Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-fxclk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T11:50:16.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible and impossible segments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Rachel Walker  and
Geoffrey K. Pullum
Rachel Walker*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Geoffrey K. Pullum
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
*
Walker, Dept. of Linguistics, Grace Ford Salvatori 301, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693 [rwalker@usc.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we consider the relationship between phonetic possibility and phonological permissibility of segment types. We ask (i) are any phonetically impossible segments phonologically permissible? and (ii) are any phonetically possible segments phonologically impermissible? Our main focus is on answering (ii). We analyze the implications of the only relevant case we can find, which is in Cohn's (1990, 1993a) examination of nasality spreading in Sundanese, and relates to the description of glottal nasals (produced with glottal place of articulation and lowered velum). Cohn tentatively proposes that nasalized [h] and [?] occur phonetically but not phonologically. We show that a persuasive theory of nasality spreading suggests otherwise, and it is supported by evidence from several languages. Our conclusion is that no sound argument exists for excluding any pronounceable segment from phonology on theoretical grounds. The relation between the phonetically possible and the phonologically possible accordingly becomes somewhat more straightforward.

Information

Type
Short Report
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 764 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1972. On nasalization in Sundanese. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 253–68.Google Scholar
Ao, Benjamin. 1991. Kikongo nasal harmony and context-sensitive underspecification. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 193–96.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, John T. 1960. Some problems of segmentation in the phonological analysis of Tereno. Word 16. 348–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, John T. 1966. Some prosodic features in Terena. In memory of J. R. Firth, ed. by Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K., and Robins, R. H., 30–39. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1997. Nasals and nasalization in Borneo. Oceanic Linguistics 36. 149–79.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1998. Seimat vowel nasality: A typological anomaly. Oceanic Linguistics 37. 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. [Published, 1998, The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1990. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. (Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.) UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 76.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1993a. The status of nasalized continuants. In Huffman and Krakow, 329–67.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1993b. A survey of the phonological feature [$pM nasal]. Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics laboratory 8. 141–203.Google Scholar
Condax, I. D., Howard, I., Ikranagara, K., Lin, Y. C., Crosetti, J.; and Yount, D. E. 1974. A new technique for demonstrating velic opening: Application to Sundanese. Journal of Phonetics 2. 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles, Hyman, Larry; and Ohala, John (eds.) 1975. Nasálfest. Stanford: Stanford University Language Universals Project.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward A. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia. 1995. Markedness and faithfulness in child phonology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Stevens, Kenneth. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. Quarterly Progress Report 101. 198–212. Cambridge, MA: Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Kaoru. 1993. The relationship between pitch accent and vowel devoicing in Japanese. Toronto: University of Toronto master's thesis.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin. 1973. A directional theory of rule application in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1973.]Google Scholar
Huffman, Marie K., and Krakow, Rena A. (eds.) 1993. Phonetics and phonology 5: Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1995. Nasal action at a distance: The case of Kiyaka. Studies in African Linguistics 24. 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, Robert. 1975. Underlying vowels in modern English. Essays on the sound pattern of English, ed. by Goyvaerts, Didier L. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 395–412. Ghent: Story-Scientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1993. A course in phonetics. 3rd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Everett, Daniel. 1996. The status of phonetic rarities. Language 72. 794–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, Glick, Ruth; and Criper, Clive. 1968. Language in Uganda. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, Asher. 1991. Does the 'voiced epiglottal plosive' exist? Journal of the International Phonetic Association 21. 44–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loos, Eugene Emil. 1969. The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. (Austin: University of Texas dissertation, 1967.) University of Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics publication 20.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1989. Linguo-labials. VICAL 1: Oceanic languages, part 2, ed. by Harlow, R. and Cooper, R., 349–76. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1975. Rhinoglottophilia: The mysterious connection between nasality and glottality. In Ferguson et al., 265–87.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1969. Length and voicing in Tübatulabal. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 407–15.Google Scholar
McGinn, Richard. 1979. Outline of Rejang syntax. Manoa: University of Hawaii dissertation.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire, and Padgett, Jaye. 1997. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. Report no. LRC-97–01, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Noble, G. K. 1965. Proto-Arawakan and its descendants. IJAL publication no. 38.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1994. Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70. 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1972. Physical models in phonology. Proceedings of the seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Rigault, A. and Charbonneau, R., 1166–71. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1975. Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, et al., 289–316.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter F., 189–216. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. There is no interface between phonetics and phonology: A personal view. Journal of Phonetics 18. 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J., and Ohala, Manjari. 1993. The phonetics of nasal phonology: Theorems and data. In Huffman and Krakow, 225–49.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Payne, David Lawrence. 1974. Nasality in Aguaruna. Arlington, TX: University of Texas masters thesis.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. 1992. Variability in feature dependency: The case of nasality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 33–77.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. 1996. Implications of consonant nasalization for a theory of harmony. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 41.141–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1989. Patterns of feature cooccurrence: The case of nasality. Coyote papers, ed. by Fulmer, S. Lee, Ishihara, Masahide, and Wiswall, Wendy, 9. 98–115.Google Scholar
Rich, Furne. 1963. Arabela phonemes and high-level phonology. Studies in Peruvian Indian languages 1. 193–206. (Summer Institute of Linguistics linguistic series 9.) Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1957. Vowel nasality in Sundanese: A phonological and grammatical study. Studies in Linguistics, 87–103. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1972. Characteristics of vowel nasalization. Papers in Linguistics 5. 530–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris, and Voegelin, Charles F. 1939. A problem in phonological alternation. Language 15. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigo, Rosario Lorenza. 1988. On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal glides. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval. 1982. Prosodic domains and opaque segments in autosegmental theory. The structure of phonological representations (part 2), ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 311–36. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1995. Hierarchical opacity effects in nasal harmony. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 11. 318–29.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1998. Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. Santa Cruz: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar