Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:05:52.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sonority constraints on syllable structure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Draga Zec
Draga Zec
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the crucial ways in which prosodic structure governs the distribution of segments is in terms of sonority. By taking into account what is known′ as the sonority of segments, their arrangement within the syllable follows a clear pattern: the most sonorous segment occupies the peak position, while the less sonorous ones occur towards the margins, as observed in a wide range of literature (Jespersen 1904; Saussure 1916; Zwicky 1972; Hooper 1976; Kiparsky 1979, 1981; Lowenstamm 1981; Steriade 1982; Selkirk 1984; Clements 1990). This specific arrangement of segments within the syllable has been attributed in the previous literature to the principle of sonority sequencing, which relegates segments low in sonority towards syllable margins (see Hooper 1976; Kiparsky 1979, 1981; Steriade 1982; Selkirk 1984; Levin 1985; Clements 1990).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 85 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Abraham, R. C. (1940). The principles of Tiv. Farnborough: Gregg.Google Scholar
Arnott, D. W. 1969. Tiv. In Dunstan, E. (ed.) Twelve Nigerian languages. New York: Africana Publishing Corporation. 143–151.Google Scholar
Bach, E (1975). Long vowels and stress in Kwakiutl. Ms.Google Scholar
Basboll, H (1977). The structure of the syllable and proposed hierarchy of phonological features. In W., Dressier & O., Pfeiffer (eds.) Phonologica 1976. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenchaft. 143–148.Google Scholar
Basboll, H (1985). Stod in Modern Danish. Folia Linguistica 19. 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basboll, H (1988). The Modern Danish stod and phonological weight. In P.M., Bertinetto & M., Loporcaro (eds.) Certamen Phonologicum: papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg –152.Google Scholar
Boas, F (1947). Kwakiutl grammar with a glossary of the suffixes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series, Vol. 37, Part 3.Google Scholar
Buckley, G (1992). Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 282–333.Google Scholar
de Chene, B and Anderson, S. (1979). Compensatory lengthening. Lg 55. 505–535.Google Scholar
Dell, F & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7. 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, F & Elmedlaoui, M (1988). Syllabic consonants in Berber: some new evidence. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foley, J (1977). Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grubb, D. M. (1977). A practical writing system and short dictionary of Kwakwala (Kwakiutl). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Hale, K (1973). Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: an Australian example. Current Trends in Linguistics 11. 401–458.Google Scholar
Halle, M & P., Kiparsky (1981). Review of Paul Garde (1976). Histoirede I′accentuation slave Lg 57. 150–181.Google Scholar
Halle, M & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J & Aissen, J. (1974). The sonority hierarchy. In A. Bruck, R. A. Fox & LaGaly, M. W. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 131–145.Google Scholar
Hayes, B (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. 1980 PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce(1982). Metrical structure as the organizing principle of Yidiny phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N.(eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 97–110.Google Scholar
Hayes, B (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, B (1993). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, L (1984). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ito, J. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ito, J. (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Keating, P (1983). Comments on the jaw and syllable structure. JPh 11. 401–406.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M (1970). On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3. 73–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, M (1971). Lithuanian phonology. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2. 1–85.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–441.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P (1981). Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable. In W. Dressier, O Pfeiffer & J. Rennison (eds.) Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft. 245–256.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P & Halle, M (1977). Towards a reconstruction of the Indo-European accent. In L. Hyman (ed.) Studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. 209–238.Google Scholar
Leer, J (1985). Prosody in Alutiiq. In Krauss, M(ed.) Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. 77–133.Google Scholar
Lekach, A. F. (1979). Phonological markedness and the sonority hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 172–177.Google Scholar
Levin, J (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B (1983). Economy of speech gestures. In P. F. MacNeilage (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, L (1991). Laryngealfeatures and laryngeal neutralization. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, J (1981). On the maximal cluster approach to syllable structure. LI 12. 575–604.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J (1979a). On stress and syllabification. LI 10. 443–465.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J (1979b). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
Meyer, D, Tomioka, S & Zidani-Eroglu, L (eds.) (1990). Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Painter, C (1970). Gonja: a phonological and grammatical study. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Pauliny, E, Ruzicka, J & Stole, J (1968). Slovenska gramatika. Bratislava: Slovenske pedagogicke nakladatel′stvo.Google Scholar
Price, P. J. (1980). Sonority and syllabicity: acoustic correlates and perception. Phonetica 37 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. S. (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. (1985). Improving tree theory. BLS 11. 471–490.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. & Smolensky, P (1991). Connectionism and harmony theory in linguistics. Technical Report CU-CS-533–91. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. & Smolensky, P (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar, Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Rice, K. D. (1992). On deriving sonority: a structural account of sonority relationships. Phonology 9. 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique generate. Lausanne & Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Scatton, E. A. (1975). Bulgarian phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Scatton, E. A. (1983). A reference grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Schiitz, A. J. (1985). The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In AronofT, M & Oehrle, R (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Senn, A (1966). Handbuch der litauischen Sprache I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Steriade, D (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, D (1990). Moras and other slots. In Meyer et al. (1990). 254–280.Google Scholar
Street, J. C. (1963). Khalkha structure. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N..S. (1969). Principles of phonology. Translated by Baltaxe, C. A. M.. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Urbanzick, S. C. (1992). Representing glottalized sonorants. CLS 28: 1530–542.Google Scholar
Watkins, L. J. (1984). A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, K (1988). Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. LI 19. 325–334.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1988a). Bulgarian 3 epenthesis: a case for moraic structure. NELS 19. 553–566.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1988b). Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1990). Closed syllables in Lithuanian. In Meyer et al. (1990). 317–330.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1992). Coda constraints and conditions on syllable weight. Ms.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1993). Patterns of gemination and consonant loss: Pali, Japanese, and crosslinguistic. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1.Google Scholar
Zee, D (1994). The role of moraic structure in the distribution of segments within syllables. To appear in Durand, J & Katamba, F (eds.) Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures, and derivations. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1972). Note on a phonological hierarchy in English. In Stockwell, R. D. & Macaulay, R. K. S (eds.) Linguistic change in generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 275–301.Google Scholar