Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T06:27:46.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feature geometry and the vocal tract*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Samuel Jay Keyser  and
Kenneth N. Stevens
Samuel Jay Keyser
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenneth N. Stevens
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps the most important insight in phonological theory since the introduction of the concept of the phoneme has been the role that distinctive features play in phonological theory (Jakobson et al. 1952). Most research since Jakobson's early formulation has focused on the segmental properties of these features without reference to their hierarchical organisation. Recent research, however, has shed considerable light on this latter aspect of the phoneme as a phonological unit. In his seminal article ‘The geometry of phonological features’, for example, Clements (1985), building on earlier work of scholars such as Goldsmith (1976), argues that features are not ‘bundles’ in Bloomfield's sense, but are, in fact, organised into phonological trees with each branch corresponding to what has been called a tier. An overview of the current state of feature geometry can be found in Clements & Hume (forthcoming) and Kenstowicz (1994).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , August 1994 , pp. 207 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1987). Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. CLS 23:2. 29–50.Google Scholar
Clements, G. M. & Hume, E. B. (forthcoming). The internal organization of segments. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.) Handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. & Port, R. (1986). Stop epenthesis in English. JPh 14. 197–221.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1992). Phonological features. In Bright, W. (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. 207–212.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Stevens, K. N. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 11. 198–213.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (1991). Basque phonology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. MIT Acoustics Laboratory Technical Report 13. Reprinted 1967, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1992). Can [consonantal] spread? Lg 68. 313–332.Google Scholar
Kamprath, C. (1987). Suprasegmental structures in a Räto-Romansh dialect: a case study in metrical and lexical phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Black-well.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Traill, A. (1993). Clicks and their accompaniments. JPh 22. 33–64.Google Scholar
Löfqvist, A., Baer, T., McGarr, N. S. & Story, R. S. (1989). The cricothyroid muscle in voicing control. JASA 85. 1314–1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Keating, P. A. (ed.) Papers in laboratory phonology III: phonological structure and phonetic form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 191–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringel, R. L. (1970). Oral sensation and perception: a selective review. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Report 5.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1977). Physics of laryngeal behavior and larynx modes. Phonetica 34. 264–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, K. N. & House, A. S. (1956). Studies of formant transitions using a vocal tract analog. JASA 28. 578–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1989). Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Lg 65. 81–106.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (1978). On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1. 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigo, L. (1987). On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal glides. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Trigo, L.. (1991). On pharynx–larynx interactions. Phonology 8. 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. (1992). Anomalous left capture of English sonorants. Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in Progress 6. 199–208.Google Scholar