Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-19T01:42:23.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The geometry of phonological features*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

G. N. Clements
G. N. Clements
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the notion ‘feature bundle’ The study of the phonological aspect of human speech has advanced greatly over the past decades as a result of one of the fundamental discoveries of modern linguistics – the fact that phonological segments, or phonemes, are not the ultimate constituents of phonological analysis, but factor into smaller, simultaneous properties or features. The apparently vast number of speech sounds found in the languages of the world turn out to be surface-level realisations of a limited number of combinations of a very small set of such features – some twenty or so, in current analyses. This conclusion is strongly supported by the similar patterning of speech sounds in language after language, and by many extragrammatical features of language use, such as patterns of acquisition, language disablement and language change.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 225 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, L. E. (1967). The phonetic and tonal structure of Kikuyu. London: Dawson of Pall Mall, for the International African Institute.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.) (1984). Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A. R. (1964). Klamath grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (1978). A general study of palatalization. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. (eds.) Universals of human language. Vol.: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 47–92.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & M., Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christdas, P. (to appear). Tamil phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Clark, M. M. (forthcoming). The tonal system of Igbo. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1976). Palatalization: linking or assimilation? CLS 12. 96–106.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (forthcoming). Consonant gemination and compensatory lengthening in Luganda. In Sezer & Wetzels (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Sezer, E. (1982). Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 213–255.Google Scholar
Elson, B. (1947). Sierra Popoluca syllable structure. IJAL 13. 13–17.Google Scholar
Elson, B. (1956). Sierra Popoluca morphology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Foster, M. L. & Foster, G. M. (1948). Sierra Popoluca speech. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. (1970). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. 2nd edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1981). Subsegmentals in Spanish phonology: an autosegmental approach. In Cressey, W. W. & Napoli, D. J. (eds.) Linguistic symposium on Romance languages 9. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. 1–16.Google Scholar
Guerssel, M. (1978). A condition on assimilation rules. Linguistic Analysis 4. 225–254.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Clements, G. N. (1983). Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1980). Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 83–105.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1981). Harmonyprocesses. In Klein, V. & Levelt, W. (eds.) Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel.1–22.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1982). La espirantización en castellano y la representaclón fonológica autosegmental. To appear in Sèrie Lingística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1984). The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 318–328.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1985). Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hertz, S. (1982). From text to speech with SRS. JASA 72. 1155–1170.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1970). On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3. 73–114.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1982). Gemination and spirantization in Tigrinya. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12. 103–122.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. W. (1979) Generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kidda, M. (1984). Morpheme alternation in Tangale: a syllable structure approach. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. & Abasheikh, M. I. (1975). The perfect stem in Chi-Mwi:ni and global rules. Studies in African Linguistics 6. 249–266.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1982). A course in phonetics. 2nd edn.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laughren, M. (1984). Tone in Zulu nouns. In Clements, G. N. & Goldsmith, J. (eds.) Autosegmental studies in Bantu tone. Dordrecht: Foris. 183–234.Google Scholar
Leben, W. R. (1978). The representation of tone. In Fromkin, V. (ed.). Tone: a linguistic survey. New York: Academic Press. 177–219.Google Scholar
Leung, E. (1985). Verb tones in Llogoori. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Yale University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1984). Theoretical consequences of Monta˜es vowel harmony. LI 15. 291–318.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1985). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. Ms, AT&T Bell Laboratories.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (1983). Phonological levels and assimilatory processes. Ms, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (1984). Continuant spreading in Basque, Catalan, and Spanish. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 287–298.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (forthcoming). Compensatory diphthongization in Majorcan Catalan. In Sezer & Wetzels (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1983). The structure of the melody. Ms, MIT and National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Noss, R. B. (1964). Thai reference grammar. Washington, D.C.: Foreign Service Institute.Google Scholar
Odden, D. (1984). On the role of the Obligatory Contour Principle in phonological theory. Ms, Yale University.Google Scholar
Schein, B. (1981). Spirantization in Tigrinya. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 32–42.Google Scholar
Schindler, J. (1976). Diachronic and synchronic remarks on Bartholomae's and Grassman's Laws. LI 7. 622–637.Google Scholar
Sezer, E. & Wetzels, L. (eds.) (forthcoming). Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht:Foris.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., Keyser, S. J. & Kawasaki, H. (in press). Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Perkell, J. & Klatt, D. H. (eds.) Symposium on invariance and variability of speech processes. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (1978). On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1. 3–54.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1982). Against a segmental analysis of Zahao and Thai. Linguistic Analysis 9. 79–94.Google Scholar