Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-31T11:10:04.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Branching structure within the syllable1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Erik Fudge
Erik Fudge
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Arguments about constituency in syntax can often be settled by such methods as testing whether conjoining is possible, or whether a particular string can be moved as a single constituent by a transformational rule. In view of the isomorphism which has been noted between syntactic structures and phonological structures (cf. Clements & Keyser, 1983:25–26; the notion of ‘structural analogy’ in Anderson & Durand, 1986:3; and most notably the isomorphism pointed out between Sentence and Syllable by Kurylowicz, 1949), one might wonder whether such means are available for settling analogous arguments in phonology. It appears that they are not: in this area conjoining does not occur, while movement rules are either not recognized at all, or restricted to those accounting for processes of metathesis, which would normally be taken to be local transformations operating on single segments (cf. Vincent, 1986:318, fn. 3). What types of arguments, then, ARE available for settling questions of phonological constituency? This article attempts to explore some aspects of this question.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 359 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. & Durand, J. (1986). Dependency phonology. In Durand (1986). 1–54.Google Scholar
Burling, R. (1970). Man's many voices. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1980). The psychological and social reality of Finnish vowel harmony. In Vago, R. M. (ed.), Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y. R. (1931). Fan-qie yu ba zhong. BIHP 2. 320–354.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 9.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Conklin, H. C. (1956). Tagalog speech disguise. Lg 32. 136–139.Google Scholar
Conklin, H. C. (1959). Linguistic play in its cultural context. Lg 35. 631–636.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (ed.) (1986). Non-linear and dependency phonology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Lg 47. 27–52.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1947). The frequency of occurrence of speech sounds in Southern English. Archives Néerlandaises de Phonétique Expérimentale 20. 103–106.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1969). Syllables. JL 5. 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (ed.) (1973). Phonology. (Penguin Modern Linguistics Readings.) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Haas, M. R. (1969). Burmese disguised speech. BIHP 39. 277–285. Reprinted in Dil, A.S. (ed.), Language, culture and history: Essays by Mary R. Haas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 27–38.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a non-linear analysis. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 8.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hombert, J. M. (1973). Speaking backwards in Bakwiri. SAfrL 4. 227–236.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. (Publications in Languages Sciences 19.) Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1948). Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe. BPTJ 8. 80–114.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1949). La notion de l'isomorphisme. Recherches structurales (TCLC 5). 48–60.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. & Pike, E. V. (1947). Immediate constituents of Mazateco syllables. IJAL 13. 78–91.Google Scholar
Saporta, S. & Contreras, H. (1962). A phonological grammar of Spanish. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). Syllables. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. S. H. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, Part II. (Studies in Generative Grammar, 3.) Dordrecht: Foris. 337–383.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. (1970). Talking backwards in Cuna: the sociological reality of phonological descriptions. SWJA 26. 343–353.Google Scholar
Togeby, K. (1951). Structure immanente de la langue française. (TCLC S). Extracts reprinted in Fudge (1973).Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. (1984). The syllable in Dutch. (Publications in Language Sciences, 15). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, H. (1984). Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. B. (1986). Constituency and syllable structure. In Durand (1986). 305–318.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1982). Reduplication and C-V skeleta in Chinese secret languages. LIn 13. 637–661.Google Scholar