get pulmonic - glottaliz - velaric ; oral - nasal - glottal ; complete closure - fricanarrowing; single tive - frictionless; central closure - cent4 repetitive. Of these only fricative and frictionfess are purely auditory, all othrs are auditory-articulator-y This pair must be on a purely auditory basis because the same effect can be produced either by narrowing/widening the stricture between the articulators or by increasing/decreasing the airpressure. This theory and the relation between phonetics an J phonology will be discussed in greater detail in separate articles. The discrete categories as well as the elements from the scales are taken into the phonological component of a description as _-fT,if, b :d only if, there are p&lonological oppositions and if all the elements symbolised in the same way have a common phonetic denominator statable in the terms provided by the general phonetic theory. If there is no such common phonetic feature the oppositions must be
340
KLAUS
KOHLER
numbered or expressed with the help of cover terms whose phonetic specifications are subsequently introduced into the description by various rules. fortis and Zenis are such cover terms with reference to oppositions like ,‘I, - b/, /t - d/, /I: - g/ in English, where no single phonetic feature can be found that characterises the difference of & /p/‘s from aI2 /b/‘s. Reference to force of articulation or something similar is too vague to be of any real (phonetic) value. fortis and Z&s are consequently not categories in the phonetic theory, but are abstract phonological terms which are given phonetic ‘exponents’ (e.g. glottalisation, devoicing, aspiration, length of preceding vowel) in later phonetic rules. Similar considerations apply to vowels in English. As /ai/ and /i/, Ii:/ and /e/, /ei/ and (a/, /ou/ and lo/, /au/ and /A/ enter into phi>nological relations they must be treated C.Spairs, but no phonetic fpntlwfw *vu"I-vY ran YUI. e_q-jress +,b*p,‘saIf?epaess’ -gitk;in
T&e.--. ++y' cu 3c pZi.KS. Lucy MY?
therefore at first only numbered (e.g. V1-+, V2--V2~ etc.), the feature assignment being left till later. The general assumptions underlying all phonological descriptions are formal and substantive universals. Among the formal universals we have the general condition that all phonological rules deal with sequential elemertts, i.e. places in sequence like beads on a string, and with componential elements, which in turn specify one or several sequential elements. Rhyme, assonance, alliteration, spoonerisms, distant assimilations and dissimilations, stammering, etc., all depend on the speaker’s and listener’s awareness of these two kinds of elements: places and their qualities. The former are $honological formatives, the latter phonological features specifying the formatives. This is a further difference from Chomsky/Halle, who do not recognise formatives .in their phonology. A. grammatical formative is re,presented phonologically in terms of both types of element or of componential elements only, but in each case the latter are related to and presuppose the former, not vice versa. Either componential elements specify one or several selquential ones within a grammatical formative, or if a grammatical formative I? stated as a componential feature only it must be related to the comuonentially specified places of othz grammatical formatives. An example of the second case is nasality as a marker of the category ‘first person’ in Tereno.4) -“) J. T. Ekndor-Samuel, ‘ Problems of Segmentation Aniaiysis of Tereno’, Wmd 16 ( 1960) 348ff.
in the Phonological
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGIC,QL
THEORY
341
‘The phonetic actualization is as follows: 5) (a) the nasalization of all vowels and semi-vowels in the word up the first stop or fricative. In words without stops or fricatives vowels and semi-vowels are nasalized, together with (b) a nasalized consonantal sequence replacing the first stop fricative in the word as follows: mb replaces fi, find replaces t, replaces k, NZ replaces both s and k, ~3 replaces both $ and lzy. Examples:
elmo.Jti lay0 low&u
‘his word’ 8m6.G ‘his brother’ I@6 ‘his house’ Wo’ygu ‘he went’ MkhO $!dlO a%ya?aJo ‘he desires’ ihqa?afo
to all or qg
‘my word’ ‘my brother’ ‘my house’ '1 went’ ‘X desire’
Chomsky and Halle have abandoned the requirement of biuniqueness in phonology, but stiii retain the distinction between features that are initially given as primes and are outside any general rules, and features that are assigned by rules. The former are the morphonemes, the latter the features assigned by F-rules. This in a way perpetuates the distinction between phonemic and allophonic features. It also misses out a great deal of the underlying structure and is thus descriptively less adequate. Furthermore, it leads to the undesirable and unnecessary concepts of fully and incompletely specified morphonemes, which becomes necessary as certain intramorphemically irrelevant features - which can therefore be covered by F-rules - become relevant inter-morphemically. I would like to suggest that the whole of t e phonological cornponent of a description should be given as generative rules. This is only possible if the phonology recognises sequential elements, i.e. formatives. A description of this kind has three advantages over one that makes use of initial feature specifications and subsequent Frules. (1) This system of rules generates an indefinitely large number of structures, Gtich arc all within the phonological possibilities of the language cclncerned, even if particular items are not recorded. It thus makes the fundamental structures explicit, which would otherwise only be incorporated implicitly in the redundancy rules, and separates them from alien structures. 5)
Ibid.
p.
350.
342
KLAUS
KOHLEX
(2) It integrates the syntactic and phonological comyonents more fully, as it provides a direct continuation from phrase-structure and transformational rules, the rules of phonology atowoperating dirWly on the grammatical formatives of the last line of a derived phrasemarker. Various degrees of information about the derivational history of these formatives are relevant for the adequate application of phonological rules. In some cases, the whole of the derivation may have to be known. The assignment of intonation patterns, for example, certainly presupposes a great deal of knowledge of the deep structure. (3) It makes feature specification of lexical entries simpler and avoids the distinction between fully and incompletely specified morphoncms, which is only required if we start from lexical entries. It is still necessary to have a lexicon in order to show which items from among the possible ones generated by the mechanism actually occur in the language under description. These entries provide a mi+mal specification so that the mechanism can handle and define them uniquely. 3%e phonological rules are formal universals and are of three types: (a) intra-formative rules, (b) inter-formative rules, (c) phonetic rules. The intra-formative rules operate on the formatives of the derived phrase-marker and take into account the derivational history to various degrees of depth (e.g. u;.se,noun or verb), the interformative rules consider the relations between these formatives when they are joined - again in association with the development of the grammatical tree .- and they operate in cycles starting from the smallest constituents. Intra- and inter-formative rules deal either with sequential elements, i.e. with phonological formatives,
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
343
fication, which are in turn re-written as themselves and another feature specification, etc. Componential features in these (phonological) rules are all binary, they are either + or -. The symbols for them are written after the symbol for a sequential element in a string, which is terminated by the symbol for the next sequential element. If a componential element is added to more than one sequential element, i.e. if more than one sequential element is re-written with the same feature at the same time, { } are put round the sequential elements. Ordinary parentheses are used to enclose optionally chosen items. Alternative replacements for a sym? ~1 are listed vertically within 1 1. Phonetic rules are only concerned with those componential specifications that cannot be given as binary oppositions by the other two types of rules. In the majority of cases they select values from a.mong the five scales. To mark these features as phonetic they are written in italics; if they are attributed to more than one sequential element the same device is used as above. The bulk of intra-formative rules come first, then interformative ones, and finally the phonetic rules. But they are not in complete succession. Some inter-formative rules may have to be stated before the intra-formative ones have all been enumerated, and similarly some phonetic rules may have to come in before the last interformative rule. I have so far only dealt with the formal universals of phonology, namely seqwhd and comfiolzential elemeds and intra-formative, hte+fwmative and @onetic r&es. I now cornt~ to the substantive universals of phonology. If componential y specified sequential elements could be combined in any possible way in a language, this language would be based on an extremely irregular phonological pattern. The demands on the human brain would therefore be enormous. As the resources of our memory are limited we must assume that the child can only learn, and the adult only master, his native language if there is the greatest Fossible regularity. Furthermore, it is only on the basis of this assumption that inherent combinative structures can be separated from alievl ones, a differentiation any speaker of any language is able to make. If combinations of sequential elements are only restricted in number without being regularised, nothing is gained, because the child still has to learn, and the adult to remember, every existing combination as a unique
344
KLAUS
KOHLER
item, outside any general pattern, and the distinction between native and foreign is still impossible. The greatest degree of efficiency is reached when there are two groups of componentially specified elements such that the combinations be#~eers the groups are very little restricted and that fairly strict and regular limitations are imposed on combinatiorial possibilities within the groups, the degree of restriction depending on the particular language in both cases, but being always lower in the former than in the latter. These two groups have been well known for hundreds, if not thousands, of years under the names of vowels and consonants. It follows from the above assumption of a simplicity criterion underlying all language that these two groups, V and C, must be universals, they are substantive universals. As the difference between them depends primarily on combinatorial possibilities they must be two different kinds of sequedd elements. On exactly the same principle some languages distinguish between different types among consonants: they are determined by the ways in which they combine with each other and with vowels. In English /h, j, w/ can on13 precede a vowel and only be joinecl to few other consonants withir the sarnegrammatical formative. (/ju/ in news, mews, fzdse, argue etc. is a single vowel, not CV.) /m, n, 1, r/ form another group because they combine ore freely with the remaining consonants than among themselves, and also because they are always nearer the vowel. (In bottle, bzcttovt, cable, hcafyM-8etc. we me -V lateral consonant and -V nasal consonant Gth an obligat-ory deletion of the vowel in certain cases, with an optional one in others.) I call /h, j, w/ Cc, /m, n, 1, r/ Cb and ve to consider the question of which componential eleor c;xnnot OCCUPwith the sequential universals V and C. The general phonetic theory contains the following categories relating to caviticz and strictures: oral - nasal - glottal and frictionless /\ c92”iral closure /\ le
cent r-a.1 narro?virsg
repetitive
as well as the stricture
central closure /\ single
central narrowing
repetitive
le within frictionless
central
narrowing.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEONY
345
On the basis of these we can set up the iollowing gradation of interference with the air stream, governed by strictural function:
(1) complete
interruption : oral closure + nasal closure / glottal closure fricative obstruction : (2) oral fricative? / nasal fricative / glottttl fricative or combinations (3) frictionless obstruction : (a) oral closure + nasal openin,; (b) oral central closure single / oral central closure repetitive (c) highest degree of oral central narrowing . m .
(n) lowest degree of oral central narrowing. This gradation determines the association of stricture and cavity features with vowels and consonants as comjmnentiai elements. Tlne top category cannot occur together wif;h vowels, the bottom one is absent from consonants. The lower the feature the more likely its combination with a vowel; the higher the feature the mo:e likely its combination with a consonant. It follows from this and from the fact that vowels and consonants are substantive universals of the sequential type that the two extremes, i.e. stops and open vocoids, must be substantive universzls as well, this time of the componential type* As regards the treatment of vowels and consonants I have thus departed from Chomsky and Halle in thretl respects. (1) For me vowels and consonants arc sequential elements, not different combinations of the features -4 vocalic and &- consonantal, because thevY are primarily . determined by their combinatorial powers. Frtrthermore, the underlying structures of the phonological component of a language are only made explicit if these categories, as well as sub-divisions within consonants that depend on serial arrangements, are treated as sequential, which leads, at the same time, to simpler descriptions. (2) The compo_nsntial specification of vowels and consonants is given with reference to an auditory (-articulatory) framework of strictural function, rather than to an instrumental-acoustic one. (3) In the yeneral phonetic theory this strictural function cannot be expressed as two binary oppositions, but requires a gradation. Only a phonetic theory which is based on auditory (-articulatory)
KLAUS
XOHLER
criteria and which does not rely exclusively on binary oppositions can evolve the concept of strictural function and produce a gradation of interference with the air stream. And it seems to me to follow quite conclu&ely from the above discussion that a general phonetic theory without such a gradation is much weaker as it does not develop the same degree of explanatory power, i.e. it cannot predict phonological universals and does not describe the facts so adequately. With the phonetic theory presented here we can predict that there will be more languages without ?zighvocoids (/j, w/) than without Zz$Gds as conson&.nts, and there will be still fewer, if any at all, that have no +ZP=G” consonants. Similarly we must assume that there are fewer languages without ?zQJzvocoids than without lipids or sasals as vowels, and that the languages with fricative vowels are very much limited if they exist at all. It is true that these considerations are not altogether absent from the distinctive feature framework since it distinguishes between vowel and consonant besides the pairs & vocalic and zt: consonantal, and this opposition is graded so that we get an optimal vowel, which is compact, and an optimal consonant, which is a mellow stop. This vowel/consonant ladder does not, however, follow in the same direct way from the categories of the general phonetic theory, but is rather accidental, since the theory does not recognise a gradation, and this consequently reduces its explanatory adequacy. The sy’riable is very often regarded as another substar.tive universal in phonology; but it can be demonstrated that the syllable is either an wmecessa~y concept, because the division of the speech chain into such units is known for other reasons, or an impassable one, as any division \:
. .
CVC2
where Cr stands for any non-arbitrary pre-vocalic, C2 for any nonarbitrary post-vocalic consnrrznt (cluster) and C for any consonant (cluster) between two vowels. Any part to the right of the arrow may be 2zro.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
C car, now be re-written
THEORY
347
as
c -+ Cl,
c2, c3, C2Cl
(C + ClC2 is impossible by definition.) If Cl # C2 and if C -+ Cl, C2, C&, a non-arbitrary syllable division is possible but is implicit in the definitions for Cl and C2: the syllable is therefore an unnecessary concept. If some Cl = C2 there are cases where a syllable division is not determinable, and the syllable is therefore an imfiossible concept. The same applies to C -it Ca, i.e. a consonant (cluster) that can only occur intervocalically and cannot therefore be uniquely determined as pre- or post-vocalic. If in any language the division ixrtri syllables clashes with morphemic divisions the concept of a syllable is k~m/til. It is also harmful if it obscures the underlying phonoiogicai structures in a ianguage. English qualifies on both accounts. In the words codisk, foolisli and Ballachdisk the sequences vowel + lateral are all different in certain accents of English: [ul.], [uj], [r$].*) If we say that on account of the distribution of clear and dark laterals the syllable division falls after the lateral in coolish., before it in Ballachdish, we cannot have it after the lateral in foolis& which is in direct contradiction with the morphology. In English, intervocalic consonant sequences are of any degree of frequency only if they are either pre- a& post-vocalk at the same time jbectter, master) or if one consonant is ambivaknt, i.e. is part of a Cr avtd part of a C2 simultaneous y (ma@ms, belirey). If there is clear separation between Cl and Cz the sequences are rare (aesthetic, cosmetic, Norway). The underlying structure of hi-vocalic . words in English therefore depends on syllabic indeterminacy; the introduction of the syllable into the analysis can only obscure this fact. In languages in which a non-arbitrary syllable-division is always possible because it is implicit in the conson;ci?t clustering and in which this division does not clash with grammatical cuts nor obscure the underlying structure, it is still possible to use the syllable as a unit for quick reference, although it is not necessary because the syllableis then not an independent entity. In all other languages 6) I owe these exarr;;pks to Professor A. E. Sharp.
348
KLA’JS
KOHLER
t.he syllable has no place in the phonology, and it is, consequently, not a phonological universal. I now illustrate, with a few examples, how a phonological description of English follows from the phonological theory using the formal and substantive universals discussed in this article, namely the general constraint on all phonological expositions that they must be in terms of sequential and componential elements and that they must be cast in intra-formative, inter-formative and phonetic rules, which, in turn, de4 with vowel ands consonants (the substantive sequential universals), open vocoids and stops (the substantive componential universals), other sequential elements, and further componential features introduced from the general phonetic framework. I distinguish between derivational and non-derivational Eormatives and enclose the 1, **er between [l 11. (i) (2) 1 treat /sp, st, sk/ as single sequential elements, not only because the interpretation of the stop section as /p, t, k/ would be arbitrary, but rather because this is the only way to separate the inherent structures /sp, st, sk/ from the alien ones /sf, sv/. Although /sf/ occurs in the very common word s+kere it is still an unusual structure in English and must therefore be distinguished from the regular pattern. This treatment also ties in with the alliteration rules of Old English.
Here again I differentiate between a ‘alien’ one. It is interesting to note that (C&&8 are of foreign origin: apt, act, instinct, delft, lynx, c&x, waltz, chintz, sex, be only one example for CbCbCa: world.
regular pattern and an most words of the type extinct, prompt, distinct, but wax. There seems to
(4) c, + c, -&top
(5) C, -+ C, *fortis
ca*stop
(6) c, --fofi-s j
*labia1
TOWARDS
(7) ca-stop-labial
A PHONOLOGICAL
+ C, -stop-labia&flat
(8) Ca -stop-labial-flat (9) C, +stoprf:labial
349
7)
-+ C, -stop-labial_flat&wide7) -+
(10) C, -)-stop-labial
(11)
THEORY
C, $-stop&-labial (-wide) I Cs +stop-labial+wide
(-wide) flat &wide
-+ C8 +stop-labial
+
C, -stop-labial I
7)
I
C, +stop-labial+wide
(-wide) &dorsal
+flat -stop-labial C, -+ &wide I I C,+stop-labial+wide -dorsal
(12) CD -=+Cb &-nasal (13)
cb -nasal
3
cb
-nasal&lateral
At this point a number of combinatorial introduced. I can only seiecta few here. C, -stop +wide only in contexts
(Welsh is interpreted
v(Cb --lateral)_ is treated n context
restriction _(Cb as
rules must bit
-1ateral)V
and
WaZes+ish
and
separately.) [ ‘_Cb
+ nasal
Ca -+ C, -stop-wide
LC, -+ C, -labial C, +labial C,C, --+ C, + fortis C, +labial cb
I ca I
+nasaica & +labial + {cb dorsal
+nasal
ca}
In v{cb +nasai -fortis} + labial “1 dele is not affected by t (ramble = cbvcbc,vcb In the above intra-formative rules the only grammatical information required is that they operate on non-derivational formatives. In other cases a good dzal more information about the derivational history is necessary, as in the following example. (20) [fC, + flat -
--+ [K, +flat-fortis - in adverbs and pronouns (they, thewz, the, that, thence, there etc.) [X, +flat+fortis . rn all other cases.
350
KLAUS
KOHLER
So far all the rules have been intra-formative and have been concerned with sequential and componential elements. The rules regarding the addition of the plural marker Ca -stop -wide are interformative and relate to componential elements. The following rule is - in part - inter-formative and concerns a sequential element. (21) If {Cb -t-nasal C&-fortis}
+dorsal is immediately followed by a morpheme boundary (except erecmp, estsUP, ate, ation) C8 -fortis is deleted; in all other cases it is retained: sing,
singe& singing, sings, kmged, Zmgish, @okmgable, kingdovn: anger, asgie, kg&t, d&t&g&h, A~~gkw, longest, ekwtgate, pmlongation.
length, tiger,
And finally, I add two phonetic rules : (22) If not immediately followed by V, i.e. in contexts * V(Cb)-
Cs +stop+fortis
3 C, +stop+fortis
g&M slo*
(23) Other + fortis -+ + fortis glottal fricative. The rules in this article are given as illustrations of various points of the phonological theory and I am aware of the dangers of isolating them from an integrated net-work. A more detailed account of English phonology will, however, appear in a separate publication. Departme~tt cf Phonetics, University of Edinbwgh
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHOMSKY,N., ‘Current Issues in Linguistic Theory’, in: The Stmsctwe of Language, J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.), 1965, 50ff. HALLE, M., ‘On the Bases of Phonology’, ibid., 324, ff. HALLE, M., ‘Phonology in Generative Grammar’, ibid., 334 ff. HALLE, M., TJte Sowd Pattem of RussiasP, The Hague, 1959. CHOMSKY,N., M. HALLE, Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory, Journal of Lhgwis‘tics, 1 (1965) 97ff. HARHIS, 2. S., Simultaneous Components in Phonology, Larrgwage 20 (1944) iaiff. HKXLNBOTTOM,E., ‘Glottal Reinforcement in English’, TPS, 1964, 129ff.
TOWARDS
A PHONOLOGICAL
THEORY
351
HULTXBN, L. S., ‘Consonant Clusters in English’, America% Speed, Febr. 1965, 5ff. JAKOBSON, R., C. G. M. FANT‘ and M. HALLE, Prcliminaties to Speech AR&&, MIT, 1963. JAKOBSON, R. and &I. HALLB, Fun&a weals of Kasgwge, The Hague, 1956. JAKOBSON, Ii. and M. HALLZZ,‘Phonology in Relation to Phonetics’, in L, Kaiser ed. MUWWZof PRonetics, Amsterdam, 1957, 215ff. JONES, L. G., E@is~ Co~~~nllll Dishvdbutiorr, For Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 19.%, 245ff. O’CONNOR, J. I). and J. L. I&I.TRIM, ‘Vowel, Consonant, and Syllable - A Phonological Definition’, Word 9 ( 1953), 103ff. PIKE, E. V., ‘Phonetic Rank and Subordination in Consonant Patterning and Historica Change’, Mist, Phowha, II (1954) 25ff. PIKE, K. L,, BOW&S, Ann Arbor, 1943. TAPIR, E., ‘Sound Patterns in Language’, Language f (1925) 37ff. des phonhmes’, Journal de #xyclroSAPIR, E., ‘La r&alit& psychologique hgie, 30 (1933) 247ff. ,