Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T14:35:08.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On coronal transparency*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Carole Paradis  and
Jean-François Prunet
Carole Paradis
Affiliation:
Laval University
Jean-François Prunet
Affiliation:
UQAM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is concerned with the internal structure of coronals. Although coronals are often considered the least marked consonants on the basis of frequency and acquisition, current models of feature geometry assign coronality no special status among places of articulation.1 In this paper, we argue that the structure of coronals differs from that of other consanats in that coronals lack a Place node altogether.

Information

Type
Thematic Papers
Information
Phonology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , August 1989 , pp. 317 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Anderson, J., Ewen, C. & Staun, J. (1985). Phonological structure: segmental, suprasegmental and extrasegmental. Phonology Yearbook 2. 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. (1976). On the description of consonant gradation in Fula. Studies in African Linguistics 7, 93–136.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. & Pulleyblank, D. (forthcoming). The content and structure of phonological representations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arnott, D. W. (1970). The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Avery, P. & Rice, K. (1988). Underspecification theory and the coronal node. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 101–121.Google Scholar
Avery, P. & Rice, (1989). Constraining underspecification. NELS 19.Google Scholar
Bamba, M. (1984). Études phonologiques du mahou. MA thesis, UQAM.Google Scholar
Bamba, M. (1989). On the notion of tone-bearing unit. Paper presented at the 20th African Linguistics Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Bamba, M. (in preparation). Théorie de l'interaction entre ton et accent. PhD thesis, UQAM.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1987). GLOW tenth anniversary. GLOW Newsletter 19, 5–8.Google Scholar
Clements, N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. (1982). Document lexical maukakan (parler manding du maou). Grenoble: Publications du centre de dialectologie africaine I, Université de Grenoble III.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD thesis, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Grignon, A.-M. (1984). Phonologie lexicale tri-dimensionnelle du Japonais. PhD thesis, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–351.Google Scholar
Itô, J. (1986). Syllabic theory in prosodic phonology. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. D., Lowenstamm, J.èVergnaud, (1985). The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kean, M.-L. (1975). The theory of markedness in generative grammar. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1986). Multiple linking in Javanese. NELS 16. 230–248.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.Google Scholar
Labatut, R. (1976). La phrase peule et ses transformations. Thèse de doctorat d'état, Université de Paris 3.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1984). Consonant gradation in Fula: an autosegmental approach. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 329–346.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (1983). Phonological levels and assimilatory processes. Paper presented at the 1983 GLOW colloquium, York.Google Scholar
Ndiaye, M. (1983). Morphologie des nominaux et des verbaux du pulaar. Dakar: Centre de Linguistique Appliquée.Google Scholar
Odden, D. (1988). Anti antigemination and the OCP. LI 19. 451–475.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1983a). Description phonologique du guéré. Abidjan: Institut de Linguistique Appliquée, Université d'Abidjan.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1983b). La règle d'élision syllabique et les séquences vocaliques en guéré. In Kaye, J., Koopman, H., Sportiche, D. & Dugas, A. (eds.) Current approaches to African linguistics 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 181–193.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1986a). Phonologie et morphologie lexicales: les classes nominales en pulaar (Fula). PhD thesis, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1986b). Les marqueurs de classe en pulaar (Fula): strates et syllabes. NELS 16. 338–353.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1987). Strata and syllable dependencies in Fula: the nominal classes. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 9. 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (1988a). Towards a theory of constraint violations. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 1–43.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1988b). Focus in Guere configurational constraints. Paper presented at the 19th African Linguistics Conference, Boston University. To be published in Hutchison, J. & Manfredi, V. (to appear). Current approaches to African linguistics 6. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1989). On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6. 71–97.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (1988). Locality in a theory of constraint violations. Paper presented at the 1988 GLOW colloquium, Budapest.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (1989a). Markedness and coronal structure. NELS 19.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (1989b). Vowel fusion and antigemination in Guere and in Mau. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (eds.) (in preparation). The special status of coronals. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1987). On the autonomy of the feature nasal. CLS 23:2. 223–238.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1988). The parameters of nasalization. Paper presented at the 1988 GLOW colloquium, Budapest.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1987). Planes and copying. LI 18. 491–511.Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F. (1986). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F. (to appear). Prosodic redistribution in Fula. In Haik, I. & Tuller, L. (eds.) Current approaches to African linguistics 5. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F. (in preparation). On the structure of Fula suffixal complexes. Ms, UQAM.Google Scholar
Sagey, B. (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1984). The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook I. 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, B. & Steriade, D. (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–745.Google Scholar
Shaw, P. (1988). Feature geometry and coronality. Paper presented at the 1988 meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, University of Windsor.Google Scholar
Singh, R. (1985). Prosodic adaptation in interphonology. Lingua 67. 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skousen, R. (1972). Consonant alternations in Fula. Studies in African Linguistics 3. 77–96.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1987a). Locality conditions and feature geometry. NELS 17. 595–617.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1987b). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339–362.Google Scholar
Sylla, Y. (1982). Grammaire moderne du pulaar. Dakar: Les Nouvelles Éditions Africaines.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity. LI 19. 65–101.Google Scholar