Aspects of Dynamic Phonology

ASPECTS OF DYNAMIC PHONOLOGY AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F. KO...

Author: Toby D. Griffen

49 downloads 1384 Views 20MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ASPECTS OF DYNAMIC PHONOLOGY

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa)

Series IV - CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY

Advisory Editorial Board Henning Andersen (Copenhagen); Raimo Anttila (Los Angeles) Thomas V.Gamkrelidze (Tbilisi); Hans-Heinrich Lieb (Berlin) J.Peter Maher (Chicago); Ernst Pulgram (Ann Arbor, Mich.) E.Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.); Danny Steinberg (Tokyo)

Volume 37 Toby D. Griffen Aspects of Dynamic Phonology

ASPECTS OF DYNAMIC PHONOLOGY

TOBY D. GRIFFEN Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1985

To my wife Andrea

and son

Marcus

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Griffen, Toby D. Aspects of dynamic phonology. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory, ISSN 0304-0763; v. 37) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general - Phonology. I. Title. II. Series. P217.G74 1985 414 85-9211 ISBN 90-272-3532-5 (alk. paper) ® Copyright 1985 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

PREFACE

Dynamic phonology is the natural consequence of the combination

of

the latest developments in physiological and acoustic phonetics and the t r a d i tional s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theories of linguistics.

In phonetics, the old seg

mental approach has long since given way to dynamic phonetics, leaving l i n guists in the position of either ignoring the dynamic evidence and continuing w i t h segmental and semisegmental phonology or of adopting the dynamic evi dence within

their overall theories of language structure and function.

As

the name of this model of phonology implies, I have chosen to take the l a t t e r course, believing this to be the only path available to the phonologist

who

claims to be abstracting phonology from phonetic observation. Insofar as the underlying linguistic theory is concerned, I have stuck quite closely to the t r a d i t i o n a l approaches that have offered the most f l e x i b i l i t y and opportunity for incorporating the dynamic phonetic observations i n to the linguistic s t r u c t u r e .

Accordingly, one should see the rather strong i n

fluences of the Prague School, p a r t i c u l a r l y the concepts and theories of T r u betzkoy; of the Copenhagen School of Hjelmslev, as well as the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n al descendant t y p i f i e d by the works of Lamb and others; and perhaps most strikingly of the London School in the t r a d i t i o n of F i r t h . incorporation

Indeed, while the

of dynamic phonetics into phonology was i n i t i a l l y carried

out

deliberately within Prague-School theory, the prosodic analysis of the London School came to be drawn upon more and more frequently and to the point that at its present level of development, dynamic phonology may in many ways be considered an outgrowth of F i r t h i a n theory.

vi

Aspects of Dynamic Phonology

With the basic observational evidence in dynamic phonetics and the theoretical

foundations

in

traditional

structural/functional

linguistics,

it

should be emphasized that what I am proffering here is nothing more than a model of phonology:

I t represents no new theory, nor does it pretend to dis

cover new phonetic evidence.

Rather, this model of phonology offers the l i n

guist a method of analyzing the sound structure of a language in keeping w i t h the newest, most reliable findings of dynamic phonetics and within the t r a d i tional framework of linguistics -- the framework within which the rest of the linguistic structure is analyzed. While many volumes could be w r i t t e n on the precise points of r e l a t i o n ship between this model and the observations of dynamic phonetics as well as between the model and the overall t h e o r e t i c a l framework, the scope of the present volume is deliberately limited.

Inasmuch as the rather widespread and

f i r m resistance to the incorporation of dynamic phonetics into phonology ap pears to be based upon the notion that there is no need for the abandonment of the familiar segmental approach, the purpose of this work is f i r s t briefly to describe the dynamic model within the t r a d i t i o n a l relationship between pho netics and phonology and then to offer

analyses that unambiguously demon

strate that the dynamic phonology can indeed account for the evidence (can relate phonetic observation w i t h linguistic theory) where segmentalism cannot. In so doing, I present the case that the segmental approach to phonology must be replaced w i t h a dynamic approach. The analyses themselves

are often

drawn from

previously

published

articles and papers that various colleagues and I consider to present the most convincing argument for the dynamic model over the segmental.

Of course,

these analyses have been altered to varying degrees so that they might better be incorporated into this single work and so that they might also r e f l e c t the continuing development of the model.

As such, they include much new mater

ial and lack much material considered extraneous to the present volume, and they should therefore by no means be considered as reprints.

Thus, the read

er who is interested in one or another analysis is encouraged to refer to the original, which is more likely to stand on its own and include more detailed information pertinent to the isolated analysis.

Preface

vii

As the titles listed in the reference section may not always give the reader interested in a particular analysis enough guidance to find the original analysis and its supporting material, I offer the following list of major anal yses by date (as they appear among the references):

Chapter 1 - 1975a,

1978a, 1981a; Chapter 2 - 1975a, 1981a, 1976b, 1976a; Chapter 3 - 1978b, 1977c; Chapter 4 - 1982a; Chapter 5 - 1975a, 1977a, 1975c, 1980b; Chapter 6 - 1981b; Chapter 7 - 1975a, 1983a, 1976b, 1976a, 1977b; Chapter 8 - 1974; Chapter 9 - 1984; Chapter 10 - 1981d; Chapter 11 - 1982b; Chapter 12 1983b, in press; Chapter 13 - 1981c.

Once again, I must stress that these

analyses have been changed and in many instances combined to present them within the scope and limitations of this volume and also to r e f l e c t advances made over the years.

Particularly

w i t h the former reason for altering the

analyses, I would urge the reader interested in a particular analysis to check the original for further information. In the various analyses, I use both broad and narrow phonetic s c r i p t i o n , as the particular problem under study may warrant.

tran

No attempt is

made, moreover, to develop some sort of new nonsegmental transcription nota t i o n , for I recognize that the segments used in transcription are nothing more nor less than precise alphabetical l e t t e r s . reading and w r i t i n g quite e f f i c i e n t l y .

As such, they serve the purpose of

In recognizing that segments are more

suited to reading and w r i t i n g while dynamic analysis is more suited to the description of actual speech, I have no inclination to remove

the segment

from its graphic use — only from its analytical use. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville for a considerable amount of support.

Especially, I should like to

thank Dr. Carol A. Keene, Dean of the School of Humanities during the devel opment of this book, for her generous support for trips to conferences as well as for her encouragement.

I should further like to thank Dr. Vaughnie J . L i n d

say, Dean of the Graduate School, for her considerable support in these areas as well and also for the most appreciated support in the form of competitive awards. I should also like to thank Dr. Adam Makkai, Dr. Valerie Becker Makkai, and the members of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United

viii


States (LACUS) for providing me w i t h a forum for presenting various aspects of this model.

A t the annual conferences, the many linguists in

have given me valuable and incisive constructive c r i t i c i s m .

attendance

For his encour

agement and personal interest, I thank Dr. D. Ellis Evans, Language and L i t e r ature Editor of the Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies, in which several analyses have appeared.

The opportunity

he afforded me of presenting this

model in the description of Welsh in a special lecture at Oxford

University

has likewise had a considerable e f f e c t on the development of this dynamic phonology. Finally, I certainly wish to express my gratitude to the f i r m of John Benjamins for agreeing to publish this work, and especially to E. F. Konrad Koerner, Editor of this series, for accepting this work for publication in the series and for his many helpful suggestions on the typescript. Moreover, I am very g r a t e f u l to E. Wyn Roberts, Simon Fraser University, for his much valued criticisms of earlier drafts of this work.

The attention and e f f o r t he put into

this volume have far exceeded what one might expect of a referee.

Edwardsville, Illinois October 1984

T.D.G.

CONTENTS

Preface

v

Chapter 1 - Phonetics and Phonology

1

Chapter 2 - Dynamic Phonology

27

Chapter 3

- Analysis by Direction of Constraint I: German / x /

53

Chapter 4

- Analysis by Direction of Constraint I I : German / R /

73

Chapter 5 - Analysis by Prosodic Constraint I: Fortis-Lenis Change

95

Chapter 6

- Analysis by Prosodic Constraint I I : German A f f r i c a t e s

123

Chapter 7

- Morphophonology I: The Welsh Mutation System

149

Chapter 8

- Morphophonology I I : Welsh A f f r i c a t e s

169

Chapter 9

- Coalescence of Positions: Welsh Eclipsis

201

Chapter 10 - Change of Positions: Slips of the Tongue and Metathesis

221

Chapter 11 - Vowel A f f e c t i o n : Old High German Umlaut

235

Chapter 12 - Totally Obstructed Syllables: Chinese / s z /

249

Chapter 13 - Poetics: Prosodie A l l i t e r a t i o n in the Cynghanedd

265

References

279

Subject Index

293

Name Index

299

CHAPTER 1

PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY

1.1

Introduction

Dynamic phonology is a functional model of phonology abstracted from the most recent and reliable evidence from the field of experimental dynamic phonetics.

The concept of phonology as a functional abstraction from phonet

ics is quite t r a d i t i o n a l .

As stated by Trubetzkoy (1969:11):

The speech sounds that must be studied in phonetics possess a large number of acoustic and a r t i c u l a t o r y properties. A l l of these are important for the phonetician since i t is possible to answer c o r r e c t l y the question of how a specific sound is pro duced only if all of these properties are taken into considera tion. Y e t most of these properties are quite unimportant for the phonologist. The l a t t e r needs to consider only that aspect of sound which f u l f i l l s a specific function in the system of lan guage. Thus, the evidence underlying the phonological model must be made up of the best phonetic data possible.

The phonologist operating within the ' i n

ner approach' (Jakobson & Halle 1971:19) then abstracts those aspects of the data that can be shown to function in language.

2


1.2

The Basis in the Phonetic Opposition

In phonetics, the data are analyzed and organized in terms of features (for

example, Fant 1973, Singh 1976, etc.).

In order for

these features

to

have any meaning within a phonetic s t r u c t u r e , they must enter into opposi tions — voice, for instance, must be opposed to voicelessness, the various members of the fortis-lenis scale must be opposed to one another in the s t r u c t u r e , and so f o r t h (compare Trubetzkoy 1969:chap.4, for

example).

Without

the phonetic opposition, the number of features could go on indefinitely w i t h out adding significantly to the s t r u c t u r e . The phonetic opposition, then, occupies an important place in the pro cess of abstraction leading to the development of a phonology. teristic

As is charac

of all such processes of abstraction, this basic element enters

into

relationships of abstraction w i t h the elements of the phonological level of abstraction (that is, the more abstract) and w i t h the elements of the actual phonetic data (that

is, the less abstract).

Thus, in order to defend one or

another phonological system on the basis of the acoustic

and physiological

data, it is necessary to operate through the phonetic opposition. The strategic

location of the opposition of phonetic

features in the

overall structure of the phonology demands that the characteristics of the phonetic features be especially reliable within the process of abstraction.

In

order to maintain a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y , it is necessary to introduce a minimum of assumptions along w i t h the abstraction process.

The requisite of

a minimum of assumptions in the determination of phonetic oppositions can be achieved, so long as those characteristics of the phonetic oppositions on the level of phonetic pertinence correspond to particular characteristics of

the

actual phonetic data, both acoustic and physiological, in a regular and predic table way. I f the phonetic

opposition is to be a reliable component in the ab

straction of a phonological s t r u c t u r e , it must be correlated w i t h determinable characteristics of the speech event which obtain on the lower level of ab straction — in the data gathered from phonetic experiments. between phonetic feature

and speech-event characteristic

Each correlation tends to support

Phonetics and Phonology

3

the opposition in its particularly strategic position in the s t r u c t u r e .

This sup

porting evidence can be found in the two established areas of instrumental phonetics — acoustic and physiological phonetics.

In order to appreciate the

f u l l weight of these areas in the abstraction process, we should b r i e f l y review key developments in these fields. Over the past several decades, acoustic phonetics has enjoyed a con siderable popularity and has afforded significant insights in the f i e l d of pho netics.

This has been accomplished primarily through the e l e c t r i c a l analogs

and the instruments produced through them, in particular the sound spectro graph of Koenig, Dunn & Lacy (1946).

Of course, the basis of such systems is

theoretical (see Fant 1960; Stevens & House 1961), but the assumptions i n volved in the acoustic theory of speech production should be accepted by the linguist as an expression of the limits of our present knowledge of acoustic phonetics. Much of the e f f o r t in acoustic phonetics expended on the problem of evincing

correlations

between

phonetic

features

and particular

istics has been spent in the determination of vowel sounds. trographic

analysis, for

sounds correspond

to

character

Through spec

example, it has been found that the various formant

Peterson & Barney 1952).

frequency characteristics

(see, for

vowel

example,

These characteristics form the basis of certain pho

netic features that enter into oppositions (Fant 1959, 1962; Jakobson, Fant & Halle 1952). Spectrographic

analysis has also afforded significant insights into the

determination of acoustic characteristics relating to the various consonantal oppositions. have

been

For example, such oppositions as closure and vocal onset correlated

with

characteristics

in

the

spectrograms

(Fischer-Jørgensen 1954; Halle, Hughes & Radley 1957).

of

time stops

Similarly, the v a r i

ous oppositions of f r i c a t i v e s (Strevens 1960; Heinz & Stevens 1961) and of glides (Lehiste & Peterson 1961) have also been correlated w i t h characteris tics found in the spectrogram. The determination

of

phonetic

characteristics

underlying

consonant

oppositions has been greatly aided by such instruments as the playback spec trograph, which allows the experimenter

to manipulate these characteristics

4


(see Cooper, Liberman & Borst 1961).

Through the methods of synthesis, pho

neticians have been able to make a much stronger correlation between precise characteristics on the spectrogram and the pertinent phonetic features. characteristics include transitions

which vary from consonant

Such

to consonant

depending to a large extend upon the vocalic environment (see Cooper, Del a t t r e , Liberman, Borst & Gerstman 1952; D e l a t t r e , Liberman & Cooper 1955; Öhman 1966). A t our present level of sophistication in acoustic phonetics, taking i n to account the theoretical nature of the analogs, we can find strong c o r r e lations between the members of phonetic oppositions (that is, their features) and particular characteristics in the spectrogram, characteristics based upon frequency, time, and amplitude.

The f a c t that

these characteristics should

maintain a basis in observable and even measurable data is of especial impor tance in our construction of a phonology through abstraction (through the i n ner approach).

Through the use of these acoustic measurements, we can base

our abstractions upon concrete items; and as long as we do not violate any principles of abstraction (most notably the introduction of insubstantiable as sumptions), our oppositions have a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y on account of the concreteness of these items. The other well-established area of phonetics is physiological phonetics. This branch of phonetic science is actually the older of the two, a f a c t r e f l e c t i n g its greater independence from instrumental methods.

Physiological

phonetics, as i t is known today, began in the last century as a r t i c u l a t o r y pho netics, especially in the visible speech of A. G. Bell (1906; see also A. M. Bell 1899) and Sweet (1909 — see also 1884 for an application to Welsh).

The

findings of a r t i c u l a t o r y phonetics were used as a basis in the feature (opposi tion-member) systems in American structuralism (compare Bloomfield 1933), as well as in those of most other schools of phonology (phonemics). More recently, the development of adequate x-ray techniques, espec ially of cineradiography (see Ӧhman & Stevens 1963), has expanded the limits of articulatory phonetics (technically r e s t r i c t e d to active movements) to the more general physiological phonetics.

Moreover, in these developments we

have acquired a basis for a physiological theory paralleling the acoustic the-


5

ory of speech production (see Peterson & Shoup 1966). Such studies as Perkell (1969) and Óndračková (1973) not only increase the viability

of a physiological theory, but they supply observable phonetic

evidence that can be accurately phonetic oppositions tremely crucial.

measured.

For the purpose of abstracting

from observable characteristics, this

last

point is ex

In Perkell (1969), for example, we find precise physiological

characteristics, characteristics based upon space and time.

As we find in the

measurable acoustic characteristics, we can use these physiological character istics for the construction of a phonology through the abstraction of features from concrete items. Both the evidence from the spectrogram and the evidence from the cineradiogram thus give us precisely measurable, concrete items from

which

we can determine features and from which we can abstract oppositions.

More

over, as these instrumental readings occur within real time, they give us the means of dynamically

measuring the actual occurrences of speech, a point

central to the development of a dynamic phonology. I mention above that acoustic and physiological phonetics form the two established fields of phonetics. ought

There is one other f i e l d of phonetics

to be noted, albeit in passing.

speech is a function

of

This

is neurological phonetics.

that As

the neural system (see, for example, Penfield &.

Roberts 1959), we should also t r y to find neural characteristics that correlate w i t h phonetic oppositions (compare Lieberman 1970).

Although some work has

been done in this area (for example, MacNeilage 1970), the f i e l d has not yet developed to the point at which we could reliably abstract f e a t u r e oppositions from neural characteristics.

Nonetheless, we should be prepared to

modify

our present abstractions on the basis of new developments in this f i e l d (com pare Reich 1968). Reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e of acoustic and physological phonetics, we find ample evidence to support the principle that certain concrete, measurable characteristics occurring in the actual phonetic data can be used as a basis for abstracting phonetically pertinent oppositions.

Oppositions of features ab

stracted from these data maintain a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y at the very least, and this high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y should be r e f l e c t e d in the

overall

6


structure of our phonology, if we manage indeed to r e s t r i c t our abstraction process so as to allow a minimum of assumptions in addition to these opposi tions. The danger of introducing f a u l t y , unsubstantiated assumptions does not lie in the abstraction of the phonetic oppositions (provided we maintain the tight correlation w i t h phonetic characteristics), but it lies rather in our

or

ganization of these oppositions into phonetic and then into phonological s t r u c tures.

Nonetheless, these oppositions must be organized into systems within

some s t r u c t u r e , for we could not possibly make inferences as to the nature of phonology (nor of language in general) if we were faced w i t h nothing more than an array of phonetic oppositions (or worse, of disjointed features) in no particular order.

On the phonetically pertinent level of abstraction as well as

on the phonologically pertinent l e v e l , the oppositions must enter into relations one w i t h another, if we are to construct a functional structure of phonology (a functional phonetics — M a r t i n e t 1949b).

Only if these relations are estab

lished can we gain some insights into the language. Of

course, the

organization

based upon some premises. ganization.

of oppositions

into structures must

be

There are two ways of forming a basis for the or

On the one hand, we could organize the oppositions in accordance

w i t h notions that create a consistent structure but are not based upon any evidence derived from the observation of some natural relationships that ap pear to hold between the various phonetic characteristics

themselves.

Of

course, if we cannot find any such evidence of natural relationships between phonetic characteristics, this is our only choice; although to be sure, it is a very u n a t t r a c t i v e choice, given our reliance upon the inner approach to pho nology (through the phonetic evidence).

If, on the other hand, there is some

observable set of relationships that obtain between the various phonetic char acteristics, then we are obliged by the inner approach and indeed by the na ture of linguistics as a science to abstract the relationships and use them in organizing the higher level of abstraction.


1.3

7

Phonetic Organization and Phonological Segmentalism

In practice (if not in theory) the usual manner of organizing features (in

their

oppositions)

in

the construction

of

a phonological (or

structure has been through the use of the segment.

phonemic)

A segmental phonology is

based upon the premise that sound is segmentable.

The various

opposition

members in a given sample of speech can be categorized as belonging to one or another unit of oppositions, each of which is completely included in a seg ment.

Once all of the oppositions have been organized into segments, we

have a string of discrete segments -- phones on the phonetic level, phonemes on the phonological. As the

organizational

unit

for

should not merely be taken for granted.

the

feature/opposition,

the

segment

Once again, it is important for us to

understand the history of segmentalism, for i t is through the history of this movement that we can understand the basic flaws inherent to that approach. In their attempts to create a 'visible speech' (as c i t e d in the previous section), the early pioneers of phonetics (such as Bell and Sweet) concen trated their efforts on devising a system of notation so exact that any trained phonetician reading it would know precisely how any utterance of any lan guage was pronounced. While

these alphabets

This called for ever-more exact phonetic alphabets. did avoid

the pitfalls of

standard orthographies (as

noted by Saussure 1959:23-37; see also Sturtevant 1914, 1947), they were a l phabets sound.

nonetheless

— left-to-right

representations

of

segmented

speech

(And indeed, they did not serve their intended purpose, for they i g

nored such coarticulated phenomena as the basis of a r t i c u l a t i o n — compare Wängler 1972:3-4; Savitt 1978.) When Koenig, Dunn & Lacy introduced their

sound spectrograph

in

1946, the phonetician was provided w i t h the means of transmuting speech into electronic impulses and then of deriving a read-out of frequency and ampli tude over time.

This more precise and reliable means of notation was thus to

create a direct visible representation of speech sound — a visible speech par excellence.

This long-awaited instrument, however, provided a shock to all

8


those phoneticians who had expected to be able to segment this new type of visible speech, for there on the spectrogam was not to be found the neat pro cession of segments, but rather a continuum of overlapping features.

The

myth of segmentation was abruptly exploded. In its place, Curtis (1954) suggested a new type of analysis. than segmenting speech cross-sectionally, he formalized a tenet

of

Rather modern

phonetics tantamount to the inner approach to phonology — dynamic phonetic analysis.

Speech was to be analyzed as a system of features realized in over

lapping patterns over time, for the sound spectrograph and other newer i n struments did indeed establish the v i a b i l i t y of the phonetic feature, and these features could be isolated in relation to one another. With the dynamic phonetic basis, the science has advanced considerab ly.

Liberman, Ingemann, Lisker, Delattre & Cooper (1959) demonstrated that

a minimal set of rules could be posited by which the dynamic realization of the features could be predicted through mechanical synthesis.

Öhman (1966,

1967) later developed mathematically-based models for the analysis of syllabic speech on the basis of coarticulation — the principle that some features are produced in unison w i t h others, features formerly believed to be inherent to separate sequential segments.

Most notably, consonantal features were coar-

ticulated w i t h vocalic features. Perhaps the culmination of the dynamic phonetic research of the past three decades has been reached in the workable models of dynamic phonetics, most notably that of Mermelstein (1973).

By analyzing cineradiographic

evi

dence (x-ray moving pictures and synchronized spectrographic analysis — see also Perkell 1969), Mermelstein has developed a model which predicts the ac tual physiological movements of speech w i t h a remarkable degree of accuracy. The principles of this model are coarticulation and constraint — some fea tures and feature types constrain the production of others w i t h which they are simultaneously articulated (compare Gay 1977).

(The specification

and

implications of these principles are discussed in the following chapter.) Meanwhile, models of general phonetics and phonology which are sup posed to r e f l e c t

observable phonetic

dynamic) have remained segmental.

evidence (evidence which has become Recognizing this, Fant (1962) mentioned


9

that while the phoneme might have some psychological value (that is, from the outer approach -- independent

of the phonetic

mented not cross-sectionally, but dynamically.

evidence), speech

was seg

In his writings, Fant (see 1973,

for example) has increasingly used the term 'segment' in such a way as to r e fer to this l a t t e r type of e n t i t y , thus creating a terminology problem

with

phonologists who are s t i l l relying upon the cross-sectional speech segment, or phoneme, in spite of its long-standing status as a 'convenient f i c t i o n ' (Twaddell 1935) and of its more recent

refutation in the

experimental phonetic

evidence. Added to terminological d i f f i c u l t i e s , we find a major conceptual prob lem among dynamic phoneticians trying to think of language in terms than those of the old, familiar

alphabet.

For example, Bell-Berti &

other Harris

(1979) have found that vocalic lip-rounding takes place at a point in time be fore the onset of the vowel, regardless of the type and even the number of preceding consonants w i t h which the lip-rounding is c o a r t i c u l a t e d .

Thus, the

vocalic feature may be realized simultaneously w i t h the consonant (and may thereby a f f e c t the perception of the consonant), but i t is not affected by the consonant.

In this observation, however, we find a conceptual problem arising

and in a way obfuscating the f u l l impact of this dynamic phonetic evidence. While they point out that "the onset of lip-rounding is not synchronized to a c t i v i t y related to phonetic segments in the utterance other than the

vowel

itself, and hence, that segmental unit models of coarticulation may be concep tually

inadequate" (Bell-Berti

&. Harris

1979:1269),

they

nonetheless

refer

throughout to such things as ' i n t e r v o c a l i c consonants' -- entities that can be understood only from the old model of segmental phonetics, which is 'concep tually inadequate'. Moreover, the practice of explaining dynamic phonetic research in seg mental terms has a f f e c t e d not only the individual projects, but the entire con cept

of a dynamic phonetic

model of speech as w e l l .

For example, Gay

(1977:192) makes the following observation: .

Thus, while it has been traditionally considered that the serial ordering of segments is governed by complex rules whose ef-

10


fects can spread across several adjacent segments, and the temporal control of speech is governed by a simple adjustment of timing of commands to the articulators it may well be that the reverse is true: The segmental input to the speech string is governed primarily by simple rules which act upon syllable sized units, while the temporal formulation of the string requires complex articulatory adjustments based on advance information obtained from a higher level scan-ahead mechanism. What Gay finds is that particular features of the sounds are c o a r t i c u lated to the degree that it might be easier to construct a model not w i t h dis crete segments in sequence, but w i t h these features or feature groups r e a l ized in their syllabic unit (compare Kozhevnikov &. Chistovich 1965, Mermelstein 1975).

Not only is the explanation muddled by the term 'segment', which

carries w i t h it all of the implications of sequential phonemics, but the very concept of the phonetic model is undermined by segmental terminology and outlooks.

A potentially simple model becomes quite complex, as each segment

is seen to have anticipatory effects and carryover effects, rather than there being 'simple rules' governing the realization of features within 'syllable sized units'.

In short, a dynamic model, by v i r t u e of being explained w i t h the t e r m i

nology of segmental theory, becomes a highly complicated segmental model, in spite of the fact

that the researcher

recognizes

and wishes to develop

a

simpler and more accurate approach. There have been attempts to reconcile the relationship between crosssectional segments and dynamic phonetic evidence, and these have centered upon the code or rule hypotheses.

While Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler &

Studdert-Kennedy (1967) set out to show that the two (the segments and the evidence) could be related through a code, though, they succeeded only in admitting the basic premise of c o a r t i c u l a t i o n , and they adopted the Fantian concept

of

the segment.

More ambitious has been the work of

(1970), which recognizes the popular notion that anything

Liberman

can be done by

transformation.

The Liberman hypothesis states that segments can plausibly

be transformed

by rule into the coarticulatory

continuum

of speech.

Of

course, while this may suffice to show the operational relationship between phonology and phonetics, i t does not suffice to demonstrate that the phonol-


11

ogy (or the general phonetics, for that matter) is indeed abstracted from the phonetic

evidence (which is dynamic) in accordance w i t h the tenet of

inner approach.

the

(This argument is developed further in chap. 3, below.)

The question now is this: How has the dynamic nonsegmental evidence of phonetics been applied through the tenet of the inner approach to the study of segmental phonology? To answer this, we should turn to phonology proper and examine the treatment of the relationship between phonology and phonetics.

As the generative school, a collection of item-and-process models

within American s t r u c t u r a l theory (see Hockett 1954), is perhaps

the most

exclusively segmental and also appears to be numerically the leading move ment, perhaps we should best treat i t in some d e t a i l .

Other approaches are

handled below and in subsequent chapters. An event that is particularly revealing in the attitudes of segmental phonology in general and generative phonology in particular occurred at the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

In a study demonstrat

ing that phonetics and phonology are intertwined to the extent that phonolog ical information is needed in phonetic analysis and phonetic information is needed in phonological analysis.

Lindblom (1972:86; compare also Pilch 1972)

showed conclusively that:

Physical phonetics is indeed a science which linguistics must presuppose. Any attempt to avoid facing this claim and com fortably ignore phonetic substance must reduce the power of any theory of language, either as a social phenomenon (langue) or as an individual, mental, derivative representation of this phenomenon (competence). On the other hand, Halle (1972), perhaps the foremost proponent of the generative s t r u c t u r a l approach to phonology, maintained that phonetics had to be brought into t h e o r e t i c a l line w i t h generative phonology and that insights in phonetics

could

best be achieved through

the use of generative

notation.

Thus, the attention of the generative school appears to be not on the r e f i n e ment of phonology within Jakobson & Halle's inner approach, but on the pure ly formal notion that phonetic phenomena should be forced into

notational

devices designed for segmental phonology, and this not on account of pressing

12


scientific

evidence, but

merely for

the sake of theoretical and notational

purity. To an extent, this a t t i t u d e is quite understandable.

As phonology has

remained segmental, the gulf between the two related disciplines has widened greatly.

Thus, in order to bring the two close enough together to allow pho

netic evidence to support segmental phonology, either phonology must abandon the segment or phonetics must become more like segmental phonology by r e adopting the segment that i t has found to be a groundless and misleading de vice.

Of course, segmentalists following the Halle hypothesis favor this l a t t e r

course, although it totally

ignores the scientific evidence and thus subordi

nates observation to preconceived theory (notionalism).

The Halle hypothesis,

then, is clearly an attempt to maintain the segment in spite of the evidence, a rather

widespread practice as shown below and in the conclusion of this

chapter. In general, this generative position can be characterized by the s t r i c t adherence

to

transformation.

unidirectional, deductive

(phonology-to-phonetics),

rule-based

Such a position is the extreme application of the motor the

ory of analysis by synthesis (Halle & Stevens 1964) and is certainly explicit in Chomsky & Halle (1968).

In adhering to the operational relationship between

phonology and phonetics to the utter exclusion of the abstractional r e l a t i o n ship, the standard generative model enters into a d i r e c t i o n a l i t y paradox. Indeed, the history of generative phonology since 1968 has been one fraught w i t h problems of rule ordering — problems which have given rise to local ordering (S. R. Anderson 1969), conspiracies (Kisseberth 1970a), trans parencies (Kiparsky

1971), global rules (Dinnsen 1974), and other

such

at

tempts to refine or constrain the s t r i c t linear ordering of Chomsky & Halle. Working concurrently but independently, however, Eliasson (1975a, 1975b) and G r i f f e n (1975b) discovered that in the analysis of real language problems, the generative model at times simply could not describe the linguistic phenomena through

transformational

structures;

thus, the

rules

operating exclusively

conclusions

of

from deep

Lindblom (1972) as well

to

surface

as those

of

Hjelmslev (1968) would have appeared ripe for adoption within the generative model.


13

Instead of the generative school of phonology examining the possibil ities of creating a bidirectional system w i t h rules operating from surface to deep structures as well as from deep to surface, a system that would allow more mutual support w i t h the dynamic phonetic evidence, one of the more recent movements within the field appears to be a complete elimination of deductive operation (deep to surface) in favor of inductive (surface to deep). In their treatise on 'upside-down phonology', Leben & Robinson (1977) main tain rules basically identical to those of Chomsky &. Halle, and they do order them linearly.

However, they order them and have them operate backwards,

so as to create a morphological component, an idea mentioned by Halle him self (1974).

Moreover, Leben & Robinson (1977:1) argue that "this represents

a significant advance over other phonological theories", in spite of the f a c t that it strongly reflects the feeling (if not the very notation and methodology) of Hockett (1955), an a l t e r n a t i v e model within Leben & Robinson's own Amer ican (that is, exclusively) s t r u c t u r a l school. Perhaps the most popular of the off-shoots of the standard generative model of phonology is the natural phonology of Stampe (1973), or the natural generative phonology of Hooper (1973, 1976).

The natural phonologial notion,

however, that generative phonological rules be followed by natural generative phonological processes (that is, that phonology be followed by phonetics) is laden w i t h the same ordering problems as generative phonology proper plus one

more:

What,

if

any,

overlapping

is

permissible

between

the

two

components? While this paradox has been considered (see, for example, Rhodes 1974), i t shows no signs of being resolved. Insofar as the nature of the relationship between phonology and pho netics is concerned, the most important aspect of natural (generative) phonol ogy has been made explicit in the work of Bjarkman (for example, 1978), who recognizes a relationship between natural phonological processes and proper ties of physiological phonetics.

By seeking out the phonetic j u s t i f i c a t i o n for

the processes, this generative model appears to presuppose the science of physical phonetics as Lindblom insists.

However, natural phonology is s t i l l

quite segmental, and it does adhere to the Halle hypothesis on the nature of the relationship between phonology and phonetics, an hypothesis implicit

in

14


the paper cited above (Halle 1972).

According to this hypothesis, the very

theoretical plausibility of the Liberman hypothesis (1970), within the notion that all things are possible through transformation, makes the Liberman hy pothesis ipso facto true, and the proof is to be revealed in the ability of the generativists to r e w r i t e phonetics in generative notation.

Of course, this rea

soning ignores the nonsegmental nature of speech sound, the dynamic basis of modern phonetic analysis, and

the ever-present

paradoxes of the model itself.

As natural phonology does attempt to accom

ordering and

directionality

modate phonetics, then, it nevertheless presupposes only the validity of gener ative notation in a directional approach to phonetics in which

phoneticians

are considered merely to be "dedicated to the empirical examinations and ver ifications of linguistic phenomena" (Bjarkman 1977:4). There

is, however, one other model of

generative phonology

which

should does indeed make use of the phonetic developments of the past three decades of dynamic analysis.

This is the autosegmental model, as described in

Goldsmith (1976), for example.

Goldsmith takes into consideration the nature

of phonetics as a system of constraint; he organizes the features in accord ance w i t h the dynamic phonetic evidence of c o a r t i c u l a t i o n ; he adds to this the nature of the laryngeal p a t t e r n ; indeed, he almost reaches the develop ment of a truly nonsegmental phonology, one based upon dynamic evidence.

phonetic

Y e t , he then snaps back into a system which recognizes segmental

sound units and prosodies.

In essence, he employs the findings of experiment

al dynamic phonetics not to create a phonological s t r u c t u r e more in keeping w i t h the evidence, but to develop a method of automatically building better cross-sectional segments. While Goldsmith and other autosegmentalists (compare especially Menn 1977) have in fact taken explicit account of dynamic phonetics, then, and have also followed (or

replicated)

the findings of such less segmental ap

proaches as the prosodic analysis of the London School (in the t r a d i t i o n Firth

1948), the long components of Harris (1951), and the parametric

of ap

proaches of Pike (1947) and later of Heller & Macris (1967), these newer gen erativists have s t i l l not been able to make the conceptual break w i t h seg mentation needed fo the construction

of

a completely

nonsegmental model


15

that would be f a i t h f u l to the evidence of dynamic phonetics.

In this vein, it

should be noted that this conceptual break has indeed been made on a number of occasions within the history of linguistics in general and American struc turalism in particular.

Pike (1943, 1947) as well as Hockett (1955) explicitly

recognize the actual nonsegmentability of speech sound, a concept that Pike went a long way toward categorizing.

However, within s t r i c t structuralism

there has been no way of incorporating these concepts and categories into consistently workable models. As mentioned above, there are indeed alternatives to the s t r i c t A m e r i can (exclusively) s t r u c t u r a l theory

especially w i t h its generative model and

the Halle hypothesis, which in e f f e c t serves as a basic theoretical tenet only from the s t r u c t u r a l model's lack of f l e x i b i l i t y .

if

Indeed, there are several

s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l and relational theories and models outside the catechism of generative thought.

These models are not dependent upon categories solely

defined by s t r u c t u r a l and environmental considerations, nor upon relationships solely defined by process rules. The various schools of s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l , systemic, and relational (glossematic, s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l ) linguistics may be treated here in synthesis, for there is a strong convergence of opinion among them in their most basic view o f . t h e relationship between phonology and phonetics, regardless of how they might arrive at

the relationship (compare M a r t i n e t

1949b).

Nonetheless, I

shall approach this relationship basically from the background of the s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theory of the Prague School, as propounded as early as the late 1930s by Trubetzkoy (1969), for this appears to be the most f l e x i b l e . In the light of the statement by Lindblom (1972 — cited on p. 1 1 , above), we find that this approach is far more open than is the

generative

(and the s t r i c t l y s t r u c t u r a l in general) in recognizing the mutually supportive roles of phonetics and phonology.

For example, while Hjelmslev (1968) basic

ally follows the course set by Trubetzkoy, by which phonology is an abstrac tion from the physiological and acoustic characteristics

of phonetics, he in

f a c t points out that experimental phonetics normally takes some phonological information into account.

Thus, while the phonological categories and r e l a

tionships are indeed abstracted from the phonetic, the phonetic are deter-

16


mined to a large extent from the phonological. Viewed from the standpoint of the hypothetical-deductive

method as

explained by Mulder (1968), such a relationship of mutual support is not unex pected, for model construction is in r e a l i t y an abductive process (see Ander sen 1973; A n t t i l a 1972).

I f we were to attempt a truly inductive

approach

(that is, exclusively from phonetics to phonology), we would gather so much information and noninformation from the physiological and acoustic evidence that few if any conclusions about the phonology could ever be attained.

On

the other hand, a truly deductive approach (generating phonetics from phonol ogy) would yield a universe of possibilities, most of which would be unrealized in the actual language described; and there would be no way of precisely which sounds or features should be retained (a point

predicting deliberately

ignored in Chomsky & Halle 1968:294). In this relationship of mutual support, we must address the question of where the important new dynamic phonetic analysis should enter into the pho nology.

As I shall demonstrate in the following chapters, the s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c

tional approach can take care of the new evidence through the principle of functional pertinence.

There have, however been other ways of accounting

for i t — most notably in s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar and in prosodic analysis. These can be addressed very briefly here, though I go into further detail in chaps. 11 and 12, below. In s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar, the phonological s t r u c t u r e and the phonet ic structure maintain their own autonomous t a c t i c patterns, which are then related to one another.

The relationship between the segmental phonology

and the nonsegmental phonetics becomes one of a shift in dominance between the two strata — from segmental (in which features or phonemes follow one another in sequence) to hierarchical (in which features dominate one another in a pattern of constraint), as pointed out by Lockwood (1976).

That is to say

that in principle, features which may be related segmentally in the phonology can shift their relationships in the phonetics such that one feature may then be coarticulated w i t h and constrained by another.

Thus, the dynamic phonetic

evidence could conceivably be accounted for within its own natural frame work, not forced into obsolete segments.

The great drawback to this method


17

is a purely pragmatic one — there is no p r a c t i c a l consistent way of getting from the one arrangement of dominance to the other, and the phonemic s t r a tum may well be superfluous, as pointed out in G r i f f e n (1975d, see also 1979). Certainly the earliest and s t i l l most widespread method of accounting for the nonsegmental evidence is in the prosodic analysis established by F i r t h (1948),

Robins (1957), M i t c h e l l

School.

(1975), and other

members

of

the

London

In maintaining a system of sounds and prosodies, though, prosodic

analysis persists in segmenting consonants and vowels as sounds (that is, as separate segmental and sequential phonematic units), while more recent evi dence of dynamic phonetics (as noted above and in the following chapter) i n dicates that this relationship is of a most basic coarticulatory

type — that

consonants and vowels do not follow each other in sequence, but that are arranged in a hierarchy of constraint.

they

To be sure, the phonological f o r m u

lations of J. Anderson & Jones (1974) do take this into account through a dependency model.

Ironically, though, their system is rather one of the outer

approach (that is, it is deliberately not phonetically justified), and their r e l a tionship between consonants and vowels is opposite to that established in the dynamic phonetic l i t e r a t u r e . Within the t r a d i t i o n of prosodie analysis, perhaps the greatest degree of nonsegmentality has been achieved before the inception of dynamic phonet ics as such.

In the pioneering work of Henderson (1949), under certain condi

tions consonants are viewed as prosodies rather than as sequential segmental elements of s t r u c t u r e .

While this concept could indeed have led to the devel

opment of a nonsegmental phonology as proposed in the following chapter, it was not taken far enough in the application of the overall consonant-vowel relationship.

Roberts attributes this reluctance on the part of Henderson (and

to the London School in general) to shed all elements of segmantalism rather to the vagueness w i t h which prosodie concepts are realized in p r a c t i c a l meth odology:

The pivotal concepts of structure, polysystemicness, prosody, phonematic unit, exponence and focus, and their i n t e r r e l a t i o n ships have been demonstrated, w i t h specific reference to the . work of Henderson, to be unclear and inconsistently applied.

18


The clearest example by far is that of polysystemicness, yet the concomitant principle of non-identity of elements across d i f f e r e n t PLACES raises serious questions as to whether this inappropriately restricts in many instances the statement of structure and exponence and the manner in which these t w o , in turn, intersect w i t h the concepts of ORDER and the PROSODY-PHONEMATIC UNIT dichotomy. Moreover, the r e l a t i o n ship between 'prosody' and 'phonematic unit' is a mercurial one, . . ." (Roberts 1979:117-18) Thus, while the concepts underlying a nonsegmental model close to the dynamic

model are certainly

present in

prosodic

analysis (and the dynamic

model is greatly influenced by prosodic analysis and may in some respects be considered an outgrowth of

Firthian theory),

the rigorous incorporation

of

these concepts into a consistently workable, t o t a l l y nonsegmental model has eluded the London School. Thus, the semisegmental models have not as yet incorporated the dy namic evidence to the degree that would allow them to graduate to f u l l y non segmental models.

Nonetheless, they do accommodate the principle of mutual

support, and the flexible nature of the theories themselves lay the groundwork for the inclusion of dynamic phonetic model.

evidence into a s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l

As we see in the following chapter, these approaches have had a pro

found influence on the model of dynamic phonology proffered here. Insofar as any complete incorporation of the observations of dynamic phonetics as such into the very structure of phonology is concerned, though, neither the segmental nor the semisegmental phonologies have allowed the f u l l degree of mutual support between phonetics and phonology this.

that would allow

As we see briefly in this f i r s t glance at the problem and as we shall see

in much greater detail in the analyses to follow, the reason for this r e c a l c i trance on the part of segmentalists to accept the scientific observation of dynamic phonetics and to incorporate i t into phonology by proper abstraction methods (and in accordance w i t h their own stated goals and procedures) is quite simply that phonologists find the segment too convenient.

Phonology

has always been based upon the segment, and the segment thus remains as a 'convenient f i c t i o n ' (Twaddell 1935) in spite of its retarding e f f e c t on analyt ic progress and its now-devastating e f f e c t on the relationship of mutual sup-


19

port between phonology and phonetics.

1.4

At

The M y t h of Distinctive Feature Analysis

this point, a nondynamic phonologist would doubtless object

that

modern analysis is not done by segment, but by distinctive feature, especially in the generative transformational school.

A f t e r a l l , there is the body of l i t

erature on the development of distinctive feature analysis which pits distinc tive-feature

generativists

(1964:chap.4) against Householder (1965).

such

traditional

as

Halle

phonemic

(1962,

1964)

American

and

structuralists

Chomsky such as

(Compare V. B. Makkai 1972 for an insightful collection

and review of the pertinent arguments; also Fischer-Jørgensen 1975.) In order to see just how nonsegmental this distinctive feature analysis has been, we should compare it w i t h the phonemic

methods.

In phonemic

analysis, the t r a d i t i o n a l mode of operation has been tied to the notion of the speech segment, the phone and allophone of segmental linguistic phonetics and the phoneme of segmental phonology (phonemics).

Intrinsic to this

approach

to analysis, segments have been seen to vary in accordance w i t h certain p r i n ciples (as in Trubetzkoy 1968, 1969) or discovery procedures (as in Hockett 1955). For an example of a purely segmental analysis, I should like to c i t e the methods found in Gleason (1961:chap.l7).

According to this t r a d i t i o n a l

method, the linguist performs the analysis by tabulating all of the sounds in the corpus, noting suspicious pairs (pairs of segments which, due to their pho netic similarity

and distribution, may represent members of a common pho

neme), framing an hypothesis on the basis of these suspicious pairs, and test ing

the

hypothesis

by

(1961:278) illustrates

tabulating this

the

method of

distribution analysis

of

through

each pair. a limited

Spanish words, as follows (1961:278):

[abana]

Havana

[kasa]

house

[bala]

ball

[kuba]

Cuba

[baga]

rope

[lago]

lake

Gleason corpus

of

20


[beso]

kiss

[nade]

nothing

[boda]

wedding

[nudo]

knot

burro

[pero]

but

[damos]

we give

dog

[dios]

God

[pipa]

pipe

[deber]

to owe

[ponderosos]

heavy

[donde]

where

[pongo]

I put

[durar]

to endure

[ganar]

to earn

[tengo]

I have

[gato]

cat

[todo]

all

[gola]

throat

[tatako]

tobacco

[gosar]

to enjoy

[uta]

grape

cigar

In this corpus we find that of f i v e instances of the phone [ b ] , all f i v e occur in w o r d - i n i t i a l position; while of f i v e instances of the phonetically sim ilar phone [ b ] , all f i v e occur in medial position (intervocalic). this

phonetic

similarity

and complementary distribution,

On account of

Gleason

concludes

that [b] and [b] are allophones (combinatory variants) of the single phoneme / b / and makes a statement of allophonic distribution to predict just where we should find one segment and where we should find the other. This approach to phonological analysis has been common to the struc t u r a l schools and to the s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l schools (particularly of Prague) w i t h an interesting difference in a t t i t u d e . the

method

above,

during

the

In the s t r u c t u r a l analysis, such as

examination

of

suspicious

pairs

(Gleason

1961:275) and after the analysis is complete, the analyst examines the com ponents of the segments to make such generalizations as the f a c t that in the Spanish example, segments which are voiced stops in i n i t i a l position share a common phoneme w i t h segments which are voiced fricatives between vowels. In the s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l approach, on the other hand, the features them selves may be examined in the analysis to determine the basis of the opposi tion (compare Baltaxe 1978), a practice which has since been adapted by gen erative s t r u c t u r a l analysts. In modern generative s t r u c t u r a l analysis, the methods used involve pho-


21

netic similarity and noncontrastive distribution, as can be seen in Langacker (1972), for example.

I t is only a f t e r the analysis is complete that it is in es

sence checked by the transformational formula A

B / C

w r i t t e n as B in the environment between C and D).

D (A is r e

A t f i r s t glance, we can

see that we are working within a purely s t r u c t u r a l framework in which one item is transformed into another on no other basis that the presence of the item within a paradigmatic slot in the syntagm.

Were we concerned here w i t h

segments instead of w i t h features, we would have to conclude that the gener ative formula be simply a command-logic form of the old Bloomfieldian s t a t e ment of allophonic

distribution,

as exemplified in Gleason (1961; see

also

Bloomfield 1926, 1933). The question arises, though, as to whether

we are indeed concerned

here w i t h distinctive features, or whether we are s t i l l dealing w i t h phonemes. To gain some insight into this question, let us examine the Spanish problem as it is treated by Hyman (1975). which

he

claims

to

be

True to the d i s t i n c t i v e - f e a t u r e t r a d i t i o n within

working,

Hyman

(p.

63)

states

the

formula

as

follows:

This

formula

would

appear

to

make

the

statement:

The

inherent

features [+voice] and [-nasal] are r e w r i t t e n as the feature [+continuant] in the environment

following

the

feature

[+syllabic]

and

preceding

the

feature

[+syllabic]. I f we examine this rule closely, though, we find that the ' d i s t i n c t i v e - f e a t u r e ' analysis fails to c l a r i f y tures.

generative

the role of the d i s t i n c t i v e fea

I f we are truly working w i t h features and not w i t h segments, then how

can we explain the statement that two features are r e w r i t t e n ( s t r i c t l y speak ing) as one other?

How can the two occurrences of the feature [+syllabic]

stand off by themselves and occur one on either side of these other features? Of course, as linguists familiar Hyman

is

using

a

short-hand

w i t h generative

notation,

and

these

analysis well know,

features

are

actually

22


organized into large bundles — indeed bundles which are now treated far more as 'sounds' than even Bloomfield originally intended them to be (1933:80), for at the top of each long list stands the feature [+segment], a feature which Chomsky &

Halle (1968) not only

introduce into

generative

analysis,

thus

pronouncing the method o f f i c i a l l y a segmental approach, but even elevate to the level of a natural class — the least marked feature class of a l l . fact,

the

structural

'distinctive-feature

school

in

analysis' which

its

generative

variant

In actual

maintains

a

represents hardly a transition from the

item-and-arrangement segmental t r a d i t i o n and in actuality is concerned not so much w i t h

the feature

as w i t h

the segment

of

which

the feature

inherent part (compare Jakobson, Fant & Halle 1952:13-14). the

formula

makes

the

statement:

The

segment

is an

In r e a l i t y , then,

containing

the

features

[+voice] and [-nasal] is specified w i t h the feature [+continuant] when i t occurs as

a

segment

between

two

segments,

each

specified

with

the

feature

[+syllabic] — precisely the command-logic form of a t r a d i t i o n a l statement of allophonic distribution. Thus, the much touted d i s t i n c t i v e - f e a t u r e analysis, w i t h its scientific basis in phonetic instrumentation such as sound spectrography and cineradi ography, has so far been doomed to a position of i n f e r i o r i t y to the old anal ysis based upon the segment, which, as this phonetic instrumentation has in f a c t shown, does not exist in nature.

So long as phonologists deal w i t h seg

ments in actual practice (regardless of what they may claim in principle), pho nological analysis w i l l never reap the benefits of features v e r i f i e d by the i n strumental evidence of experimental phonetics, for the instrumental evidence of experimental phonetics shows that these features are in r e a l i t y not bundled into any sequential segment smaller than the syllable (compare 1975).

Mermelstein

If we are, then, to benefit from the phonetically verifiable

feature,

we must abandon the segment and find a new basis for feature organization, one

more

accurately

reflecting

instrumental experimental phonetics.

the

scientific

evidence

gathered

in


1.5

23

Conclusion

When we examine the inner approach to phonology in light of the ad vances made in dynamic experimental phonetics, one pressing question stands out:

Why has a completely nonsegmental phonology as yet not been accepted?

A f t e r a l l , w i t h the phoneme so widely and for so long considered as nothing more than a 'convenient f i c t i o n ' to be used in the absence of a viable alter native, w i t h semisegmental models in both F i r t h i a n and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l linguis tics, and w i t h the well-intentioned though abortive attempt at dynamic pho nology made by the autosegmentalists, it would

appear

as though

would be quite anxious to rid themselves of the a r t i f i c i a l ,

linguists

unsubstantiated

(and in f a c t insubstantiable) notion of the speech segment as soon as a viable alternative should present itself,

especially a viable alternative based upon

phonetic observation. There has been, however, a surprising amount of resistance to nonseg mental phonology, especially among phonologists who do not keep abreast of advances in experimental phonetics.

This is, of course, understandable, for

the long segmental t r a d i t i o n and the absence of phonetic training among some linguists conspire to make the segment familiar and even natural in appear ance, in spite of constant reminders even in exclusively segmental models that i t is neither (compare, for example, Schane 1973:3-7). Perhaps the most succinctly stated rationale for the maintenance of segmental phonology in spite of dynamic phonetic evidence has been put f o r t h by S. R. Anderson.

According to Anderson (1974:6):

I t must be emphasized that there is very l i t t l e basis in the physical event itself for the above abstractions involved in seg mentation. Nothing whatsoever distinguishes one position of the utterance from other, immediately adjacent ones; nothing identifies one position as the a r t i c u l a t o r y basis of the segment, and another as part of the transition. The organs of speech are constantly in motion, and do not adopt rest positions during an utterance. Furthermore, there is no physical basis for as sociating some aspects of a given articulatory configuration w i t h one segment and others w i t h another, as coarticulation

24


effects to be abstracted from the description of this particular segment. The validity of the segmental abstraction lies in the possibility of giving a set of principles from which transition and coarticulation phenomena can be deduced, and the u t t e r ance reconstructed from a sequence of mutually independent static points to its overlapping and continuous r e a l i t y . Even given the f a i r l y plausible assumption that such an ac count of the utterance can be constructed in principle, it can s t i l l be asked what theoreticaly j u s t i f i c a t i o n we have for mak ing the segmental abstraction. The only j u s t i f i c a t i o n that can be given is a pragmatic one; such a description, based on a seg mental s t r u c t u r e imposed on the event by the analyst, has been the basis of v i r t u a l l y every result of note that has ever been obtained in the field of linguistic phonetics or phonology. As such, it w i l l continue to be employed u n t i l some deficiency is pointed out, in the form of a linguistically significant generali zation that is essentially unstatable if the procedure of seg mentation is adhered to. Of course, such an argument could conceivably

be characterized as

adherence to tradition for the sake of tradition in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This situation is analogous to a medieval astron

omer dismissing the heliocentric view of the solar system simply because the geocentric had given good service in the past. As shall be demonstrated in the analyses included in this book, a d i rect abstraction from dynamic phonetics into a nonsegmental phonology (that is, by-passing the step of segmentation, taken here as at best indirect) would be both simpler and, on the strength of the evidence supporting the nonseg mental approach to phonetics, far more reliable than the t r a d i t i o n a l abstrac tion which maintains the convenient but a r b i t r a r y f i c t i o n of segmentation. carry

the analogy w i t h the medieval astronomer one step f u r t h e r ,

To

Ptolemy

demonstrated that a geocentric model, built around the false observation that the earth stands s t i l l , could be constructed given some very complex orbits by every planet in the solar system.

On the basis of more reliable, if less i n t u i

tive evidence developed from observing the real movements of celestial bod ies, however, Copernicus constructed a heliocentric model which proved to be both simpler and more reliable, though i t did dispute the common (though mis taken) human perception w i t h the apparently stationary nature of the earth. In all disciplines, there comes a time when observable evidence must displace


25

those perceptions found to be at odds w i t h the evidence, no matter how 'rea sonable' in the human experience these perceptions may appear to be. In linguistics, this time has widely but mistakenly

been identified as

the inception period of s t r u c t u r a l and functional linguistics.

Early in this

century, linguists began to abandon notionalism — the belief that every lan guage maintained the same precise categories

and relationships,

categories

and relationships that were inherently grammatically logical but that c o i n c i dentally corresponded to those of Latin (compare Lyons 1968:134 — though this is not intended as a c r i t i c i s m on more reliable attempts to determine uni versal case relationships not on the basis of L a t i n or some other singular lan guage).

Thus, linguists today scoff at the notional grammatical

framework

that insisted on conjugating the English verb in three persons and two num bers and on actually declining the English noun through nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and vocative cases. In spite of the derision w i t h which linguists commonly treat notional ism, this empty theory s t i l l remains amazingly strong in the

preconceptions

w i t h which linguists approach the evidence (compare G r i f f e n 1980c).

Nowhere

does notionalism survive stronger, though, than in segmental phonology.

After

all, what else can one call a practice in which a category of speech is im posed upon the language despite repeated observations in the experimental, instrumental arm of the discipline against the category and not one piece of undisputed evidence in its favor, save for appeals to the way in which we be lieve

all

people

must

think

(Schane

1973:4-6)?

That

is

notionalism

by

definition. What we find in segmental phonology, moreover, is h y p o c r i t i c a l n o t i o n alism.

Segmentalists claim to adhere to phonetic evidence in accordance w i t h

the inner approach of Jakobson & Halle (1971:19, see p. 1 , above).

Y e t , they

either ignore or disregard the f a c t that the face of phonetics has changed so drastically stracted

in the

past

few

decades

that

the phonological structures

ab

from the outmoded segmental phonetics of the 1940s bear no r e

semblance at all to what would be abstracted from the dynamic phonetics of today (in spite of the movement toward nonsegmentality

on the part of

Firthians even before the dynamic phonetic observations were made).

the

Instead,

26


they harken back to the old methods, to the old fictions that can no longer be called phonetics, and thereby maintain that they are operating in the inner approach — that their phonology is phonetically j u s t i f i e d . Clearly, such a stance is notionalist, h y p o c r i t i c a l , and completely i g norant of the facts.

Nonetheless, S. R. Anderson can demand that a nonseg-

mental model f i r s t handle situations that a segmental model cannot; but he in f a c t immediately recognizes that i t is the case that suprasegmentals

cannot

be handled segmentally, though even this is seen as reason merely to change the segmental theory in some unspecified and nebulous way.

Of course, if we

know that the segmental notionalist approach is by its very nature

faulty,

then logic would d i c t a t e that we disregard all findings of the segmental ap proach as based upon faulty premises.

This is to say that if segmentalism is

wrong to begin w i t h , then any conclusion based upon segmentalism, whether i t appear reasonable or not, must be viewed as inherently i n c o r r e c t . Nevertheless, if i t takes evidence that segmental analyses are d e f i c ient where nonsegmental analyses are at least plausible, then segmentalism should (along w i t h the rest of linguistic notionalism) be abandoned, for indeed such evidence abounds.

In the following chapter, I shall outline a dynamic

model of phonology and shall use i t in the chapters that f o l l o w to show case after case in which segmentalism fails irrecoverably, and dynamic phonology yields analyses that are simpler, more s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , and more in keeping w i t h the evidence of phonetics.

CHAPTER 2

DYNAMIC PHONOLOGY

2.1

Introduction

Phonologists generally have recognized that speech sound is not segmental, that the process of segmentation is merely a method of organization without any basis in the acoustic or the physiological data (compare, for example, Hockett 1955, and especially S. R. Anderson 1974, as cited on pages 23-24, above).

Although the lack of phonetic (or more precisely, phonic) jus-

tification in this process does call into question the role of segmentation in theory, the use of segmentation in practice has been necessary in the past because of a lack of any evidence of natural relationships that obtain between phonetic characteristics that could be used in the more abstract levels of the structure. Moreover, further use of the segment in phonology is still necessary unless such evidence is provided from the fields of phonetics.

Again, if such evi-

dence is found, then we are obligated by the inner approach and by the process of abstraction to abstract any relationships that obtain between the various characteristics of the phonetic data which can be used for the organization of phonetically (and phonologically) pertinent oppositions.

After all, in

the inner approach we should seek to abstract our phonology not simply from

28


the phonetic categories, but also wherever possible from the phonetic

rela

tionships themselves, so long as observable evidence for these relationships can be found. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the evidence from the spectro graph and from the cineradiograph affords measurable, concrete items which we can abstract phonetic features.

from

This evidence, furthermore, is a

function of time, making possible dynamic measurements of the speech event. The development of dynamic measurements of observable phonetic events in turn makes possible the construction of phonetic models for the prediction of the dynamic movements of the physiological apparatus and the formant char acteristics upon which these measurements are based. The successful development of any such dynamic phonetic model consti tutes an important contribution not only to the fields of phonetics, but also to the structure of the phonology, for if such a phonetic model is produced, i t must

have some form

of

phonetically-justifiable

organization

between

characteristics from which we abstract the features in opposition.

the

This pho

netic organization would provide the observable set of relationships obtaining between the various phonetic characteristics needed for abstraction into the phonology.

If such abstraction can be performed, we would no longer have to

rely upon segmentation for the organization of feature oppositions.

Instead,

we could organize the oppositions in a dynamic manner consistent w i t h the observable data, allowing ourselves a greater degree of correlation between the phonology and the phonetic data.

2.2

The Phonetic Evidence

Such a dynamic model constructed

model is what we find in Mermelstein (1973).

by Mermelstein for

vowel utterances is physiologically

the

production

of

The

vowel-consonant-

based and is founded upon measurements

w i t h relation to the jaw, hyoid, tongue body, tongue blade, lips, velum, and maxilla and pharyngeal wall. In this model, the midsagittal dimension is divided into t h i r t y - f o u r sec tions, and measurements are based upon distances and angles computed from

Dynamic Phonology

29

the intersections of lines tangent w i t h the above-mentioned stationary moving points of reference.

and

Given the target areas of the proposed vowels

and consonant, the movements of the pertinent articulators can be computed through the model. As I mention below, Mermelstein's model is not in itself a surprising de velopment.

Indeed, it is a logical step in a series of phonetic developments

over the preceding decade (and in the decade since).

The main contribution

of this model in particular is to be found in its mathematical p r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Although others had suggested the same concepts used by Mermelstein in a hypothetical form (for

example, Curtis 1954), it is w i t h this model that the

hypotheses have been solidified into predictable calculations that can be em pirically tested.

As such, then, it necessarily

forms an important part of a

physiological theory of speech production. Another important aspect of Mermelstein's model is the process of hierarchical application of a r t i c u l a t o r y movements. model, the trajectory

According to this dynamic

between the f i r s t and second vowel of a V(C)V u t t e r

ance is plotted as a function of time.

Given the particular t r a j e c t o r y of the

vowels, the physiological characteristics of a given consonant w i l l apply in a particular order of importance — the movements associated w i t h

particular

characteristics of most importance to the consonant are applied f i r s t , and the rest are applied in order (if possible in the t r a j e c t o r y as modified by the more important consonant movements).

In such a hierarchy, for example, stops and

nasals produced at the alveolar position of articulation have the tongue

tip

marked 1 (most important), the jaw opening and tongue body marked 2, and the lip height and lip protrusion marked 3 (least important — articulated only if possible). Once again, i t is the formalism of Mermelstein's method which is of greatest importance here in the development of a physiological model of ar ticulation.

The finding that not all of the articulators actually reach

their

target areas given certain information about the vowels is a significant devel opment.

I should further stress that these orders of application as well as the

movements of articulators are not simply predicted in principle, but are com puted mathematically.

The prediction of movements based upon information

30


relating to the vowels is f u r t h e r

enhanced in the model by methods of pre

dicting movements of consonant articulators in consonant clusters. Mermelstein (1973:1081-82) bases this dynamic model on the following principles developed in the actual process of the calculations:

(1) The midsagittal v o c a l - t r a c t outline is modeled in terms of nine selected variables describing the position of the p a r t i c i pating articulators. (2) Stationary vowels are represented in terms of four v a r i ables, two describing tongue-body position, one the jaw posi tion, and one the lip position. Movement from vowel to vowel, expressed as changes in the variable values, is slow and pre cisely controlled. (3) Representation of consonants requires additional control of tongue-tip elevation, lip height, and velar opening. Tongue body or jaw closure is specified by the variables pertinent to vowels. (4) Consonants are not defined directly in terms of variable values but by constraints on a r t i c u l a t o r position r e l a t i v e to the fixed structures. A r t i c u l a t o r s independent of the specific con straints are free to take on positions independent of the con sonant under production subject to the requirement that they do not otherwise constrict the vocal t r a c t . (5) Stop consonants are released by rapid movement of the con stricting articulator. The development of Mermelstein's a r t i c u l a t o r y model, is, as mentioned above, not the work of one man alone, but the logical extension of a decade of work not only in physiological phonetics, but also in acoustic phonetics.

I

group the developments into two areas: the development of the model and the determination of the consonant-vowel relationship. In the development of the model, Mermelstein has several predeces sors, although to be sure, these are mainly concerned w i t h s t a t i c , not dynamic models.

with

For example, Heinz & Stevens (1964) use anatomical meas

urements to determine a t e n t a t i v e set of rules for computing the area func tions corresponding to a r t i c u l a t o r y configurations.

As in Mermelstein's model,

this model relies upon rules specified in terms of functions relating cross-sec tional areas to linear dimension. velum positions.

I t also incorporates the effects of jaw and

Dynamic Phonology

31

Coker & Fujimura (1966) construct a static geometric achieves 'reasonable accuracy'

both for vowels and for

model

which

consonants.

Their

model uses f i v e variables, representing the tongue body and the palate-pharyngeal wall as circles, a practice later adapted by Mermelstein.

Mermel-

stein's use of jaw and lip coordinates, moreover, can be traced to Mermel stein, Maeda & Fujimura (1971).

Furthermore, the work of Lindblom & Sund-

berg (1971) also figures prominently in the development of the current model. Many, if not most of the phoneticians mentioned so far are mainly con cerned w i t h the acoustic aspect of speech or in the interrelationships between acoustic and physiological aspects.

Progress on the more clearly physiological

side includes the findings of Perkell (1969).

Perkell's measurements from cine

radiographic f i l m are instrumental in the development of the 1973 model, as are the measurements of Mermelstein et a l . (1971). Not all of the phoneticians who have contributed to the development of the a r t i c u l a t o r y model are concerned w i t h merely static descriptions.

For

example, Öhman (1966) notes that i t is necessary to take anticipation

into

consideration in the construction of

any

model (acoustic

or

physiological).

Furthermore, Öhman attempts to relate the overlapping movements of the ar ticulators to separate neural instructions (compare Lieberman 1970). Another important contribution in this area is that of A t a l & Hanauer (1971).

They by-pass the study of spectra (Fourier analysis) and represent the

speech waveform directly in terms of time-varying parameters related to the transfer function of function.

the vocal t r a c t and the characteristics

of the source

In so doing, they find that the linear p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the speech

wave provides the basis of both the analysis and the synthesis

procedures.

This development of the time variable in the construction of a speech model is of obvious significance not only in dynamic phonetics itself, but in the r e l a tionship between phonetics and phonology as w e l l . The mathematical p r e d i c t a b i l i t y in the model under consideration is, of course, of great phonetic consequence.

But i t is perhaps of even greater im

portance to the entire study of phonology that these mathematical calcula tions be based on the principle that consonants are constraints on vowels. This dependence relationship between consonants and vowels, however, is also

32


not new w i t h Mermelstein.

As w i t h the nature of his model, this aspect of

his work is also a logical extension of developments within the f i e l d . In acoustic long been known.

phonetics, the dependence of consonants

on vowels has

The locus and transition studies conducted at Haskins Lab

oratory, particularly

that of Delattre et al. (1955), establish the f a c t

that

aspects of consonant transitions are a f f e c t e d to a great extent by the nature of the vowels in the environment.

These variations are predictable, to some

extent, as shown by Liberman, Ingemann, Lisker, Delattre & Cooper (1959). Indeed, one of the most important findings of Öhman (1966) is that there is a large discrepancy

in the realizations of various consonant cues.

This discrepancy can be a t t r i b u t e d to the surrounding vowels. A significant review of the l i t e r a t u r e in this area is found in Liber man, Cooper, Shankweiler & Studdert-Kennedy (1967).

In addition to the re

view, they propose a model by which speech is coded and decoded (as opposed to being handled as a cipher) by i n t r i c a t e physiological-acoustic-neural mech anisms.

Regarding the transmission of consonants and vowels, they

propose

that these phoneme types be transmitted in parallel, rather than in sequence. Liberman

(1970)

also presents

this

argument,

basically

from

an

acoustic

standpoint. From a physiological standpoint, perhaps the most important influence upon the current model's approach to consonant-vowel relationships is found, once again, in the work of P e r k e l l .

According to Perkell (1969:65-66), the ef

f e c t of the vowel upon the consonant is primarily one of position of a r t i c u l a t i o n , rather than of manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n .

Moreover, the deformation of the

a r t i c u l a t i n g organ in the production of the consonant is superimposed upon the vowel (the positioning element) through the use of fast, precise intrinsic mus culature. We can see a definite parallel between these findings from cineradi ography and the principles upon which the current model is based. In this respect, Perkell is in f u l l agreement w i t h Öhman (1967), in main taining that the consonant can be described as being superimposed upon con tinuously varying vowel articulators, a notion central to the model.

More

over, these findings of Öhman not only agree w i t h determinations in physio logical phonetics, but they provide a basis for the extension of the same dy-

Dynamic Phonology

33

namic model into the realm of acoustic phonetics. Since the development of the a r t i c u l a t o r y model, dynamic phonetic evi dence has continued to amass.

For example, in Sawashima & Cooper (1977),

we find a number of developments in the dynamics of speech production.

Of

particular interest is Nakajima (1977), in which a dynamic a r t i c u l a t o r y model is attempted from acoustic analysis.

Further refinements in physiological and

acoustic aspects of a dynamic model are offered by Gay (1977), B e l l - B e r t i & Harris (1979), and many others.

Indeed, dynamic phonetic analysis has devel

oped from the theoretical concept of Curtis (1954) to the major area of i n s i g h t f u l and innovative research today.

2.3

Postulates of a Dynamic Phonology

As stated above, if there is some observable set of relationships that obtain between the various phonetic characteristics, then we are obligated by the inner approach — by the principle that the science of phonology must be based upon the best available scientific evidence — to abstract the r e l a t i o n ships and use them in organizing the phonology.

The evidence from physiolog

ical and acoustic phonetics w i l l not support an organization of features and oppositions in the phonology based upon the notions of segmentation, but

it

w i l l support an organization based upon principles of the hierarchical applica tion of features in dynamic c o a r t i c u l a t i o n (hierarchical in the sense of Mermelstein 1973).

Thus, the demands of the inner approach to phonology leave

us no other choice than to abandon the abstraction into segments in favor of some sort of abstraction into a dynamic hierarchy of constraint. The demands of the inner approach are not merely conventional de vices

which can

be

modified

for

the sake of

convenience

and

tradition.

Rather, the inner approach is a statement of theory maintaining that phono logical structures must be abstracted from phonetic evidence. faced w i t h phonetic

evidence which can be abstracted to form

Once we are phonological

relationships, if we choose to avoid this evidence (as does S. R.

Anderson

1974), we are no longer working within the same theory, but we are working instead from the outer approach (as in Foley 1977).

More importantly, if we

34


choose to avoid this evidence, we are basing our s t r u c t u r e not upon f a c t , but deliberately upon f i c t i o n . The choice, then, between incorporating our new-found evidence from physiological and acoustic phonetics or ignoring i t in favor of the t r a d i t i o n a l segmental-phonemic approach constitutes a choice in the direction which pho nology is to take.

On the one hand, we can choose to incorporate the organi

zational structure found in the phonetic evidence, in which case we shall be faced w i t h the formidable task of constructing a phonology through what may appear (at least at f i r s t glance) to be some extremely complex relationships. But, however long and however d i f f i c u l t this task, we w i l l be assured that our phonology has a sound, real basis in observable evidence which w i l l a f f o r d us insights into the nature of real (not hypothetical or notional) language.

On

the other hand, we can choose to avoid the evidence and maintain a seg mental approach to phonological organization, in which case our investigations in phonology w i l l be much more familiar and easier to understand.

Of course

along w i t h this f a m i l i a r i t y and ease we w i l l also realize that we are working in a f i c t i o n a l realm which cannot afford us insights into the nature of lan guage, but only affords us insights into the nature of the particular model used in description (and on this point compare G r i f f e n 1975a:chap.6).

This is

not to say that investigations in the segmental framework cannot be useful in directing our a t t e n t i o n to other areas of investigation (indeed, we see this in Hjelmslev 1968, Lindblom 1972, etc.).

Nonetheless, investigations in the seg

mental mode, while occasionally useful, cannot be confused w i t h investigations relating directly to the sound systems of real language. Once again, while most phonologists have realized that the categories and relationships obtained through the segmentation of speech sound do not constitute real evidence, the segmentation process has nevertheless been nec essary in the past because of the absence of any phonetically j u s t i f i a b l e man ner of organizing the phonetic phonological system.

features and their oppositions into a viable

Indeed, Hockett (1955) recognizes this f a c t quite per

spicuously and e x p l i c i t l y , but even he fails to develop a workable model. situation, however, has now been r e c t i f i e d by the development of models on a dynamic, hierarchical basis.

This

phonetic

I t is now the task of the phonologist

Dynamic Phonology

to formulate

35

a phonological structure on the basis of

these dynamic

rela

tionships. The following is a set of definitions and postulates which form the basis of a phonological structure constructed along the lines of the phonetic relationships outlined in the previous section. ic phonology.

Such a structure I term dynam

These postulates and definitions are consistent w i t h the f i n d

ings of dynamic phoneticians (Mermelstein, P e r k e l l , Öhman, Gay, etc. — cited above).

Moreover, they are consistent w i t h the general phonological theory

involving abstraction into systems of functional pertinence (as i n , for example, Trubetzkoy 1969, Hjelmslev 1961, etc.). The model proffered through these postulates is predicated on the t e n et that the categories of phonetics that function in phonology are governed by the principle of dynamic c o a r t i c u l a t o r y constraint — certain features and feature types are constrained by other features and feature types w i t h which they are simultaneously effected over time.

For example, the groups of f e a

tures traditionally lumped together as consonants constrain or obstruct those traditionally lumped together as vowels.

Thus, the vocalic oppositions are r e

alized in a stream, and the various types of consonantal oppositions obstruct the flow of this stream.

We may thus consider such concepts as a conso

nantal feature obscuring a vocalic one in such a way that the vocalic

feature

is acoustically altered in some way (is no longer ' c l e a r ' ) . Furthermore, this principle of dynamic c o a r t i c u l a t o r y constraint recog nizes the speech event as a dynamic act.

A i r coming up from (or r a r e l y , en

tering) the lungs is i n i t i a l l y constrained at the larynx.

This i n i t i a l constraint

without which there would not be normal speech, creates the fundamental f r e quency.

The phonated airstream (or its vibrations) are altered by the c o n f i g

uration of the vocalic articulators, which creates resonance chambers produc ing the various formant patterns. into syllables, definable

universally

These vocalic articulations are organized as steady-state vocalic

approximations.

The phonated and syllabicated airstream (vibrations) are further by disruptive obstructions, traditionally associated w i t h consonants.

constrained

36


2.3.a

The Laryngeal P a t t e r n .

As noted above, the i n i t i a l and neces

sary constraint in speech is normally performed at the larynx.

The basic la

ryngeal opposition, then, consists of features ranging from whisper (laryngeal f r i c a t i o n without vibration) to f u l l voice (vocal f r y — extremely pronounced slow vibration).

While i t is conceivable that a language could have any num

ber of features acting as pertinent

laryngeal opposition members, we would

normally expect three ~ voice (phonation), whisper (sustained aspiration), and the privative (the absence of uttered speech — either no speech or mouthed communication). Acoustically, the basic laryngeal opposition is realized as the funda mental frequency.

This forms the basis for the vocalic variations performed

in the oral and/or nasal c a v i t y .

Functionally, if the fundamental frequency on

a spectrogram is either continuous or its gaps (produced by obstruction rather than by termination or t o t a l i n t e r r u p t i o n of the speech function) can be i n t e r polated, then one laryngeal pattern is maintained. A laryngeal pattern may be as short as (but no shorter than) a sustain able sound

the size of a syllable, or

as long as a breath group (compare

Lieberman 1967), or, indeed, as long as a discourse block.

It is not a subset

of a reasonably determinate set of possible laryngeal patterns (although, to be sure, the number is theoretically f i n i t e ) . The importance of the laryngeal p a t t e r n , however, lies not so much in the basic laryngeal opposition itself.

Rather, the crucial aspect of the l a r y n

geal pattern (especially insofar as phonology is concerned) lies in the larynge al pattern prosody, traditionally associated w i t h intonation.

The prosodies are

defined and explained further below.

2.3.b The Syllable. syllables.

The laryngeal pattern is necessarily constrained by

A syllable is characterized by a vowel approximation.

ical terms, this

vowel

approximation corresponds

to the

In physiolog

target

vowel at which a steady state harmonic sound could be emitted.

area of a In acoustic

terms, it is an area of the spectrogram in which formant frequencies are de finable by poles and zeros (see Fant 1956) and in which a steady-state set of

Dynamic Phonology

37

frequencies is approximated (though not necessarily achieved). A syllabic (vocalic) r e s t r i c t i o n (again, associated traditionally w i t h a glide) is a medial transition — faster than a syllable boundary but slower than an obstruction element in the speech dynamics. length of reasonably steady maintain a steady state.

vocalic

I t commonly accompanies a

emission, but it

As the vocalic

is too short itself

to

restriction is medial in nature, a

change in tempo (deliberate or incidental) can cause the r e s t r i c t i o n to be a l ternatively realized as a syllable, a syllabic boundary (if it corresponds to the following syllable), or an obstruction element.

This behavior is demonstrated

in the classic experiment of Lehiste & Peterson (1961). Although the syllable cannot be obscured physiologically (that is, the vocalic articulators always maintain their positions regardless of consonantal obstructions), i t can be e f f e c t i v e l y obscured by obstruction acoustically (such as during occlusion or in such cases of t o t a l obstruction as found, for

ex

ample, in the Mandarin syllable / s z / 'four' — see the discussion in chap. 12, below).

Nonetheless, some formant patterns can be discerned in all syllables.

A syllable may be the shortest sequential, segmentable unit (see Malmberg 1955, Liberman et al. 1967, Mermelstein 1975). The basic syllabic/vocalic oppositions are measurements of physiologic al and acoustic variables related to tongue-body height, tongue-body

depth,

lip protrusion, and jaw height (though this last variable is rarely of phonolog ical pertinence independent of tongue-body height and depth).

Whether physi

ological or acoustic features and/or oppositions are used in any description is not a matter of one's supremacy over the other, but reflects rather the de mands of the particular

description (Lieberman

1970).

Indeed, the choice

ought not to be an exclusive one; and in the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of correlations, it should be a complementary one. The vocalic pattern is traced from syllable to syllable, involving move ment from one vowel approximation to the next.

This w i l l , of course, result

in functional movement in the physiology and in the acoustic formant p a t t e r n . These transitions are relatively slow and form the boundary lables.

areas of

syl

Quicker transitions are not syllable boundaries, but elements of ob

struction or restrictions and are associated traditionally w i t h consonants or

38


glides, respectively, as discussed in the following subsection.

2.3.c

The Obstruction.

An obstruction is a constraint on the syllable.

Usually, it occurs in the area of a syllable transition, but (as in the Chinese example cited above) it can extend over the entire syllable.

During the ob

s t r u c t i o n , the physiological vocalic variables may be slightly constrained, but they continue in the vocalic p a t t e r n , and acoustically the transition from syl lable to syllable can be interpolated mathematically (Öman 1967). The main obstruction opposition is characterized (that is, the basis of the opposition is identified) as a particular position of a r t i c u l a t i o n or acoustic locus.

In this framework, a position of articulation involves the a r t i c u l a t o r ,

the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n , and the configuration of the a r t i c u l a t o r . Obstructions are not consonants in the segmental sense, for there is no such thing in this dynamic, t o t a l l y nonsegmental phonology. ular constraints (groups

or,

They are p a r t i c

more precisely, complexes of constraining fea

tures) on the vocalic pattern that occur not sequentially vowel, but concurrently w i t h i t and superimposed upon i t . be in sequence w i t h one another.

w i t h the syllabic However, they may

Thus, the nature of the vocalic variables in

the syllable transition w i l l determine to a great extent the precise manner of occurrence of the obstruction (as i t lacks i t own base for articulation), and it w i l l , by v i r t u e of its demands on articulators and acoustic locus requirements, a f f e c t the nature of the vowel upon which i t is imposed in a predictable (pho netic) manner, but in a manner of less magnitude than that of the vowel on the obstruction.

Of course, the notion of allophonic (combinatory) variation

becomes an hierarchical matter rather

than a sequential one, and the very

concept of the segmental allophone is completely

eliminated from phonology

(as demonstrated in the analyses of chaps. 3 and 4, below).

As for the posi

tion of the obstruction in the syllable organization, more is stated in the f o l lowing section on the organization of phonology.

2.3.d

The Prosodies.

In addition to the main oppositions of the l a r y n

geal p a t t e r n , syllable, and obstruction, there is a series of prosodies.

In gen

eral, a prosody is a feature opposition that constrains the main opposition.

It

Dynamic Phonology

39

is characterized by finer use of the pertinent physiological apparati and by finer variation of the acoustic product.

I f we divide the speech event into

three 'divisions' (that is, groups or strata of concurrently realized types of a r t i c u l a t i o n ) along the lines of the above analysis -- laryngeal division, syl lable division, and obstruction division — then the prosodies of each division would be composed of the finer articulations and acoustic effects character istic of that division and of the division or divisions constrained. The laryngeal pattern prosodies, then, consist of finer realizations of the characteristics associable w i t h the laryngeal division.

Most prominently,

stress and pitch effected over the laryngeal pattern (that is, not r e s t r i c t e d to the syllable) consist of relationships (actually, ratios) between the amount and quality of laryngeal obstruction and the force of the airstream.

Thus, stress

and p i t c h are oppositions of the laryngeal pattern prosody, traditionally called intonation.

As the main laryngeal opposition is usually characterized simply

as being in e f f e c t during speech and being dormant during breath, it is the laryngeal pattern prosody that is of greater importance in this model. The syllable prosody is a realization of a particular quality for the duration of a syllable.

Syllable prosodies include such feature oppositions as

tones, tunes, stress, p i t c h , length, tension, and nasality. We should note that the f i r s t four of those cited are actually produced at the larynx.

As they function within the syllable organization (they

functionally pertinent to the syllable), they are also syllable prosodies.

are

When

the prosody of one division is imposed upon the same prosody of a constrained division, it is realized to a heightened degree.

Thus, for example, we can per

ceive and understand the stress pattern of a word imposed upon the stress pattern of the utterance — the stress assigned to a syllable is imposed upon the stress realized in a particular position in the laryngeal pattern and is pro nounced at a higher level of stress.

Given the laryngeal pattern of the u t t e r

ance and the stress pattern of the word (by syllable), we can thus predict the actual levels of stress involved in the r e l a t i v e values of language (that is, given the r e l a t i v i t y principle of Jakobson & Waugh 1979:13-18). As the basis of the syllable is vocalic, there is no issue as to whether syllable prosodies (particularly tension, length, tone, etc.) occur on the nuc-

40


leus alone.

In dynamic phonology such prosodies occur in the entire syllable

and may be obscured by an obstruction of a high degree (as demonstrated in chap. 12, below).

Indeed, in this framework, there is no such thing as a

nuclear vowel, a notion peculiar to segmentalism. Depending upon the language, syllabic/vocalic

oppositions

themselves

may be realized as prosodies, especially where vowel affection (or umlauting) phenomena are present.

For example, in Old High German, tongue-body height

and lip protrusion were pertinent syllabic oppositions, but tongue-body depth appears not to have been.

Thus, so long as a given syllabic vowel combined

the high feature of the tongue-body height opposition and the rounded feature of the lip protrusion opposition, it did not matter depth was f r o n t or back.

whether the

tongue-body

This enabled habitual (phonetic) fronting to extend

between syllables as a prosody, resulting in the umlaut forms in German today (for example, Old High German goti is New High German Götter 'gods').

(This

process is discussed at length in chap. 1 1 , below.) The most i n t r i c a t e set of prosodies is that of the obstruction prosodies — such

as voice,

1969:146).

aspiration, tension,

nasality,

etc.

(compare

Trubetzkoy

Like other prosodies and obstructions, the obstruction prosody is

superimposed within the system of constraint.

These prosodies are associated

w i t h the obstructions, however, and may dominate part or all of the syllable. Thus, for example, in many dialects of American English, the nasal prosody associable w i t h the f i n a l alveolar obstruction in the word pin may extend back all the way to (or even into) the i n i t i a l obstruction.

I t is not a syllable pros

ody, however, for i t is found only where the obstruction obtains constraining the f i n a l portion of the syllable. Once again, We should recognize that the obstruction prosody may i n deed be an obstructional realization of a syllabic or of a laryngeal feature. For example, aspiration is inherent to the relationship between the laryngeal obstruction and the force of the airstream. over,

it is the

In the laryngeal division, more

equivalent of whisper (as. mentioned above).

In

whispered

speech, however, a listener has l i t t l e trouble in understanding words that are opposed by the realization of the feature opposition of aspiration (for

ex

ample, one can recognize the difference between English pin and bin in whis-

Dynamic Phonology

41

pered speech), for as noted above, when a feature of one division is a realiza tion of the feature of another division, i t is realized to a heightened degree superimposed over the lower division realization. nizable.

As such, i t is readily recog

To take an extreme example, we find that we can understand French

w i t h nasal prosodic obstruction in conjunction w i t h the syllabic nasal prosody, even when it is spoken in abnormal nasalized speech, for once we become atuned to the hierarchical applications, we can separate nasality by division on the basis of strength. More than one obstruction prosody can occur at one time. ample, the Welsh (Dyffryn Nantlle dialect)

For

nasal a f f r i c a t e in

ex '(my)

chain 1 (see chap. 8, below; also G r i f f e n 1974) includes an apico-palatal-alveolar obstruction (the palatal member of the obstruction opposition in Welsh), a prosodic aspiration that is i n i t i a t e d concurrently w i t h the onset of obstruc tion and dominates beyond the release of obstruction, and prosodie that w i l l

vary considerably

among speakers, conceivably

lasting

nasality

unreleased

into the second obstruction (dominating the entire syllable) and likely begin ning before the onset of obstruction itself (as described by R. O. Jones 1969). Moreover, an obstruction prosody need not occur in conjunction w i t h any (phonologically pertinent) obstruction. culine indefinite a r t i c l e (number)

un

For example, in the French mas 'one' the nasal prosody is realized

without the dental obstruction that one finds in the feminine form une [yn]. Functionally, i t is indeed obstructional, as illustrated by the alternation itself. O f t e n , the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e / h / is also best analyzed in this way, as in the mutation system of Welsh (compare chap. 7, below). In dealing w i t h obstructions (or more precisely, features of the main obstruction opposition) and obstruction prosodies, we must be especially wary of the temptation to describe things in segmental terms.

A f t e r a l l , we are

used to reading, w r i t i n g , and to a large degree intellectualizing in terms of alphabetical letters.

That which we may perceive (through our alphabetical

tradition) as a consonantal segment entire unto itself is simply the c o a r t i c u l a tion of features.

Perhaps this can be seen most clearly in the realization of

the Welsh obstruction division. ence between the Welsh word

As illustrated in chap. 5, below, the d i f f e r [ t u : r ] ' t o w e r ' and its spirant mutation form

42


t h ŵ r [Ou:r], for example, has nothing to do w i t h the distinction between a segment [ t ] and a segment [O], but rather i t involves the difference between the coarticulated degrees of fortis-lenis aspirate prosody. In other languages, however, this distinction may best be analyzed as one involving a prosodic opposition of degree of occlusion.

In such a lan

guage, the f i r s t word would be analyzed as maintaining an i n i t i a l dental ob struction constrained by prosodic voicelessness and by the f i r s t degree of oc clusion, while the second would be analyzed as maintaining the same obstruc tion constrained by prosodie voicelessness and by the second degree of occlu sion.

Of course, the precise number and nature of degrees would depend u l

timately

upon the functioning of the phonological system of the

language.

particular

(On this point, compare the tactics used in Welsh lenition, as de

scribed in chaps. 5 and 7, below, and those used in Irish lenition (aspiration) — see, for example, Dillon & ό Crόinín 1961:4 — as well as in Gaelic — see, for example, Mackinnon 1971:36.) Realizations of the obstruction prosodies can further be affected by the nature of speech itself in any particular language system.

In the opposi

tion between speech and breath, breath is characterized by aspiration and by voicelessness of a lenis and possibly a nasal manner (although for purposes of markedness, it is best considered to be nonnasal). out obstruction.

Hence, it is prosodie w i t h

Unlike whispering, breathing is characterized by a steady

physiological state w i t h a r t i c u l a t o r y apparati in neutral position (the / H / of Gleason 1961, or the voiceless schwa).

Of course, the absence of the l a r y n

geal pattern in breath defines the privation of speech. Because of its prosodie nature, where tension is contrastive (possibly through aspiration, as in Welsh), breath can spread prosodie lenition (which may involve voicing, which often accompanies the reduction of aspirate t e n sion) over

f i n a l obstructions in anticipation of the lenis nature of

breath;

while in languages in which voicing (that is, lack of aspiration) is contrastive, it can spread prosodie aspiration over f i n a l obstructions.

Thus, we find the

peculiar situation of archiphonemic neutralization of voicing w i t h accompany ing realization of aspiration in w o r d - f i n a l position in German (for example, Land [ l a n t ] 'land' has the optional dative form Lande [lande] and the same

Dynamic Phonology

43

archiphonemic neutralization of aspiration w i t h accompanying realization

of

voicing in the same position in Welsh (for example, tlawd [ t l a u d ] 'poor' has the superlative form tlotach [ t l o t a x ] .

2.4

(Compare Trubetzkoy 1969:76-7.)

The Organization of Phonology

In the categories of phonetic features/oppositions, we find a natural or ganization of hierarchical constraint.

The laryngeal pattern is constrained by

the syllable, which is in turn constrained by the obstructions.

Moreover, each

of these categories is further constrained by its own set of prosodies.

This

hierarchy is determined not by any abstract phonological considerations nor by the imposition

of

a preconceived

set

of notions

by

the

analyst (compare

Robins 1957); rather, i t is determined by phonetic observation. ined dynamically, speech sound is systematically

When exam

describable in terms of the

three divisions of constraint acting upon the airstream and/or its vibrations. With this in mind, we can construct a rough model of phonetics, in which we place laryngeal features in the laryngeal pattern division, vocalic features in the syllable division, and consonantal features in the obstruction division.

This can be illustrated

as in figure

2.1 (p. 44, below).

demonstrate in the following chapters, by a t t r i b u t i n g obstructional only

to

syllable

the obstruction division,

(combinatory)

we

division and vocalic/syllabic

can

variation

indeed

by

the

replace

more

features

the

old

notion

realistic

and

reliable

features

only of

As I

to

the

allophonic

evidence

of

coarticulatory phonetics. In the operation of the model and in its application to analysis, how ever, a further organizational unit is needed in order to predict and to ana lyze utterances over time.

For this purpose, we should use the one recurring

segmentable entity — the syllable (in keeping w i t h Mermelstein 1975; see also Malmberg 1955, Kozhevnikov & Chistovich 1965).

The overall pattern of the

syllable in this coarticulatory dynamic arrangement is represented in the syl labic frame of figure 2.2.

(As I shall be r e f e r r i n g in all of the following anal

yses to this syllabic frame, it would probably be helpful if the reader would place a mark in the following page for f u t u r e reference.)

44


Obstruction Prosody Consonantal Features Obstruction

Syllable Prosody Vocalic Features Syllable

Laryngeal P a t t e r n Prosody Laryngeal Features Laryngeal P a t t e r n

Figure 2 . 1 : Dynamic Model

Obstruction Division Consonantal Features

Syllable Division Vocalic Features

Laryngeal Division Larngeal Features

Figure 2.2: Syllabic Frame

Dynamic Phonology

45

This model is in itself superior to the outmoded segmental models of phonetics.

For one thing, i t maintains as its fundamental elementary unit the

phonetic f e a t u r e (in opposition), a characteristic of the speech event that can be isolated and is fully justified in the phonetic l i t e r a t u r e (compare, for ex ample, Lehiste 1967, Fant 1973, Singh 1976, and Blache 1978).

This phonetic

feature is furthermore organized not into notional segmental bundles that can not be j u s t i f i e d in the phonetic evidence, but into the natural organizations of constraint and syllable structure that are fully evident in the phonetic data. Moreover, by constructing a model on the basis of heirarchical con straint, we can more adequately i d e n t i f y and predict certain perceived varia tions.

For example, once we identify the stress levels of intonation in the

laryngeal division, then we can superimpose the stress levels of individual s y l lables upon the laryngeal prosody's p a t t e r n .

This allows us to predict

the

combined, or absolute stress level in any particular syllable, given its realiza tion in time within the utterance as a whole.

As a higher stress level may

well have an e f f e c t upon the more f o r t i s members of the obstruction prosody of tension, we can further

measure the realization of obstructional

relative to the overall stress level in the utterance. psychoacoustics, such a capability

tension

From the viewpoint of

is of great value in predicting

how the

listener perceives a particular sound in the dynamic f l o w of an utterance. The development of such a conceptual model of

dynamic

phonetics

promises a significant leap forward in linguistic phonetics and in s t r u c t u r a l / functional phonology.

I f we do not have to tie our organization to the seg

ment, but can arrange the features within the syllabic frame in a natural hierarchy of constraint, then there is not only no grammar of speech between the model and any abstract segmental stratum (as in the Liberman hypothesis — Liberman 1970), but there is no transition device needed in the other direc tion — between the actual experimental results and the model.

This means

that there can be a direct correlation between the characteristics

evinced

from the instrumental readings of such machines as the sound spectrograph and cineradiograph and the organizational characteristics of the model. For example, in the production of a syllable, we w i l l find certain syl lable

formant

frequencies

and reconstructable

obstruction

loci

as well as

46


noise, duration, and other characteristics on the sound spectrogram.

In the

old segmental theory, these characteristics had to be bundled into segments through often complex rules that tended to lump vocalic characteristics

in

w i t h consonant bundles (and hence creating allophones -- see chaps. 3 and 4, below).

In this dynamic nonsegmental model, on the other hand, these same

characteristics can be attached directly to their positions within the syllabic frame.

As the process is so d i r e c t , there is no reason why, given reasonable

technological expectations, the process cannot be handled mechanically. One caveat ought to be stated and restated as,, often as necessary, how ever.

This model is neither an inventory nor a taxonomy of syllable types.

The syllabic frame is simply a single, highly flexible organizational unit.

The

basic element of this model is s t i l l the feature, w i t h all of its physiological and acoustic j u s t i f i c a t i o n . with

The syllabic frame merely provides the

natural and phonetically justifiable organization.

This

features

aspect of

the

model w i l l become clear in the analyses of the following chapters, and it should also become clear that this model makes use of features quite f a i t h f u l ly, as opposed to their use merely to identify segments in segmental models (as shown in chap. 1 , above). Thus far, I have treated only the model of linguistic phonetics ( f e a tures in phonetic opposition).

As noted in chap. 1 , phonology is to be a

functional abstraction from phonetics.

Thus, the nature of a functional pho

nology abstracted from this dynamic phonetic model should r e f l e c t the organi zation of the dynamic phonetic model itself. In order to demonstrate the v i a b i l i t y

of a dynamic nonsegmental ab

straction from dynamic nonsegmental phonetic

evidence and to

demonstrate

the abstraction's implications for phonological model construction within struc t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theory, it is perhaps best very briefly to run through some analyses that w i l l be treated in more satisfying detail in later chapters. In Modern Welsh, the i n i t i a l obstruction of the word ci [ c h i : ] 'dog' has traditionally been described as occurring w i t h the highest point of the tongue body forward at the palate (a voiceless aspirated palatal stop), while that of its plural form cwn [k u:n] has traditionally been described as occurring w i t h the highest point of the tongue body back at the velum (a voiceless aspirated

Dynamic Phonology

velar stop). h

47

Thus, in the segmental approach, there are two phones [c ] (or h

[ k ' D and [ k ] , the former w i t h the (segmentally) inherent feature [-back] and the l a t t e r

w i t h the inherent feature [+back].

As i t happens, whenever the

dorsal obstruction occurs in a syllable in which the vowel is f r o n t , as in [ i : ] , the tongue body is in the palatal position, and whenever this obstruction oc curs in a syllable in which the vowel is back, as in [ u : ] , the tongue body is in the velar

position.

[c ] and [k ] , thus being in complementary distribution,

can be classified as allophones or combinatory variants of the single phoneme / k / . This occurrence of a single phoneme / k / r e l a t i v e to two allophones [c ] and [k ] constitutes a discrepancy between the phonological s t r u c t u r e and the phonetic (compare the i n t e r s t r a t a l discrepancy of Lockwood 1972:27).

Thus,

in segmental phonological theory we are forced into recognizing a phonetic structure w i t h its set of categories and relationships (allophonic [c ] and [k ]) and a separate phonological s t r u c t u r e w i t h its own set of categories and r e l a tionships (phonemic / k / ) . The basic flaw in this segmental analysis is that, as pointed out by Mermelstein (1973 — compare Perkell 1969:chap.4), the tongue body is phonet ically not a consonant-articulating organ, but a v o w e l - a r t i c u l a t i n g organ.

The

reason why [c ] in ci appears to be f r o n t is that the tongue-body position as sociated w i t h the vowel [ i : ] is f r o n t and the consonant is thus phonetically realized in coarticulation w i t h the vowel.

Likewise, the [k ] of cŵn appears

to be back because the tongue-body position associated w i t h its coarticulated vowel [u:] is back.

Thus, in the segmentation process, features of the vowels

are a r b i t r a r i l y classified (or they are r e w r i t t e n in an assimilation rule) as be ing inherent to the consonants because they happen to be produced during consonant closure, a problem indeed noted by Liberman (1970). When we make a functional abstraction of phonology directly from the dynamic phonetic model, however, this problem disappears.

By treating

the

dorsal closure as a constraint upon the syllabic vowel, as represented in f i g ure 2.2, the phonologist can properly a t t r i b u t e the characteristics of conso nants to consonants and those of vowels to vowels.

Thus, the characteristics

pertinent to consonantal obstructions in ci and cŵn are identical, and the dif ference in tongue-body position (and incidentally, in lip protrusion as well) is

48


taken care of in the syllabic vowels.

In this analysis, then, there is only one

dorsal obstruction ( w i t h pertinent prosodic feature characteristics) in the pho netic structure r e l a t i v e to only one dorsal obstruction in the

phonological

structure (see chap. 3, below; compare also G r i f f e n 1977c). Not only does a dynamic analysis reduce discrepancy in cases of sup posed variation of position (as predicted by Perkell 1969:65), but i t also r e duces discrepancy in variation of manner.

For example, Spanish intervocalic

voiced stops (in t r a d i t i o n a l segmental terminology) appear to alternate

with

voiced f r i c a t i v e s , as in dama [dama] 'lady' and la dama [la dama] 'the lady'. In the segmental approach, as we have seen in chap. 1 , above, there are two allophones [d] and [d] in the phonetic structure r e l a t i v e to only one phoneme / d / in the phonological. The key to solving this problem lies in the nature of dynamic phonetics as a system of

constraint.

As demonstrated in chap. 5, below (see also

G r i f f e n 1975a:chap.l0 and 1977a), the fortis-lenis scale by which [d] and [ë] are related within / d / is realized phonetically by a r a t i o of high-to-low

fre

quency acoustically and by a r a t i o of r e l a t i v e width at the o r i f i c e of the lar ynx physiologically (on this point compare especially Perkell 1969:36-37, Kim 1970, and Malecot 1955, 1970).

Thus, the increase in prominence of the con

strained vocalic element in intervocalic position should reduce the physiolog ical and acoustic ratios such that the more lenis [d] is realized within the s y l labic framework represented in figure 2.2.

Such a relationship can be handled

more directly through prosodic realization.

Once again, then, the relationship

of constraint accounts for the supposed variation in the obstruction such that the one dental obstruction in the phonetic structure relates to the one dental obstruction in the phonological s t r u c t u r e . reputedly phonetically count of which

(This, incidentally, accounts for the

unjustifiable opposition — the beta-strength — on ac

Foley

1977

and even Vennemann & Ladefoged 1973 argue

against the inner approach — compare, however, chap. 5, below.) While the above

examples

involve

interdivisional constraints

in

the

reduction of discrepancies, there are also intradivisional constraints which can account for the discrepancies of t r a d i t i o n a l segmental phonology.

In the con

sonantal obstruction division, supposed variants can be found to be the result

Dynamic Phonology

49

of coarticulation of nonsegmental prosodic constraints.

For example, there

are two alternate forms for the Welsh preposition 'across' — dros [dros] and tros [ t r o s ] .

In the former, the [ r ] is voiced; while in the l a t t e r , the [ r ] is

o

o

voiceless.

As the realization of [ r ] or [ r ] is contextually determined by the

realization of voice in the preceding stop, a segmental analysis would main tain two allophones [ r ] and [ r ] r e l a t i v e to a single phoneme / r / , a further ex ample of discrepancy. As pointed

out

in chap. 5 (see also G r i f f e n

1975c), however,

the

voicelessness of the dental obstruction is a consequence (at least in the Welsh system) of the realization of aspiration — a nonsegmental phonetic feature. Once this is taken into account, the supposed discrepancy between [ r ] and [ r ] can be seen to have nothing to do w i t h the t r i l l itself — it is only a matter of the t r i l l ' s being coarticulated w i t h the prosodic constraint of aspiration. Thus, obstructions are constrained by prosodies as vowels are constrained by consonantal

obstructions,

and

this

system

simply

allows

prosodie

characteristics to be classified within the prosodies and obstructional charac teristics to be classified within their obstructions.

There is, then, only one

t r i l l in the phonetic s t r u c t u r e r e l a t i v e to one t r i l l in the phonological. In the syllable division, supposed variants can also be found to be the result of coarticulation of nonsegmental prosodie constraints.

In Old High Ger

man, for example, there is, in segmental terminology, an alternation between the high back rounded vowel in wurm [wurm] ' w o r m ' and the high f r o n t round ed vowel in the plural form of the word wurmi [ w y r m i ] (as originally unmarked in the orthography). or

occurrence

As this variation is predictable from the nonoccurrence

of the high f r o n t vowel in the following syllable,

the

two

phones [u] and [ y ] have traditionally been taken to be allophones of the pho neme / u / .

Once more, there is a discrepancy between two segments in the

phonetic structure and one in the phonological. That analysis, however, is the result of the segmental view that the two vowels are separated by a discrete consonantal segment.

In the dynamic

approach, though, the pertinent vocalic feature characteristics are not sepa rated, but occur in a f l o w from syllable to syllable (the vocalic pattern), a flow which is only constrained by consonantal obstruction and not interrupted

50


by i t .

Thus in the dynamic analysis, vowel height and lip roundedness can be

considered as the distinctive marks of opposition, and vowel frontness is free to act as a syllable prosody, able to extend its domain across syllable boun daries, just as aspiration is able to extend its domain across the syllable.

As

in the case of aspiration, then, only one high rounded vowel in the phonetic s t r u c t u r e relates to one high rounded vowel in the phonological, and depth (frontness) is simply a coarticulated prosodic feature associated w i t h the syl labic vowel in the following syllable (at that particular stage in Old High Ger man).

(This analysis is treated in detail in chap. 1 1 , below ~ see also G r i f f e n

1982d) In this manner, all of the discrepancies of segmental phonetics and pho nology can be reduced.

With the elimination of the segment (or more precise

ly, w i t h the refusal to make the unnecessary and unjustified abstraction of segmentation), all relationships between the phonetic structure and the phono logical structure are direct singulary relationships between opposition mem bers

of

phonetic

pertinence

and opposition

members

of

phonological

per

tinence. With no discrepancies between the phonetic structure and the phonolog ical s t r u c t u r e , an interesting development can take place in the construction of a model of phonology.

As all categories and all relationships of the phono

logical structure are d i r e c t l y abstracted from the categories and the r e l a t i o n ships of the phonetic structure w i t h no s t r u c t u r a l changes incurred in the process, therefore those categories and relationships from which the phonological structure is constructed and which indeed constitute the phonological struc ture itself form a proper subset of the phonetic structure by reason of iden tity.

The abstraction of these categories and relationships into a separate

structure is therefore unnecessary, provided only that the subset be identified as such. The question now becomes one of a t t r i b u t i o n :

By what characteristic

are the categories and relationships of that subset of phonetics known as pho nology to be identified? al/functional

linguistics:

The answer is implicit in the very basis of s t r u c t u r By

function.

Those categories and

relationships

within the structure of dynamic phonetics which serve a contrastive function

Dynamic Phonology

51

in the linguistic system of a language belong to that language's phonology, to that language's functional phonetics (compare M a r t i n e t 1949b).

(Incidentally,

as there is no s t r u c t u r a l change in the abstraction process, such a nonsegmental system is not possible in the s t r i c t American s t r u c t u r a l t r a d i t i o n , in either the phonemic model or the generative model, for such models rely sole ly upon s t r u c t u r a l l y determined attributes and thus could not properly identify a phonology as a f i r s t - l e v e l abstraction within the dynamic phonetic structure itself.) I f all phonological abstractions are made directly

from the dynamic

phonetic model, then, i t is indeed possible to construct a model of dynamic phonology in which all relationships are in a f i r s t - l e v e l abstraction, as shown to some extent in chap. 7, below, and as demonstrated further (1979).

in

Griffen

This allows for a model in which all aspects of phonology can truly be

described as functional phonetics.

As such, then, this model of dynamic pho

nology represents the maximal realization of the goal of t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r al/functional

theory

as propounded

1970), and Martinet (1949b, 1964).

by Trubetzkoy Furthermore, it

(1969), Hjelmslev

(1961,

eliminates the problems

inherent to segmental s t r u c t u r a l abstraction by removing the necessity discrepancies, which are

bound to appear between separate structures

for and

which must be reconciled through some type of operation (for example, gener ative transformations). In the following chapters, we shall examine key linguistic analyses that yield insights into the sound system of languages not possible in the old, no tional segmental mode.

As we shall see, not only is dynamic phonology super

ior to the segmental f i c t i o n from the standpoint of f i r m , reliable methods of description and analysis, but i t also supplies us w i t h the evidence we allegedly need to point out deficiency upon deficiency "in the form of a linguistically significant generalization that is essentially unstatable if segmentation is adhered t o " (S. R. Anderson 1974:6).

the procedure of

Thus, this should mark

the end of segmental phonology, at least u n t i l an even less supportable excuse is found to maintain i t . In closing the ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' portion of this book, I should point out that this dynamic phonology has been referred to throughout not as a new theory,

52


but as a new model.

What dynamic phonology represents is nothing more than

the application of dynamic phonetics to phonology within the traditions

of

s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theory as they are realized in the Prague School, s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar (and the Copenhagen School), and most importantly London School of prosodic analysis.

the

As the application has progressed, the

strongest a f f i n i t y would appear to be w i t h F i r t h i a n prosodic analysis, and one could quite conceivably (and not entirely incorrectly) categorize dynamic pho nology as a model of prosodie analysis, carried to its logical conclusion ~ the elimination of the segmental, sequential s t r u c t u r e in favor of the prosodies (as one might suggest from the works of Henderson — compare Roberts 1979). Nonetheless, the basis of this model is rather eclectic, and the the oretical 'umbrella' under which i t is perhaps most properly subsumed is rather broad.

Within this broad, s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theory, then, I set out in the

following chapters to explode the myth of segmentalism by providing (as S. R. Anderson requires) analyses that can capture significant linguistic generaliza tions if and only if the segment is abandoned.

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS BY DIRECTION OF CONSTRAINT I - GERMAN / x /

3.1

Introduction

As noted in the previous chapter, there is a hierarchy

of

constraint

within the model illustrated in figure 2.1 -- the syllable division constrains the laryngeal division, and both are constrained by the obstruction division. This hierarchy thus describes a particular direction of constraint, one pro gressing 'up' the model (figuratively speaking). The direction of constraint can be used in analysis, as mentioned in the discussion of above.

the syllable

and laryngeal

pattern

prosodies

in chap.

2,

There we see that the absolute value of, for example, syllable stress

is superimposed and thus added to the absolute value of laryngeal pattern ( i n tonational) stress within the utterance.

Given the overall levels of stress, the

laryngeal pattern prosody, and the syllable stress p a t t e r n , we can thus deter mine the r e l a t i v e stress levels realized in an utterance; and given the l a r y n geal pattern prosody and the syllable stress p a t t e r n , we can predict the r e l a tive overall stress in an utterance, if not the absolute realization of stress levels (compare Jakobson & Waugh 1979). When we approach this directional constraint within its dynamic nonsegmental framework, then, we find a f a i r l y powerful device for analysis and

54


description.

Moreover, when we compare the device of directional constraint

w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l notional segmental counterpart of allophony, we find that the nonsegmental method of description is far closer to the realities of dy namic phonetics, and (as shall be demonstrated) much simpler.

Of more im

portance to our goal of achieving a solution to the Anderson requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974, see pp. 23-24 above), when we compare the two methods we find that allophony simply does not in f a c t describe the phenomenon that is

occurring

--

it

is

a

deficiency

in

segmental

phonology

(phonemics).

3.2

Preliminary: The Case Against Allophony

In segmental phonology, allophonic variation is the state in which two phones are in complementary distribution and are therefore said to be allophones of a common phoneme.

As implied in its a l t e r n a t i v e terms of c o n t e x t u

al and combinatory variation (Trubetzkoy 1969, M a r t i n e t 1964, etc.), allophony is based upon the immediate phonetic environment, and it is described in ar rangement models as the appearance of a particular phone in a particular pho netic environment and in process models as the transformation of one phone (or of the base phoneme) into another as motivated by a particular phonetic environment.

(Compare the analyses of Spanish / b / in Gleason 1961 and in

Hyman 1975 as they are summarized in chap. 1.4, above.) For an uncontroversial example, let us consider the i n i t i a l phones of German Kuh [ku:] 'cow' and its plural form Kühe [cy:ә]. be described as allophones of the phoneme / k / .

These can certainly

In terms of arrangement, the

[ k ] can be described as occurring in the environment of a back vowel, and the [ c ] ([k']) can be described as occurring in the environment of a front vowel. By process, the phoneme / k / can be described as transforming its underlying [+back] feature into [-back] in the environment of a vowel which is specified [-back].

In either case, the phones are predictable for backness (depth) on

the basis of environment, and they are therefore considered to be allophones of a single phoneme.

Moreover, in either case, variation is based upon fea

tures of a particular sound segment or opposition members inherent to a sound

German / x /

55

segment (on this point, compare Plotkin 1976). I t is this last point — the inherent nature of features or opposition members in discrete segments — which requires closer scrutiny.

As pointed

out by Fant (1962), whatever j u s t i f i c a t i o n there may be for the segmental phoneme does not lie in the observable phonetic evidence, but it only appears to exist at best in the abstract. produced syllable-by-syllable

Rather than segment-by-segment, speech is

(Kozhevnikov

&

Chistovich

1966,

Mermelstein

1975 — compare also the problems incurred in Bell & Hooper 1978), and the syllable

can

be

produced

only

by

synthesizing

phonetic

characteristics

corresponding to features or opposition members in a nonsegmental r e l a t i o n ship (see Liberman, Ingemann, Lisker, Delattre & Cooper 1959). As we see in chap. 1 , above, in order to make the transition from the segmental

phonology

to

the

nonsegmental

syllabic

realization

of

speech,

Liberman (1970) has suggested the need for a model in which segments could be transformed into the nonsegmental continuum.

A t this point, i t would be

appropriate to look in slightly more detail into the Liberman hypothesis and its implications. In spite of the f a c t that his hypothesis is taken to be a j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the continued use of the segment in phonetics (Halle 1972) and in phonol ogy '(S. R. Anderson 1974), Liberman reveals the basic incompatability of this device w i t h the syllabic nature of pronunciation; and in so doing he provides the observation which identifies allophony as a categorical fallacy.

He ob

serves that in a CVC syllable, the vowel is produced through at least most of the syllable, and the consonants are produced simultaneously w i t h the vowel. The hypothesis which he derives from

this f a c t is that

a transformational

'grammar of speech' needs to be devised in order to account for this s i g n i f i cant overlapping, such as that graphically represented in figure 3.1 (p. 56, below).

This is similar

to Lockwood's

between

the

phonemic

sequential

stratificational

stratum

and

the

shift

in

hierarchical

dominance phonetic

stratum (Lockwood 1973, 1976; compare also G r i f f e n 1975d). The problem w i t h the Liberman hypothesis is that it assumes the cor rectness of segmentation and of the transformational paradigm and attempts a reconciliation between these two abstract concepts and the real observations

56


of syllabic realization, without fully examining the implications of those ob servations.

A closer examination of the evidence, however, indicates that the

very need for this reconciliation and for such a grammar of speech lies in the f a c t that segmentation within the syllable has traditionally been carried out on a faulty premise (as shown below), a premise s t i l l basic to the Liberman hypothesis.

Figure 3 . 1 : The Grammar of Speech

This t r a d i t i o n a l segmental approach to syllable structure divides

the

syllable into a sequence of discrete entities, as shown in figure 3.2 (opposite). These entities correspond to the 'deep' (phone) level of figure 3 . 1 . In tracing the development of these segments back through the analysis of the continuum (the 'surface' — speech — level of figure 3.1), we can see that the segmenta tion of the syllable is carried out entirely w i t h respect to time, such that the time in which the f i r s t consonant is imposed is taken to be the f i r s t segment, the time between consonants is taken to be the second segment, and the time in which the f i n a l consonant is imposed is taken to be the third segment, as represented in figure 3.2.

German / x /

57

Figure 3.2: Segmental Consonant-Vowel Organization

This approach to the consonant-vowel relationship contains the c a t e gorical fallacy

in which parts of the vowel (those produced during the f i r s t

and third segments) are chopped off

and rather a r b i t r a r i l y

assigned to the

consonants — precisely the problem which Liberman finds in the segmental model and seeks to solve through transformation.

As a result of the c a t e g o r i

zation of vowel characteristics as included in consonants, the consonant seg ments display not only those characteristics peculiar to the obstructions them selves, but they also display characteristics

of the vowel w i t h which

they

happen to be coarticulated in time. To see the relationship between this categorical fallacy and allophony, let us return to the German example of Kuh [ku:] and Kühe

[cy:ә]

The i n i t i a l

consonants d i f f e r in that the former is produced at the velar point of a r t i c u lation and w i t h rounded lips, while the l a t t e r is produced at the palatal point of a r t i c u l a t i o n and w i t h unrounded lips.

As this difference is contextually (or

combinatorily) determined and therefore not phonologically pertinent, [ k ] and [ c ] ([k'D are considered to be allophones of the phoneme / k / .

Once we r e

move the categorical fallacy of t r a d i t i o n a l segmentation, however, we find that there is nothing inherent in these occurrences of [ k ] and [ c ] to j u s t i f i f y considering them as variants — the difference between them is entirely in the coarticulated vowel.

In the one case, the vowel is velar (back) and marked

by rounded lips; in the other, the vowel is palatal (front) and marked by un rounded lips.

That the segmentalist should perceive this difference to be in

the consonants is only a result of the consonant's being produced simultane ously w i t h the vowel, as noted by Liberman and S. R. Anderson themselves.

58


To c i t e an even more extreme and obvious case, let us consider the i n i t i a l consonants 'four'.

of

the German words fuhr [ f u : ] 'drove'

and vier [ f i : ]

While the former is velar (in tongue-body position) and rounded, the

l a t t e r is palatal and unrounded.

Of course, few segmentalists would argue

that the two apparent variants of / f /

be allophones.

Nonetheless, by the c r i

t e r i a establishing [ k ] and [ c ] as allophones of / k / , a consistent segmental anal ysis would logically classify these two occurrences of / f / as allophonic v a r i ants because of the very same vowel characteristics incidentally included at the time of consonantal constraint.

That segmental analysts do not maintain

this consistence in itself indicates a glaring problem w i t h an approach that appears ever more obviously to be notionalist. Returning now to the hypothesis of a grammar of speech, we can see that a reconciliation between the actual syllabic realization and the segment al phone need only be made if we maintain a segmental phone.

On the other

hand, if we choose a nonsegmental system, such as that found in chap. 2, above (see also G r i f f e n 1976b), then we can describe the phonological r e l a tionships among opposition members within the framework of the syllable or ganization itself.

When this is done, the need for allophony vanishes, for a l -

lophony is only a means of reconciling the observable nature of the syllable w i t h the false assumption of segmentation. The dynamic

model of phonology described in the previous

however, is abstracted from the dynamic phonetic evidence.

chapter,

As such, i t is

based upon the well demonstrated f a c t of coarticulation — that consonants are constraints on vowels and are carried out simultaneously w i t h the vowels they constrain.

While no segmental model of speech has been made t o work,

the nonsegmental model of Mermelstein (1973) does indeed predict the a r t i c u l a t o r movements of speech w i t h a remarkable degree of accuracy, just as the acoustic calculations of Öhman (1966, 1967 — among others) do in spectro graphic analysis, by basing the model on coarticulatory constraint.

As noted

in chap. 1 , above, even 5. R. Anderson (1974) recognizes this f a c t , though he deliberately chooses to ignore i t in his generative model. When phonetic characteristics are abstracted into the phonology

on

the organizational basis of coarticulation rather than of segmentation, we can

German / x /

59

construct the more realistic syllabic frame of figure 2.2 (p. 44, above).

For

our purposes in this analysis, it would be simpler and more consistent w i t h the representations above to use a simplified i l l u s t r a t i o n , as in figure 3.3.

This

structure makes i t possible for us to assign characteristics of consonants to consonants and characteristics

of vowels to vowels w i t h no overlapping of

type.

Figure 3.3: Dynamic Consonant-Vowel Organization Considering the example of Kuh [ku:] and Kühe [cy: ] in this new syl lable s t r u c t u r e ,

we arrive

at

an entirely

different

analysis.

The

velar

tongue-body position and the lip rounding simultaneous w i t h the i n i t i a l conso nant of Kuh [ku:] can be properly a t t r i b u t e d to the vowel [u:]; while the palatality

and unroundedness

simultaneous

with

the i n i t i a l

consonant

of

Kühe

[cy: ] can likewise be a t t r i b u t e d to the vowel [y:]. This, of course, is fully in keeping w i t h the evidence of dynamic 1973).

phonetics (for

example, Mermelstein

Thus, the [ k ] and the [ c ] are not separate variants at a l l , but repre

sent closure at the tongue-body position of the vowel within a nonpertinent range and without any effect upon the state of the lips. In keeping w i t h cineradiographic evidence, this syllable structure main tains a vocalic base — the slow, precise movement of the tongue-body, lips, and jaw (Mermelstein 1973:1081) — extending from the beginning of the syl lable to the end.

This is necessarily so, as obstructions must be carried out

upon some sort of a syllabic base, for they lack their own base of a r t i c u l a tion.

To state it more simply, they must, as obstructions, obstruct something

(compare G r i f f e n 1 9 7 6 b : 1 0 - l l ) .

(Of course, the tongue must be in some posi-

60


t i o n , dividing the oral c a v i t y into acoustic chambers, and the lips must also be in some state of roundedness, whether or not a perceivable or pertinent vowel is discerned.) Thus, allophonic variation of consonants based upon the position of the vowel is merely a device of segmental phonology and is not necessary (nor desirable, nor even possible) in a dynamic nonsegmental system.

This property

of the system is supported by the findings of P e r k e l l , who observes that " c o articulation effects of vowels are, for the most part, manifested by influenc ing the position of the consonant-articulating organs rather than by altering the manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n " (1969:65).

(Nonetheless, the manner of a r t i c u l a

tion can also be a f f e c t e d , as we see in chap. 4, below). Moreover, allophonic variation can be seen to be the result of a major categorical f a l l a c y , in which vowel characteristics are a t t r i b u t e d to conso nants, thus violating the i n t e g r i t y of the most basic of feature classes.

In

dynamic phonological analysis, on the other hand, by recognizing the principle of the direction of constraint, we can classify obstructional features as obstructional, and we can classify syllabic/vocalic features as syllabic/vocalic. As it were, the (segmentally) perceived movement of the obstruction is car ried out superimposed upon the real movement of the vowel.

Dynamic phono

logical analysis simply separates perception from r e a l i t y . Now that we see how the principle of directional constraint operates to eliminate the logically faulty allophone in an uncontroversial example, let us proceed to a quite controversial subject — the status of German / x / .

By

examining this problem through dynamic phonological analysis, we can gain significant insights into the matter.

3.3

German / x / : The Problem and its Background

The problem at hand concerns the status of the German ich-Laut [ ç ] and ach-Laut

[x]

The controversy surrounding these two sounds has a long

tradition in modern linguistics, and it w i l l , of course, be necessary f i r s t to review the development of the controversy in the traditional segmental ap proach.

While the following review is not intended to be exhaustive, it should

German / x /

61

r e f l e c t the effects of segmentation in the analysis within several traditional models (not simply within the generative). In these segmental models, the relationship between [ ç ] and [ x ] depends upon the principle of phonological pertinence (a consideration addressed below in the conclusion).

While the phonetic difference between the sounds is appar

ent ([ç] being palatal, [ x ] velar), this phonetic difference may or may not form the basis of a phonological opposition. lem to be considered within the

Whether it does or does not is a prob

limitations

of

the segmental

phonological

models. In accordance

with

the

traditional

structural

item-and-arrangement

model, the segments [ ç ] and [ x ] can be taken to represent the separate pho nemes / ç /

and / x / because of such minimal pairs as Kuhchen [ku:ç n] ' l i t t l e

cow' and kuchen [ku:x n] ' t o cook', Tauchen [tauç n] ' l i t t l e rope' and tauchen [taux n] ' t o dive', and so f o r t h .

Insofar as such pairs show a contrastive dis

tribution for [ ç ] and [ x ] , they would apparently suffice as evidence for phono logical pertinence.

From a s t r i c t l y phonetic standpoint (from the segmental

approach), the occurrence of these two sounds cannot be predicted solely on the basis of the arrangement of phones (compare also the systemic argument of Trost 1958). This analysis, however, is disquieting, for in the overwhelming number of environments, the distribution of [ ç ] and [ x ] can indeed be predicted.

From

an exclusively s t r u c t u r a l standpoint, Bloomfield (1930) is the f i r s t to consider [ ç ] and [ x ] as allophones (segmental variants) of a single phoneme.

His analy

sis is based upon the hypothesis that the diminutive suffix -chen [ç n] is a special case.

As a s u f f i x , it can maintain an i n i t i a l consonant much the same

as the i n i t i a l consonant of a word — and [ ç ] is the variant found in w o r d - i n i t i a l position.

However, Bloomfield does not elaborate on this matter, nor does

he address the problem of how such a distinction can be incorporated into a model in which phonological categories are determinable only from phonetic evidence. From

a functional

viewpoint,

Trubetzkoy

(1969:33) also takes issue

w i t h the phonological status of [ ç ] and [x]. These sounds are considered to be variants largely because they are not interchangeable in such words as ich [ i ç ]

62

'I'


and ach [ax] ' o h ' and because the common properties of voiceless dorsal

fricatives do not recur in any other German sound.

In such an analysis, the

sounds are not taken to be palatal and velar (representing the point of a r t i c u lation), but dorsal (representing the common a r t i c u l a t o r ) . Trubetzkoy's analysis, however, skirts the issue of the minimal pairs, which is, at least s t r u c t u r a l l y , at the center of the problem. adigmatic relationship

Noting the par

between [ ç ] and [ x ] in such forms as Spruch [∫pRux]

'saying' and its plural form Sprüche [∫pryç ] , Hermann (1932) notes that, in keeping w i t h the s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l position, the two are variants in most instances,

but

distinct

phonologically

in others

(citing

the

minimal

pairs).

These other instances involve, once again, the diminutive suffix -chen [ç n]. D. Jones (1962:69) likewise points out t h a t , while some occurrences of one sound where the other would be predicted can be handled as exceptions, the diminutive suffix, a word-like e n t i t y , creates a problem which must be handled phonologically by considering this suffix to be, in e f f e c t , a word. the

other

hand, the word-like nature of the suffix

On

is handled by Moulton

(1947) without grammatical considerations (while maintaining the nonpertinent status of [ç] and [x]) by positing the pertinent '+'-juncture.

Wherever the

speaker may pause (between words or word-like entities), the ' + ' - j u n c t u r e , in itself a segmental unit in that i t occupies a space in the syntagm, is included in the description.

Thus, Kuhchen [ku:+ç n) and kuchen [ku:x n] are not mini

mal pairs from a phonological point of view. Of course, Moulton's analysis depends upon the use of juncture in the model and is disputed by such linguists as Leopold (1948), who argues that there are no perceptible junctures in connected speech and that the d i f f e r ence between [ ç ] and [ x ] is perceived psychologically. logical perception, the two are separate phonemes. tion of segments unambiguously psychological experiments

Because of this psycho (To be sure, the percep

as segments has never been established by

involving

subjects

not previously

exposed to

notion of segmentation — compare the effects of learning alphabetical

the

writing

noted in Sapir 1921:56.) The matter

of psychological perception of word-like entities (as op

posed to purely phonetic data) is taken up by Dietrich (1953).

According to

German / x /

63

D i e t r i c h , German takes a morpheme-like unit, the Sprachsilbe, into account as well as the purely phonological syllable, the Sprechsilbe, in determining the pronunciation of

individual sounds.

While sounds are ordinarily

subject

to

combinatory variation within the organization of the Sprechsilbe, in certain instances the Sprachsilbe serves as the basic organizational unit.

Thus, the

[ ç ] in Kuhchen [ku:ç n] is a variant of [ x ] within a particular Sprachsilbe (in this case, an actual morpheme), and the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of this variation prohib its us from considering the two sounds as separate phonologically.

The need

for determining just how the syllable and its boundaries may be involved has likewise been voiced by Hjelmslev (1968:115-16). The solution of Dietrich once again raises the question of grammatical information in phonological analysis, which is an issue in model-construction. In the generative approach (structural item-and-process — compare Hockett 1954), it is quite sufficient for a phonological rule to be motivated by a mor pheme boundary (compare, for example, Harms 1968:chap.l0).

The use of the

morpheme boundary in phonological rules, however, has been c r i t i c i z e d

be

cause of logical problems in treating it as a segment (see Pyle 1972).

In

deed, it occupies s t r u c t u r a l space within a string in the same way that a seg ment does, and this property of the model adds to the fallacious categoriza tion-inherent in segmentation, as noted in the previous section. Other model-specific considerations have led Trim (1951) and Adamus (1966) to the conclusion that, although [ ç ] and [ x ] are indeed in phonological opposition, [ x ] and [h] are not.

Moreover, Copeland (1970:12) attempts

to

avoid the entire issue by positing [ ç ] and [ x ] as, in e f f e c t , allophones in a s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l system without phonemes.

His inclusion of both, however, im

plies phonological status, for the same consideration is not shown for the par allel difference between [ c ] and [ k ] (demonstrated in the previous section of this chapter), which also d i f f e r and velar.

in the point of articulation between palatal

Such considerations can be seen to be the direct result of a r e

quirement to classify features as inherent characteristics of segments. Whether we choose to maintain [ ç ] and [ x ] separately in the phonology or as variants depends upon the model used.

Although Moulton (1947) argues

for nonpertinent status on the basis of f + ' - j u n c t u r e , Moulton (1962:22-3) also

64


recognizes that either status can be argued e f f e c t i v e l y but that it is better in teaching the language to consider the phonetic difference as phonologically pertinent.

As Ungeheuer (1969:39) points out before arbitrarily choosing the

argument to consider [ ç ] and [ x ] as separate phonemes, "Man erkennt, daß die phonologische Deutung des Problems abhängt von den Bedingungen der The orie".

(Compare also Werner 1972:48-49.) Being based upon segmentation, though, the traditional arguments all

have one point in common: represent

There are two phones, [ ç ] and [x].

These phones

either phonemes (that is, they are phonologically in opposition) or

allophones (they are predictable variants of a single phoneme).

If (and only

i f ) they are phonemes, then their occurrence cannot be predicted.

On the

other hand, if (and only if) they are allophones, then their occurrence can be predicted by such rules as the following:

"(1) [ x ] only occurs when an [a], [o]

or [u] sound precedes in the same syllable, (2) [ ç ] occurs in all positions other than these, namely (a) at the beginnings of syllables, (b) when a front vowel precedes in the same syllable, and (c) when a consonant precedes" (D. Jones 1962:68 — phonetic brackets added).

Figure 3.4: Segmental Distribution of / x / Allophones

The allophonic solution can be described schematically within the seg-

German / x /

65

mental syllable structure as in

figure 3.4, again maintaining the

simplified

block format.

3.4

A Dynamic Analysis

As outlined in chap. 2, above, a dynamic analysis of the problem of German [ ç ] and [ x ] depends upon two principles inherent to this model:

First,

the phonological system is one of constraint w i t h categories abstracted from various

sound-types

in

an

hierarchical

structure

of

constraint.

Second,

through the nonsegmental nature of coarticulated sound and the resulting pho nological structure, only independent characteristics in functional

opposition

serve to define categories in any point of the s t r u c t u r e . In accordance w i t h the f i r s t principle, analysis must be carried

out

taking into account the direction of constraint, as outlined in the introductory section of this chapter. (without

phonological

stable) constraining

What

the segmentalist

pertinence)

is expected

to

may

perceive as variation

be greatest

in

the

(less

element on the basis of elements being constrained; a l

though a lesser (nonpertinent) degree of variation in the constrained elements may not be inconsistent w i t h the model. tainly in keeping w i t h the phonetic

Once again, such a direction is cer

evidence of coarticulation

both from a

physiological standpoint (Mermelstein 1973, Perkell 1969) and from an acoustic one (Öhman 1966, 1967).

We must of course be wary of the f a c t that what

ever difference there may be could very well be nothing more than an illusion of segmentation (compare the conclusion of chap. 1 , above). In the consonant-vowel (or more precisely the obstruction-syllable r e l a tionship) which is at the center of the German problem, we should expect to find perceived variations in the obstruction based upon the characteristics.

vocalic/syllabic

In particular, the position of obstruction must be analyzed

concomitant w i t h the vocalic characteristics of the tongue-body, jaw, and lips (in protrusion); following the evidence of Perkell (1969:35 — also Mermelstein 1973:1081-82) noted

above.

Moreover,

the

characteristics

of

obstruction

ought not to be analyzed as accounting for or motivating the characteristics of the syllable, to include the beginning and ending points, as this would vio-

66


late the direction of constraint. In keeping w i t h the principle of the inner approach, a dynamic analysis of German [ ç ] and [ x ] must begin w i t h a thorough phonetic examination of the contexts.

Such an examination has been carried out by Glave (1974).

Glave

makes a spectrographic analysis of the [ ç ] and [ x ] obstruction in f i n a l position (obstructing the end of the syllable) of all possible vocalic and consonantal (after [n], [1], and [R]) contexts in order to determine the spectral energy-con centration for fricatives (or SEF).

According to the data collected and ana

lyzed, the SEF for each context does not f a l l into two distinct classes [ ç ] and [ x ] ; rather, it is evenly distributed along a continuum.

According to Glave

(1974:278), then:

Nicht jede einzelne Lautumgebung hat für sich genommen einen Einfluß auf die akustische Struktur der betrachteten F r i k a t i v l a u t e , sondern es läßt sich die Gesamtklasse der Lautumge bungen in Unterklassen zerlegen, die mit verschiedenen SEFStukturen korrespondieren. Diese einflußnehmenden Lautumge bungsklassen sind jedoch nicht die gleichen disjunkten Lautklas sen, die im Deutschen für die Laute [ ç ] und [ x ] komplementäre Distribution bilden; vielmehr scheint hier der Einfluß der L a u t umgebung zu einer differenzierteren akustischen Strukturierung der F r i k a t i v l a u t e zu führen, als es bisher vielfach angenommen wurde. Die festgestellten Einflüsse scheinen aber nicht so be schaffen zu sein, daß von einem allmählichen akustischen Über gang von [ ç ] in [ x ] gesprochen werden kann. Vielmehr sind die sen Lauten deutlich unterscheidbare SEF-Strukturen zuzuord nen. As Glave points out, then, it would appear that, in the many contexts observed, there is in f a c t not a pair of variants [ ç ] and [ x ] , but a continuum of variation in context.

This analysis should be compared w i t h the traditional

and uncontroversial analysis of [ k ] and

[c].

As mentioned above, because the

variation between [ k ] and [ c ] is solely that of the vowel, not of the obstruc t i o n , this v a r i a t i o n , while i t is indeed phonologically pertinent insofar as the vowel is concerned, is not only nonpertinent for the consonant, but i t is not even related to the consonant at all in the hierarchy of the dynamic model. There is, therefore, no v a r i a t i o n . In the case of [h], moreover, we find a similar set of circumstances.

German / x /

67

[h] takes on the spectral energy-concentrations (the SEF of Glave) pertinent to the vocalic characteristics of the syllable under production.

Y e t , no v a r i

ation in the sole position characteristic (glottal) is ever considered pertinent for

the consonant itself,

either phonologically

or phonetically (as is indeed

also the rather inconsistent practice w i t h the 'variants' of / f / In the case of [ ç ] - [ x ] , we find precisely the same situation.

noted above).

There is no more

reason to a t t r i b u t e vocalic characteristics of position (within a nonpertinent range) to this f r i c a t i v e than there is to a t t r i b u t e such characteristics to the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e [h] (compare also Kim 1970:111).

Therefore, only one f r i c a

tive should be posited in the phonology and indeed in the phonetics, as such false variation ( a t t r i b u t i n g characteristics of the constraining, positioning ele ment to the constrained, positioned element) is no more acceptable in the phonetics than it is in the phonology.

As the choice of symbols is a r b i t r a r y ,

/ x / is posited here for the convenience of phonologists and typists, as well as for consistence w i t h the analysis in chap. 4, below (although one may cer tainly argue in favor of [ x ] for historical reasons -- compare Lüdtke 1959). The most controversial issue, however, remains to be solved.

The min

imal pairs such as Kuhchen [ku:ç n] and kuchen [ku:x n] must somehow be rec onciled in the dynamic model.

This can be accomplished by taking into con

sideration the principle of the direction of constraint. As seen in the analysis so far, the realization of [ x ] is a f f e c t e d by the vowel characteristics of the syllable, the basic organizational unit of the dy namic model.

This is to be expected, as coarticulation effects of the vowel

serve to alter the position of the obstructional a r t i c u l a t i o n . constraint,

from

vocalic/syllabic

characteristic

to

This direction of

obstructional

serves to show the effects of coarticulation from the vowel that basis

of

that

syllable on which the obstruction is a constraining

position, forms the element.

Thus, we would expect, in keeping w i t h the functioning of the particular lan guage structure, the obstruction to display the position characteristics of the syllable (within a range), and we would analyze the syllable structure on the basis of this e f f e c t , not by any preconceived notions of proper syllable organ ization (a segmental 1970).

hypothesis,

as in Haugen 1956; compare also Pulgram

68


In the analysis of German / x / , then, we consider that, in w i t h the phonetic exact

point

of

evidence, the characteristics

articulation.

In

the

dynamic

of

the syllable

analysis

(as

accordance affect

suggested

the by

Hjelmslev 1968), the coarticulation effects of the syllable on the position of the obstruction (palatal) show that the realization of / x / in Kuhchen /ku:x n/ is such that it constrains the second syllable; while that in kuchen /ku:x n/ constrains the first syllable.

Thus, the minimal pair problem is resolved by

the structure of the model itself and by the more flexible and realistic ap proach to the relationship between phonology and phonetics, as discussed in detail in chap. 1 , above.

(Of course, the very notion of a minimal pair, a

paradigmatic set of items in a syntagm of sequential items, is not at all in keeping w i t h the model, anyway.) The accuracy of this syllable

arrangement

can also be readily seen in the timing of lip protrusion accompanying the /u/ (compare B e l l - B e r t i & Harris 1979). This analysis differs decidedly from the t r a d i t i o n a l segmental analyses in that the exact point of articulation is used to determine the syllable struc ture (reconstructing, as it were, the direction of constraint).

In every seg

mental analysis, some uniform type of sequential consonant-vowel order had to be reconciled w i t h the phonetic

evidence, and it was the phonetic

evidence

which was contorted to f i t the preconceived (notional) syllable s t r u c t u r e .

In

some models, this was accomplished by considering [ç] and [ x ] to be separate entities (of phonological and/or of phonetic pertinence), while in others i t was accomplished by positing various types of segment-substitutes in order to alter the context.

In basing its syllable structure upon phonetic evidence, then, the

dynamic analysis more closely adheres to the principles of the inner approach and the t r a d i t i o n a l scientific method. In the schema for the dynamic syllabic frame, this analysis would be represented as in figure 3.5 (opposite).

Of course, such a description is far

simpler than is the segmental one represented in figure 3.3 (p. 57, above). should be noted, moreover, that it does not matter whether the

It

obstruction

occurs i n i t i a l l y or finally constraining the'syllabic vowel — the effects of the positioning element (as suggested by Perkell) remain the same.

In the case

of 2c in figure 3.4, the sonorant can be viewed as maintaining vocalic proper-

German / x /

59

ties (compare Glave 1974) or as the base for an obstruction prosody (see G r i f fen 1975c).

Moreover, even in a consonant (obstruction) cluster, features of

the main obstruction oppositions may indeed overlap — there are no immov able boundaries in this model (a f a c t more accurately r e f l e c t e d in the syllabic frame of figure 2.2). Such a vocalization, prosodic e f f e c t , and/or feature ex tension w i l l more than adequately account for the phenomenon noted in 2c of figure 3.4 (p. 64, above) in an accurate phonetic manner. Furthermore, as the dynamic analysis does not treat s y l l a b l e - i n i t i a l / x / any d i f f e r e n t l y from syllable-final / x / , another t r a d i t i o n a l problem in German phonology is solved.

The traditional allophonic

analysis (compare D. Jones

1962:68 — see figure 3.4 above) holds that s y l l a b l e - i n i t i a l / x / is palatal [ ç ] , with

the

exception

of

such

words

as

Wachau [va:xau] (a d i s t r i c t in Austria).

Wacholder

[va:x ld ] 'juniper'

and

In the dynamic analysis, such words

would not be exceptions.

Figure 3.5: Dynamic Analysis of German / x /

I t is important that the above-cited words should not be treated as ex ceptions.

For one thing, they are native German words, not borrowings from

some foreign phonological system. be

exceptions,

but

rather

Hjelmslev (1970:30-31).

For another thing, they would not s t r i c t l y

counter-examples,

as

the

terms

are

used

by

As counter-examples, they would be systematically

d i f f e r e n t from the rest of the phonology, which is something we should clearly like to avoid.

70


A real exception is found in such borrowings as Charon [çaRon], a name from Greek mythology.

Such exceptions are not native German words,

and as pointed out by Dietrich (1953:32), they are so l i t t l e accepted as Ger man that they are often pronounced w i t h an i n i t i a l / k / ([kaRon]).

In such an

instance, we would certainly expect the i n i t i a l palatal f r i c a t i v e to r e f l e c t an attempt to pronounce the word in a foreign or learned manner — a true ex ception.

As mentioned in chap. 8, below, and demonstrated in G r i f f e n (1974),

such 'elegant'

pronunciations must be classified outside of the

system of a language, for until a sound adheres to the

phonological

structural/functional

requisites of the language, it does not undergo the alternations and does not, therefore, form an active part of its phonology. According to this approach, then, such a pronunciation is to be classi fied along w i t h that of the French loan word pardon [paRd :] 'pardon (me)'. In this word, the German would use f i n a l stress in accordance w i t h the French phonological system and could optionally

use such Gallicisms as f i n a l high

p i t c h , long [ : ] , and nasalized vowel — three outright phonology.

violations of

German

Nonetheless, the more French the word is pronounced, the more

'elegant' is the speaker (at least in the speaker's self-perception).

This is not

to say, though, that such forms be ignored, only that they be analyzed as ex ceptions from a coexistent phonological system (compare Fries & Pike 1949).

3.5

Conclusion

As pointed out by Trubetzkoy (1969:33), then, the phonologically p e r t i nent opposition members associated w i t h German / x / are voicelessness, f r i c a t i o n , and dorsality.

Dorsality is used here because i t is the common charac

t e r i s t i c found in all contexts.

In terms of markedness, we might f u r t h e r wish

to reduce the description to that of the unmarked f r i c a t i v e (that is, the un marked member of the main obstruction opposition in coarticulation w i t h the f r i c a t i v e degree of obstruction in the obstruction prosody), for the position of obstruction is t o t a l l y

dependent upon the position and configuration of

the

tongue body in the pronunciation of the various vowels and of the consonants [n], [1], and [ R ] (as these might precede / x / ) .

German / x /

71

This is not to say, though, that all cases of / x / in all languages are dorsal — only those of standard New High German.

As Lüdtke (1959) men

tions, German / x / was apparently velar at one time, a characteristic

which

some dialects/languages (notably Alemannic and Dutch) maintain to this day. Of course, the properties of particular categories are specific to the phono logical system of a language. Again, the most significant issue raised by this analysis on the basis of dynamic phonetics and phonology is its elimination of the notion of allophonic variation of

consonants as motivated

which they constrain.

by the characteristics

of the vowels

In the separation of consonant characteristics

from

vowel characteristics, the variations which had been a t t r i b u t e d to the conso nants in segmental models are properly assigned to the vowels.

Moreover, the

further division of the consonantal oppositions between the obstruction

and

the various prosodies would eliminate allophonic variation as motivated by the characteristics of prosodies, which are not considered to be inherent to the obstructions themselves

(points

made in subsequent chapters; compare

also

Kim 1970:113-14). Whether we designate the dorsal f r i c a t i v e of German as / x / or as [ x ] , then, is of l i t t l e consequence in a dynamic model; for in the removal of the concept of allophony, the division between phonetics and phonology ceases to exist (as demonstrated in chap. 2, above).

In G r i f f e n (1976b:17), it is main

tained that "The relationships that obtain between constraints are the same whether morphophonological or phonological.

The difference between morpho-

phonological and phonological relationships lies in the realm of f u n c t i o n " (see also chap. 7, below). simplifies

Now, we can say

linguistic description

that the dynamic

in maintaining

that

model

the difference

further between

phonological and phonetic relationships also lies in the realm of f u n c t i o n , and that the entire phonology can be described in a single s t r u c t u r e , as noted in the previous chapter and in subsequent analyses. Insofar as the Anderson requirement is concerned (S. R. Anderson 1974 — see chap. 1.5, above), we find in this analysis that the segmental methods and the notional segment by their very nature obfuscated the evidence, f o r c ing the phonetics to support an insupportable categorical fallacy (and herein

72


lies the greatest danger of the Halle hypothesis -- Halle 1972; compare also Bjarkman 1977).

As such, the analysis demonstrates that the segment is de

f i c i e n t in the actual description and analysis of language. the dynamic

On the other hand,

analysis maintains phonetic reality in a simple, straightforward

description, one providing us w i t h insights that are as reliable as they are interesting. In all analyses, moreover, insights must be reliable, and not merely i n teresting.

I t is true that segmental phonology (particularly

generative seg

mental phonology w i t h all of its variants) provides us w i t h some very i n t e r e s t ing problems — problems in which we can easily become enthrawled.

Once a

problem maintains our a t t e n t i o n , though, not because of the need for r e l i a b i l i t y , but rather because of the need for interesting problems, then we are no longer working w i t h the real world of sound systems, but w i t h logic systems in the abstract.

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS BY DIRECTION OF CONSTRAINT II - GERMAN / R /

4.1

Introduction

In the previous chapter, we see that the dynamic model of phonology can and indeed does succeed in demonstrating t h a t , in keeping w i t h the pho netic findings of Perkell (1969:65), i t can analyze and describe segmentally perceived 'variants' as nothing more than illusions of notional segmentalism. Indeed, in this model of dynamic phonology, one of the most striking develop ments deriving from the elimination of the segmental phones and phonemes of traditional

phonology (phonemics) has been the effect

upon

the

distinction

between phoneme and allophone. Without the bundling of features into discrete segments, the very dis tinction between phoneme and allophone is vacuous.

In the treatment of Ger

man / x / , the allegedly allophonic relationship between [ ç ] and [ x ] in the words ich and ach is traditionally credited to the syllabic vowel.

Once the f r o n t / -

back (depth) feature relationship is a t t r i b u t e d to the vowel, however, the dy namic phonologist (and phonetician) need only ask: I f the feature f r o n t r e a l ized in ich and the f e a t u r e back realized in ach are characteristics

of

the

vowel, why is the pertinent feature of the vowel lumped into the consonant in the f i r s t place?

74


In dynamic phonology, features are not lumped together into segments, but are realized as they actually

occur within the syllabic

frame, as i l l u

strated in figure 2.2 (p. 44, above, and in the more simplified approximation of figure 3.3, p. 59).

If we place the pertinent features into the frame where

they naturally occur, then the dorsal obstruction is realized in the obstruction division and the front and back tongue-body positions are realized in the syl lable division.

This is t o t a l l y in keeping w i t h dynamic phonetic evidence that

vowels are produced by movements of the tongue body, lips (in protrusion), and jaw, while consonants are obstructions imposed upon these movements by other articulators (compare Mermelstein 1973:1081-82).

The supposedly per

ceived frontness of [ ç ] and the backness of [ x ] , then, are merely illusions de riving from the obstruction's necessarily being coarticulated w i t h the vowel i t constrains.

Indeed, all such allophonic variants are a t t r i b u t a b l e not to some

sort of allophonic segments, but rather to features realized simultaneously in some other part of the syllabic frame. The reason why we, as linguists, may wish to perceive this illusory d i f ference between a segmental allophone [ ç ] and another segmental [ x ] has nothing to do w i t h speech.

allophone

I t is simply that we have grown up w i t h

segmental alphabetic systems of w r i t i n g , and it is quite d i f f i c u l t for us to get used to thinking in terms of sound as something in fact quite distinct from w r i t i n g (compare the problem faced by Saussure, 1959:32-37).

Of course, this

is a matter that all phonologists w i l l agree upon in theory -- dynamic phonol ogy merely puts theory into practice by constructing a nonsegmental model of phonology from the speech continuum. When we approach German / R / , however, we are faced w i t h a problem far more complex than that of German / x / .

While / x / has a range of

per

ceived ' v a r i a t i o n ' that is uniformly realized as dorsal f r i c a t i o n associated w i t h the highest point of the tongue-body in the production of the syllabic vowel, / R / appears to vary only slightly in the position of obstruction.

However, as

shown in the following analysis, it varies quite drastically in the perceived manner of obstruction — from well-defined t r i l l to vowel. In the case of / x / , i t is quite easy to demonstrate that the precise position of obstruction within the dorsal range is a product of the vowel; in

German / R /

75

e f f e c t , the vowel 'carries' the obstruction.

On the other hand, there does not

appear to be such a neat, simple relationship between the vowel and / R / . deed, the case of German / R / seriously challenges the distinction consonantal obstruction

and syllabic

vowel crucial to dynamic

In

between

phonological

analysis.

4.2

The Description of German / R /

First of a l l , it must be established that the obstruction under study is the uvular t r i l l .

To be sure, many dialects use the apical t r i l l to render the

sound corresponding to the orthographic r (see, for example, Kohier 1977:169), and many speakers mix the uvular w i t h the apical (compare Wängler 1960:8890).

Nonetheless, the uvular has made steady progress against the t r a d i t i o n a l

apical (de Boor et al. 1969:84), to the point that it is widely recognized, especially in pedagogy, as the more standard, or at least the more widespread (see, for example, Moulton 1962:35, Wängler 1972:126). Of course, in a linguistic analysis, it is most important to describe an element of the sound system of a particular dialect, be it standard or not.

In

the description of New High German, we must take care not to mix dialect or idiolect variations together.

In the matter more closely at hand here — the

resolution of a serious challenge to dynamic phonological analysis — the uv ular is also chosen simply because here is where the problem lies.

We must

be sure, however, not to be sidetracked into comparing uvular w i t h apical, for this distinction is extrasystemic to the particular problem under study. Much has been w r i t t e n on the distribution of the traditionally desig nated allophones.

There are apparently

f i v e major allophones of / R / .

In

terms of the t r a d i t i o n a l descriptive techniques of segmental phonology, there is the d e f i n i t e t r i l l or f r i c a t i o n (compare deBoor et a l . 1969:86, Hildebrand & Hildebrand 1965) that is found in prevocalic position and in intervocalic posi tion (which may be taken as prevocalic in the German Sprechsilbe — compare Dietrich 1953).

On the other hand, there are an additional three major allo

phones (plus f r i c a t i o n ) found in postvocalic position. As pointed out by de Boor et al. (1969:85), the f u l l t r i l l may be found

76


in postvocalic position.

Such an a r t i c u l a t i o n , however, is not normal for con

nected speech, but is reserved for those instances in which the speaker is t r y ing to be particularly

clear.

Of more importance are the other

phonic variants, the less vibrant realizations of

/ R / (the three

four alloexclusively

postvocalic articulations and the f r i c a t i v e that may also be realized in prevocalic position). The realization of one or another of these allophones appears to de pend upon the stress and length of the syllabic vowel.

In the case of the long

stressed vowel, the / R / is realized as a vocalization (the Vokalisierung Hildebrandt & Hildebrandt 1965).

in

For example, in the word sehr / z e : R / ' v e r y ' ,

the phonemic / R / is realized as a semi-vocalic

.

This ought not to be i n

terpreted as the / H / which Gleason (1961:35) describes movement of the tongue toward a more relaxed position".

for

English

as "a

Rather than a cen

t r a l i z a t i o n , it is a movement of the tongue-body toward the uvular / R / posi tion (but not w i t h the lip-rounding characterizing the semi-vowel [u]).

Such a

realization can best be described (especially in the light of that which f o l lows) as a semi-consonant. In the case of the short stressed or unstressed (but not weak) vowel, the / R / is realized in one of two ways.

Either i t is a uvular f r i c a t i v e ( w i t h

out the t r i l l ) or it is a vocalization of a decidedly more vocalic For example, the word i r r t / i R t /

character.

'errs' may be pronounced either

f r i c a t i v e [γ] (or [x]) or w i t h a semi-vocalic [ ] .

w i t h the

The characteristic shared by

these two allophones is their length in the syllable.

Relative to the duration

of the syllable, they are audibly longer than the

realized after a long

stressed vowel, and they can in f a c t be analyzed as members of a full-fledged diphthong (compare Kohier 1977:170). Finally there is the case of the weak vowel, the centralized / /. Here, the / R / is realized as a complete vocalization — a 'syllabic consonant.' example, in the word besser /bes R/ ' b e t t e r ' , traditional terms) is realized as the vowel [

For

the consonantal phoneme (in

] Again, however, this a r t i c u l a

tion ought not to be confused w i t h c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , for it is high, back, and unrounded (though not as peripheral as [HI]). There is a f u r t h e r , rather interesting complication to all this.

Follow-

German / R /

77

ing the long or short stressed / a / or the short stressed / o / , instances of / R / tend to be realized again as monophthongal vowels — "Monophthonge dunk lerer Q u a l i t ä t " (Kohler 1977:170; see also Bethge 1954-55, Hildebrand &. Hilde brand 1965).

Thus, the / R / in Haar / h a : R / 'hair' would be realized as [a].

While there might appear at f i r s t glance to be an overlapping between the realization of / R / a f t e r short unstressed vowels and that after the weak vowel in affixes, the apparent overlapping does not really exist in the speech of an individual. nounced

A word such as Verfolg / v e R f o l k / 'progress' would be pro

in standard New High German

vowel in the i n i t i a l syllable.

with

a short

unstressed (nonweak)

Thus, the / R / would be realized as [γ] or as De].

In some dialects and idiolects, however, this vowel is pronounced as a weak vowel [ ] .

Once again, however, we ought not to be mixing dialects in our

analysis; so this apparent c o n f l i c t sure, it would

is not to be considered (although, to be

cause no d i f f i c u l t i e s

for

the dynamic phonological analysis

anyway). In summation, we find a distribution of allophones as in figure 4 . 1 . For postvocalic

realizations, I group the occurrences into three vocalized c a t e

gories — category 1 , w i t h the long stressed vowel; category 2, w i t h the short stressed or unstressed (but nonweak) vowel; category 3, w i t h the weak vowel. In the figure, I give verbal descriptions of the segments realized in the various positions.

This is mainly to avoid notation problems.

While category

1 and category 2 are generally described w i t h the same symbol (such as [ category 3 is most often described in terms of a vowel (such as [ ]).

],

Al

though the use of a vocalic symbol De] in category 3 is quite accurate, the use of [ ] in the other two fails to show that the sound is really a glide — a semi-consonant or semi-vowel. Perhaps the most insightful system is that used by Moulton (1962:2425), in which all of the vocalized symbols are variations of the single / A / . Where it is a glide, the glide d i a c r i t i c is added, [ A ] ; and where i t is a vowel, it is realized simply as [ A ] . Care must be taken, though, to ensure that the symbol [ A ] is taken in a specifically German value of a high back constriction to some degree which approaches the uvular [ R ] . By using such a system of notation, we can maintain our attention on

Aspects of Dynamic Phonology 78

Figure 4.1: Distribution of /R/

German / R /

79

the f a c t that these allophones derive from a single source — / R / — and they can indeed be pronounced [ R ] in hypercorrect speech.

Fuller implications of

holding to a single notation ( w i t h d i a c r i t i c variation only) are shown in the arguments that follow.

4.2

Phonetic Analysis

In determining the nature of the German / R / and justifying it in dy namic phonology, we must make sure that the phonological investigation is firmly rooted in phonetic f a c t . M a r t i n e t (1949b), phonology

In the tradition of Trubetzkoy (1969:11) and

is functional

phonetics (and dynamic, nonseg-

mental phonology is functional dynamic phonetics — G r i f f e n 1983a).

Thus,

while we might not be directly concerned w i t h phonetic detail in the deter mination of phonological relationships in every instance, we must nonetheless acknowledge that our phonological systems are abstracted from the evidence of

phonetics

(at

least,

within

the 'inner

approach'

of

Jakobson &

Halle

1971:19). Phonology, then, is a subset of phonetics, for it maintains the c a t e gories and s t r u c t u r a l relationships of the actual speech continuum, marking those that function in communication.

A s t r u c t u r a l relationship in phonology,

then, must correspond w i t h a s t r u c t u r a l relationship in phonetics, if the pho nology is to be a proper abstraction (especially if i t is to be a f i r s t - l e v e l ab straction — see G r i f f e n 1979). More than this, however, in the mutually supportive system between phonology and phonetics as noted in chap. 1 , above, we must maintain the tight

relationship

between

phonology

and phonetics

for

practical

reasons.

While it is all well and good to construct hypothetical phonological systems w i t h logically consistent sets of rules, if no connection is made between such systems and the real speech process of the individual, then there is no reason to suppose that the systems represent any part of human language.

A t least

in this system, phonology is the study of sound used in human communication. No set of abstract hypotheses w i l l yield a valid phonology without the connec tion w i t h this human communicative sound.

80


When we turn our attention to the phonetics of the German / R / , we find some interesting similarities and what appear to be some real differences between the various allophones.

Perhaps the most striking difference seems

to lie in the realization of the segment type (again using the traditional t e r m i nology of segmental phonetics). In prevocalic position, the segment is realized undoubtedly as a conso nant — either t r i l l or f r i c a t i v e .

In the postvocalic position of category 1 ,

however, it is a semi-consonant glide, a vocalization that we would probably not classify as t o t a l l y outside the consonantal side of the glide range, though it is, to be sure, nonconsonantal.

In category 2, it slides partially out of the

consonantal side of the range and becomes what we may wish to call a semi vowel.

Finally, it vocalizes in category 3 to the extent that we must con

sider i t as a vowel. From the standpoint of oppositions, we would broadly recognize two distinct segmental oppositions of type.

First of a l l , the consonantal is op

posed to the nonconsonantal ([R] to [A]); and then the consonantal and noncon sonantal are opposed to the vocalic ([R] and [ A ] to [A]). There is also a distinct difference in duration between the nonconso nantal and the vocalic.

Because the nonconsonantal realization is semi-conso

nantal or semi-vocalic (that is, a glide), it must share the syllable w i t h the syllabic

vowel, and its length is commensurately shortened.

On the

other

hand, the vocalic realization is in f a c t the syllabic vowel and has a consider ably greater duration. Such apparent differences, however, melt away when a close phonetic examination is conducted concerning the similarities among these various a l leged allophones.

The most obvious of the similarities is, of course, the posi

tion of a r t i c u l a t i o n . Regardless of whether the German / R / is realized prevocalically, postvocalically, or vocalically, it is always produced w i t h the back part of dorsum (the postdorsum) raised and slightly back.

the

Prevocalically (and in hyper-

correct speech), this position results in vibration or f r i c a t i o n along the velum and uvula. tion.

Postvocalically (as a glide), this position results in a weak obstruc

Vocalically, the position results in a high back unrounded vocalization.

German / R /

81

The overall sameness of the position of articulation can be seen in acoustic studies of the German / R / .

While Meyer-Eppler (1959) has indeed

found that in the transitional movement of f i r s t and second formant frequen cies, there is a difference between the consonantal /R/

and the nonconsonantal

and this difference can be used to define the two as separate a r t i c u l a

tions; nonetheless, the general loci involved in the two transitions are close enough that the directions of transition are substantially the same.

The d i f

ference involved can be a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t that the nonconsonantal / R / is less of a constriction than is the consonantal / R / , and the nonconsonantal is therefore articulated in a slightly more centralized position (away from the point of closure). In the light of the similarity in locus, to a t t r i b u t e the slight difference to allophonic variation would be to ignore the relationship between consonant and vowel (obstruction and syllable), as established in the previous study of German / x / .

The pertinent obstructionai position of the / x / is dorsal, while

the characteristics of the constrained vowel determines palatality and velarity.

In the case of / R / , if the postdorsal position is taken as pertinent for

the obstruction, then the difference in constrictional position becomes a prop erty of the difference between consonantal and nonconsonantal in general. Such a difference can be a t t r i b u t e d to the system of coarticulatory

constraint

found in the dynamic relationships of phonetics. Moreover, the isomorphism in the obstructionai aspects of the conso nantal and nonconsonantal realizations of / R / is supported by Ulbrich, who has found in spectrographic studies that the nonconsonantal / R / (the [ ]) is a r e duction of the consonantal / R / , and is "der ursprüngliche Lautübergang z w i schen

Vokalen

1972:144). experiments.

und

nachfolgenden

voll

realisierten

r-Lautformen"

(Ulbrich

This finding fully supports my interpretation of the Meyer-Eppler The consonantal and the nonconsonantal 'variants' of the / R /

phoneme are the same in pertinent locus (pertinent to the / R / ) , and what d i f ferences there are in accompanying (coarticulated) articulations are a t t r i b u t able to the reduction from obstruction toward vowel. Such an analysis is also extendable to the opposition between conso nantal and nonconsonantal, on the one hand, and vocalic, on the other.

In an

82


investigation of syllabic consonants, Wurzel (1970:185) finds that "im eigent lichen Sinne des Wortes wird hier nicht der Vokal, sondern der Konsonant r e duziert: Another apparent difference between the supposed allophones of / R / that turns out to be more of a similarity is the duration.

As pointed out

above, the nonconsonantal appears to be of much shorter duration than vocalic.

the

This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data is based upon the differences in the

duration of the vowel within the syllable, and here is where the real d i f f e r ence lies — not in the obstruction itself. In the German vowel system, we find an i n t r i c a t e set of relationships between duration, stress, and tension.

To some significant extent, the dura

tion of the vowel, and therefore also the duration of the syllable, can be a t tributed to the stress (accent) of the syllable and the tension of the vowel itself (compare, for example, Reed 1965).

Indeed, in the discussion of the a l -

lophonic distribution of / R / in the previous section, these vocalic characteris tics figure prominently. From

experimental

phonetic

evidence, Fischer-Jørgensen has discov

ered that the only clear case of consonantal influence on vowel duration in German is to be found in the short syllable followed by the / R / (category 2). In her determination of vowel-duration p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , then, Fischer-Jørgensen (1940:6) has found "die Dauer ist erstens davon bestimmt, ob der Vokal zu den Gruppen der gespannten oder der ungespannten gehört, dann von dem A k z e n t , von der Vokalqualität, und in einigen Fällen von einem f olgenden r". On the other hand, the question ought also to be asked as to whether the / R / in these cases influences the vowel duration, or whether the vowel duration influences the / R / , or indeed whether one can be separated from the other.

Fischer-Jørgensen (ibid.) has found this problem to be especially acute

in the vocalic / R / — "Die Verbindungen von Vokal mit vokalischem _r, die gewissermassen Diphthonge bilden, deren Elemente nicht abzugrenzen sind, sind auch nicht mitgerechnet". The problem, then, of the duration of / R / cannot be separated from the duration of the vowel.

Once again, we are faced w i t h the dilemma in

which a supposed characteristic of the / R / is bound up t i g h t l y w i t h a known

German IRl

83

characteristic

of the syllable

nant, nonconsonant, and vowel.

structure

- - the relationship between

conso

This dilemma is resolved in the dynamic pho

nological analysis in the following section.

4.4

Dynamic Analysis

As in the analysis of German / x /

in chap. 2, above, which in many

ways serves as a model case against allophony (see also G r i f f e n 1978b), we are faced w i t h a situation in which the dynamic analysis differs radically from the t r a d i t i o n a l segmental.

In the segmental, the velar and palatal features of

the / x / are seen to create two allophones — the velar [ x ] and the palatal [ ç ] . In the dynamic analysis, on the other hand, the precise point of

constraint

(articulation) is shown for all conceivable 'variants' (by no means limited to these t w o , as demonstrated by Glave 1974) to be a characteristic of the s y l labic vowel.

The characteristic of the consonantal obstruction is merely the

dorsality of the a r t i c u l a t o r (compare Trubetzkoy 1969:33). The property of coarticulation that causes the segmentalist to misassign the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n to the consonant and that allows the dynamic phonologist to separate the features properly into consonantal and vocalic is called the principle of direction of constraint.

Stated in its simplest form,

this principle holds that between and among divisions, the perceived effects of coarticulation are realized from

the constrained division onto

the

con

straining division. In the analysis of German / x / , then, we find a case of direction of con straint.

One may perceive a difference in the 'sounds of the / x / ' , and this

perceived difference is a t t r i b u t a b l e syllable division.

to the tongue-body position within

the

Thus, one hears the e f f e c t in the obstruction division of a

realization of the apparati in the constrained syllable division.

Of course,

such a principle has been implicit in acoustic theory for quite some time; for example, we find this effect

in the classic synthetic speech experiment

of

Cooper et al. (1952). The important point to consider w i t h the principle of direction of con straint is that the predominant (though, to be sure, not the only) r e l a t i v e d i -

84


rection of interdivisional influence in the prosodic model is 'up' ~ laryngeal (phonation), through the syllabic, to the obstructional.

from the Given the

variations on the 'lower' (constrained) division, we can predict the perceived effects on the 'upper' (constraining) divisions. In the dynamic phonological analysis of German / R / , we shall be con cerned chiefly

w i t h two aspects of the articulations:

relative duration. underrated.

r e l a t i v e strength and

In both these aspects, the word ' r e l a t i v e ' ought not to be

In phonetics, as in phonology, perception of speech would be im

possible if absolute values had to be interpreted d i r e c t l y , for speech is too varied from speaker to speaker to allow the exact mimicking of frequencies and durations.

Indeed, the individual's physiological make-up requires

one speaker maintain

a higher

or lower

fundamental

frequency

than

that does

another. Thus, we must view the dynamic realization of speech, taking one aspect r e l a t i v e to another.

(Compare Jakobson & Waugh 1979:13-18.)

The aspect of r e l a t i v e strength helps us to analyze the difference be tween the realization of / R / in prevocalic and that in postvocalic position. a syllable-based

phonology, prevocalic

position is necessarily

position, and postvocalic is syllable-coda position.

In

syllable-onset

For German at least, the

onset of a syllable is pronounced w i t h greater force than is the coda of the same syllable.

This relative level of force or tension between syllable onset

and syllable coda can be seen in two phenomena.

I n i t i a l l y , a syllable without

any other obstruction maintains the g l o t t a l stop in i n i t i a l obstruction position, produced by the abrupt, f o r c e f u l expulsion of air through the larynx, accom panied by increased tension.

In w o r d - f i n a l position (or simply

syllable-coda

position in many dialects), the obstruction is weakened to the point of neu tralization. härtung,

Although we may describe this in German as the

implying

tension;

nonetheless, within

the pertinent

Auslautsver opposition

of

voice, the realization of the voiceless member of the opposition is indeed the realization of the weaker (as traditionally interpreted in s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l phonology). Historically, there is also reason to establish the syllable-onset posi tion as a position of tension, or f o r t i s strength.

This is where the provection

(strengthening) of the obstruction prosodies took place in the development of

German / R /

85

German affricates (see chap. 6, below, as well as G r i f f e n 1981b).

As pointed

out by Malmberg (1963:43), this is applicable in German today as well. Within dynamic phonology, the obstruction should thus be realized to its fullest degree in syllable-onset position.

By fullest degree, I mean the

most fortis realization as an obstruction on the syllabic vowel.

This most f o r -

tis realization is naturally that of the t r i l l or f r i c a t i v e (the most consonantal, least vocalic of the variants). In this regard, it is interesting to note that in w o r d - i n i t i a l position, the f r i c a t i v e realization most often occurs in preference over the t r i l l in a consonant

cluster

(compare Hildebrandt

&

Hildebrandt

1965).

This

model

would predict such a preference, for the position of the / R / in a cluster r e quires that the / R / not be the exploded obstruction element.

As i t is not

explosive, it does not require the degree of f o r t i s strength (here, a r t i c u l a t o r y e f f o r t ) that would result in a f u l l t r i l l , an a r t i c u l a t i o n that does indeed i n volve periods of t o t a l occlusion and explosion (however weak). Thus, the difference in perceived a r t i c u l a t i o n between prevocalic and postvocalic positions is not a product of any quality or feature specification inherent to the obstruction / R / .

Rather, it is the natural result of the r e l a

tive degree of f o r t i s strength phonetically associable w i t h these two positions. This is especially so in German, in which the difference between onset and coda strength is great enough to be realized in g l o t t a l explosion and a f f r i c a t i o n , on the one hand, and neutralization of voice, on the other.

In keeping

w i t h the principle of direction of constraint, then, we must a t t r i b u t e the per ceived difference in the a r t i c u l a t i o n of / R / to a constrained division — in this case, to the syllable division's organization of the German syllable vis-à-vis the laryngeal patterning of phonational stress. Of course, the perceived weakness of the obstruction in syllable-coda position is likewise a t t r i b u t a b l e to the natural position of fortis weakness, or lenition, found in this position within the organization of the syllabic frame in German.

Here, the relative relationships between obstruction and syllable

yields a lessened realization of the degree of constraint in the obstruction. Once again, this is the result of the effects of the coarticulated environment. The general position of constraint is s t i l l postdorsal, so the pertinent

86


characteristic of the obstruction in postdorsal position is no d i f f e r e n t that in prevocalic position.

from

The only difference is the weakened a r t i c u l a t o r y

position associable w i t h syllable-coda lenition.

Thus, we find the same char

acteristics among realizations of / R / in prevocalic and in postvocalic position; the overall environmental characteristics involved in coarticulatory constraint, though, d i f f e r

in a predictable way

due to

the realization of the syllabic

frame in German. This

relationship between

prevocalic

and postvocalic

(syllable-onset

and syllable-coda) realizations of / R / is well supported in the l i t e r a t u r e .

For

example, the spectrographic

also

studies

of

Ulbrich (1972:144 — compare

Wurzel 1970:185) concur w i t h the interpretation of postvocalic, vocalized / R / as simply a prevocalic / R / w i t h naturally reduced intensity.

In the dynamic

analysis, we can see that it is not the intensity of the / R / that d i f f e r s , but that of the position in the frame. Turning our attention now to the alleged variations to be found postvo calic position, we find that the three vocalized realizations (leaving the f r i c a t i v e u n t i l later) are all in a position of l e n i t i o n , or f o r t i s weakness ( l a x i t y ) . The keys to understanding how the direction of constraint comes into e f f e c t here involve both this aspect of lenition and the relative duration noted in the previous section.

While each of these phonetic characteristics would i n

deed be j u s t i f i c a t i o n enough to explain the phenomenon of vocalization, t o gether they complement each other quite neatly. As the aspect of lenition has already been treated and is by far the easier concept to explain, I begin w i t h the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the perceived v a r i ation as a product of syllabic f o r t i s weakening.

This weakening can be seen

in a proper r a t i o among category 1 (long stressed), category 2 (short stressed or unstressed), and category 3 (weak) syllabic vowels. In the i n t r i c a t e relationship between duration and stress (Fischer-Jørgensen 1940, Reed 1965), the category hierarchy developed above can be r e lated w i t h the characteristic

of tension.

Category 1 is the most tense, or

f o r t i s , category 2 is less tense, and category 3 is the least tense of the three (or four, if category 2 is divided into its two natural components).

Concom

i t a n t l y , the rate of vocalization of the / R / follows the same gradation — from

German / R /

87

semi-consonant, to semi-vowel, to vowel. Returning to the syllabic frame of dynamic phonological analysis, we find that the consonant/vowel relationship is one of constraint (not sequence), in which the syllabic

vowel supports the consonantal obstruction.

When we

put the two concomitant gradations into the syllabic frame, the outcome is ob vious: A more tense vocalic emition must be constrained by a more tense con sonantal obstruction, if the dynamic coarticulatory t o t a l i t y of perception is to be commensurate w i t h that of a less tense vocalic emission constrained by a less tense consonantal obstruction. Here, then, we have a situation analogous to the analysis of German / x / , in which the tongue-body position pertinent to the syllabic vowel in ef f e c t 'carries' the dorsal a r t i c u l a t o r pertinent to the consonantal obstruction. While the precise point of a r t i c u l a t i o n involved may d i f f e r between ich and ach, the pertinent mark of the obstruction changes not at a l l , but constantly dorsal.

remains

By thus a t t r i b u t i n g consonantal features to the consonant

and vocalic features

to the vowel, we can eliminate the very notion of a l -

lophony in the / x / . In the situation of German / R / , we find that the syllabic vowel again 'carries' the consonantal obstruction.

But this time, it 'carries' it not in loca

tion (except for the slight r e t r a c t i o n of the a r t i c u l a t o r ) but in degree of con straint.

Such an occurrence is not without precedence, as we see in the dy

namic (nonsegmental) analysis of the Welsh obstruction division found in G r i f fen (1976b — although, to be sure, that is a case of prosodic constraint rather than of direction of constraint; see also chap. 5, below).

As the syllable

prosodies constrain the syllable to a lesser degree and cause i t to be less aud ible, the consonantal obstruction is 'drawn down' w i t h the syllable. What we find here, then, is no variation in the degree of constraint ef fected by the obstruction, but rather a constant postdorsal constraint, which we can designate simply as / R / .

The alleged allophones [ A ] ,

[γ] (or [ x ] ,

[a], [ ] and [ ] (or other more precise notational devices) r e f l e c t no change at all in the obstruction.

They are merely the natural consequence of the reduc

tion not of the consonant, but of the syllable. Of course, as noted above, there is a slight change in position of ob-

88


struction as well.

Concomitant w i t h the degrees of tension found in the syl

lable, the postdorsal articulator of the obstruction is r e t r a c t e d .

This, again,

!

is a natural consequence of the vowel s ' c a r r y i n g ' the consonant.

In this i n

stance, it is (as in the case of German / x / ) indeed ' c a r r y i n g ' the consonantal obstruction in position due to the gradual centralization of the vowel, which in German accompanies loss of tension (see, for example, Bluhme 1970). The contention that the postvocalic (syllable-coda) realizations of / R / represent contextual variants of the / R / itself can be refuted not only by a dynamic analysis based on the r e l a t i v e tension (stress and duration) of the s y l lable, but also by a dynamic analysis of the duration alone.

Once again, we

should recognize that the gradation of category 1 , category 2, and category 3 syllabic

vowels is in a proper ratio w i t h that of duration, from longest

shortest.

to

In addition, these are also in a proper ratio w i t h the realization of

the / R / as semi-consonant, semi-vowel, and vowel. A t this point, we should ask just what the differences among a conso nantal

obstruction, semi-consonant, semi-vowel, and vowel represent in the

dynamic syllabic frame.

Basically, they represent a gradual 'lowering' within

the frame of a particular feature or characteristic.

In more precise terms, a

change along this gradation from obstruction to vowel represents a change in the ratio of constraining to constrained elements, such that the constraining end of the r a t i o looses ground to the constrained end. At first

glance, such a relationship

between constraining

and

con

strained elements would appear to favor just the opposite of what we find in the phenomenon of German / R / .

I t would appear that as the constrained ele

ment (the vowel) gained in strength, the constraining element (the consonant) would disappear.

Instead, the constraining element vocalizes.

The first-glance interpretation of events, however, is not dynamically based, but segmental.

If the segmental approach to phonology were valid,

then we should indeed expect the vowel to grow in length (duration) and the consonant to shrink.

The f a c t is, though, that speech sound is not produced

in discrete segmental bundles following each other in neat progression.

A seg

mental i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is thus necessarily f a u l t y . In the dynamic syllabic frame, on the other hand, the consonantal ob-

German / R /

89

struction is coarticulated w i t h and constrains at least part of the syllabic vowel.

Relative duration, then, between

the

obstruction and

the

syllabic

vowel in dynamic phonology becomes not a matter of the length of one com peting w i t h the length of the other in order to set a boundary between them at some fixed point in a linear space, but rather a matter of the obstructon stretching

over more

and more

of the syllabic

vowel

and constraining

Neither the syllabic vowel nor the syllable itself yields any space.

it.

Dynamic

phonology is not linear in the sense that segmental phonology is linear ( w i t h one subsyllabic element coming after another in a s t r i c t l e f t - t o - r i g h t progres sion), nor is it planimetric in the sense that planimetrie

(maintaining

t r a d i t i o n a l prosodic analysis is

levels of linear progressions — parallel lines in a

plane); rather, it is volumetric in much the same sense that the sound spectro gram

is volumetric:

Relationships among

elements

and characteristics

are

mapped out in a ('three-dimensional') network w i t h various parameters (such as time, frequency, and amplitude), and these are marked (or l e f t unmarked) for phonological pertinence. With this a t t i t u d e toward the elements of the syllabic frame, we can consider overlapping features w i t h their overlapping durations.

This is to say

that we can examine the duration of / R / in relation to the duration of the vowel without having to determine which element influences (effects fects) the other.

or af

Of course, a system of pertinent markings forming phonol

ogy from dynamic phonetics is not expected to follow the current practice in transformational generative phonology. Taking f i r s t the case of category 1 , we find that in order to be classi fied as a category 1 vowel, the constrained syllabic vowel must be realized within the confines of the syllabic frame as a long stressed vowel.

In order

to communicate the pertinent length and stress, the vowel must be sustained without obstruction for a relatively long time. syllable must have a relatively short duration. the syllabic

Thus, the / R / found in such a Since the lenitive character of

position precludes the t r i l l , a short semi-consonant is realized

instead. This is not to say that the vowel determines the consonant, nor is it to say that the consonant determines the vowel in any transformational-gener-

90


ative sense.

I am saying simply that

in those syllables in which the long

stressed vowel is perceived w i t h a syllable-coda / R / obstruction, those vowels maintain a r e l a t i v e long duration whether or not they are obstructed.

Conse

quently, the syllable-coda / R / obstruction. takes up a relatively short duration and is therefore perceived as a semi-consonant.

Whether i t 'is' a semi-conso

nant as such or not, however, is a segmental issue.

The dynamic f a c t is that

it is a postdorsal obstruction realized over a particular duration, and this dur ation supports the perception of a semi-consonant. In order to understand the implications of this dynamic analysis, we must look back to the classic phonetic experiment of Liberman et al. (1956). In this experiment, it was found that by varying the relative length of

the

same transition, the listener would perceive either a stop, a glide, or a vowel — the stop when the transition was short, a glide when it was of duration, and a vowel when it was long (gradual). used in all

three cases, w i t h

only the

medium

The same transition was

relative duration, or

tempo,

being

changed. The German / R / in syllable-coda position is similar to these transitions used in the experiment.

In category 2, when the syllabic vowel is short and

either stressed or unstressed, then it has a shorter duration without obstruc tion.

Concomitantly, the / R / is slightly longer.

In keeping w i t h the findings

of Liberman et al., this realization is more vocalic in its 'vocalized' realiza tion.

I t is s t i l l , however, the very same obstruction, just maintaining a d i f f e r

ent r a t i o of duration w i t h the rest of the syllable.

The difference of r a t i o ,

again, is not inherent to the / R / itself and cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to any varia tion of this

/R/.

However, the category 2 realization

can

also be that of f r i c a t i o n .

Once again, this can be explained in terms of duration.

For f r i c a t i o n to oc

cur, there must be a greater r e l a t i v e duration than that found in the category 1 syllable.

The result of this added duration makes i t possible for the hearer

to perceive f r i c a t i o n in the postdorsal constraint.

I t is s t i l l the postdorsal

constraint, though, and is no d i f f e r e n t from the other instances of postdorsal constraint outlined above.

What difference there may be lies not in the con

sonantal obstruction, but in the structure of the syllable.

German / R /

91

Finally, the category 3 realization of a weak vowel requires no dura tion at all without obstruction. consonants' — t o t a l l y

Thus, we can obtain the so-called

obstructed syllables.

'syllabic

When the / R / t o t a l l y obstructs

the syllable, however, it is realized in a duration that is indeed vocalic.

Be

cause the r e l a t i v e duration of the obstruction to the vowel is so great, i t is perceived as being vocalic itself.

Thus, the observation by Wurzel (1970:185)

that it is not the vowel, but the / R / that is 'reduced' is completely correct. The / R / is not reduced in duration, though, but extended. Thus, the alleged variation in the postvocalic German / R / has nothing to do w i t h the / R / per se.

Rather, what is involved is a complex application

of the principle of direction of constraint. sal constraint.

The / R / is in all cases a postdor-

The degree and even the precise position of constraint is a

product not of any quality inherent to the / R / , but to the interaction among the various components of the syllabic frame — the environment. The only problem s t i l l outstanding is that of the category 2 realization w i t h long or short / a / and w i t h short / o / . long / o / is omitted.

The interesting point here is that

I suggest that the long lol

is omitted from this special

application of the category because it is accompanied by a degree of per tinent lip rounding, or protrusion, considerably greater than that of long / o / . I f we add to this omission the long and short / u / for the same reason, we find that the back vowels all tend to join w i t h the syllable-coda / R / into a mon ophthong, so long

as the vocalic

characteristics of the syllabic

vowel (of

which the r e l a t i v e privation of lip-roundedness and the realization of backness are prominent

members) are similar

'semi-vocalic' / R / .

enough to

the characteristics

of

the

Such a pattern of sound assimilation is properly assigned

to the realm of historical change (though, of course, by no means tied to par ticular lexical items).

4.5

Conclusion

As in the case of German / x / , then, we see once again that the p r i n ciple of allophonic variation is spurious, so long as we analyze the data in keeping w i t h the best phonetic evidence available, the evidence of dynamic

92


phonetic analysis. In all cases, German / R / is nothing more nor less than postdorsal con straint.

The fortis

environment

of

the syllable-onset position

in

German

yields a t r i l l or (in the less f o r t i s nonexplosive position) a f r i c a t i o n in con junction w i t h this postdosal constraint.

The lenis environment of the syl

lable-coda position in German yields the more vocalized perceptions in con junction w i t h this postdorsal constraint.

Finally, the degree of vocalization is

merely a product of the tension and duration realized in the syllable in con junction w i t h this postdorsal constraint. dorsal constraint, insofar as the cerned.

In a l l , postdorsal constraint is post-

obstruction division of

the model is con

/ R / is simply / R / , whether we choose for convenience to label i t / R /

or [ R ] (as long as we know that by this symbol we mean postdorsal constraint, and nothing segmental). Once again, we see that if we base our phonology not on the outdated segmental phonetics, but on the current dynamic phonetics, we gain something more than simply a more up-to-date model.

We make the entire concept of

phonology simpler as we make it more consistent w i t h the evidence.

Where in

the segmental framework we needed a number of allophones in their compli cated distributions (which became all the more complicated as the notation became narrower), in the dynamic framework

we need only to establish

the

syllabic frame and the hierarchical relationships among features and feature types consistently w i t h the findings of dynamic phonetic

analysis.

Once we

do this, all perceived variations become nothing more than the natural work ing of the frame (the environment), and we need only the single element. Dynamic phonology is thus superior to segmental phonology. the analysis and description far simpler. consistant w i t h the phonetic facts.

It makes

More than this, however, it makes i t

Once again, then, notional segmentalism

is found to be deficient, as dynamic analysis provides a workable and reliable alternative. I t is not only by v i r t u e of this model's unique directional-constraint ap proach in analysis that it proves itself superior to a deficient and unreliable segmental a l t e r n a t i v e .

As we see in the following chapters, directional con

straint is only one of many aspects of dynamic phonology, and each aspect

German IRl

93

adds further proof that any linguist working w i t h real-language analyses must abandon the outmoded and f i c t i v e notional segment in favor of the phonetical ly real organization based upon the principle of dynamic coarticulatory con straint.

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS BY PROSODIC CONSTRAINT

5.1

I - FORTIS-LENIS CHANGE

Introduction

In the previous two chapters, we see the effects of the system of con straint on analysis. I should emphasize that these effects are not a result of the imposition of the analyst upon the analysis (compare Robins 1957). Rather, they are a direct result of the imposition of the phonetic structure upon the phonology in keeping w i t h the principle of the inner approach (Jakobson &. Halle 1971), supposedly widely recognized among phonologists.

I t is a basic

tenet of dynamic phonology that the categories and relationships that obtain from the phonetics should at all times take precedence over any device of convenience (such as the speech segment, or phoneme — compare

Twaddell

1935). In addition to directional constraint, the structure of phonetics also im poses upon the phonology a prosodic constraint.

As we have seen in the mat

ter of directional constraint, we are basically addressing a segmental illusion when we speak of allophones or combinatory variants.

The principle of prosod

ic constraint likewise is best seen in the segmental illusions it produces. Basically, prosodie constraint is the principle that within (and occa sionally among) the divisions, what may be perceived by the segmentalist as

96


separate phones or phonemes is simply the result of the effects upon one fea ture or opposition member imposed by another feature or opposition that constrains i t . an uncontroversial Welsh.

member

Perhaps the clearest way of understanding this is through example

involving

the cluster

prosody

of

aspiration

in

In the following section, I shall therefore describe this phenomenon as

an introduction to the fuller (and more controversial) analysis of fortis-lenis relationships.

5.2

Preliminary; The Aspirate Cluster Prosody of Welsh

Let us begin w i t h a traditional segmental analysis of certain w o r d - i n i t i a l consonant clusters in Modern Welsh.

As we find in the data of Fynes-

Clinton (1913), when a liquid follows a voiceless plosive, it lacks voice.

On

the other hand, when a liquid follows a w o r d - i n i t i a l voiced plosive, it is itself voiced. In many languages, including English and German, there is a widely held notion that the occurrence of voice in a liquid following a w o r d - i n i t i a l plosive is dependent upon the occurrence of voice in the plosive, and this no tion may be supported by data (at least, as it is viewed segmentally); but in the absence of alternations between w o r d - i n i t i a l voiced and voiceless plosives, such a notion is not easy to demonstrate beyond a doubt.

In Welsh, however,

there is such a system of alternations, widely termed the 'mutation system'. This is a system of i n i t i a l consonant gradation (ablaut), and it is quite exten sively covered in Morgan (1952) and Morris Jones (1913), for example. aspect of the system we should bear in mind, though, is the fact that

One the

mutations are imposed for grammatical, not for phonetic or phonological rea sons (for example, soft mutation occurs in a word that is a direct object of an inflected verb). One type of mutation is called 'soft mutation' or ' l e n i t i o n ' , and it af fects several d i f f e r e n t types of segments.

In soft

mutation (among several

different

types of alternation), a voiceless plosive is realized as its voiced

cognate.

As we see from the data below, when a voiceless ' r a d i c a l ' (un

marked, dictionary form) is realized as its voiced soft mutation counterpart,

Fortis-Lenis Change

97

the previously voiceless liquid following the radical is also realized as the voiced form.

Thus we find the following:

radical

soft mutation

gloss

p aid

blaid

party 432

p um

blum

lead 453

p en

bren

tree 442

p i:od

bri:od

married 443

t aud

dlotad (equative)

poor 534

t ai

drai

ebb-tide 539

t evn

drevn

order 543

k edi

gledi

hardship 262

k ox

glox

bell 267

k a:s k

i:st

gra:s

dry 292

gri:st

Christ 296

(The circle below the [ r ] and the [1] ~ the l a t t e r a period in the orig inal — represents voicelessness in the notation of Fynes-Clinton.

The number

after each gloss refers to the page number on which the forms are recorded.) An i n i t i a l plosive can also be followed by a nasal, almost always the dental / n / .

When the nasal

follows

the voiceless

plosive, however, it

is

voiced, as we see in the following data:

radical

gloss

pnaun

afternoon 436

pnelin

elbow 436

knaud

flesh 273

kniu

knee 275

There are two more mutations in the system which a f f e c t voiceless plo sives.

One is the 'spirant mutation' in which a voiceless plosive is realized as

98


a voiceless f r i c a t i v e .

When a liquid follows the i n i t i a l voiceless f r i c a t i v e in

spirant mutation, it is voiced, as in the f o l l o w i n g :

radical

spirant mutation

gloss

ply:

fly:

feathers 435

pri:s

fri:s

price 444

traus

Oraus

trans 540

o

klebar

xlebar

chatter 262

xroudi

krowdy (fiddle) 299

o

kroudi

(For consistence in representing the data, I maintain Fynes-Clinton's notation [ y ] , which represents the high central unrounded vowel [ ].) Thus, we can see that the presence of voice in the liquid is deter mined by the presence of voice in the plosive, but i t is not dependent upon the presence or absence of voice in the i n i t i a l f r i c a t i v e . The final type of mutation pertinent to this analysis is the 'nasal muta tion'.

In this mutation, the radical plosive is realized as the nasal cognate. I f

the plosive is voiceless, so is the nasal cognate, and the aspiration of the plosive is heightened in the voiceless nasal to the degree of ' g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e ' (R. O. Jones 1969).

This is perhaps the most interesting of all the phonemona

under study, for when the consonant undergoing nasal mutation is followed by a liquid or by a nasal, the liquid or nasal is not only voiceless, but i t is f o l lowed by the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e (the aspiration of the i n i t i a l segment). we find the following alternations:

radical

nasal mutation

gloss

p e:e

he:O

plaiting 432

pnelin

nnelin

elbow 436

t

nrhamdar

dead of niqht 553

mdar

k y:st

nlhy:st

ear 272

Thus,

Fortis-Lenis Change

99

krombil

nrhombil

gizzard 298

knottyn

nnhottyn

diminutive epithet 275

(As in the International Phonetic Alphabet, the c i r c l e below the nasal represents voicelessness.) In analyzing these phenomena in the segmental generative model, we must f i r s t assign some underlying feature specifications.

This is to say that

we must posit / r / or / r / , / l / or / / , and / n / or / n / as the underlying segment by specifying whether the feature [voiced] should be marked plus or minus in the bundle of distinctive features on the underlying level.

In accordance w i t h

the universal i n t e r p r e t i v e conventions of Chomsky & Halle (1968:chap.9), these features should all be marked as positive (/r/, / l / , / n / ) , as they are sonorants. Considering the effects of a voiceless plosive on a nasal and the effects of a voiceless

f r i c a t i v e on a liquid, this

would appear to

be a reasonable as

sumption. The data derived from the effects of soft mutation can be handled quite neatly by a r e w r i t e rule as follows:

This 'voice assimilation rule' is a common phenomenon in

generative

phonology, and its representation above is rather widespread (though by no means exclusive).

I t simply states that a consonant is marked w i t h the fea

ture [+voiced] if it follows a consonant marked [+voiced], and it is marked [-voiced] if i t follows a consonant marked [-voiced]. This rule (and all similar assimilation rules that could be used here), however, w i l l not work. such words

In addition to the forms given above, we also find

as [stra:yn] ' s t r a i n ' (504) [stremp] 'smudge' (505), and [ s t r y : d ]

'street' (506), in which the sonorant not only follows one voiceless consonant, but it follows two voiceless consonants, the second (immediate) of which is a plosive, and yet i t is voiced. What is involved here is aspiration.

The /s/-plus-plosive

environment

100


is a well-known deaspirating environment in English (see Gleason 1961:263) as well as in Welsh (see Fynes-Clinton 1913:xxii).

From the data, it appears that

the aspiration of the i n i t i a l consonant is what causes the following sonorant to be voiceless, and in /s/-plus-plosive clusters this aspiration is absent (com pare Kurath 1964:74).

Thus, it is this one feature of the plosive which ex

tends itself and governs the specification of voice in the following sonorant. In order to treat this phenomenon, we would have to systematize the notion of

a cluster prosody within the generative

framework.

Although

Fromkin

(1965) attempted to do just that, her lead was not followed within the school, for, as demonstrated below, the incorporation of the prosody would be nonsegmental to a degree that would constitute a glaring deficiency

in segmental

theory. I f we are not interested in representing the insights to be gained from treating aspiration as a prosody and we simply want to make the segmental rules work, we can remedy the problem by specifying the above rule so that the preceding consonant cannot be preceded by a consonant.

This can be

done through the following rule:

Thus, a consonant is marked as [+voiced] if it precedes a consonant also marked [+voiced] (or it is marked [-voiced] if the preceding consonant is also marked [-voiced]), if that preceding consonant is itself preceded either by a vowel or by a word boundary.

Hence, if there is an occurrence of / s / be

fore the f i r s t consonant, the rule w i l l not apply. This w i l l s t i l l create problems, notably where a syllable boundary is relevant to the aspiration even when an / s / or other consonant precedes the boundary and where stress patterns may i n t e r f e r e w i t h aspiration.

Nonethe

less, it should suffice in most cases and can certainly be modified, albeit by rules of increasing complexity. With the nasal mutation, however, we find a problem of insurmountable magnitude.

In order to generate the / p n e l i n /

[ nhelin] rule, for example,

Fortis-Lenis Change

101

without resorting to nonsegmental prosodies, we would have to posit the f o l lowing list of rules:

(1) Nasal mutation

pn

hn

(2) Aspirate metathesis

hn

nh

(3) Voice assimilation

nh

nh

The f i r s t rule is morphophonological and quite general.

The metathesis

rule could be handled transformationally within the framework of Chomsky & Halle (1968:358-64).

The voice assimilation rule would have to follow me

tathesis, as / h / is not, s t r i c t l y speaking, a consonant.

The aspirate metathesis

rule is central to a process segmental explanation, but i t is laden w i t h prob lems.

For instance, how does a feature of one segment become a segment in

its own right capable of metathesis? Moreover, how natural is a rule that takes such aspiration from one segment and simply adds i t to the next? A t this point, though, we see that the voice assimilation rule need further revision, for it would be blocked by the requirement

would

that the

a f f e c t i n g consonant be preceded by nothing more consonantal than a word boundary or a vowel.

Moreover, the voice assimilation rule only affects l i

quids, and in order for i t to apply here, it would also have to apply to nasals. But as we find in / p n e l i n / , it does not and cannot a f f e c t nasals. Our segmental generative analysis is thus e f f e c t i v e l y stymied.

Perhaps

there is a way of constructing tortuous series of rules, each r e s t r i c t e d to the maximum degree by angled brackets and other such notational devices.

If

there were, though, how insightful would i t be? We must never lose sight of the f a c t that the analyst is analyzing language, not notational systems.

With

each level of complexity, then, the segmental analyst would be removing the analysis f u r t h e r and further from the object of study. In keeping w i t h the Anderson requirement as noted in the previous chapters (S. R. Anderson 1974:6), we certainly have a deficiency.

On the one

hand, the phenomenon described above may very well not be analyzable in

102


segmental terms (especially in the creation of the segment / h / out of an i n herent feature of another segment and other features apparently where), in which case its deficiency is obvious.

from no

On the other hand, an anal

ysis of the notational system rather than of the language itself is hardly less deficient. Once we remove the segment, however, the whole problem becomes simple.

Indeed, even in the semisegmental methods of the London School pro

sodic analysis (see F i r t h 1948, Palmer 1964), we can account for the data as follows:

This is to say that aspiration from an aspirated (voiceless) plosive domi nates the following liquid but not a following nasal; while that of an aspirated nasal dominates the following sonorant and the onset of the vowel.

When the

/ s / (or any f r i c a t i v e ) precedes the cluster, however, the range of aspiration is limited to the following consonant. As we see, a semisegmental prosodic analysis can succinctly

and i n

sightfully describe the Welsh cluster prosody (although, to be sure, when we t r y to put the data into a more s t r i c t l y constructed system/structure frame work, problems may ensue, as we find in the analyses of chaps. 11 and 12, below).

Indeed, the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l model w i t h the quasistep-matrix (Lock-

wood 1973, 1976), can account for the data just as well (see G r i f f e n 1975c). On the other hand, the generative segmental (or in f a c t any segmental) model has great d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h this phenomenon. The reason why at least a p a r t i a l desegmentation is needed to describe the cluster prosody is that we are working w i t h a prosodie feature, not w i t h an inherent feature.

As pointed out by Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1952:13-14),

a segmental approach must 'lump together' the prosodie feature of aspiration w i t h a segment.

Once this is done, some rule must be devised for extending

the prosodie feature back out of the segment into which it has been lumped. This is fundamental to such transformational notions used in handling dynamic

Fortis-Lenis Change

phonetic

103

evidence as the Liberman hypothesis (Liberman 1970) and autoseg-

mental phonology (for example, Goldsmith 1976).

Since the act of lumping the

prosodic feature into the phoneme is itself unrealistic, we find that once the phonemes are moved around and changed (as in the Welsh mutation system), they must be 'unlumped' from d i f f e r e n t environments than those that obtained for the i n i t i a l segmentation. This example is perhaps one of the simplest of prosodic analysis, in spite of the d i f f i c u l t y it provides for the segmental approach. nonsegmental, dynamic analysis would be l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t

Indeed, a fully

from the

Firthian

prosodie analysis (but see chaps. 11 and 12, below, for some important d i f ferences). Insofar as the principle of prosodie constraint is concerned, we can see here that the difference between segmental / l / and segmental / /, for exo

ample, is t o t a l l y dependent upon the constraint placed upon i t by the prosodie feature. The difference between /l/ and / / (or, for that matter, between [1] o

and [ ]) is no more segmental than is that between German [ ç ] and [ x ] or beo

tween the various realizations of / R / . alyst who insists upon using segments. mental organization

I t is only perceived this way by an an As we see above, however, the seg

in matters of cluster prosodies is deficient, to say the

least. 5.3

Fortis-Lenis Change; Provection in the Fortis-Lenis Scale

One of the more common forms of consonant s h i f t i n g , especially among Indo-European languages, involves the fortis-lenis scale.

In the history of Ger

manic alone, we are faced w i t h two major shifts, both occurring along this scale (compare Foley 1973).

In the history of Welsh, such shifting has oc

curred not so much in specific periods, but throughout the development of the language, as demonstrated in Jackson (1953).

In the histories of many other

languages, such as Greek and Spanish, moreover, shifting occurs in perhaps a more limited degree or scope, but it occurs nonetheless along the fortis-lenis scale. Perhaps the best known example of such shifting can be seen in what

104


has traditionally been termed the First Germanic Sound Shift (Grimm 1893). In segmental terms, proto-Indo-European /d/ or / d h / (to use the dental series as representative) becomes Germanic / d / , / d / becomes / t / , and / t / becomes /O/. In some contexts, though, / t / becomes / d / (Verner 1875). the allegedly more conservative Latin pedis [pedis] ' f o o t

Thus, for example, (genitive)'

corre

sponds w i t h Gothic fotus [fo;tus] (and indeed w i t h English foot). In the Welsh linguistic t r a d i t i o n , historical changes and even synchron ic alternations (compare chap. 7, below) within

this fortis-lenis scale have

come to be called lenition and provection (used here broadly to include spirantization).

Lenition is a change from one degree along the fortis-lenis scale

to a weaker degree, as in the change from Old Welsh can(t) [kan(t)] ' w i t h ' to Modern Welsh gan [gan].

This type of change generally

begins in environ

ments between vowels, at the end of words, or (as in the example) at the be ginning of nonstressed function words or syllables.

Indeed, lenition is a f a i r l y

widely known phenomenon in languages and has traditionally been the easier of the two types to explain, for its 'weakening' environments are usually quite transparent.

As noted by M e i l l e t , for example, "Certain principles of change

are universal; for example, one w i l l not be surprised to see the tendency to reduce

the finals, to see intervocalic

consonants undergo the influence

of

neighboring vowels and thus be made like them by becoming voiced or by los ing a part of their closure" (Meillet 1970:9). Provection, on the other hand, presents the linguist trying to account for

this change w i t h definite

problems.

For one thing, while the idea of

weakening due to vocalic environment may be more or less i n t u i t i v e l y obvious w i t h or without regard to any fortis-lenis scale, the idea of 'strengthening' brings the scale under a more rigorous scrutiny — a scrutiny which soon r e veals the fact that u n t i l now researchers have not had a clear picture of just what this fortis-lenis scale is and indeed of whether such a thing can even exist (at least in the notational systems of the phonologist).

Furthermore,

again unlike the rather straightforward environmental motivation for l e n i t i o n , provection appears to occur in environments which are apparently contrary to what one would suppose to support the usual phonetic alternations and cer tainly beyond the descriptive capacity of the notational conventions of seg-

Fortis-Lenis Change

105

mental phonemics, as demonstrated below. In Welsh, which is rich in such provective changes and alternations, provection is associated primarily w i t h gemination (and other and w i t h aspiration.

combinations)

For example, the term gwastatir [ g w a s t a t i r ] ' p l a i n ' is

derived from the combination of qwastad [gwastad] ' f l a t '

and dir [ d i r ] 'land

(soft mutation)' (see Morris Jones 1913:182, Morgan 1952:25).

Further up the

scale, proto-Welsh * B r i t t o n [ b r i t t o n ] ' B r i t i s h ' (recorded by Bede as Brettones) corresponds to Modern Welsh Brython [br Oon] (Jackson 1953:567), as Welsh llythyr [ Oir] ' l e t t e r ' is derived from Latin l i t t e r a s [ l i t t e r a s ] .

Insofar as aspi

ration is concerned, the word ateb [ateb] 'answer', for example, is derived from the combination of ad [a:d] 'again' and heb [he:b] 'say (archaic)' (see Morris Jones 1942:52). In modern alternations (aside from the mutation system, treated in f u r ther detail in chap. 7, below), we also find productive examples of

provec

tion.

gwybod

For example, Fynes-Clinton (1913:xxiii) notes that the phrase

dim 'not to know' is actually pronounced in the Bangor d i s t r i c t [gubot tim], w i t h the intervocalic [ t ] derived from the combination of [d] and [d]; and both Fynes-Clinton (1913:xviii) and Morris Jones (1925:206) note the pronunciation of ei thad hi 'her father' as [ i Oa: t i ] , w i t h the [ t ] derived from the combina tion of [d] and

[h]

Such provection, or hard mutation (treiglad caled), is an

intregral part not only of daily speech, but even of the s t r i c t l y poetry, the cynghanedd.

alliterative

For example, in the line Onid hardd : dy henwlad di?

'Is it not beautiful, thine old land?' cited by Roberts (1973:48), a l l i t e r a t i o n is maintained in the dentals, for in each case provection applies.

Thus, the line

may be transcribed as [oni tard : da henl( )a t i l , w i t h the f i r s t [ t ] derived from the provective combination of [d] and [h], and the second from that of [d] and [d] (see chap. 13, below, and also G r i f f e n 1981c). What can be seen in these examples is a problem for phonology.

As

noted above, the fortis-lenis scale's very existence as a viable phoneticallybased opposition may be questioned, as a single environmental f a c t o r (gemina t i o n , among others) may coincide w i t h a change from [d] to [ t ] and also w i t h a change from [ t ] to [0], the f i r s t involving voicing and the second involving f r i cation.

Beyond this, even if these types of change could be unified by one

106


phonetic characteristic, the processes involved in changing at least two seg ments to one other segment of higher ' s t r e n g t h ' (however that may be i n t e r preted within the inherent features of segments) through such operations as gemination and aspiration overtax the notational capabilities if not the basic principles of segmental phonology (phonemics). The major problem presented by the phenomenon of provection involves n o t a t i o n , logic, and naturalness.

Let us say that we posit some generative

process rules to account for the phenomenon.

First we would need a rule

that devoices a voiced plosive before either a homorganic voiced plosive or a glottal fricative.

Such a rule can be w r i t t e n as in rule (1) of figure

5.1

(opposite), using here for c l a r i t y and simplicity the values assigned for English by Chomsky & Halle (1968:176-77) and the abbreviations also used by them. This only accounts for the changes from the combinations [d] + [h] and [d] + [d] to [ t ] (and the same at the other positions of articulation). need to account for the change from [ t ] + [h] and [ t ] + [ t ] to [0].

We also

This can be

accomplished by rule (2) of figure 5 . 1 . A cursory look at rules (1) and (2) should reveal that the two are in r e a l i t y one process and should be collapsed into a single rule. we find here is indeed a single process — provection.

A f t e r a l l , what

As we attempt to c o l

lapse the rules, however, we find that there does not appear to be any way (certainly not any insightful way) of accomplishing this task. One of the problems here involves the binary features in use in genera t i v e phonology (see Cherry, Halle & Jakobson 1953 for important background in this practice).

While one could simply suggest that numbered features be

used instead, w i t h [d] containing the feature [ 1 f o r t i s ] , [d] containing the fea ture [2 f o r t i s ] , [ t ] containing the feature [3 f o r t i s ] , and [0] containing the f e a ture [4 f o r t i s ] (compare, for example Singh 1976:87) to represent the gradual opposition (compare Trubetzkoy 1969:74-77); nonetheless, there is no way of justifying

the

fortis-lenis

scale

in

terms

of

features

inherent

to

segments. To be sure, there have been inner-approach analyses of the feature of tension apparently involved in the fortis-lenis scale (compare, for Malécot 1970, Falc'hun 1965, Pétursson 1971, 1976), and an

example,

inner-approach

Figure 5.1: Generative Rules for Provection

Fortis-Lenis Change 107

108


analysis, through the phonetic evidence, is necessary in keeping w i t h the p r i n ciple of Jakobson & Halle (1971:19).

The t r a d i t i o n a l analysis of this r e l a t i o n

ship holds that there is some sort of oral muscular tension and related airpressure

forming

a phonetic

basis

for

the

phonological

Trubetzkoy 1969:145, Chomsky & Halle 1968:327).

opposition

(see

However, measurements of

tension in the oral cavity have failed to bear this t r a d i t i o n a l analysis out (compare Bell-Berti 1975). related

voiced

Indeed, extensive studies on the opposition have

and voiceless

occlusion

and voiced

and voiceless

frication

(compare Malécot 1970), but none has treated the gradual fortis-lenis scale from the standpoint of the speech segment, as the scale combines both de grees of obstruction into one opposition, as mentioned by Palmer (1964). The inability of segmentalist proponents of the inner approach to j u s t i fy

the

fortis-lenis scale

approach view.

with

phonetic

evidence

has bolstered

the

outer-

Known as the 'beta-strength' scale, this opposition is treated

by Foley (1970) as a purely phonological phenomenon occurring in many lan guages of the world.

The obvious presence of the scale in phonology ( p a r t i c u

larly in historical change) and the lack of evidence for it in segmental pho netics has prompted Foley (1970:87) to assert that "The system of distinctive features used in transformational phonology, based on acoustical analysis, can not handle satisfactorily series of elements.

historical change

in

which shifts

occur

in

whole

An alternative system, based on phonological relations,

can comprehend these transpositions, thus achieving insight into the nature of phonological change".

This complaint w i t h regard

to historical

change he

later enlarges to the entire scope of phonology: "The need for a phonological theory is evident from the failure of transformational phonetics, hitherto the most sophisticated of linguistic systems, to provide a theoretical

framework

for understanding phonological problems" (Foley 1977:3). Thus, we see that the inability of t r a d i t i o n a l phonology (and indeed of t r a d i t i o n a l phonetics) to account for the obvious effects of the

fortis-lenis

scale has led to a general weakening of the inner approach to phonology — the premise that phonology is an abstraction from phonetic evidence.

While

few linguists would go so far as Foley, some limited support for the outer-ap proach view has been extended from some rather unexpected circles.

In f a c t ,

Fortis-Lenis Change

Vennemann &

109

Ladefoged

(1973:16) propose cover

features

which they

de

scribe as being the same as Foley's in precisely this area of the fortis-lenis scale.

Although such cover features may serve to give a superficial descrip

tion for change along the fortis-lenis scale, they do nothing for a real ac counting of provection, but simply shift the problem to the phonological level of segmental abstraction.

5.4

A Dynamic Analysis of the Fortis-Lenis Scale

One reason why the fortis-lenis scale in general and provection in par ticular have presented such problems in phonology and especially in historical change is that they have been described traditionally in models consisting of discrete segmental units.

A c t u a l speech, on the other hand, is nonsegmental

in nature, and phonetic models constructed in accordance w i t h this f a c t have succeeded where segmental models have failed — in the prediction of the real speech event (compare, again, Mermelstein 1973, 1975; Öhman 1966, 1967; Sawashima & Cooper 1977; etc.). indeed find a framework

In dynamic phonetics and phonology, we do

in which we can account for the fortis-lenis scale

and can alleviate other such problems which have resulted from the fact that segmental phonology (phonemics) is based upon the assumptions of orthography rather

than upon the observations of speech itself.

In essence, segmental

phonology is already within the outer approach, for it assumes an abstraction that cannot

be phonetically j u s t i f i e d ; and only

a nonsegmental

model can

maintain the inner approach to phonology as advocated in principle by Jakobson & Halle (1971), Trubetzkoy (1969:11), and most other phonologists. The important aspect of the dynamic model for this problem is the sys tem of constraint.

Within the syllabic frame (and in general), the obstruction

division constrains the syllable division, and both constrain the laryngeal d i v i sion.

Within each division, the prosodies also serve the

function

of con

straint, as outlined in chap. 2, below. Of particular interest in this investigation of the fortis-lenis scale as it is realized in provective change is the obstruction division.

This division,

once again, is composed of the basic obstruction opposition (representing the

110


position of obstruction) and the obstruction prosody (constraining the p a r t i c ular obstruction opposition member but not inherent to it).

For example, in

Welsh the difference between the i n i t i a l obstructions in t ŵ r [ t u ; r ] ' t o w e r ' and dŵr [du:r] ' w a t e r '

has nothing to do w i t h the obstruction opposition member

itself, which is dental; rather i t is a product of the f a c t that the former is constrained by one degree of an obstruction prosody and the l a t t e r is con strained by one degree less of the same prosodic opposition.

As mentioned in

the introductory section of this chapter (see also chap. 7, below), in the func tioning of the Welsh morphophonological system, t ŵ r may be realized as dŵr through a relationship known as soft

mutation, the realization of the next

lower degree of the prosody; while in the same grammatical environments (for example, the object of an inflected verb), dŵr is realized w i t h the next lower degree as ddŵr H u : r l As can be seen in this example, the basic prosodic opposition of the Welsh obstruction division is at least isomorphic w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l f o r t i s lenis scale relating the nonsense syllables H a ] , [da], [ t a ] and [0a], from lenis to f o r t i s .

Although a segmental accounting of this relationship in concrete

phonetic terms has not been possible, when we view the speech event in dy namic, nonsegmental terms, it is quite natural, deriving from the general sys tem of constraint within the syllabic frame. Typical of fortis-lenis systems, Welsh exhibits changes and alternations by which the same process which relates [ t a ] w i t h [da] also relates [da] w i t h H a ] , as noted in the example just c i t e d .

Moreover, as pointed out in the ex

amples in the previous section, the same process which relates [da] w i t h [ t a ] also relates [ t a ] w i t h

[0a].

Insofar as those processes which are productive

are concerned, these relationships can be accounted for through g l o t t a l f r i c a tion (or overt aspiration) in a significant number of cases (as demonstrated in detail in G r i f f e n 1975a:chaps. 7 and 10).

In the general behavior of this f o r

tis-lenis scale, we can see that the weaker realizations constrain the vowel less than do the stronger.

Indeed, as pointed out by M e i l l e t in the passage

cited above, the historical process of lenition (weakening) serves to make the consonant more like the vowel, in t r a d i t i o n a l terms.

Thus, we must combine

three characteristics of the fortis-lenis scale in order to conduct an investi-

Fortis-Lenis Change

111

gation of its phonetic parameter: (1) It consists of a gradual scale of opposi tion members; (2) it is characterized by some form of aspiration; and (3) it can be measured through the degree of constraint. Examining these characteristics in the framework of this dynamic nonsegmental phonology, we should look for the phonetic basis for this

fortis-

lenis scale in an obstruction prosody representing a gradual opposition (for the f i r s t characteristic) involving the aspirate

a r t i c u l a t o r (for the second)

realized as an increasing constraint on the syllabic

vowel (for

the

and

third).

While all such investigations are necessarily in the realm of hypothesis, there is f i r m physiological and acoustic evidence for this scale to be found in the behavior of the o r i f i c e of the larynx and in a high-to-low

frequency energy

ratio. As noted in chap. 2, above, aspiration is physiologically related w i t h whisper as a function of the constraint of the vocal cords — the less the con s t r a i n t , the less vowel-like (at least in a language w i t h only voiced vowels). Thus, in keeping w i t h this dynamic aspect of speech production, we should center our physiological investigation on the a c t i v i t y of organs in and around the larynx. There indeed we find a direct correlate w i t h the fortis-lenis scale. According to the cineradiographic studies by Perkell (1969:36-37), the size of the opening of the o r i f i c e of the larynx at 75 milliseconds before release i n creases in a f a i r l y neat arithmetic

progression through the nonsense words

[h 'zc], [h 'dc], [h 'tc], and [h 'sc], where these sounds correspond in degree of constraint w i t h those in Welsh.

The measurements are approximately 4.1

mm, 5.6 mm, 7.2 mm, and 9.4 mm, respectively. The widening of the o r i f i c e of the larynx may be due to pressure and resistant tension, as suggested by Palmer (1964), or i t could be due to an overt muscular gesture, as Perkell himself suggests (compare also Lisker Abramson 1967, Kent & M o l l 1969, Ladefoged 1971:96-97).

&

Whether cause or

e f f e c t , though, the widening of the o r i f i c e of the larynx signals heightened pressure in a position of the apparatus where it can at high degrees constrain voicing regardless of the position of obstructional a r t i c u l a t i o n , an hypothesis supported by the findings of Nihalani (1974), and where i t can be realized as g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n — either as preaspiration or as the aspiration associated w i t h

112


obstructions. Thus, there does appear to be a single physiological correlate to the gradual opposition of the fortis-lenis scale.

We should note w e l l , however,

that this physiological correlate is not discernible from the notional segmental tradition — it does not obtain from the isolated segments into which speech has traditionally been organized.

Rather, it is determinable only from a dy

namic approach, taking into consideration the hierarchy of the divisions and the principle of dynamic coarticulated constraint, as expressed in chap. 2. Shifting our attention now to the acoustic evidence for the fortis-lenis scale, given the organizational structure of dynamic phonetics and phonology and the evidence from physiological phonetics, we should expect to find the acoustic j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the scale in a constant relationship among features, in which the consonantal characteristic obscures the vocalic characteristic in a gradual progression from lenis to f o r t i s .

As the vocalic characteristics are

found in the lower frequencies, we should thus compare low frequency sound energy w i t h high frequency. In G r i f f e n (1975a:chap.l0), such acoustic evidence justifying the gradu al opposition may be found.

Spectrograms are taken of (among other things)

the nonsense words [dahad], [dahad], [ t a h a t ] , and [0aha0] spoken speakers of various dialects of Welsh.

by native

A l l speakers exhibit the same charac

teristics in relation to one another, in keeping w i t h the amount of

variance

acceptable between systems (in accordance w i t h the r e l a t i v i t y principle, as in Jakobson & Waugh 1979:13-18).

In the speech of a representative speaker,

the utterance of [dahad] is marked by the f a c t that

the energy

associated

w i t h the consonantal constraint is entirely concentrated at frequencies lower than 1500 cps in the i n i t i a l position and 1000 cps in f i n a l position.

In the

utterance of [dahad], it is distributed more evenly, w i t h most of the post-re lease energy concentrated below 3000 cps in i n i t i a l position and w i t h an ' o f f glide' in f i n a l position w i t h most of its energy below 1000 cps and some below 500 cps.

In that of [ t a h a t ] , it is entirely above 500 cps in the post-release

stage and w i t h heavier concentrations above 3000 cps and traces above 5000 cps in

i n i t i a l position; while in f i n a l position, that above 2000 cps is far

stronger than is that below 2000 cps.

Finally in the utterance of [0aha0], this

Fortis-Lenis Change

113

energy is almost entirely above 1000 cps w i t h traces in both positions above 7000 cps.

(The discrepancy between i n i t i a l and f i n a l values reflects an a r c h i -

phonological

neutralization

of

aspiration

in

which, especially

in

linguistic

change, the final obstruction tends toward the next lenis member — compare G r i f f e n 1977e.) Once again, we see that there is indeed phonetic evidence to support a single parameter upon which the fortis-lenis scale is based.

Moreover, it is

again a type of evidence that could not be determined from the segmental framework, for it involves not the discrete stringing of segmental bundles of features,

but

the

dynamic

constraint

of

obstructional characteristics

upon

vocalic/syllabic characteristics. The single f a c t alone that dynamic organization leads us to the ac curate determination of the nature of a relationship well known in the behav ior of phonological forms yet unjustifiable from a segmental approach should in itself constitute a 'deficiency'

in segmental theory.

Certainly

a theory

that obfuscates real relationships determinable in the evidence cannot be con sidered accurate or even acceptable in the analysis of language.

This, of

course, brings into question all of those t r a d i t i o n a l analyses and descriptions that S. R. Anderson (1974:6) refers to when he supports segmentation as being responsible for " v i r t u a l l y every result of note that has ever been obtained in the field of linguistic phonetics or phonology". ter to the notional segmentalist

L i t t l e does it appear to mat

that "every result of note" has been built

upon premises so faulty that, in the case of the fortis-lenis scale, even seg mental phoneticians question that validity of the phonetic basis of phonolog ical oppositions.

5.5

Provection in Dynamic Phonology

On the basis of the more accurate and insightful dynamic analysis of the fortis-lenis scale, we can construct a set of relationships based upon this broad concept of aspiration to account for the Welsh fortis-lenis scale repre sented in the progression (lenis to fortis) [do], [da], [ t a ] , [0a]. In the basic ob struction opposition, all four would be realizations of the dental obstruction.

114


The f i r s t would be constrained by the f i r s t degree of prosodic aspiration, the second by the second degree, the third by the third degree and the f o u r t h by the f o u r t h degree.

Any change in degree of aspiration, while it may be of

extreme importance to the segmentalist's perception of the manner of conso nantal a r t i c u l a t i o n , has no bearing upon the obstruction member itself, but is an independent though coarticulated prosodic feature.

As noted in the i n t r o

ductory section of this chapter, this constitutes a case of prosodie constraint within the obstruction division.

(See also chap. 7, below, for f u r t h e r support

and discussion of the fortis-lenis scale as based upon prosodie aspiration.) When we plug all of this information into the syllabic frame, the phe nomenon of provection ceases to be a problem.

For the development of ateb

[ateb] 'answer' from the combination of ad [a:d] 'again' and heb [he:b] 'say (archaic)' (cited above), we should f i r s t describe the earlier syllables in their syllabic frames.

Ad consists of the syllabic vowel finally constrained by a

dental obstruction further constrained by the second degree of prosodie aspi r a t i o n ; heb consists (partially) of the syllabic the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n of aspiration. struction is free to shift

vowel i n i t i a l l y constrained by

When the two are joined, the dental ob

to the favored i n i t i a l obstruction position of

the

next syllable, for there is no obstruction as such in i n i t i a l position of the next syllable to block this shift (the aspiration being properly a prosody).

When

the dental obstruction shifts, however, the second degree of aspiration

con

straining it also shifts and combines w i t h the aspiration already in the i n i t i a l obstruction prosody position, raising the degree of prosodie constraint to the next higher member of the opposition.

The dental obstruction, which has not

changed at a l l , is now simply constrained by the higher degree, and the result is one syllable [a] w i t h an unobstructed syllabic

vowel and another

syllable

[ t e b ] w i t h the syllabic vowel i n i t i a l l y constrained by a dental obstruction f u r ther constrained by the third degree of aspiration.

The change represented

here, then, is fundamentally one of syllabication, w i t h no significant addition or loss of any feature element — simply a coalescence. (It should be noted that in r e f e r r i n g to shifts and changes involved in these instances of coalescence, I am not making use of any transformational generative concepts of changes (transformations) from deep to surface struc-

Fortis-Lenis Change

ture.

115

A l l that is described here is change as an historical phenomenon or as a

combinatory

one — which, in essence, may well be viewed as

historical as

well.) This analysis can be represented dynamically making use of the p e r t i nent portions of the syllabic frame as in figure 5.2, below.

In this figure, we

see that the position of obstruction is marked simply {1}, as i t represents all of the major positions of obstruction in Welsh (those of category 1 — see chap. 7, below).

In the first obstruction position involved, the prosody {2h}

represents the second degree of aspiration.

When this is joined w i t h

the

simple {h} of g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n in the second obstruction prosody position, the result is the {3h} representing the t h i r d degree of aspiration.

Figure 5.2: Provection from Aspiration

116


While provection from aspiration could be handled in more t r a d i t i o n a l prosodic analysis (as mentioned in the introductory section of this chapter and developed further

in G r i f f e n 1975c), provection from gemination can be de

scribed only in a more prosodically based system (one without 'sounds'). the

development

of

qwastatir

[g a s t a t i r ] 'plain'

from

For

the combination

of

gwastad [g astad] ' f l a t ' and dir [ d i : r ] 'land (soft mutation)' (cited above), we should again describe the affected syllables in their syllabic

frames.

-tad

consists (partially) of a syllabic vowel finally constrained by a dental obstruc tion further constrained by the second degree of prosodic aspiration;

dir is

initially constrained by the dental obstruction further constrained by the sec ond degree of prosodie aspiration.

When the two syllables are joined, the

central dental obstructions may coalesce into the favored syllable-initial ob struction position, for they are homorganic.

When two homorganic basic ob

struction opposition members are coalesced into one position, there can be, of course, no alteration in the obstruction itself (that is, in the position of ob struction).

On the other hand, when two obstruction prosodies are coalesced

into one position (bearing in mind that these are features in their own right and not inherent to the obstruction itself), their degrees are combined (as in the previous

example) to yield the next

higher member of

the opposition.

Thus, we end up with the dental obstruction constrained by the third degree of aspiration.

Once again, the change is one of syllabication, w i t h no s i g n i f i

cant addition or loss of any feature element — just a coalescence. This process

of coalescence is represented

in figure 5.3 (opposite).

When we examine the syllabic frames involved, moreover, we should note that the process of provection from gemination does not d i f f e r very significantly from that of provection from aspiration; nor, for that matter, should we ex pect it t o , for the process of provection in a fortis-lenis scale based on aspi ration should be based upon the strengthening of the gradual opposition of aspiration. tionship.

That is, after a l l , the pertinent feature characteristic of the r e l a We should also note that the system is not mathematical ({2h} plus

{2h} does not necessarily equal {4h}), rather i t is the result of natural magnifi cation of a prosodie feature from one degree to the next.

117

Fortis-Lenis Change

Figure 5.3: Provection from Gemination

Provection in Welsh is thus a phonetically based development.

When

viewed from a nonsegmental standpoint, it does not involve any sort of trans formation of two segments into one from considerations of 'deep s t r u c t u r e ' , but rather i t involves natural physiologically and acoustically justifiable pro cesses.

Physiologically, we find an additional aspiration r e f l e c t e d by an addi

tional w i d t h of the orifice of the larynx to express a combination of aspirate elements; and acoustically, we find the resultant combination of degrees of high-frequency noise to raise the high-to-low frequency energy r a t i o .

Thus,

one generation may interpret the auditory stimulus provided by the previous generation in such a way as to yield provection, as indeed one generation may establish alternations, such as those in the a l l i t e r a t i v e poetry, making use of

118


this provection.

A l l of this is entirely based in observable phonetic behavior.

That precisely this t a c t i c of change could be employed, moreover, can be seen

in

the

historical

data

from

Welsh.

As

noted

by Morris

Jones

(1913:182), John Jones, who flourished between 1590 and 1630 during the p e r i od of Early Modern Welsh, w r o t e , "Two / b / standeth in force of / p / . . . mab byxan most being pronounced as if y t t were w r y t t e n mab pyxan". While Jones recognized, then, that the geminate [b] was pronounced as if i t were w r i t t e n p, he nonetheless wrote -b p-.

This f a i r l y

wide-spread w r i t i n g practice in

Early Modern Welsh may indeed suggest that the historical change involving provection was gradual (consisting of specific stages), w i t h the prosodic fea ture dynamically spreading over the following obstruction as the obstructions were coalesced in the transmission of the language between generations. By using a dynamic nonsegmental model based upon dynamic phonetic evidence for the description of provection, then, we can account for this t r a ditionally

bothersome type of change without the necessity of invoking ab

s t r a c t rationalizations.

Such a description is preferable to the

traditional

notional segmental approach not only because it adheres to phonetic observa tions and maintains consistence w i t h the inner approach, but also because i t relies solely upon features instead of upon phonemes — in keeping w i t h what most schools of phonology claim to prefer and even to demand.

Thus, as

noted above, we find yet another example of segmental deficiency and dynam ic effectiveness not only in theory, but in practice as w e l l .

5.6

Conclusion: The M a t t e r of Lenition

In conclusion, I should like to return to the quotation from M e i l l e t cited above. change.

M e i l l e t notes that lenition appears to be a universal pattern of

As he quite correctly points out, we should expect " t o see the ten

dency to reduce the finals, to see intervocalic consonants undergo the i n f l u ence of neighboring vowels and thus be made like them by becoming voiced or by losing a part of their closure" (Meillet 1970:9). This concept of lenitive weakening is so well accepted and i n t u i t i v e l y obvious that we seldom consider just how lenition can be described as occur-

Fortis-Lenis Change

ring.

119

Of course, as pointed out in chap. 1.4,above, Gleason (1961:chap.l7) can

describe lenition in Spanish through

allophonic distribution statements, and

Hyman (1975:63) can do the same w i t h a generative rule.

While these seg

mental approaches to the problem are shown to contain deficiencies in the simple matter of description, they contain a deeper, more pervasive deficiency in the fundamental accounting of 'intervocalic' lenition. To i l l u s t r a t e the problem, let us consider a simple Spanish alternation between dama [dama] 'lady' and la dama [la dama] 'the lady'.

This classic

case of intervocalic lenitive weakening is described by Hyman (1975:63) by the following transformational generative rule:

Such a formulation certainly accounts for the prelenitive stage and for the postlenitive stage, but how does the change called lenition actually oc cur?

In achieving an understanding of phonetic and phonological process, the

s t r u c t u r a l process model ought to provide insights, but all we find for an ex planation is a r e w r i t e arrow. In dynamic phonetics and phonology, on the other hand, we indeed find a credibly accurate explanation for why lenition occurs.

As noted above, the

fortis-lenis scale is based upon some feature (often aspiration) through which the consonantal constraint

progresses

through

an ever

high-to-low frequency energy from lenis to f o r t i s . ciple

of directional

constraint

increasing

ratio

of

As we know from the p r i n

outlined and illustrated

in chaps. 3 and 4,

above, the perception (at least to the segmentalist) of the constraining ele ment can be affected by the position or intensity of the constrained element. Now let us examine the environment in which this Spanish lenition oc curs.

In w o r d - i n i t i a l position without a preceding syllabic, we find that the

obstruction is constrained by one degree of tension (a more innocuous cover term that can include aspiration).

Once a preceding syllabic is introduced,

the prosody shifts to the next lower degree of tension. In accordance w i t h the phonetic evidence and w i t h the principles of dy-

120


namic analysis, then, we can explain the process of lenition in this environ ment by pointing out that the increased strength of the syllable division is not met w i t h any increase in strength of the obstruction prosody.

Thus quite log

ically, the r a t i o of high-to-low frequency that characterizes the fortis-lenis scale is lowered.

This brings about the perception of the next lower degree

of tension in the transmission of the language from one generation to next, and this perception is then phonetically

and/or phonologically

the

incor

porated into the system. In comparing the segmental and dynamic approaches to the problem, we should find it almost painfully obvious that

the segmental description is

not and cannot be explanatorily adequate in the sense in which Chomsky him self intends the requirement.

On the other hand, the dynamic approach does

indeed explain why the learner should incorporate the process of lenition into the grammar.

The explanatory-adequacy condition of Chomsky

(1965:25-26)

reads as follows:

To the extent that a linguistic theory succeeds in selecting a descriptively adequate grammar on the basis of primary l i n guistic data, we can say that it meets the condition of explana tory adequacy. That is, to this extent, it offers an explanation for the i n t u i t i o n of the native speaker on the basis of an em pirical hypothesis concerning the innate predisposition of the child to develop a certain kind of theory to deal w i t h the e v i dence presented to him. Any such hypothesis can be falsified (all too easily, in actual f a c t ) by showing that it fails to pro vide a descriptively adequate grammar for primary linguistic data from some other language — evidently the child is not predisposed to learn one language rather than another. I t is supported when it does provide an adequate explanation for some aspect of linguistic s t r u c t u r e , an account of the way in which such knowledge might have been obtained.

In Chomsky's own words, then, an aspect of an explanatorily adequate grammar must provide the analyst w i t h a plausible explanation for the acquisi tion of the corresponding aspect of the language itself.

In language change,

this would further require an explanation for the differences between the Ian-

Fortis-Lenis Change

121

guage acquired by one generation and that acquired by the next. By its very nature, notional segmentalism cannot supply any explana t o r i l y adequate description of any aspect of language, for i t is based upon a notion that is not to

be found

in

the

evidence presented to the child —

neither by what the child hears (acoustically) nor by what the child produces and feels in the production (physiologically).

For a generative

phonologist

thus to ignore the fact that segmentation in itself precludes e f f e c t i v e explan atory description is perhaps the most inconsistent aspect of the notional segmentalist's requirement that one must f i r s t demonstrate that segmentalism is deficient in the description and analysis of language. As "considerations of explanatory adequacy are often c r i t i c a l for ad vancing

linguistic

theory" (Chomsky

1965:26),

then surely

the

phonologist

should abandon the deficient notional segmental model and approach the evi dence from the more reliable dynamic nonsegmental model.

Once again, we

see that where the segmental model is deficient in f a c t and in principle, the dynamic model is e f f e c t i v e in both.

CHAPTER 6

ANALYSIS BY PROSODIC CONSTRAINT

6.1

II - GERMAN AFFRICATES

Introduction

In the previous chapter, we saw that the principle of prosodic constraint can be used in the analysis of an entire relationship ~ scale.

the fortis-lenis

Moreover, this relationship has traditionally been one that has given

the segmental approach a great deal of trouble. This principle can also be used to determine the nature of obstructions in the traditional controversies over whether a particular obstruction or obstruction pattern contains 'one phoneme or two' (in the tradition of Martinet 1939).

Of course, dynamic phonology recognizes no phonemes at all; but as

the principle of prosodic constraint can explain why the segmentalist would (mistakenly) perceive a particular phoneme in a particular environment, this model can help clear up the segmentalist's dilemma. In so doing, however, we shall see that the dilemma is at best vacuous. The dynamic mode of analysis and description indeed renders such problems as phonematicity obsolete.

124


6.2

The Debate over the German A f f r i c a t e s

In German

phonology, one of the

more opaque

and therefore

more

highly debated aspects of the sound system is the status of the a f f r i c a t e s .

On

the one hand, we can view them as monophonematic, as a single stop

ar

ticulation released through a f r i c a t i v e a r t i c u l a t i o n within the same phonolog ical unit; while on the other hand, we can view them as biphonematic, as a simple consonant cluster consisting of a stop followed by a f r i c a t i v e .

Al

though consideration of the status of German affricates has been pursued for as long as linguists have been concerned w i t h the nature of speech and lan guage sound, the active debate on the subject began w i t h Trubetzkoy's anal ysis in his Grundzüge der Phonologie (1939, see also Trubetzkoy 1969). As a means of determining whether sounds are monophonematic or polyphonematic, Trubetzkoy

developed six rules.

While all of these six may be

used and indeed have been used in the debate over the a f f r i c a t e s , Trubetzkoy himself

treated a f f r i c a t i o n

only in general in Rule II and then

w i t h respect to the German affricates in Rule IV.

specifically

This l a t t e r rule is stated

as follows:

A potentially monophonematic combination of sounds, that is, a combination of sounds corresponding to the conditions of Rules I to I I I , must be evaluated as the realization of a single pho neme, if i t is treated as a single phoneme; that is, if i t occurs in those positions in which phoneme clusters are not permitted in the corresponding language. (Trubetzkoy 1969:58) This concern w i t h the sound's being treated as a single phoneme within the overall pattern of the language has established the main point of debate as a matter of phoneme commutation.

This is to say that when the sound (or

sounds) in question can appear in s t r u c t u r a l slots otherwise reserved for single phonemes, then there is a single phoneme.

Of course, the s t r u c t u r a l slot is

defined in terms of the other sounds in the environment which come before and after the slot under study, and all sounds are described as discrete se quential segments.

German A f f r i c a t e s

125

Specifically

in relation to the German a f f r i c a t e s , Trubetzkoy's argu

ment was that the general patterning of the German system maintained t r i phonematic i n i t i a l clusters only where the first phoneme is a shibilant, as in Splitter [∫plit ] 'splinter'.

Based upon this r e s t r i c t i o n , a combination of a f f r i

cate and liquid would be unacceptably triphonematic were

to

be interpreted as a combination

Pflaume [pflaume] 'plum'.

of two

if the i n i t i a l phonematic

affricate

units, as in

Therefore, the affricates would have to be i n t e r

preted as monophonematic, to maintain the general p a t t e r n . The immediate reaction to this hypothesis came in Twaddell's review of Trubetzkoy's book.

Twaddell (1939) could not understand why, if the shibi-

lants could participate in a triphonematic combination, the affricates were to be excluded from such a cluster.

Rather perceptively, he went on to observe

"one asks what importance attaches to the question whether pf is one or two units, if we are chiefly concerned w i t h the oppositions" (Twaddell 1939:62). This l a t t e r observation is a rather constructive reminder to functional l i n guists from a s t r u c t u r a l linguist that based entirely upon s t r u c t u r a l that).

a functional argument should not be

methodology (and segmental

methodology

at

This suggestion, however, has been largely ignored by the factions for

each side of the debate, and I return to it at the end of this section. Perhaps the most wide-ranging attack on Trubetzkoy's position, insofar as the s t r u c t u r a l rules for determining mono- or polyphonematicity are con cerned, came from Gerhardt (1952).

Gerhardt

contested each one of

rules, methodically demonstrating that they were inconclusive.

the

Rejecting the

concept of functional phonology and 'Gruppenphonologie', he argued that

in

the absence of conclusive evidence from s t r u c t u r a l analysis to demonstrate monophonematicity,

the

affricates

can

be

viewed

only

as

biphonematic

clusters. Certainly

the strongest argument along s t r u c t u r a l commutation

for monophonematicity is found in M a r t i n e t ' s (1939) observation that,

lines while

other a f f r i c a t e articulations in clusters may be explained biphonematically (or are at least not completely conclusive), the a f f r i c a t e in the zw [ t s v ] i n i t i a l cluster as in zwei [ t s v a i ] ' t w o ' is completely anomalous from the polyphonematic point of view and must be handled monophonematically

if the general

126


patterning of the system is to be maintained. The weakness in M a r t i n e t ' s zw argument was not 1958, when Morciniec suggested that this

zw

pointed out

until

combination could better be

handled as an exception, an argument later taken up by Ungeheuer (1969).

In

the framework of Hjelmslev (1970:30-31), the patterning of a language subsys tem may be contradicted by counter-examples and by exceptions.

While the

counter-example demonstrates a general patterning contradiction and must be accounted for in the description, the exception is simply a random anomaly and need only be identified as such.

As the zw combination is the only case

in which the patterning is incontrovertibly violated (according to Morčiniec), then it would qualify as an exception and ought not to be used as a basis in determining s t r u c t u r a l commutation. Finally, Becker (1953) gave a f a i r l y convincing argument for monophonematicity on the basis of s t r u c t u r a l commutation.

He observed t h a t , allowing

for word-final neutralizations and the like, the German phonemic pattern is characterized by a mirror-image phenomenon.

For example, the order of con

sonants in Bart [ba:t] 'beard' could be reversed, as in Trab [ t R a : p ] ' t r o t ' .

On

the other hand, the affricates are, by this mirror-image c r i t e r i o n , monophonematic units, as in Pflock [ p f l o k ] 'peg' and Stumpf [∫tumpf] 'stump'. On the other side of the debate, the biphonematicists argued mainly from the standpoint that these affricates are nothing more than just another cluster combination, as Gerhardt

(1952) pointed

out.

This

argument

was

echoed by Morciniec (1959), by Moulton (1962), and by Ungeheuer (1969), all of whom maintained that as no conclusive evidence had been brought f o r t h to show that the combination be monophonematic, then it must be considered biphonematic. One of the more interesting of the biphonematic

arguments that the

affricates are simply another cluster combination came from Bluhme (1970), who pointed out that the combinatory c r i t e r i a need not be r e s t r i c t e d to the consonants alone, but could be extended to the vowels.

Indeed, according to

a rather s t r i c t l y observed rule in German, "Vor mehrfacher Konsonanz stehen meist einfache Vokale" (Bluhme 1970:364).

S t a t i s t i c a l l y , this rule would apply

in most cases to the w o r d - f i n a l affricates in such a way as to indicate an i n -


127

t e r p r e t a t i o n of these sounds as consisting of two separate consonant

units.

There is, however, a severe weakness to this argument, which Bluhme himself mentions.

The same rule applies to monophonematic consonants in w o r d - f i n a l

position which are voiceless in other positions as w e l l , and all of the German affricates likewise f a l l into this category. Another biphonèmatic and by Moulton (1962).

argument was raised both by Morciniec

(1958)

When functional combinations are involved, the a f f r i

cate combinations can only be considered biphonematic.

For example, if the

[ t s ] combination in hat's [ha:ts] 'has i t ' were interpreted

monophonematically,

then the morph 's [s] would have to be interpreted as part of the morph hat [ha:t], which is clearly not the case.

This would indicate that these combina

tions are nothing more than phonetic clusters of individual phonematic units. The final area of argumentation on this subject that I should like to ex amine is that based on the more substantial (as opposed to formal) observa tions of phonetic characteristics and psychological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

Although

Brandenstein (1948:89) maintained that the stop portion of the a f f r i c a t e can not be aspirated and is therefore to be interpreted as part of the larger mon ophonematic unit, Gerhardt (1950) took the opposite stance, maintaining that in f o r c e f u l articulation rek heit"

of 'ironic

hypercorrection' ("in ironischer

— Gerhardt 1950:135), the a r t i c u l a t i o n [p f - ]

Hyperkor-

is indeed

possible.

Furthermore, Forchhammer (1953), while admitting that a t r a d i t i o n a l phonetic j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the biphonematic position is more d i f f i c u l t , rested his case on a unit he termed 'lalemes', which take into account the organic elements.

articulation

L a l e t i c a l l y , he demonstrated that the combinations are biphonemat

ic (or at least bilalematic). The monophonematic side of the issue of phonetic substance was sup ported by M a r t i n e t (1949a), who observed that the [ t s ] a f f r i c a t e could be pro nounced as a combination of [ t ] and [s], but i t could also be pronounced w i t h close to a nonexistent [ t ] in some dialects.

As an i n i t i a l [s] cannot be pro

nounced in New High German, there would be a contrast between Z o l l [ t s o l ] ' t o l l ' pronounced as [sol] and soll [ z o l ] ' ( I , he, she, it) should'.

Such a dialect

argument has its obvious weakness, however, because if dialect variants are to be mixed w i t h standard, then the Upper German dialect pronunciation

of

128


soll as [sol] would obviate the contrast.

(Martinet further observed that from

the standpoint of pattern symmetry, there should also be a monophonematic [ k x ] , and its lack may simply be taken as an exception.

In f a c t , High Aleman-

nic does have this sound, as well as the Upper German pronunciation of soll.) The phonetic relationship between [ t ] and [s] and their possible coales cence in one phonematic unit have also come into the debate.

On the one

hand, Gerhardt (1952) argued that

unit

the proper

monophonematic

should

really be [ t 0 ] , and the failure of this combination to be realized is evidence for biphonematicity.

On the other hand, J. R. James (1969) maintained that

the combination is monophonematic

precisely

because the [s] articulation is

more closely associable w i t h the [ t ] than is the second element in other clus ter combinations.

This point is, however, determinable and is treated in more

detail in the next section. Insofar

as

psychological

considerations

may

be

concerned,

Becker

(1953) claimed that the affricates may or may not be analyzed as monophone matic

from s t r u c t u r a l considerations but that

units by the speakers of the language.

they are perceived as single

In a more elaborate argument along

these lines, Vennemann (1968) explained the phenomena through a series of generative rules from the underlying level (which he appears to have i n t e r preted as maintaining psychological r e a l i t y ) to the surface level of phonetic substance.

In accordance

with

this

analysis, in post-vocalic

position

the

item-and-process framework requires biphonematicity, but i n i t i a l l y and after resonants it requires monophonematicity on the underlying level but (through the application of a process rule) biphonematicity on the surface level. sumably, this would mean that in the latter

Pre

two environments, the speaker

perceives one phonematic unit psychologically and two phonetically. In concluding this review of the l i t e r a t u r e (compare also Werner 1972), I should like to offer some observations pertaining to the way in which the de bate has been conducted. flexibility.

On both sides, there has been a prominent lack of

Moreover, the predominance of the argumentation has concerned

matters of form — what units may be allowed in which phonemic slots — and ignores some of the most important considerations of phonetic substance in favor of this Gruppenphonologie (even where this tendency is c r i t i c i z e d , as in


129

Gerhardt 1952). First of a l l , the singular lack of f l e x i b i l i t y between the s t r u c t u r a l side of the issue and the functional side has in e f f e c t demanded an isomorphism be tween structure and function not demanded in other areas of linguistics.

For

example, both Morciniec (1958) and Moulton (1962) noted that in functionally sensitive

environments

the

monophonematic

interpretation

will

not

hold.

Therefore, it is contended, the monophonematic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must be denied not only in these functionally sensitive environments, but also in the s t r u c t u r ally sensitive environments.

This is to say that, because the a f f r i c a t e in the

word Schutts [∫uts] 'ruins (genitive) 1 is clearly created by the conjunction of one word ending in [ t ] and an independent genitive morph [s] and should func tionally be considered as two separate phonematic units, therefore the same a f f r i c a t e in Schutz [puts] ' p r o t e c t i o n ' must also be biphonematic. In a s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l framework

and even in a purely

structural

framework, there is no reason why a unit in one context must be a single unit in another, especially

if the contexts differ

in function.

Such an argument

resurrects the most extreme of the claims for phonemic constancy and biuniqueness, and it attacks the very fabric

of functional linguistics.

even in transformational generative phonology, the most structurally

(Indeed, oriented

phonology in common use today, morphological considerations have long been a part of phonological rules and determinations — compare, for example, Harms 1968:chap.l0.) I t is curious that the two researchers noted above who have attempted to draw this distinction between structure and function have both been adher ents to the purely s t r u c t u r a l approach.

The t r a d i t i o n a l item-and-arrangement

structuralist Twaddell (1939) pointed out that the functional opposition should have been Trubetzkoy's important consideration, not the structuralist

preoc

cupation w i t h matters of how many units may f i t into how many slots.

As for

the distinction between one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in function and one in s t r u c t u r e , the structural/generative arguments of Vennemann (1968) demonstrate an ap preciation for a nonisomorphism between the psychological substance (func tion) and the phonetic substance (structure). Insofar as this phonetic substance is concerned, there must be a closer

130


examination of just how these sounds are produced (beyond the findings of Hartmann 1964).

On the biphonematic side of the argument, Gerhardt (1950)

claimed that the pronunciation [p f ] is acceptable in ironic hypercorrection, yet he failed to examine the normal a r t i c u l a t i o n of these sounds (indeed, for ironic hypercorrection, almost anything may be pronounced, but that

which

can be pronounced ought not by this f a c t alone be admitted to the phonology). He further noted that there is a jocular construction Supfe [zupf ] for

the

word Suppe [zup ] 'soup', and in noting this he appears to have been unaware of the f a c t that if a speaker substitutes the a f f r i c a t e for the single phonematic unit, then the speaker may well perceive the a f f r i c a t e as a correspond ing monophonematic phonetic a r t i c u l a t i o n . the a f f r i c a t e

As I point out below, moreover,

in such an environment is indeed a development from the stop

through phonetically

attested relationships that would accompany

heightened

a r t i c u l a t o r y force. On the monophonematic side, J . R. James (1969:47) noted that the ar t i c u l a t o r y and acoustic characteristics of the affricates show that the compo nents are of the same articulatory order. not go nearly far enough.

While this is quite c o r r e c t , i t does

Indeed, this should be pointed out in conjunction

w i t h Trubetzkoy's rule I I , a topic I address in greater detail in the following section.

6.3

The Phonetic Basis

In all of the t r a d i t i o n a l argumentation on whether the German a f f r i cates consist of one or two phonemes, then, the primary consideration has been one of phonemic distribution, w i t h l i t t l e attention paid to the phonetic substance of these sounds.

In this section, I examine this substance from two

standpoints — the physiological nature of the a f f r i c a t e articulations and the relationships obtaining between the a f f r i c a t e articulations and those of other members of the fortis-lenis scale. In his short discussion of a f f r i c a t e s , Pilch (1974:50) noted that if one removes the portion of a tape-recording w i t h the release of the a f f r i c a t e s [t∫] and [ t s ] from the English words chin and (?) tsarry, one hears tin and t a r r y .


131

Such observations as this have led to the use by some linguists of the delayed release

feature (see, for

example, Singh 1976:196-98, Penzl 1975:135),

by

which affricates are distinguished from other stop sounds by the slow r e t r a c tion of the a r t i c u l a t o r from the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n . In itself, the consideration of the delayed release feature does not solve the problem of monophonematicity.

Indeed, we might s t i l l have two

phonemes, a stop followed by a f r i c a t i v e , or one phoneme marked by delayed release.

There is, however, another side to tape-splicing experiments, one

which does shed considerable light on the problem. I f one splits off the occlusive portion of a tape in a recording of the stops pronounced w i t h the normal aspirate release of German (or of English, for that matter), one hears the homorganic f r i c a t i v e .

Thus, the nonsense syl

lable [pa] would be realized as [(fa], which would be translated by the German listener as [ f a ] (in the replacement of a nonnative sound w i t h a native one — compare Scholes 1968).

Likewise, the nonsense syllable [ka] would be realized

and heard as [xa] When this is done w i t h the dentals, the results depend upon the r e l a tive r e t r a c t i o n of the f r o n t a l a r t i c u l a t o r

during closure.

In German, these

sounds are properly produced w i t h the apex lowered behind the lower f r o n t teeth or protruded against the upper f r o n t teeth and w i t h the tongue forward so that the occlusion is f r o n t a l , not apical as in English (compare Wängler 1972).

The position of the f r o n t a l a r t i c u l a t o r is therefore determined to a

great extent by the position of the tongue-body in the production of the syl labic vowel (as in the case of German / x / 1977c).

in chap. 3, above, and G r i f f e n

Thus, in the constraint of a syllabic vowel which is palatal the de

layed release is alveolar, but in the constraint of one which is velar the de layed release is palatal due to the r e t r a c t i o n of the tongue-body as a vowel articulator. the occlusive

The nonsense syllable [ t i ] would be realized, then, as [si] w i t h portion of

the tape removed, and the nonsense syllable

[tu]

would be realized as [s'u] or even as [ f u l A common aspect of languages that have a f a i r l y strong aspirate r e lease from the stop consonants is that the aspiration is intensified when the consonant is pronounced in a more f o r t i s manner (indeed, this is the case a l -

132


most by definition).

For example, an informant native speaker of the Colwyn

Bay dialect of North Welsh pronounced her dental stops in Welsh w i t h

far

more force and aspiration than she did her dental stops in English (she was a bilingual).

In pronouncing the English word tea, she produced a clear g l o t t a l

f r i c a t i v e aspiration as [ t i:].

In pronouncing the Welsh word te [ t e:] ' t e a ' ,

however, her force of articulation was so great as to render the form [tse:]. In f a c t , this is quite often the case among speakers of particularly f o r t i s dia lects of North Welsh. I f it can be shown that the affricates of German are more correctly analyzed not by delayed release as such, but by this extended release due to the fortis nature of the a r t i c u l a t i o n , then we shall indeed be faced w i t h a monophonematic sound.

The rationale behind this hypothesis is that such a

case would delimit a manner of articulation which is an integral part of the occlusion and would preclude

an interpretation

of there being two sounds,

because there would in e f f e c t be no movement as such between that which could be interpreted as one sound and that which could be interpreted as another sound. In support of this rationale, I c i t e Trubetzkoy's Rule II for the deter mination of phonemes (see p. 124, above).

According to this rule, " A combi

nation of sounds can be interpreted as the realization of a single phoneme only i f it is produced by a homogeneous a r t i c u l a t o r y movement or by the pro gressive dissolution of an a r t i c u l a t o r y complex" (Trubetzkoy 1969:56). An observation by Greenberg on this subject is also quite revealing insofar as this rationale is concerned.

Greenberg (1978:247) notes that "In

the [case] of the a f f r i c a t e s , I have considered the a r t i c u l a t i o n to be a cluster of stop + f r i c a t i v e . nants.

The [other cases] have all been considered single conso

These include aspirated, g l o t t a l i z e d , labialized, palatalized, velarized,

and pharyngealized sounds".

If, however, the nature of the German a f f r i c a t e

can be shown to be the result of f o r t i s a r t i c u l a t i o n , then that portion known as the delayed release should in f a c t be aspiration (as we find in chap.5, above), and the interpretation can only be monophonematic. I f the physiological nature of the affricates as monophonematic due to fortis articulation can be maintained, then these affricates should adhere to a


133

d i f f e r e n t scheme of relationships than that heretofore supposed.

Rather than

simply being a variant of the stop articulation in an order-and-series frame work of binary (privative) distinctions, they would be representable in a posi tion within

the

gradual opposition

of the fortis-lenis scale.

For

example,

where the progression from lenis to fortis among the labials is [ v ] , [b], [p], [ f ] , the a f f r i c a t e [ p f ] would establish itself as the penultimate member — [ v ] , [b], [p],

[pf]

[f]

The insertion of [ p f ] into the opposition between [p] and [ f ] creates an interesting e f f e c t on the known relationships among members of a fortis-lenis scale.

I t is a well-established property of the fortis-lenis relationship that

the provection, or lengthening, of [p] results in [ f l

Thus, for example, Jack

son (1953:565) notes that L a t i n cippus 'stake' has become Welsh c y f f [k f ] in a general process in which [pp] becomes [ f l

With the addition of an a f f r i c a t e

articulation between [p] and [ f ] , the functional or relational state of [ p f ] is that of a half-provected [p]. The phonetic evidence for

the monophonematic

here depends upon the plausibility of the a f f r i c a t e s '

hypothesis

proffered

being fortis pronuncia

tions of the stops, in the manner shown to exist for example in some North Welsh dialects.

Moreover, it further depends upon the plausibility of the af

fricates' position within the fortis-lenis scale as half-provected stops in the functioning of the system.

I f one were to consider nothing more than

the

synchronic state of New High German, of course, one would be faced w i t h just another hypothesis, no more nor less plausible than those which have come before.

If, on the other hand, one examines the manner in which these a f f r i

cates came into being, then this hypothesis takes on a much greater degree of credibility.

6.4

The Development of the A f f r i c a t e s

The development of the German a f f r i c a t e s , at least of the [ p f ] and the [ t s ] as well as the Upper German [ k x ] , has its origin in the High German Con sonant Shift.

Before examining the affricates themselves, however, we should

f i r s t establish just what kind of a shift i t was.

This i n i t i a l investigation is

134


actually quite c r u c i a l , for it w i l l t e l l us how the affricates related w i t h the rest of the system and it w i l l give us as strong an indication as we can get in the t w e n t i e t h century as to the phonetic substance of the sounds. First of a l l , it must be stressed that the pattern of change commonly known as the High German Consonant Shift was not a general s h i f t i n g a f f e c t ing sounds in all contexts, as we f i n d , for example, in the First Sound Shift.

Germanic

Rather, it was a contextually sensitive series of changes, and

we cannot therefore expect the generalized rules of sound shifting to apply ( w i t h the neutralization of oppositions and so f o r t h — see G r i f f e n 1977e; com pare also G r i f f e n 1981e).

I shall, however retain the term ' s h i f t ' for c l a r i t y

within the context of the t r a d i t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e . The f i r s t change which I should like to examine in this shift is perhaps one of the more minor, or at least less studied.

In all High German dialects,

the geminate [dd] changes to [ t t i in Upper German dialects, the geminate [bb] changes to [pp]; and also in Upper German dialects, the geminate [gg] changes to [kk]. Thus, for example, we find Old English biddan ' t o request' correspond ing w i t h Old High German b i t t a n , Old High German sibba 'peace' correspond ing w i t h Old Alemannic (Upper German) sippa, and Old Saxon liggian ' t o lie' corresponding w i t h Upper German likken (see Braune 1967 and Wright 1907 for these and other examples).

There were also similar changes in the context of

certain clusters and in i n i t i a l position, and these are treated below. This change from voiced to voiceless geminate stop is an important one for two reasons.

F i r s t l y , i t had its greatest impact in the Upper German

dialect regions, in which the consonant shift s t a r t e d .

This would indicate

that this was one of the central aspects of the shift, demonstrating in some way the basic tendency of the change.

Secondly, this is a classic case of

provection resulting in the realization of the next high degree along the f o r tis-lenis scale. In the kernel area of the shift, then, the primary source of tension resulting in change was a provection, indeed of the same type as that de scribed in the previous chapter (and G r i f f e n 1980b). that in a language w i t h a t r a d i t i o n a l tendency

We f i n d , for example,

toward provective change in

contextually sensitive environments, such geminate change or correspondence


is common.

135

Thus, in the North Welsh dialect spoken in the Bangor d i s t r i c t ,

the phrase qwybod dim 'not to know' is pronounced as [gubot t i m ] (Fynes-Clinton 1913:xxiii).

I t is evident that the same process was at work in the Old

High German period, w i t h the Upper German dialects being the most

fully

affected. Given

the

tendency

toward

provective

change

to

the

more

sound, the more commonly studied changes can also be explained. ample, in

the

internal

position

and usually

preceded

by

a

For

ex

lesser-stressed

vowel, as pointed out by Braune (1967:91-92), there is a general toward gemination.

fortis

tendency

I t is in this same environment that the voiceless stops

change to voiceless f r i c a t i v e s , such that the fricatives are indeed geminates. For

instance, Old English

open 'open' corresponds

with

Old High

German

offan, Old English etan ' t o eat' corresponds w i t h Old High German ezzan and Old English sprecan ' t o speak' corresponds w i t h Old High German sprëhhan. In order to understand this series of changes, we must examine the two processes of provection and fortis change together ment.

within this environ

Here is a context in which there is a tendency toward gemination, and

gemination is in e f f e c t

provection, or the lengthening of a sound.

In this

same context in which there is a provective tendency, there is a change from the voiceless stop to the voiceless f r i c a t i v e , a change which (as noted in the previous section) is the mark of a shift along the fortis-lenis scale to the next more fortis member of the opposition.

To further bolster the argument, the

end product of the change is in f a c t geminate, or provected, at least in the orthography (see below). The explanation I should like to proffer

for this series of changes is

that it corresponds exactly w i t h the previous changes from the voiced gemi nate stops to the voiceless geminate stops.

This change from the voiceless

stops (through the tendency toward provective gemination) to the voiceless geminate fricatives is nothing more than a continuation along the fortis-lenis scale as seen in the previously noted series. [p(p)] changes to [ f f ] , etc.

Thus, where [bb] changes to [pp],

Such a pattern of change is well within the known

characteristics of the fortis-lenis scale of, for example, [ v ] , [b], [p], [ f ] , from lenis to f o r t i s (compare, again, chap. 5, above).

136


Thus, at this point, we can make a general statement about the High German Consonant Shift.

In an environment of provection, the second member

of the fortis-lenis opposition shifts to the third member, as the third member shifts to the f o u r t h member. Once it is established that the High German Consonant Shift is a pro cess of provective change to the f o r t i s , then the development of the German affricates becomes a f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d matter.

In i n i t i a l position, medial

position, and after the consonants [1], [m], [n], and / R / (see chap. 4, above), the voiceless stops change to the corresponding voiceless affricates. this is not realized uniformily in all dialects.

Again,

The a f f r i c a t i o n of [ t ] is r e a l

ized throughout the High German area, but the a f f r i c a t i o n of [p] occurs r e g ularly only in Upper German and East Franconian and irregularly in other dia lects, and the a f f r i c a t i o n of [ k ] takes place only in the Upper German dialect of High Alemannic (Swiss German).

Thus, the pattern of change originates in

the same kernel area as those noted above.

For example, Old English pund

'pound' corresponds w i t h East Franconian pfunt, Old English tunge 'tongue' corresponds w i t h Old High German zunqa, and Old High German trinkan 'to drink' corresponds w i t h High Alemannic trinchan. The important point to notice in the environments of a f f r i c a t i o n

is

that they are all either w o r d - i n i t i a l or syllable-initial at this point (but see below).

In a fortis-lenis (tension) system, w o r d - i n i t i a l position is a 'position

of strength', though not necessarily a provective position.

For example, in

the Old West Germanic dialects, [b], [d], and [g] could not be realized in this position, but changed to the next more f o r t i s sound in the scale.

(Likewise,

the lenis-most consonants cannot be realized in w o r d - i n i t i a l position of nonmutation forms in Welsh because of the inherent strength level in this position -

see G r i f f e n 1975b.) This strengthening environment in w o r d - i n i t i a l position can f u r t h e r be

seen to a f f e c t the voiced stops in Upper German dialects.

In w o r d - i n i t i a l po

sition, [b] is realized irregularly as [p] in Upper German, [d] is realized as [ t ] in Upper German and East Franconian, and [g] is realized as [ k ] in Upper Ger man.

Thus, Old High German bintan ' t o bind' corresponds w i t h Upper German

pintan, Old English dohtor 'daughter' corresponds w i t h East Franconian tohter,


137

and Franconian gast 'guest' corresponds w i t h Upper German kast. Insofar as syllable-initial position is concerned, once again this is a position of relative strength.

On the other hand, there is a question as to

why these consonants become affricates when those cited above become gem inate f r i c a t i v e s .

The geminative/provective environment is the position f o l

lowing a weak stress, where the syllable concerned would be pronounced w i t h far greater force.

These syllables, however, follow the stressed syllable and

would therefore be pronounced w i t h less than f u l l provective force.

The d i

viding line between the two levels appears, though, to be a f a i r l y

fine one.

Thus, Old High German sitzen ' t o sit'

before a

is realized w i t h a f f r i c a t i o n

centralized vowel, where Old High German e'zzan ' t o eat' is realized before a noncentralized

vowel, indicating

a slightly

greater

amount

of

articulatory

force. In the example of sitzen, we find an instance of change which is usu ally a t t r i b u t e d to the fact that corresponding nonshifted forms are geminate, for example Old English s i t t a n .

The orthographic practice of representing the

medial consonant in this case as a geminate, though, reflects rather the f a c t that the preceding vowel is short (a convention s t i l l very much alive in New High German).

While I realize that without tapes there is no way of proving

that these w r i t t e n geminates were not in fact pronounced as provectives (nor is there any way of proving the contrary), I would suggest that they were not so pronounced, for if

they were, they would have changed to the next f u l l

degree along the fortis-lenis scale. In passing, I should mention the hypothesis of M e i l l e t (1970:19) that the shift

from the voiceless stops to the voiceless fricatives

through an intermediate stage of a f f r i c a t e s .

was achieved

While such an hypothesis does

recognize the general patterning of the shift as one of strengthening

along

the fortis-lenis scale, it assumes that such a change is carried out gradually. Of course, modern historical linguists have largely discounted the gradualness of this type of change, and the absence of attested forms in the intermediate stage would also m i l i t a t e against M e i l l e t ' s hypothesis.

Nonetheless, it does

corroborate the view that a f f r i c a t i o n lies between occlusion and f r i c a t i o n . In this respect, Penzl (1975:81-82) appears to be in agreement w i t h

138


M e i l l e t , but he adds yet another step in the derivation — an i n i t i a l stage in the change w i t h heightened aspiration.

In the nonsegmental i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

provection found in the previous chapter (also G r i f f e n 1980b), this heightened aspiration is actually one in the same phenomenon w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l gemi nate provection.

Thus, while i t cannot be ascertained whether or not such a

stage did exist in the development of the German affricates

and geminate

f r i c a t i v e s , the tendency noted by Penzl is quite c o r r e c t , in that i t maintains a lengthening (in

this

case, of

the

aspirate

prosody) leading

to

the

fortis

change. Now, we can expand our generalization of the High German Consonant Shift.

This phenomenon was, as noted above, not a general shift in the clas

sic sense, but a pattern of change from lenis to fortis within a set of contextually sensitive environments.

In an environment of provection, the second

and third members of the opposition of tension shifted to the next higher f u l l member.

In a nonprovective position of strength, the second member shifted

to the third and the third shifted to a half-provective position between the third and the f o u r t h members, a position realized through the new a f f r i c a t e articulation.

This pattern of change occurred to its fullest extent in the High

Alemannic dialect of Upper German and became less fully realized the further the affected dialect was from this kernel area. From the manner in which these affricates developed in Old High Ger man and from the position occupied by the affricates in the fortis-lenis scale, which formed the basis of this subsystem, it should be f a i r l y clear that these affricates were simply half-provected articulations of the stop consonants and held a single position within the opposition of tension between the voiceless stops and the voiceless f r i c a t i v e s .

As such, then, there is no question but

that these affricates in Old High German were monophonematic both in their substance and in their functional relationships. Thus, all of the affricates which developed through the High German Consonant Shift can be seen to have developed as

monophonematic.

This

s t i l l leaves the question of [t∫], however, and its development is quite d i f f e r ent.

The [ t f ] affricates all developed either by the combination of the two

sounds [ t ] and [∫] or

through

onomatopoeia after

the combination

became


139

established in the language.

For example, the word deutsch [doit∫] 'German'

is a result of contraction from the Middle High German word diutisch (com pare spanisch [∫pani∫] 'Spanish', englisch [enli∫] 'English', etc.).

Such an o r i

gin is clearly biphonematic, not monophonematic. In cases

of

onomatopoeia, however,

the coiners

of

such words as

rutschen [Rutfan] ' t o skid' were, of course, familiar w i t h the a f f r i c a t e sound and used i t in these neologisms to convey one particular sound. functional c r i t e r i o n , then, the sound as used here is certainly ic, not biphonematic.

From this

monophonemat

Once the original biphonematic combination has been

used to express a monophonematic sound, I would suggest that interpret it as monophonematic (compare Becker 1953).

the speakers

The monophonematic-

ity of the other affricates has probably given support to this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and [t∫] has come to pattern itself after [ t s ] as simply a variant of the l a t t e r affricate

with

a retracted

articulator,

made possible

by the

articulatory

habits of the speaker of German, as noted in the previous section.

6.5

A Monophonematic Solution

Given the phonetic and historical evidence cited above, it should be f a i r l y clear that a monophonematic solution is proffered here.

From the his

t o r i c a l point of view, the origin of the affricates is certainly

monophonemat

ic, at least insofar as [ p f ] , [ t s ] , and the Upper German [ k x ] may be concerned. These sounds originated in the simple change toward the f o r t i s , given a provective tendency in certain environments. One may question the validity of historical observations used in sup port of synchronic analyses, as does Gerhardt (1952:72) in the f o l l o w i n g :

Wenn man von der phonologischen Betrachtung und Inventasierung des Lautstandes aus auf das T e r r i t o r i u m der "Morphonologie" t r i t t und Bedeutung und Stilistik ihre Rechte geltend machen, hat man auch die Diachronie im Haus, die in der Dar stellungsfunktion der Sprache immerhin darin durchschimmert, daß der Bauplan der Objekte, aus denen man seine Regeln ab liest, zwar als synchroner Tatbestand vorhanden ist, aber nicht als "Verbot" oder "Gebot" produktiv w i r d , es sei denn als Ana-

140


logie, die wirken kann, aber nicht wirken muß. Of course, the diachrony 'in the house' reflects important aspects of the functional system, identifying areas of the structure under the tension of change.

As such, historical observations must be made and verified to deter

mine the subsystems at work in the language.

This position is well within

s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l tradition and can be subsumed under the general teleological c r i t e r i o n of Jakobson (1962b). Thus, the linguist must indeed demonstrate that such historical observa tions are in fact pertinent

to the description.

C e r t a i n l y , the relationships

have changed considerably since the Old High German period, when the lan guage evidentally had a fortis-lenis consonant system (as can be seen in the alternation patterns and in the manner of the High German Consonant Shift itself).

From the word-final neutralization of voice (Auslautsverhärtung) and

other data, we can t e l l that New High German today has a voicing consonant system, w i t h only Upper German maintaining the old tension system (compare, for example, Kauffmann 1890). On the other hand, a change in the relationships need not r e f l e c t a change in the actual substance of the phonetic sound, as function need not display an isomorphism w i t h structure.

Perhaps the strongest evidence

that

the substance is in f a c t the same as it was has been given by the biphonematicist Gerhardt himself.

As Gerhardt (1950:135) points out, the jocular pronun

ciation of Suppe [zup ] 'soup' may be found w i t h a single a f f r i c a t e in Supfe [zupfe].

This change from -pp- to -pf- so closely follows the High German

Consonant Shift's tendencies that it is quite remarkable. Furthermore, such onomatopoetic constructs as rutschen [Rut∫an] ' t o skid' r e f l e c t an interpretation by the speaker that the sound is monophonematic.

While this a f f r i c a t e may historically have developed from the combi

nation of a morph-final [ t ] and the adjectivizing suffix -isch [i∫], its position in morph-final position of such a verb would indicate that the speaker i d e n t i fies it as a single unit.

If this is the case, then the older affricates

after

which this one is patterned should likewise be heard as single units. It is in the actually functional phonetic j u s t i f i c a t i o n , however,

that


141

the analysis must stand.

In this respect, I must stress that in a s t r u c t u r a l / -

functional system, a s t r u c t u r a l aspect and a functional aspect that are appar ently similar to one another need not be reflected in the same substantial or relational characteristic of the phonetic structure.

Indeed, insofar as the r e

lationships are concerned, the position of affricates in the functional phonetic system of New High German is just as extrasystemic as it was in Old High German — the affricates would add a new series to the voicing system of New High German, as they added a new opposition member to the tension system of Old High German. In the matter of the actual phonetic substance, the affricates could once again

be interpreted

either

as monophonematic

or

as

biphonematic.

However, if Suppe is to be changed in a jocular setting to Supfe, then we can say something f a i r l y definite about these a f f r i c a t e s .

Such a context would be

one of increased tension, calling for an increase in a r t i c u l a t o r y force.

In a

system in which the increase of articulatory force brings a change from stop to a f f r i c a t e , the fortis-lenis distinction is evidentally maintained, and the r e sulting a f f r i c a t e is certainly monophonematic.

As pointed out above, the af

fricates are extrasystemic in either a voicing or a tension system, and the extrasystemic reliance upon tension in this instance would not by any means prohibit or even discourage such an analysis in a voicing language. Thus, when we consider

that the consonantal subsystem of New High

German w i l l sustain either a monophonematic or a biphonematic interpretation of the affricates insofar as the relational aspects of the subsystem are con cerned, then the other aspects of the analysis treated above should tip the scales in favor of the monophonematic.

We know that affricates are by na

ture interpretable as f o r t i s (provective) articulations of stops and that this is how the affricates originated in the German language.

We also know that the

speakers t r e a t these affricates as fortis articulations of stops in some con texts

and certainly

as single units in others.

Finally, while

environments

across morpheme boundaries may create something that resembles the a f f r i cate in the general structure of the language, there is no reason to insist that once a sound is interpreted as two phonematic units in one context, then it must be so interpreted in all — indeed, we know that this is not the way Ian-

142


guage commonly operates.

(On this last point, however, see Hartmann 1964.).

Although i t is certainly stronger than the biphonematic, this monophonematic solution is s t i l l quite weak, though.

The reason for its weakness lies

in the fact that we are s t i l l dealing w i t h segments and their realization as bundles of inherent features and as slots in a string.

From the viewpoint of

feature analysis, then, we are working, to be sure, in a more precise area of Gruppenphonologie, but in Gruppenphonologie nonetheless.

6.6

A Dynamic Analysis

Thus f a r , we have been concerned only w i t h the phonematic i n t e r p r e t a tion of the German affricates.

This is to say that we have been assuming

that sounds are segmentable and are indeed segmented, such that one follows the other and is subject to segmental-sequential properties of commutation. The evidence from modern phonetics, however, indicates very clearly that this is not the case. As outlined in chap. 2, above, in modern dynamic phonetic analysis, an entirely different approach has been taken to speech sound from that of the old alphabetical

segmental

approach.

Rather

than

assigning

features

to

cross-sectional segmental bundles, we determine the features and leave them in their coarticulatory relationships, falling where they may, as i t were, w i t h in the framework of the syllable.

Through such methods, phoneticians have

been able to construct workable models of analysis and synthesis (for example, Mermelstein 1973); and even in devices which supposedly change segments into sound, the intermediate translation of segments into the nonsegmental dynamic relationships of coarticulation reveals the f a c t that it is s t i l l not the segment that is turned into sound, but the dynamic s t r u c t u r e . Working from the dynamic basis and its phonological model as outlined in chap. 2, above, and illustrated in the model of dynamic coarticulatory con straint (figure 2 . 1 , p. 44) and the syllabic

frame (figure 2.2, ibid.), we can

once again conduct a dynamic analysis of the problem.

The application

of

this dynamic model to the analysis of the German sound system has already been demonstrated in chaps. 3 and 4, above, and especially of importance here


143

is the analysis of German / x / .

To summarize, as the (consonantal) obstruction

is a constraint on the syllabic vowel, it must be superimposed upon i t .

As the

syllabic vowel is determined through the movements of the tongue body, lips (in protrusion), and jaw (height), and the tongue body is used in German for the articulation of the [ ç ] and [ x ] obstructions, then the exact position of the obstruction is determined by the position of the tongue body in the a r t i c u l a tion of the vowel.

Thus, there is no pertinent difference in position between

German [ ç ] and [ x ] , for the obstruction is simply a constraint carried

out

wherever the tongue body places it in the production of the vowel (for which the tongue-body position is pertinent). In the problem at hand, we find a choice between a consonant cluster, or sequence of obstructions (biphonematicity), and a prosodic constraint (monophonematicity).

This is to say that the phenomenon can be interpreted as a

sequence of two obstructions in one syllabic position or as the simultaneous articulation

of, for example, the basic obstruction

[p] w i t h

a constraining

prosody [ f ] .

This choice may be represented graphically as in figure 6.1 (p.

144, below).

(Of course, this diagram is a simplification, w i t h phonetic sym

bols in place of the more complex feature relationships.

The simplification,

however, is used as a means of more clearly representing the specific problem under study, w i t h as few complicating distractions as possible, especially for readers w i t h a background only in the segmental tradition.) Of these two choices, the cluster option should be f a i r l y clear.

I f the

[p] and the [ f ] are simply separate members of the obstruction opposition or imposed separately, then

their

articulation in, for

example,

syllable-initial

position is simply a matter of the realization of a bilabial obstruction lowed by a labio-dental obstruction, both constraining the i n i t i a l portion the syllable (vowel).

fol of

The bilabial obstruction would be f u r t h e r constrained by

the obstruction prosody member of voicelessness and by that of p a r t i a l occlu sion.

Due to the nonsegmental nature of prosodic constraint, of course, the

voicelessness would simply be a property coarticulated w i t h the i n i t i a l posi tion,

extending

throughout

the

cluster

without

any

intervening

segmental

boundary. In the second choice, however, we find

a much more

complicated,


Figure 6.1: Two Dynamic Analyses


145

though no less plausible, situation.

In this case, the [p] is the sole member of

the obstruction prosody constraining the i n i t i a l portion of the syllable and the [ f ] is some sort of member.

prosodic

constraint

on the basic obstruction

opposition

Thus, the basic obstruction opposition member would be labial, and

it would be constrained by the obstruction prosody of voicelessness and by that of t o t a l occlusion, but there would also be a further prosodic constraint realized in aspiration emanating from the larynx but realized physiologically in turbulence through the release area between the lip the the teeth. The second choice, then, reveals an obstruction prosody of f o r t i s aspi r a t i o n , and it is quite in keeping w i t h the interpretation given in the discus sion

of the phonetic

basis for (monophonematic) aspiration above

(compare

also the arguments in chap. 5, above), as well as w i t h the normal historical development of affricates through the processes noted in the section on that subject. fortis

The main requisite of such an interpretation is that the a f f r i c a t e or

aspirate prosody constraining

the obstruction must be simultaneously

articulated (coarticulated) w i t h the obstruction, regardless of the fact that it is of a longer duration. A cursory examination of the acoustic characterisitcs of affricates r e veals that there is sufficient basis for

treating the a f f r i c a t e release as an

obstruction prosody, a f a c t only touched upon by J. R. James (1969). the physiological configuration

is basically

the same for

Because

the production

of

occlusion and for that of the release, the locus of the obstruction is constant. Of course, as we cannot trace the frequency locus during the period of occlu sion itself, it must be interpolated; but the important point is that the transi tion from locus to the constrained formant frequencies is d i r e c t , showing none of the deviation that would indicate a second obstruction. It is in the physiological production of these sounds, though, that the strongest evidence for the single-obstruction i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be found.

In

the production of the a f f r i c a t e [ p f ] , i t is not the case that the position of articulation shifts from bilabial to labio-dental; rather, the f a c t

is that the

lower lip is in contact both w i t h the upper lip and w i t h the t e e t h .

The a r t i c u

lation of 'both parts of the a f f r i c a t e ' , then, is carried out

simultaneously.

Likewise, the positions of a r t i c u l a t i o n in the cases of [ t s ] and of Upper Ger-

146


man [ k x ] maintain no deviation.

Finally, the position of a r t i c u l a t i o n in the

case of [t∫] also maintains no such deviation, but it is produced w i t h a slight ly r e t r a c t e d a r t i c u l a t o r (retracted relative to the [ts]). Thus, acoustically

and physiologically,

affricates are c o a r t i c u l a t o r i l y

the 'release'

portions

of

simultaneous w i t h the obstructions they

the con

strain, and there is no evidence of any acoustic or physiological deviation in the data to indicate the existence of any other obstruction in the position. We must conclude, therefore, that structurally the affricates r e f l e c t an ob struction

constrained

by an obstruction prosody (roughly

analogous

to

the

monophonematic hypothesis). The crucial question now arises as to the nature of the

functional

combinations, such as that noted above in the contraction hat's [harts] 'has it'.

In this nonsegmental model, phonology has finally become functional pho

netics in practice as well as in theory (as pointed out in G r i f f e n 1983a). functional

phonetics,

the phonological substructure

must consist

markings of the phonetic structure for functional pertinence. interpretation of the contraction cited in figure 6.2 (opposite).

of

As

simple

This leads t o an (Again, this is

a heuristic simplification.) That the one morphological element should be realized as an obstruc tion prosody constraining the f i n a l obstruction of another morphological ele ment causes no problem in this framework.

A f t e r a l l , this model is truly non

segmental, not simply an autosegmental analog to phonemics (compare chap. 1 , above), and there is no reason why morphological elements must be r e s t r i c t e d by segmental boundaries. have to discount

Indeed, if this r e s t r i c t i o n were in force, we would

many instances of stress (as between English permit,

the

noun, and permit, the verb) as well as the entire concept of intonation. The shifting of one obstruction in one syllable to the position of pros ody over an obstruction in another syllable, moreover, is quite normal.

For

example, in chap. 9, below (see also chaps. 5 and 13, as well as G r i f f e n 1981c), I c i t e a phenomenon in Welsh which has even become institutionalized in ths cynghanedd ( a l l i t e r a t i v e ) poetry.

As it were, two words coming t o

gether in -d h- a l l i t e r a t e w i t h one word beginning w i t h t-, as the dental ob struction shifts to the next syllable and the aspirate obstruction becomes the


147

obstruction prosody of constraining aspiration.

Figure 6.2: Analysis of hat's

Thus, the German a f f r i c a t e represents a single obstruction in the dy namic description.

While this would translate into a monophonematic

inter

pretation in a segmental system, we ought not to lose sight of the f a c t that this analysis provides further evidence of the deficiency of segmental phonol ogy.

Not only (as in the previous chapter) is the acoustic and physiological

evidence determining the nature of German a f f r i c a t i o n not interpretable from a segmental standpoint, but the c e r t a i n t y can analyze

the phenomenon

as involving

w i t h which a dynamic only

phonologist

one obstruction

cannot

be

matched by the notional segmentalist. While this analysis, then, could be used by the monophonematicists, it could only be admitted by those who understand that the entire question of monophonematicity

and polyphonematicity

is

vacuous

and

indeed

spurious.

Once again we see that to understand how the functional sound system of a language operates, even to solve riddles of notional segmentalism, we must

148


examine the real evidence of phonetics. is organized constraint.

in

accordance

with

the

And the real evidence of phonetics principle

of

dynamic

coarticulatory

CHAPTER 7

MORPHOPHONOLOGY I - THE WELSH MUTATION SYSTEM

7.1

Introduction

To this point, we have been concerned mainly w i t h the relationships be tween phonetics and phonology and w i t h various aspects of phonological p e r t i nence.

Through the t a c t i c of prosodic constraint and directional constraint,

we see that what has been perceived by segmentalists as variants or allophones in their own system is nothing more than the effects of the more pho netically viable system of dynamic c o a r t i c u l a t o r y constraint.

Categories and

relationships of phonology, then, are nothing more nor less than markings of the categories and relationships already

functional

extant in the phonetic

structure. I f phonological pertinence is simply to be such marking within a proper subset (a functional phonetics — see chap. 2.4, above), then what can we do in the case of exclusively functional relationships such as morphophonology? To handle morphophonology, segmental theory has usually attempted to create some sort of abstract level, be i t the underlying level of generative phonol ogy, the morphonic substratum of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar, or another such device.

Further abstractions from the phonetic

evidence, however, are no

more justified phonetically in the case of morphophonology than they are in

150


the case of simple phonological pertinence. Thus, we are faced w i t h yet another apparent dilemma.

On the one

hand, morphophonology has always been handled by changes or choices (or realizations) on an abstract level.

As allophony represents the changes or

choices among phones within a phoneme (be i t an item or simply a r e l a t i o n ship), morphophonology represents the changes or choices among phonemes. On the other hand, dynamic phonology recognizes no phonemes to change or to choose.

While all operations so far have consisted of the simple marking of

features within the syllabic frame, morphophonology appears, then, to present dynamic phonology w i t h a problem. In order to examine this problem and to proffer should like to use an extremely complex example. complex that it cannot insightfully mental description, I shall

a solution to i t , I

Indeed, it is an example so

be described segmentally.

once again use the

generative

For the seg

transformational

model as this is the most exclusively segmental, the most widely used, and the model in which S. R. Anderson (1974:6, see chap. 1.5, above) has pronounced his 'Anderson requirement' that segmentation must first be shown to have a grave deficiency "in the form of a linguistically significant generalization that is essentially unstatable if the procedure of segmentation is adhered t o " .

7.2

The Welsh Mutation System

I t is a property characteristic of C e l t i c languages that the i n i t i a l con sonant of a word w i l l vary depending upon the grammatical (that is, morpho logical and syntactic) context a f f e c t i n g the word (compare Lewis & Pedersen 1937).

This system of i n i t i a l consonant gradation (ablaut) is termed the 'mu

tation system' and has been briefly introduced in chap. 5, above. Through their relationships w i t h grammatical contexts, the

mutation

systems of the C e l t i c languages function in much the same way as do the i n f l e c t i o n a l systems of languages such as L a t i n .

For example, in Latin an ad

j e c t i v e modifying a f i r s t declension feminine noun in the nominative case w i l l have to agree in number, case, and gender w i t h that noun; hence, if we wish to modify puella ' g i r l ' w i t h the adjective parvus 'small', we must attach the


151

proper ending to the adjective — puella parva.

In Modern Welsh, on the other

hand, the adjective modifying a feminine noun w i l l undergo a particular muta tion — a change in the i n i t i a l consonant; hence, if we wish to modify merch [merx] ' g i r l ' w i t h the adjective bach [ba:x] 'small', we must change the i n i t i a l consonant of the adjective — merch fach [merx

va:x]

Furthermore, in Latin

a noun which is the object of the verb w i l l be marked by a particular i n f l e c tional ending, usually the accusative. inflected verb

w i l l undergo

In Welsh, however, the object of an

a particular

mutation of the i n i t i a l

consonant.

Thus, we find the Latin sentences Pater v i d i t ' A father saw' and Patrum v i d i t 'He (she)

saw

a father'

opposed

to

their

corresponding

Welsh

sentences

Gwelodd tad [gw elod- ta:d] and Gwelodd dad [gw elod- da:d]. Throughout the C e l t i c languages, the changes of i n i t i a l consonants r e f l e c t a certain systematicity.

One type of mutation may be thought of as

exhibiting a process of lenition, another of nasalization, and another of f r i c a tion.

As I demonstrate below, these changes are indeed regular applications

of processes representing certain phonetic characteristics.

The mutations are,

then, morphophonological, as pointed out by Hamp (1951). Although

the system

is now

morphophonological, it

developed

from

phonological alternations that existed during the transition from Brythonic to Old Welsh (up to about the end of the eighth century — Morris Jones 1913:6). For example, when Brythonic *m occurred between vowels, it was realized in Old Welsh as [b], a voiced bilabial nasal f r i c a t i v e , and subsequently in Modern Welsh as [ v l

A t the same time that these phonological alternations were t a k

ing place, the final syllables of Brythonic

words were being lost (compare

Baudis 1924; Jackson 1953:618-20), including the feminine ending

*a.

Thus,

the *m in Brythonic *oinos markos 'one horse' is realized as [m] in Modern Welsh un march [in marx], as there was no vowel before the *m to cause the phonological change in the Brythonic word; on the other hand, the *m in Bry thonic *oina mamma 'one mother' is realized as [ v ] in Modern Welsh un fam [in vam], as there was a vowel before the *m which caused Brythonic *m to be realized as Old Welsh [b] > Modern Welsh [ v ] (see Morris Jones 1913:161). Through this process of phonetic change, the morphophonological muta tion system of Modern Welsh developed.

This system can be illustrated by the

152


tables in figure 7.1 (opposite), in which we find lists of i n i t i a l segments and example words.

The left-hand column in the tables contains the segments

known as the 'radicals'. dictionary.

The radical (root) segment is the one listed in the

For example, the word 'mother'

in the example above would be

entered as mam, regardless of the f a c t that it is realized in that particular phrase as fam.

Of course, the use of the term is quite in keeping w i t h the

analogy to the L a t i n inflectional system.

Whenever none of the

mutation

rules applies (where we find a blank in the tables), the radical is the segment realized.

For example, in the grammatical context of spirant mutation, mam

[mam] would simply be realized as mam [mam], there being no spirant mutation form of / m / . In a generative description of the mutation system (compare Awbery 1975, Knudsen 1973), it should be f a i r l y clear that we would posit the radical as the underlying form.

For one thing, the radical is the lexical f o r m , consid

ered by the native speaker to be the basic (unmarked) form.

Indeed, when

faced w i t h a form such as phen [ f e n ] 'head (spirant mutation)', the Welsh speaker does not recognize the radical pen [pen], unless the word is put into a grammatical context calling for spirant mutation. For more systematic reasons, moreover, the radical should be taken as the underlying segment; for example, the mutations can all be derived from the radicals, but in the case of the soft mutation of / b / and / m / , the proper radical would not necessarily

be derived from the soft

mutation form.

Nor

could we necessarily be able to derive the radical from the word moch [mo:x] found in the environment of nasal mutation — it could be either the mutation of boch [bo:x] 'cheek' or the radical (realized in the nasal mutation environ ment) of moch [mo:x] 'pigs'.

Moreover, given the form pher [ f e : r ] in the spi

rant mutation environment, we could not t e l l whether it is derived from per [pe:r] 'pears' or the simple realization of the (nonmutating) f f e r [ f e : r ] 'ankle' — at least not without recourse to w r i t i n g . As depicted in figure 7.1 (opposite), the mutations can be divided into four classes, depending upon how they a f f e c t the various segments, p a r t i c u l a r ly in the soft mutation.

In order to demonstrate the complexity of the seg

mental approach, I shall posit rules for these classes by mutation.

'car'

char [ x a r ]

nghar [nar] mar [ma:r] nŵr [nu:r] ngar [ a r ]

dwr [ t u : r ]

gar [gar]

far [va:r] ddŵr [du:r] ar [ a r ] fan [van] Ian [Ian] ran [ran]

tŵr [ t u : r ]

car [ k a r ]

bar [ba:r] dŵr [du:r] gar [ g a r ] man [man] llan [ an] rhan [rhan]

o

'tower'

thŵr [0u:r]

g V

V

1 r

k b d g m h rh

II

III

IV o

d

0 nh

d

t

0

m n

nh

0 X

f

o

mh

b

P

I

spirant

nasal

radical

class

soft

o

'anger' 'water' 'shank' 'place' 'church' 'part'

'pair'

phâr [ f a : r ]

o

mhâr [mha:r] nhwr [nhu:r]

gloss

bar [ba:r]

spirant

par [pa:r]

nasal

soft

radical

The Welsh Mutation System 153

154


Soft mutation is the traditional term for lenition in the Welsh system (compare the use of 'soft' in Malmberg 1963:52).

As mentioned in chap. 5,

above, this lenition is realized in various ways segmentally.

In class I conso

nants, the following devoicing rule applies:'

Thus, all voiceless aspirated stops become voiced and uhaspirated.

Of

course, this and the following rules presuppose the proper grammatical con t e x t (spelled out in detail in G r i f f e n 1975a:chap.2), though for our purposes here, this can simply be assumed. In capturing significant generalizations (in keeping w i t h the Anderson requirement),

this

feature-based

approach

of

generative

phonology

has a

great advantage over the older statement of distribution (by which we would say that / p / changes to or alternates w i t h / b / , / t / w i t h / d / , and / k / w i t h / g / ) . Through feature analysis we can recognize the 'natural class'. According to Harms (1968:26), there are two considerations involved in the notion of the natural class: " F i r s t , it is a class of segments that can be specified w i t h fewer features than any individual member of the class. . . Second, the features shared by the class members should be limited to those which have a certain degree of phonetic plausibility".

C e r t a i n l y , the soft mu

tation rule for voiceless aspirated stops f u l f i l l s both requisites. When we turn our a t t e n t i o n to the voiced unaspirated stops, however, we do not find such a neat arrangement, for while the labial and the dental voiced unaspirated stops become f r i c a t i v e s , the velar is deleted. specify

Were we to

the soft mutation rule among class II segments as causing f r i c a t i o n

among f r o n t a l consonants and deletion among velar, we would lose the con cept of the natural class. The solution (1974).

to this minor

problem

has been suggested by

According to Zwicky's notion of the 'false step', the soft

Zwicky mutation

rule for class II consonants should treat all three as causing f r i c a t i o n , and


155

there should be a subsequent rule by which the voiced velar f r i c a t i v e should delete

(involving,

Kiparsky

1973).

as

it

were,

Indeed, this

the

concept

reflects

the

of

absolute

historical

neutralization

development

of

-the

language (compare, for example, Jackson 1953:469-70, Morris Jones 1913:161). Taking into account, then, Zwicky's false step, we can posit the soft mutation rule for class II consonants as follows:

This rule, then, also preserves the significant generalization of the n a t ural class.

A l l voiced obstruents become continuants (in the assumed grammat

ical environment of soft mutation). When we turn our attention to the lone class III segment, we could con ceivably argue in favor of using the false step and incorporating a rule chang ing / m / to

into the class II soft mutation rule above.

A f t e r a l l , as pointed

out above, this reflects the historical development of the segment.

To do

this, however, we would complicate the rules considerably, for neither / n / nor / / are affected by soft mutation.

Furthermore, appealing to the false step

would result only in the questionable preservation of an historical accident — it would not a f f o r d us any f u r t h e r significant generalization. With this in mind, then, we can posit a soft mutation rule for the class III segment as follows:

Finally, there are the class IV segments.

Up u n t i l now, we have been

using the features as developed for English by Chomsky & Halle (1968).

The

class IV segments, on the other hand, present us w i t h two very non-English segments — the [ r h ] , a voiceless aspirated t r i l l voiceless (aspirated) l a t e r a l f r i c a t i v e .

(fricative);

and the

ft],

a

In order to accomodate the l a t t e r , we

shall have to add the feature [ l a t e r a l ] to the inventory.

156


With the adjustments mentioned above, we can posit the soft

mutation

rule for class IV segments as follows:

Once again, we establish a natural class — the

class of

liquids —

within the mutation rules, albeit it within the affected portion of the rules (due to an historical change in the early Middle Ages -- compare Jackson 1953:473-80). When we survey the four soft mutation rules, however, we find they are not quite so general as we would like them to be.

that

There is a de-

voicing rule, two distinct f r i c a t i o n rules, and a liquidization rule, all within the overall concept of lenition.

As such, then, there is a functional unity of

these rules (compare Kisseberth 1970a), though this functional generalization is lost within the notion of segmental generative phonology. In nasal mutation, the rules are much simpler.

Within the grammatical

environment of nasal mutation, the voiceless aspirated stops of class I become voiceless aspirated nasals ( w i t h heightened aspiration — compare R. O. Jones 1969), as the voiced unaspirated stops of class II become voiced unaspirated nasals.

While each of these two groups represents its own natural class, we

can further collapse the two into a single rule a f f e c t i n g the single natural class of nasals, as follows:

The generality of this rule is indicated by the f a c t that the affected segment need only be specified [+segment] (the most general of all classes) in the portion of the rule to the l e f t of the arrow.


157

Finally, the spirant mutation rule can also be handled within a natural class -- the class I voiceless aspirated stops.

This can be posited as follows:

Taken rule by rule, a segmental approach to Welsh i n i t i a l mutation ap pears to be neat and, above a l l , adequate in capturing significant generaliza tions.

On closer examination, however, the rules appear to be less neat and

less general than we might desire. Examining first the soft mutation rules, we are faced w i t h the same problem we found in the analysis of aspirate tension found in chap. 5, above. C l e a r l y , the conglomeration of a devoicing rule, two f r i c a t i o n rules (one of which is also a denasalization rule), and a liquidization rule in order to de scribe a single process is less than general. To be sure, the basic problem here is as much binary as it is seg mental.

By insisting upon the exclusively binary (privative) features of Jakob-

son rather than upon the more flexible system of Trubetzkoy (compare Baltaxe 1978), generative phonologists have lost a major generalization at least inso far as the class I and class II soft mutation rules are concerned.

With gradual

features within the fortis-lenis scale of tension, we could more adequately w r i t e the rules such that third-level tension becomes second-level as secondlevel becomes f i r s t - l e v e l . use of angled brackets.

This could be accommodated in the notation by the Indeed, w i t h some tortuous r u l e - w r i t i n g , we could

probably also accommodate the denasalization of the class III soft mutation as well. When we approach the liquidization rule of soft mutation, however, we are faced w i t h a major generalization problem.

Liquids form one of the most

general types of segment among the natural classes (compare Chomsky & Halle 1968:354-55, Harms 1968:23-25, Hyman 1975:34).

Even w i t h gradual features,

there is no segmentally justifiable way we could combine the liquidization i n volved in the class IV soft mutation w i t h the others.

We must, then, resign

158


ourselves to this amount of nongenerality. Moreover, there is yet more nongenerality

involved in the

rules approached from the standpoint of notional segmentalism.

mutation

From a struc

t u r a l point of view, one can object to class II soft mutation in juxtaposition to spirant mutation.

In the one, a stop becomes a f r i c a t i v e ; and in the other

a stop becomes a f r i c a t i v e .

If the mutation system were phonologically deter

mined, one could possibly say that the soft mutation is 'voice' mutation and the above-mentioned rules (class II) would be added to spirant mutation.

The

system, however, is morphophonologically determined — elements of the gram mar (syntax and morphology) determine the rule application (compare Morgan 1952, Awbery 1975).

If (encouraged by the voiced-voiceless contrast in Eng

lish) one were to attempt to classify the [voiced stop]

[voiced f r i c a t i v e ]

rules in w i t h the spirant mutation, one would be forced into the ludicrous position of saying, "Given condition x, voice mutation applies; given condition y, nasal mutation applies; given condition z, spirant mutation applies t o voice less stops; and given condition w, spirant mutation applies to voiced stops. By coincidence, condition w, is identical to condition x, though not at all related to condition z". While such an argument from a functional point of view is quite r i d i c u lous, from a s t r u c t u r a l point of view it is indeed acceptable.

A f t e r a l l , given

the need for capturing generalizations, the generalization that the stop be comes a f r i c a t i v e is certainly a consideration to be reckoned w i t h .

By captur

ing this generalization, though, we miss the grammatical (and functional) one. But by capturing the grammatical generalization, we miss the s t r u c t u r a l pho nemic one. By necessity, then, we must again resign ourselves to the f a c t that the mutation rules of Welsh must involve several d i f f e r e n t nongeneralizable trans formations, choices, or realizations.

The f a c t is, that there is nothing to be

evinced from the segmental evidence that would provide us w i t h a means of expressing this collection of processes in any more general a manner.


159

7.3 Prosodic Constraint and the M u t a t i o n System

In chap. 5, above, we examined the sound structure of Welsh obstruc tions and found that the fortis-lenis scale based upon the broad definition of aspiration can account for several key relationships.

This fortis-lenis (aspi

rate-tension) scale can be represented by the syllables [da], [da], [ t a ] , and [6a], progressing from lenis (least aspirate) to f o r t i s (most aspirate).

As de

termined from acoustic experimentation (Griffen 1975a:chap.l0), the progres sion from lenis to fortis is aspirate in that it is j u s t i f i e d by a progressively increasing r a t i o of high-to-low frequency energy; and as determined from the physiological l i t e r a t u r e (for

example, Perkell 1969, Malecot 1970), the pro

gression is aspirate in that it is j u s t i f i e d by a progressively increasing width in the o r i f i c e of the larynx. Of great importance in our satisfaction of the Anderson requirement is the f a c t that these determinations of the substance of the fortis-lenis scale could not possibly be accomplished segmentally.

The very relationships them

selves are determinable only from the framework of dynamic

coarticulatory

constraint that forms the basis of dynamic phonetics and dynamic phonology. On the basis of fortis-lenis aspiration, we can arrange words exempli fying the mutation system from figure 7.1 (p. 153, above) along the f o r t i s lenis scale as in figure 7.2 (p. 160, below). the i n i t i a l obstructions involved in the words.

From this point, we can analyze In dynamic phonology, the main

obstruction opposition is made up of members at various pertinent positions of obstruction (again, combining a r t i c u l a t o r , point of a r t i c u l a t i o n , and a r t i c u l a t o r configuration to give an accurate representation of the physiological obstruc tion and its resulting resonance-chamber effects).

These positions of obstruc

tion that recur in the corpus include, labial (represented as {b}), dental (rep resented as {d}), dorsal (represented as {g}), l a t e r a l (represented as {1}), and t r i l l (represented as {r}).

To these we may wish to add sibilant (represented

as {s}), though this does not enter into the mutation system in standard Welsh (the Cymraeg Safonol of Watkins 1961 — see, however, A. R. Thomas 1961).


I II

par [pa:r] dwr [du:r] car [ k a r ]

III

III

bar [ba:r] dŵr (du:r] gar [ g a r ]

II

mhâr [mha:r]

far [va:r] ddŵr [du:r)

mar [ma:r]

nhŵr [nhu:r]

lian [ an] rhan [rhan] o

nŵr [nu:r]

nghar [nhar]

Ian [Ian] ran [ r a n ]

ngar [ a r ]

Figure 7.2: Fortis Lenis Relationships

IV

phâr [ f a : r ] thŵr [0u:r] char [ x a r ]


161

The two pertinent obstruction prosodies involved in the mutation sys tem appear to be aspiration (the motivating feature for the fortis-lenis scale) and nasality.

As aspiration is a gradual feature (opposition), we can represent

it in the progression through {1n}, {2h}, {3h}, and {4h}, from lenis to f o r t i s . Nasality, on the other hand, is p r i v a t i v e , so where it is realized, i t can be represented by {n}; and where the privation is realized, that condition can be represented by the absence of {n}. In our analysis, then, we find that three positions of obstruction — {b}, {d}, and {g} -- are constrained by all four degrees of aspiration and also by nasality.

These three we can thus group together as primary

obstructions.

The remaining two positions within the system — {1} and {r} — are constrained only by the first and second degrees of aspiration. together

as secondary obstructions.

A tertiary

We can thus take them

obstruction (insofar as the

mutation system is concerned) is a position of obstruction constrained by less than two degrees of aspiration (in standard Welsh, {s}). Thus, we can organize the features of the Welsh mutation system into the hierarchy found in figure 7.3 (p. 162, below). of obstruction separately simply for

I i l l u s t r a t e the categories

the sake of c l a r i t y .

To be precise, of

course, we would have to combine all three, so that there would be only one occurrence of {1n} and one of {2h}, perhaps in some network reminiscient of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l diagrams (compare Lamb 1966, Lockwood 1973, A. Makkai & Lockwood 1973). The prosodic relationships among the primary obstructions ought not to cause any d i f f i c u l t y , as they are (as pointed out in chap. 5, above) fully j u s t i fiable from the phonetic characteristics of aspiration.

I should, however, of

fer some explanation for the positioning of the nasal prosody and also for the values given the aspirate prosody constraining the secondary obstructions. Insofar as the nasals are concerned, the nasal prosody is constraining the second and third degrees of aspiration simply because this is how the fea tures function in the system.

In the nasal mutation of t ŵ r [ t u : r ] ' t o w e r '

to

nhŵr [nhu:r], for example, the pertinent aspirate prosody of the radical is the third degree ({3h}); while in that of dŵr [du:r] ' w a t e r ' to nŵr [nu:r], the per tinent aspirate prosody of the radical is the second degree.

Thus, as pointed

162


out by R. O. Jones (see G r i f f e n 1974:158-59; compare also chap. 8, below), the aspirated stop becomes an aspirated nasal as the unaspirated stop becomes an unaspirated nasal.

The levels and relationships involved, then, indicate

that the nasal prosody ought to be constraining the obstruction in conjunction w i t h the second and third degrees of aspiration.

This w i l l be further

ex

plained in the following section.

Figure 7.3: Welsh Obstruction Division Relationships

The secondary obstructions are constrained by the

first and second

level also because of the functioning of the language, this time in borrowing patterns.

When a foreign word beginning w i t h an obstruction complex that

would be interpreted by a Welsh speaker as involving the f i r s t degree of aspi ration is borrowed into Welsh, the aspirate prosody strengthens to the second degree.

Thus, for example, English velvet has become Welsh melfed [melved],

L a t i n verbum 'verb' has become Welsh berf

[berv].

In these examples we see

that there is no r e s t r i c t i o n against the f i r s t degree of aspiration in general, only against the f i r s t degree in w o r d - i n i t i a l position (a position of articulatory

strength — see G r i f f e n

relative

1975b; see also Parry-Williams

1923,

Fowkes 1949, 1959). In borrowings involving the secondary obstructions, we find the same


patterning as that above.

163

For example, L a t i n liber 'book' has become Welsh

l l y f r [ i v r ] , as English rack has become Welsh rhac [rhag].

As this automatic

strengthening does not occur w i t h regard to any other degrees of the aspirate prosody, it is safe to conclude that

the secondary obstructions are indeed

constrained by the f i r s t and second degrees.

7.4

A Dynamic Analysis of Welsh M u t a t i o n

Given this organization of the obstruction system of Welsh, let us ex amine how the mutation system can be described.

Rather than a number of

rules involving d i f f e r e n t natural classes (of segments), the dynamic analysis requires only one process for soft mutation: The affected i n i t i a l obstruction position loses one degree of aspirate prosody from the second or third degree. For example, pâr [pa:r] 'pair' would be analyzed has having an i n i t i a l {b3h} complex — a labial obstruction constrained by the third degree of aspi ration. plex.

Bâr [ba:r] 'anger' would be analyzed as having an i n i t i a l {b2h} com In soft mutation, we simply subtract one degree of aspiration, so that

par {b3h} becomes bar {b2h}, and bar {b2h} becomes fâr [ v a : r ] {b1n}. Furthermore, what was interpreted as liquidization by the notional segmentalist is now seen to be nothing at all d i f f e r e n t from our normal lenition. For example, llan [ an] 'church' goes from {12h} to {11h} in Ian [Ian], and rhan [rhan] ' p a r t ' goes from {r2h} to {r1h} in ran [ran]. Of course, this analysis would appear to lead incorrectly

to a soft

mutation of *[ban] for man [man] 'place' and also to a soft mutation of * [ g a r ] for gar [gar] 'shank'.

The f i r s t instance is avoided, however, by the very f a c t

that the nasal prosody is not coarticulated w i t h the f i r s t degree of aspirate prosody — * { b l h n } is impossible.

Thus, since some degree of aspiration is nec

essary for a word to be pronounced in this system, it is the nasal prosody that must be eliminated.

Such an explanation is far more natural and indeed more

general than is the specification of inherent features within segments. As for the soft mutation of {g2h} (for recognize a r e s t r i c t i o n

that

example, gar [gar]) we simply

the f i r s t degree of aspiration constraining

dorsal obstruction is too weak to maintain obstruction.

the

Such an observation is

164


not ad hoc, but rather quite in keeping w i t h observed changes in language (the frequent disappearance of the {g2h} complex, as in the borrowing of L a t i n magister 'master' as German Meister [maistA]).

Moreover, acoustically, the

weakness of the articulation involved here is also quite well documented (for example, by Malecot 1970). Thus, given phonetically justifiable restrictions to the coarticulatory possibilities, soft mutation in Welsh can be handled entirely by a single rule. This is a "linguistically significant generalization that is essentially unstatable if the procedure of segmentation is adhered t o " (S. R. Anderson 1974:6; see chap. 1.5, above). The reason

why dynamic

analysis

can

make such a generalization,

where segmental analysis cannot, can be found in the process through which the generative rule becomes more general.

As we saw in the case of nasal

mutation, by specifying the a f f e c t e d segment w i t h the minimum of features, we accomplished the maximal generalization (for a segmental system), quite in keeping w i t h the principles of Harms. stantiable bundles of

By eliminating the unnatural and insub-

features, dynamic

single features at a time.

phonology automatically

deals

with

Thus, by its very s t r u c t u r e , dynamic phonology w i l l

necessarily capture broader generalizations than w i l l notional segmentalism. Turning our attention to nasal mutation, we find that this, too, is a single dynamic process.

Quite simply, the nasal mutation process can be de

scribed as follows:

The a f f e c t e d i n i t i a l obstruction position is constrained by

the nasal prosody.

For example, in nasal mutation t w r [ t u : r ] ' t o w e r ' w i t h its

{d3h} complex

becomes

nhŵr [nhu:r] w i t h its {d3hn} complex, as dŵr [du:r]

' w a t e r ' w i t h its {d2h} complex becomes nwr [nu:r] w i t h its {d2hn} complex. The process involved here is slightly more general than that of the seg mental approach.

The simplicity, and hence the generality, lies in the f a c t

that this system requires only the marking of the position.

In the segmental

system, one must make a transformation or some type of choice between or among segments.

The degree of generality involved in nasal mutation, though,

lies not so much in the process in isolation as it does in conjunction w i t h the other mutations.

This is explained below and in the conclusion.

Finally, spirant mutation can be stated simply as follows: The affected

The Welsh M u t a t i o n System

165

i n i t i a l obstruction position gains one degree of aspirate prosody from the third degree.

For example, t ŵ r [ t u : r ] ' t o w e r ' w i t h its {d3h} complex is realized as

thŵr [0u:r] w i t h its {d4h} complex. As mentioned above, it is not so much in each single dynamic process that we see the superiority

of generalization of which dynamic analysis is

capable; rather, the optimal generality is achieved in the union of all of them. This can be explained as follows: In generative phonology in particular and segmental theory in general, the optimum test of generalization is to be found in the establishment of nat ural classes of increasing application.

These classes, however, are defined by

their inclusion or exclusion of particular features inherent to a f f e c t e d seg ments.

As segments necessarily contain more than the single [+segment] spec

i f i c a t i o n , the comprehensiveness of the natural classes are in principle and in practice r e s t r i c t e d .

Therefore, once we find that the more general natural

class of liquids is a f f e c t e d by the less general soft mutation classes, the l a t ter is by this f a c t alone r e s t r i c t e d , and we end up at best w i t h two or three separate rules in order to describe one natural process — l e n i t i o n . On the other hand, in dynamic phonology, there are no segments which natural classes can compete.

for

Relationships are all based, therefore,

upon the features in opposition, not upon segments and classes of segments. (Thus, incidentally, dynamic phonology is in f a c t far more in keeping w i t h the principles enunciated by such early generative works as Halle 1964.) As there are no competing segmental classes, dynamic phonology is free to achieve the greater degree of generalization. This can be seen in the overall analysis of the Welsh mutation system. While segmental phonology requires a series of rules, statements, or choices, each w i t h its own basic principle of relationship to account for the system, dynamic phonology can describe the system quite simply as follows: The Welsh mutation system involves processes that mark the affected i n i t i a l obstruction position w i t h one degree difference in the pertinent prosody.

In soft muta

tion, this is a loss of one degree of aspiration from the second and t h i r d de grees ( w i t h the 'coöccurence r e s t r i c t i o n ' on {g1h}, which would have to be included in any description); in nasal mutation, this is the gain of the nasal

166


prosody; in spirant mutation, this is the gain of one degree of aspiration from the third degree.

Thus, in the overall system, the dynamic phonology achieves

yet another significant generalization not possible in t r a d i t i o n a l notional segmentalism.

Once again, the segmentalist should conclude from this that the

segmental method is deficient in an area in which

the

dynamic

method is

adequate.

7.5

Conclusion

In conclusion, I should like to examine some variations to the mutation system, in which we see not only the relationship between aspiration and na sality, but also the far more general application of dynamic phonology over the old segmental models.

As noted by Fynes-Clinton (1913:xviii), we find the

following forms in the Bangor dialect:

orthography

transcription

gloss

ei (h)iaith

i

hjai0

her language

ei (h)wats

i

hwat∫

ei mab hi

i mha: pi o

her watch her son

In this grammatical environment of possession by the feminine, third person singular possessive adjective, the variations of i a i t h [jai0] 'language', wats [wat∫] ' w a t c h ' , and mab [ma:b] 'son' could have come about either by aspirate mutation or by spirant mutation. ration is attached directly

In aspirate mutation, though, aspi

to the i n i t i a l vowel of a word; for

hafal [ i haval] 'her apple' is derived from afal [aval] 'apple'.

example, ei

While the glides

could be interpreted by the speaker of the Bangor dialect as s u f f i c i e n t l y vo calic to require aspirate mutation, the nasal of mab [ma:b] could be a f f e c t e d here only by an extension of spirant mutation. In the dynamic analysis of the Welsh system, whether the phenomenon is an extension of aspirate mutation or an extension of spirant mutation makes l i t t l e difference.

We are, after

a l l , not interested so much in glides and


167

nasals (segmental natural classes) as we are in the i n i t i a l position of the word (syllable).

I return to this point below.

In segmental phonology, on the other hand, such dialect variation pre sents us w i t h a problem.

Whatever the mutation may be that is involved here,

the neat natural classes introduced in this chapter are quite abruptly apart.

torn

Where a spirant mutation rule had changed i n i t i a l voiceless aspirated

stops to voiceless f r i c a t i v e s , it now must be expanded to include not only the natural class of voiceless aspirated stops, but also those of the two (initial) glides and one of the nasals.

In the process of expanding such a rule, the

generalization that had been afforded by the natural class is lost. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , we may wish to analyze these forms as variants of the aspirate mutation rule.

In this analysis, the segmentalist would be faced w i t h

adding the glides and one nasal to the natural class of vowels.

Of course, we

may skirt the issue by including the glides into the aspirate mutation rule, thus saving a natural class of nonconsonants; but we would s t i l l be faced w i t h the problem of the nasal -- a problem for the segmental classes either in spi rant mutation or in aspirate mutation. I f we view the problem from the dynamic perspective, however, we have no problem.

Both spirant and aspirate mutation serve to increase

the

aspirate prosodic constraint at the i n i t i a t i o n of the following syllable, and indeed the

largest single grammatical

(that in the example cited). recognize

that

environment

for

both rules

overlaps

Thus, we can 'collapse' the rules (that is, we can

the affected syllables

are increasing in number) simply

by

specifying that the added aspirate prosody can constrain a syllable r e s t r i c t i o n (the dynamic equivalent of a glide — see chap. 2, above) and can be c o a r t i c ulated w i t h the nasal prosody (at least in the constraint of the labial obstruc tion). When we interpret the dialect development this way, we capture two important generalizations.

F i r s t , rather than w r i t i n g ever more complex rules

(as the segmentalist would be forced to do), we need only expand the environ ment for an already-existing process.

This expansion gives us a clear indica

tion that what is really going on here is a gradual spreading of the aspirate process — an historical change in progress.

Such an observation is hidden

168


from the generative segmentalist, who rather requires the simplification rules and

feature

specifications as an indication of the spreading of

of

such

change (compare King 1969; see also chap. 8, below). Second, the expansion of aspirate or spirant mutation to the nasal indi cates to the dynamic phonologists that the primary difference between

the

so-called voiced unaspirated nasals and the voiceless aspirated nasals so c r u c i a l to an understanding of the nasal mutation lies not in voice but in aspira tion.

From a functional phonological standpoint, then, the dynamic phonolo-

gist can now make the further generalization in specifying the sole phonologically pertinent feature (opposition-member) difference involved as aspiration. The segmentalist, on the other hand, gains no such insight, for the rules are singulary, fragmentary, and even atomistic (a charge used by s t r u c t u r a l l i n guists against the traditional neogrammarian historicists — compare 1972:20).

Anttila

(Compare also Sommerstein 1977:109-10 on the need for 'multinary'

features.) As we examine the Welsh mutation system and its dialect variations (and the example above hardly scratches the surface — see Awbery 1982), we find that notional segmentalism misses more generalizations than it captures. The reason for this deficiency lies in the requirement bundled into discrete segments. ments down dynamically

that

the features be

Indeed, even if we were to break the seg

and reassemble them in accordance w i t h the prin

ciples of autosegmentalism (compare Goldsmith 1976, Menn 1977), we would still

miss

these generalizations,

because

the

relationships

involved

in

the

changing and expanding mutation system are based upon the principle of dy namic coarticulatory constraint not only as it is realized in what could t r a d i tionally be lumped into individual segments, but even as it is realized between and

among

major

classes

—

divisions

and

subdivisions

of

the

dynamic

model. Dynamic phonology, on the other hand, remedies these deficiencies and provides the generalizations and insights into the mutation system missed by t r a d i t i o n a l segmentalism.

Moreover, it does so simply, d i r e c t l y , and firmly in

keeping w i t h the most recent and reliable findings of phonetic science.

CHAPTER 8

MORPHOPHONOLOGY II - WELSH AFFRICATES

8.1

Introduction

In the conclusion of the previous chapter, I indicated that there are more significant variations to the Welsh mutation system.

Perhaps the most

significant for its effects on our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of morphophonology is to be found among the affricates. In the following analysis of the development of these affricates within the Welsh mutation system, I shall make use of the Bloomfieldian notations [s], [ č ] and [

]

As used in Bloomfield (1933; also Tr ger & Smith 1951, among

others), [s] represents the shibilant [J*], [ c ] represents the voiceless p a l a t a l - a l veolar a f f r i c a t e [t∫], and [ ] represents the voiced palatal-alveolar

affricate

[d ] I use this notation in this particular instance for two rather significant reasons.

F i r s t l y , the notational combinations that w i l l ensue from the incor

poration of the affricates within the mutation system w i l l make the notations of

the

International Phonetic

Alphabet

(International

1949) at the very least bulky, if not unmanagable.

Phonetic

Assocation

Secondly, from the t r a d i

tional segmental point of view ( w i t h which the dynamic is being contrasted), there is no question in this instance of a f f r i c a t i o n but that each

affricate

170


represents a single 'sound' (each is monophonematic in the sense used in chap. 6, above). Of course, whether

the voiceless palatal-alveolar

a f f r i c a t e is repre

sented as [ č ] or as [t∫] in the notation is* not an issue in dynamic phonology. As we shall see in this analysis (and as we have seen in general throughout this work), the alphabetic 'phonetic' transcriptions are l i t t l e more than regularizations of orthography, anyway (as pointed out by Saussure — 1959:33-37 — but neglected by some of his followers).

As such, they are used even here

simply as a conventional (and e f f i c i e n t ) means of informing a reader as to which syllable or word is being referred to and as a means of pointing out phonetic detail that the reader then utters and analyzes from the utterance (not from the scribblings on paper). pose of orthography

So long as the phonologist keeps the pur

and transcription in its proper perspective, there is no

reason to abandon this system of w r i t i n g for feature matrices (compare House holder 1965) or for any similar system based on the syllabic frame.

8.2

Historical Background

Before its contact w i t h English, the Welsh language had no sounds cor responding to the English [š], [ č ] , and [ ] (compare Lewis & Pedersen 1937, Morris Jones 1913, Jackson 1953).

Due to its close linguistic

contact

with

English and its frequent borrowing from that language, though, Welsh soon adopted the English [s], representing it orthographically by the letters si. Regarding the Welsh borrowing of [s], several points must be under stood.

First of a l l , the [s] was borrowed as early as the Middle Ages (see

below), so it has been in the language for many generations.

Moreover, the

spelling convention si has been completely accepted and is even to be found in the list of 'sounds' in books for learning Welsh (for example, Bowen & Rhys Jones 1960:12, Rhys Jones 1977:20, D. L. James 1973:16), and it is included in linguistic

texts (see Watkins 1961:8-9).

Finally,

while most

of the

Welsh

words beginning w i t h si [s] are transparently English in origin (such as siâl [sa:l] 'shale'), there are some that are not so transparent, such as siad [sa:d] 'pate' and siarad [sarad] ' t o speak'.

Welsh A f f r i c a t e s

171

In spite of the pervasiveness of this borrowing, though, [s] has not completely been assimilated into Welsh, at least not by the beginning of this century.

In his description of the Bangor dialect, Fynes-Clinton (1913:xxii-

xxiii) notes the f o l l o w i n g :

∫, ∫ These sounds are in a state of transition. They are of late introduction, and individuals are s t i l l occasionally to be met w i t h who are unable to pronounce them, and substitute s or sj. The prevailing pronunciation of ∫ resembles very closely that of Eng. ' s h ' , but the point of contact is slightly further forward, i.e. on the arched rim instead of behind i t . Before a, o, and u in final syllables the tongue is slightly more arched, producing the palatalized sound ∫' Other speakers seem to pronounce ∫' exactly like Engl, ' s h ' , and these make no distinc tion between ∫ and ∫'. When we take into consideration the instability of the borrowed [s] in Welsh, it is noteworthy that the spelling si used to represent this sound has also been used quite extensively to represent the English a f f r i c a t e s .

Indeed,

in most dialects the sound [s] has been used at least u n t i l quite recently in place of the more complex sounds (compare Lewis 1946:92).

For example, the

Welsh equivalent of the English name Jane [ ein] is Siân [sa:n], and English chocolate [cokl t ] has been borrowed as siocled [sokled]. The representation of the English affricates by the borrowed si [s] in Welsh goes back to the Middle Ages.

Writing in 1547, Salesbury noted that

Welsh had no l e t t e r corresponding to the English ch in sound, but that

the

sound / t s i / (his notation, including slashes) was similar to the English sound. Thus, we find the familiar combination of [ t ] and [s] used for the a f f r i c a t e In

his

system of

transcription, he represented

'church' as / t s u r t s / (Salesbury 1547:Bii).

the English

word

[č]

churche

While this practice has become f a i r

ly widespread, leading to more recent borrowings (those w i t h the affricates) such as wats [ w a c ] ' w a t c h ' (see Evans &. Thomas 1968:430), it is not a l t o gether stable, as evidenced in D. L. James 1973:16, in which English chips is represented as tships. The instability Salesbury

(1547:Biii),

of

these sounds in Welsh was insightfully

when

he stated

that

noted

the English j represented

by two

172


sounds, one of which was a vowel or glide and the other pronounced like g. He described a similarity among the English letters ch, g, and i (actually J ) and admitted that they were easily confused (at least to the Welsh ear).

As

an example he noted that the English name John was pronounced as / t s i o n / or /sion/ in the common (spoken) language (again, his notation). This reference to the pronunciation of John is certainly one indication that, among the more educated at least, one of the affricates

was in use.

There appears, however, to be some confusion as to the difference between English [c] and [J].

Salesbury either

interpreted both as beginning w i t h a

sound similar to [ t ] , or else he further illustrated the Welsh speaker's confu sion among the affricates in his own example. That the affricates were recognized and therefore available for bor rowing by Salesbury's time, though, is quite clear from the f i f t e e n t h - c e n t u r y "Hymn to the V i r g i n " (Furnivall 1880).

This document consists of the English

hymn w i t h a transcription in letters that would have enabled a Welsh speaker to sing or r e c i t e the hymn in English.

In line 44 of this hymn, the English

Jesus is transcribed into Welsh as Dsiesws ( F u m i v a l l 1880:*38); while in line 4, branche is trancribed as braynts (p. *34).

(There is no occurrence in the

hymn of i n i t i a l [c].) Thus, the difference of voicing between [ c ] and [J] was apparent to some in the late medieval/early modern period. As mentioned by Salesbury and as demonstrated in the older

borrow

ings, the biggest obstacle to recognizing the [ c ] and [ ] sounds borrowed into Welsh at any particular time in the past has been the lack of a stable, stan dard orthographic representation, the letters si [s] being used to represent all of these.

The l e t t e r J , however, was adopted in such words as jam and the

very common Welsh name Jones, but the question of whether such words were pronounced [ am] and [ ones] or [sam] and [sones] in any particular dialect at any particular time is moot. C e r t a i n l y , the

fifteenth-century

bard (either Jeuan ap Rydderch

ap

Jeuan Lloyd or Jeuan ap Howel Swrdwal) who transcribed the "Hymn to the V i r g i n " in the Cardigan dialect recognized the differences between [s], [ c ] , and [ ] and probably would have used them distinctly in words which he recog nized

as borrowings.

This knowledge was not, however,

universal, and in


173

Powell (1884), equivalences in borrowings

from English such as "Ch

initial

becomes sh* (p. 374) and "j i n i t i a l becomes sh" (p. 375) are noted in "the dia lect spoken, w i t h slight variations in the Counties of Brecon, Caermarthen, and the greater part of Cardigan" (p. 355).

Either the sounds were lost dur

ing these 400 years or they were never really adopted by the common Welsh speakers (much of the Welsh nobility l e f t Wales in the Tudor dynasty — com pare Williams 1979) or they existed but Powell was influenced more by the w r i t t e n word than by the spoken word. Thus, as the sounds [ c ] and [ ] have been borrowed into Welsh, their position

within

the language

has been

Fynes-Clinton (1913:554) notes that also be realized as [ a r f ] .

inherently unstable.

For

example,

the word [ c a r f ] 'a big burly f e l l o w ' can

Nonetheless, the two are distinct sounds (in

segmental sense), and Fynes-Clinton (1913:xxiii) continues his description

the of

[s] (cited above) as follows:

A f t e r the borrowed sound t∫, ∫ appears never to be palatal ized. is the voiced sound corresponding to ∫, but it is never palatalized. This sound occurs only in the combination d as in d ug, ' j u g ' .

8.3

The Development of Welsh A f f r i c a t e s

From the point of their borrowing into the various dialects of Welsh, these unstable affricates have come to play a linguistically significant role in the phonological system of their host language.

In keeping w i t h the pattern

established in the previous analytical chapters of this book, I shall f i r s t treat the development of Welsh affricates in the phonological system in the seg mental

mode.

In doing this, I should like to compare

two segmental

ap

proaches — the rather specialized generative transformational model and the much more flexible Prague (Neo-Prague) approach. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, Welsh has a system of i n i t i a l consonant gradation (ablaut) known as the mutation system.

Under

certain

grammatical conditions (see Morgan 1952), what we can describe as the i n i t i a l

174


consonant ( l e t t e r ) of a word changes by lenition in soft mutation, nasality in nasal mutation, and f r i c a t i o n in spirant mutation. In this chapter, I shall be concerned only w i t h the i n i t i a l plosives (or stops) — the class I and class II mutations of chap. 7, above.

In particular,

let us examine those mutation rules that a f f e c t the dentals / t / and / d / . Under

the grammatical

conditioning

environments

of

soft

mutation

(such as the mutation of the i n i t i a l consonant of a noun following an adjective or of a feminine noun following the definite a r t i c l e ) , the underlying voiceless aspirated stop / t / is r e w r i t t e n in generative terminology as the voiced unaspirated stop [d] within the general soft mutation rules as posited in the previous chapter.

If we were to r e s t r i c t our attention to these dentals alone, though,

we would posit the more restricted soft mutation rule for dentals as follows:

Thus, for example, the word tad [ta;d] ' f a t h e r ' undergoes soft mutation a f t e r the adjective in the phrase hen dad [hen da:d] 'old f a t h e r ' , and the fem inine noun ton [to:n] 'tune' undergoes the same process after the definite ar t i c l e in the phrase y don [ [+anterior] specification in

do:n] order

(In the rule, I have l e f t to

make room for

the

out the usual

affricates

--

see

below.) Under the same conditions, the voiced unaspirated stop ld/ is r e w r i t t e n as the voiced f r i c a t i v e [d] by the following rule:

Thus, for example, the word dyn [din] 'man' undergoes in soft mutation a f t e r the adjective in the phrase hen ddyn [hen din] 'old man', and the fem inine de [de:] ' r i g h t ' undergoes the same mutation after the definite a r t i c l e in


175

the phrase y dde [ -de:] ' t h e right (side)'. These rules are unspecified for stridency, because, under the Welsh phonological system before the assimilation of the sounds [ c ] and [ ] and their corresponding underlying segments, there are no consonants that are marked for [-continuant] and [+strident]; thus, [-continuant] implies [-strident]. In the grammatical conditions for nasal mutation (such as the one that affects the i n i t i a l consonant of a noun following the f i r s t person singular pos sessive adjective), the two stops under study become the corresponding nasals, as noted in the previous chapter.

Again, limiting our attention to the more

specified dental point of a r t i c u l a t i o n , we can posit the nasal mutation rule as follows:

In nasal mutation, the voiceless aspirated stop becomes a voiced (heav ily) aspirated nasal, and the voiced unaspirated stop becomes a voiced unaspirated nasal.

Thus, for example, the word tad [ t a : d ] ' f a t h e r ' undergoes nasal

mutation after the f i r s t person singular possessive adjective in the phrase fy nhad [(v)

nha:d] 'my f a t h e r ' , as the word drŵs [dru:s] 'door'

phrase fy nrws [(v)

does so in the

nru:s] 'my door'.

Finally, there is the spirant mutation, such as that a f f e c t i n g the i n i t i a l consonant following the third person singular feminine possessive adjective. This rule affects only the voiceless aspirated stop / t / , changing it to [0] in the following rule:

By this rule, a word such as tad [ t a : d ] ' f a t h e r ' is realized in its spirant mutation form after the third person singular feminine possessive adjective in the phrase ei thad [ i 0a:d] 'her f a t h e r ' .

176


These rules describe the situation in Welsh (or in a Welsh dialect) be fore the borrowing of the a f f r i c a t e s .

A t this stage in the development of the

language, all stops are plosives, so we need not specify simply

[-continuant]

them further

than

As the [ c ] and [ ] are borrowed, they are incorporated

as distinct entities w i t h their own underlying segments / č / and / / respective l y , for English has no counterpart to the morphophonological mutation system of Welsh. The borrowing of these two sounds, however, requires that we change the mutation rules as specified above.

Since both / c / and / / are specified

[-continuant], if the rules are not so restricted as to disqualify w i l l undergo the mutations also.

them, they

We must therefore further specify the rules

as [-strident] — a feature that w i l l include the plosive stops but exclude the a f f r i c a t e stops. Thus, we must modify follows:

the mutation rules as regards the dentals as


177

(4')

What we have in the respecification of these rules is a requirement to block

the application of

sounds.

the native

Welsh rules

from the

newly

borrowed

Such a situation is typical of the types of conflicts found in 'coexist

ent phonemic systems' (Fries & Pike 1949). Thus far, we have been working exclusively in the generative model. Turning our attention to the Prague School approach, we can arrange the seg ments that take part in the class I and class II mutations (that is, those af fecting the stops) in the order and series framework of M a r t i n e t (1952), as in figure 8.1 (p. 178, below). According to the principle of symmetry in historical change (see also M a r t i n e t 1955), there is pressure within the system for all orders and series to maximize themselves.

Looking at the p r i m i t i v e state of palatal-alveolars in

the s t r u c t u r a l orders and series, however, we find l i t t l e motivation for an expansion of this order. One of the greatest differences (if not the greatest) between the gen erative and the Prague School approach to sound change, however, is the l a t ter's inclusion of function as distinct from structure. system, we have an excellent

functional

In the Welsh mutation

'order-and-series'

arrangement as

w e l l , as illustrated in figure 8.2 (p. 179, below). When we survey this functional arrangement, however, we see that there is l i t t l e motivation indeed for any expansion of the extremely orders.

limited

In f a c t , within the system, a pair of anomalies such as these could

best be handled as an exception (in the terminology of Hjelmslev 1970:30-31). A t the beginning of this century, however, a curious development took place.

Fynes-Clinton (1913:554) noted the following forms occurring in the

Bangor dialect:


voiceless f r i c a t i v e

voiced stop

voiceless stop

f

b

P

labial

0

d

t

alveolar

n

0

nh

d

h

V

m

voiced f r i c a t i v e

voiceless nasal voiced nasal

Figure 8 . 1 : Structural Orders and Series

palatal-alveolar

V

c

J

V

velar

k

g

X

(g)

h

0


179

t∫ap, s.m.f., Eng, chap, 'rogue': r he:n d ap! = r he:n walx!, 'the old rogue!'; hen d ap di o, 'he is a bad f e l l o w ' . t∫ar, d ar, s.f., pl. t∫arja, d arja, 'jar' t∫arf, s.m., 'a big burly f e l l o w ' : he:n d arf! -- d arf appears also to be used. t∫a:yn, s.f., p l . t∫einja, t f e i n i , ' c h a i n ' ; d a:yn, 'the chain'. In these data, we find that the voiceless aspirated a f f r i c a t e becomes the voiced unaspirated a f f r i c a t e in i n i t i a l position following an adjective and in the i n i t i a l position of a feminine noun following the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e — two clear environments of soft mutation.

radical

soft

nasal

spirant

p

b

h

f

t

d

nh

0

o

k

g

nh

x

o

b

v

m

d

d

n

g

-

V

c V

J

Figure 8.2: Functional Orders and Series 1

In order to appreciate this development, we should consider the nature of the a f f r i c a t e .

According to Gleason (1961:22), " a f f r i c a t e s

which the opening is relatively slow.

are stops in

They therefore are composed of a stop

plus a movement through a f r i c a t i v e position: / c / starts w i t h a sound similar to / t / and moves through one rather similar to / š / ; / / starts w i t h a sound

180

similar


to / d / and moves through a sound rather similar to / ž / " .

nature of the a f f r i c a t e

It is this

which has often been described as delayed release

(compare Bach & Harms 1972, in which both [ s t r i d e n t ] and [delayed release] are used). Given the nature of the mutation system, it is not altogether surpris ing that a stop approximating / t / w i t h delayed release should have a soft mu tation form consisting of a stop approximating [d] w i t h delayed release, if two sounds f i t t i n g this description should find their way into the Welsh language (compare Fowkes 1959).

The f a c t that the stop approximating / d / w i t h de

layed release does not alternate distinctively

w i t h a stop approximating [d]

w i t h delayed release can be explained in one or both of two ways:

F i r s t l y , no

such sound exists in the Welsh language; and secondly, what is far more im portant, [é] has nothing to release, but is a f r i c a t i v e that is unlikely to move through another f r i c a t i v e sound.

I t is this l a t t e r point that also

eliminates

any spirant mutation form of / c / , for, as Watkins (1961:19) points out, " / t / in /t∫bkled/ does not undergo spirant mutation (*/i 0∫okled/ would be impossible) which shows that it is not / t / + / ∫ / in a combination / t ∫ / , but an independent phoneme which is divided into / t / on the one hand and /∫/ on the other" (my translation from the Welsh).

(This also answers the question of whether it is

one phoneme or two — compare chap. 6, above.) In 1913, Fynes-Clinton was speaking only for the Bangor dialect, and Morris Jones (1913) did not even mention the two sounds, much less any addi tion to the mutation system (although, to be sure, he was more concerned w i t h the standard l i t e r a r y language in its internal historical development).

By

1961, Watkins noted that

R.

the alternation

was widespread (see also A.

Thomas 1961, C. Thomas 1964, R. O. Jones 1971).

S t i l l , however, the morpho-

phonological realization of / c / as [ ] is not universal. Within the generative mode of description, this change is one of rule simplification.

Where we had to add the [ - s t r i d e n t ] specification to the muta

tion rules in order to block the soft mutation from a f f e c t i n g the voiceless aspirated a f f r i c a t e , we now remove the specification to allow the soft muta tion to work.

Thus, rule (1') reverts to the simpler rule (1).

As we have seen in the previous chapter, once we achieve simplicity


181

in our rule specifications, we achieve a concomitant generalization.

Indeed,

rule (1) is more general than is rule (1'), and the manner of changing the rules certainly reflects this generality. Moreover, M a r t i n e t ' s segmental premise that a sound system tends to maximize itself along the lines of orders and series is also served by this de velopment within the new Welsh a f f r i c a t e s .

We can thus expand figure 8.2 (p.

179, above) to r e f l e c t the functional expansion of the / c / series, as i l l u s t r a t e d in figure 8.3 (below).

radical

p

soft

nasal

b

spirant

h

f

o

t

d

č

J

k

g

nh

0

o

h

x

o

b

v

d

d

g

-

m n


Furthermore, the Prague School order-and-series hypothesis would lead us to a further prediction of f u t u r e generalization.

Specifically, it would pre

dict that the nasal series of the palatal-alveolar order should be the next gap filled.

As regards / c / especially, there are two of three possible gaps f i l l e d ,

giving the third a strong motivation to be f i l l e d . portant f a c t militating against such a development:

However, there is one im There are no nasal a f f r i

cates in Welsh nor in any langage in contact w i t h Welsh.

In f a c t , a nasal af

f r i c a t e is not even listed on most IPA charts as an expected segment.

182


The soft mutation 'rule was applied to / c / in order for / c / to be r e a l ized w i t h [ ] (or in more general terms, to alternate w i t h / / ) , but both sounds were already attested in each dialect that adopted the a l t e r n a t i o n .

When one

hears an i n i t i a l [ c ] and an i n i t i a l [ ] , moreover, it appears i n t u i t i v e l y proper to the speaker already familiar w i t h soft mutation to classify [ ] not only as an independent sound (from / / ) , but also as a variant of / č / .

On the other hand,

there is no nasal a f f r i c a t e that the speaker can i m i t a t e that would have the same i n t u i t i v e l y satisfying e f f e c t .

Thus, although the soft mutation rule for

voiceless unaspirated stops need not be specified for stridency (as delayed release of a f r i c a t i v e is not possible), the nasal mutation rules must s t i l l be so specified. It

is for this

reason

that R.

O. Jones' description of the

Nantlle dialect is linguistically significant.

Dyffryn

In comparing the dialects of Ty

Ddewi and Llanfachreth w i t h the dialect of D y f f r y n Nantlle, Jones (1971:16869) notes the f o l l o w i n g :

ii.

/rr / and /n / of D y f f r y n Nantlle. o

These differences are better explained by reference to the morphophonemic shape of units following the f i r s t person sin gular possessive adjective, which is a discontinuous morph: /

/(/i/

in Ty

Ddewi)+nasal

+/i/

In Llanfachreth and Ty Ddewi, word i n i t i a l affricates retain their oral characteristics following the nasal of the possessive adjective, e.g. LI.

T.Dd.

/ nt∫ okladi/ / nd am i/

my chocolate my jam

/int∫okledi/ /ind ami/

In the Dyffryn Nantlle dialect, on the other hand, the se quence nasal+affricate is replaced by / n / + / n / and / n / + / n / e.g. o

/ / / /

nn nn nn nn

okladi/ ami/ opi/ obi/

my my my my

chocolate jam chop job


183

This suggests that the nasal mutation is more productive in Dyffryn Nantlle than in the other two areas. Innovations in the phonemic system of the dialect ( / t ∫ / and / d / occurring only in loan words from English), undergo the same type of morphophonemic alternation as the plosives in other indigenous Welsh forms. As recorded in G r i f f e n (1974:159), Jones f u r t h e r explains that the / n / b and /n l have the following descriptions in narrow phonetic terms:

/nn h/ - palato-alveolar nasal + partially devoiced palato-alveolar f r i c a t i v e + g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e . /n$/ - palato-alveolar nasal + voiced palato-alveolar fricative.

Jones f u r t h e r states:

The morphophonemic change involved w i t h mutation is there fore a simple case of nasalization; i.e. aspirated plosives aspirated nasals unaspirated plosives unaspirated nasals The affricates in the Dyffryn Nantlle dialect f o l l o w this pat t e r n : i.e. [t∫] [d ]

[n

[ n n h] = / t ∫ / n ] = /d / /n

/

In the rules to the right of the equal sign can be seen what is in gen erative terms the r e w r i t i n g of the underlying segments as surface (morphophonological) realizations after the application of the nasal mutation rule. . In Prague terms, this would involve the marking of the unmarked morphophoneme for nasality.

For the sake of consistency of n o t a t i o n , I shall w r i t e these as

follows in this analysis:

/č/ --

[nh]

/ / --

[ň]

184


Just as in the other voiceless nasals (as pointed out in the previous chapter), in the voiceless nasal a f f r i c a t e , aspiration is at such a degree as to warrant the description ' g l o t t a l f r i c a t i v e ' .

Jones also notes that / c / is more

heavily aspirated than is / /. Thus, in every feature, the new palatal-alveolar (or, at least among many speakers, simply palatal) order f i t s the description of the other orders. At

last,

the feature [ - s t r i d e n t ] (or abrupt release) can be

removed

from rule (3'), and the affricates of the Dyffryn Nantlle dialect can be seen to act as any other stops. *[0š], the impossibility

of

Assuming the validity of Watkin's observation on which allows the

linguist

to reduce

the

feature

[-strident] in a spirant mutation rule and also in the soft mutation rule for / d / (as * [ d ž ] should be equally as impossible), all four of the rules given above can return to their original, pre-borrowing specifications. Thus, in generative terms, we have captured the greatest possible gen eralization insofar

as the affricates

are concerned.

This is achieved in the

s t r u c t u r a l notation by returning to the simplest form of specification.

More

over, this simplification also tells us that the a f f r i c a t e stops now operate just as any other stops do in the language -- they have become assimilated and are now Welsh. From the functional point of view, we can now construct and-series table as in figure 8.4 (opposite). maximized itself

within

possible symmetrical. only

fully

generalized,

the order-

This indicates that the system has

the orders and series and is to the greatest

With this achievement, we see that but

it

is also inherently

extent

the system is not

stable, by

virtue

of

its

symmetry. The two points of description involved here that are of greatest im portance to

the linguist interested in finding

significant

generalizations

in

these two segmental models are the f o l l o w i n g : First, from the generative point of view, the introduction of borrowed foreign sounds necessitated the addition of features to rules in the native lan guage's phonology (or the marking of such features in the manner of Vennemann 1972).

Assimilation of these sounds involving the dissolution of the f o r

eign 'coexistent phonemic system' was made possible by the gradual reduction


185

of these same features from these same rules. Second, from the functionalist point of view, the introduction of two sounds from a foreign language at a point of a r t i c u l a t i o n not in use (for ob struents) in the native language eventually led to an expansion of the order at the new point of articulation sented in a functional

to include all possible series that

are repre

morphophonemic system of the native language.

there were no morphophonemic system, there probably

If

would have been no

expanded order, for such borrowing is common, but such a segment as a nasal a f f r i c a t e is not.

radical

soft

nasal

p

b

h

f

t

d

nh o

0

č

spirant

nh

k

g

h

b

v

m

d

d

n

V

V

J g

n

x

-


In e f f e c t , these two points are saying the same thing, each from its own vantage point.

Both points are needed for a f u l l appreciation of

this

type of language change, and incidentally, both are needed to show the inher ent weakness in the segmental approach. The f i r s t point involves the tendency of linguistic rules to become or remain simple (see King 1969).

The addition of features to accommodate bor

rowed sounds not undergoing the native rules creates an unstable condition, for above a l l , the native phonological systems take precedence over any other

186


systems that come into linguistic

contact w i t h the native language via bor

rowing. This can be seen in its simplest form in 'elegant' pronunciations, such as those discussed in reference to German / x / in chap. 3.4, above.

Although

it

borrowed

may

be considered

'elegant'

for a German

to

pronounce

the

French word pardon w i t h the characteristics of the French phonological sys tem, the high p i t c h , nasalized vowel, the long [ :] are not German sounds, and the pronunciation with

familiar

is necessarily

unstable.

German sounds substituted

(compare Sturtevant 1917:64).

I t is more commonly pronounced for

the

unfamiliar

foreign

sounds

Likewise, the 'elegant' Welsh pronunciation of

siocled w i t h the i n i t i a l English a f f r i c a t e in dialects without

morphophonemic

variants of /č/ is not as stable as it is in dialects which have adapted the mutation rules to include affricates for the simple reason that in the former dialects, the sounds have not been assimilated.

This may help to explain how

Welsh noblemen of the f i f t e e n t h century could pronounce [ č ] and [ ] long be fore the sounds came into common use. This can further

be illustrated by the quotations from Fynes-Clinton

regarding the [s], on the one hand, and the a f f r i c a t e s , on the other, as cited above.

Apparently, the [s] is subject to more variation and is less stable than

are the more complex affricates in the Bangor d i s t r i c t , where the morphophonological rules have gone through the above-mentioned processes of tion

so as to

include

them, and where

assimilation

has

adapta

thus been

more

complete. To say, then, that the addition of foreign sounds necessitates addition al specifications in native rules and that these sounds are not assimilated un t i l the specifications in the native rules are reduced to the number extant before the borrowing is simply to say that foreign sounds are not assimilated u n t i l they act like native sounds.

This occurs even at the expense of adding

a new unattested segment to the inventory

on the foreign pattern (in

this

case an a f f r i c a t e ) in order to reduce the additional specifications. I t is these nasal a f f r i c a t e s that are of greatest interest in the history of Welsh borrowing.

This change through borrowing shows that, although i t

may be true that some segments may tend to change in Bloomfialdian 'bundles


of

187

distinctive features'

necessarily so.

(Bloomfield 1933:79,351), this process is not at

all

It is by single features, the phonologically relevant distinc

tions of the Prague School (compare also A. R. Thomas 1966), that this type of sound change is motivated, and if no attested sound exists w i t h the approx imate specifications, a new sound may be created. The second point, then, is merely an outgrowth of the f i r s t .

The ' r e g

ularizing' of morphophonological rules through the reduction of specifications in e f f e c t reduces the number of types of segments that do not undergo the rule.

The reduction of these is seen most graphically in the f i l l i n g out of

morphophonemic patterns of order and series.

This, of course, affords us our

symmetry. This is to say quite simply that when the feature so specified in the phonological rule as to prohibit the underlying segment / c / , for example, from undergoing nasal mutation was finally reduced, the result was that the seg ment / ç / did in f a c t undergo nasal mutation.

This yielded the morphophonem

ic realization [nh], which f i l l e d out the palatal-alveolar (or palatal) order and o

the nasal series. Thus, the tendency to f i l l out a pattern is not the cause of language change of this type; rather, it is the e f f e c t . sense of

the

phonologically

relevant

feature

The cause is 'phonemic' in the of

Prague (compare

Baltaxe

1978), and it is this particular type of motivation which M a r t i n e t (1952) no doubt had in mind by arranging the series in terms of distinctive features for the purpose of evaluating sound change. 8.4

A Closer Examination

While the segmentalists of the generative, and Prague approaches can look w i t h some satisfaction at these descriptions 'in the development of Welsh affricates and the apparently neat and general way they f i t into the frame works of both models (and for f u r t h e r

implications of the development, see

G r i f f e n 1974), we ought not to overlook that last point. for

the

While the motivation

change may be represented neatly and generally

by phonemes and

their specifications as segmental bundles, the real motivation comes from the

188


phonologically pertinent (distinctive) feature. Examining f i r s t

the generative analysis, we should bear in mind that

the rules used to .demonstrate simplification are themselves only p a r t i a l l y rep resentative of the mutation system.

Specifically, they apply only to the den

tals and palatal-alveolars — the segments that can be marked as [+coronal]. As we have seen in chap. 7.2 (p. 154), above, the general soft mutation rule for the class I consonants can be stated as follows:

What this rule says is simply that any voiceless aspirated stop (includ ing the affricates) becomes a voiced unaspirated stop.

Consequently, in the

Welsh mutation system, any voiceless aspirated stop segment added to the i n ventory w i l l become its voiced unaspirated stop cognate upon inclusion in the system. A t f i r s t glance, this type of r u l e - w r i t i n g appears to capture a real generalization. what w i l l

With the inclusion of the a f f r i c a t e s , the rule thus predicts

happen.

worth the model.

This predictive power

alone would

appear to be quite

Moreover, as noted above, the change can be a t t r i b u t e d to

features in their specifications, which are far

more general than are

ments, a fact pointed out early in the development

seg

of the model by Halle

(1962). Given the more general mutation rule above, then, let us consider how the hypothetical word * p f a n [pfan] would be affected in the environment of soft mutation.

Clearly, the features of the underlying a f f r i c a t e segment / p f /

should be acceptable to the rule and should yield [bv].

However, there is no

such word as * p f a n , and no such a f f r i c a t e in Welsh as [ p f ] .

I f there were,

though, then the soft mutation rule would indeed work w i t h this segment as well. The unacceptability of / p f /

as input

to the soft

mutation rule, how

ever, shows up a serious deficiency in generative segmental phonology.

By


189

using the general rule ( 1 " ) instead of the more specific rule (1), we are not saying

that

all

voiceless

aspirated

stops

become voiced

and

unaspirated.

Rather, we are saying that all of those segments within the segmental inven tory of the pertinent Welsh dialect w i l l undergo the rule, so long as those segments within the inventory happen to include the pertinent features. As in all segmental models, generative phonology thus maintains and foremost an inventory of segments.

first

Features and feature specifications

are used to give the appearance of generalizations, but in f a c t they merely serve to identify which segments of the inventory are to be affected by par ticular rules and how the effect is to be realized.

On the underlying level,

we have not simplified the grammar, but we have complicated it w i t h two new segments / c / and / / . The complexity does not end w i t h the addition of the new underlying segments, though.

As it were, the nasal mutation forms [nh] and [n] are far

from surface phonetic entities.

As Schane (1973) would indicate in his nota

tion, the underlying segment |c| is r e w r i t t e n in nasal mutation as the phoneme / n h / , which is then realized a f t e r more rules as the phone [nh].

Indeed, as we

see in of chap. 5.2, above, the aspiration of the nasal mutation form is s t i l l subject to further rules.

Thus, we not only have the new segments / c / and

/ / , but we also have new intermediate-level segments [nh] and [n] (phonemes in the classical sense — see also Schane 1971). On the other hand, in the conclusion of chap. 7, above, we see how the voiceless aspirated nasal is related w i t h the voiced unaspirated nasal, and to maintain these as separate segments in a model that purports to be based on d i s t i n c t i v e - f e a t u r e theory appears to be rather ludicrous.

Nonetheless, if

generative rules are to be applied to these segments separately, as they must, then they must be entered separately into the inventory of segments.

This is,

after a l l , segmental phonology. Let us say, however, that we did not want to add the complexity of the two nasal affricates to the inventory. by rule?

Could we not simply derive them

The answer to this question is clearly no.

With our general rules, if

we were to allow a segment not already in the inventory

to be created by

rule, then we would have to accept the *[0š] as a spirant mutation form of

190


/č/ In an e f f o r t to save the general rules, let us say that we were willing to block the unacceptable segments from occurring by specifying more fea tures of our rules.

Were we to do this, then we would discover that we have

not only added two new underlying segments to the inventory, but we have added a host of blocking rules.

No longer could we maintain the general rule

( 1 " ) , for example, but we would have to revert to rule (1) for those segments marked [+coronal] and to other rules for other segments. The generalizations apparently captured by the generative model thus disintegrate under closer scrutiny. of

the previous

While the f i r s t principle noted at the end

section is basically

valid

enough in

maintaining

that

the

change is motivated by features and feature specifications (oppositions and their members or features), the mechanics of generative phonology rely

too

heavily upon the segment to take advantage of this generalization. Under

closer

examination,

the

order-and-series

framework

of

the

Prague School (particularly M a r t i n e t 1952) fairs better than does the genera tive model, if only because it lacks the complicated rules.

Moreover, it is far

clearer (less deceptive) in the complexity i t adds to the description. As noted in the previous section, this approach maintains that the new palatal-alveolar order is under functional pressure to maximize its r e a l i z a t i o n . First of a l l , we again must add two segments — / č / and / / — in spite of the fact that the voiced unaspirated segment is also a functional variant of the voiceless aspirated segment.

This would be the case even if we used the t r a

ditional s t r u c t u r a l framework of figure 8.1 (p. 178, above). Unlike the generative model, the Praguian framework that the order-and-series intersections are i m p l i c i t l y f i l l e d .

does not

claim

Before the appli

cation of nasal mutation to the affricates in the Dyffryn Nantlle dialect (and in other dialects s t i l l ) , the intersections of the palatal-alveolar order and the nasal series is in a potential state of f u l f i l l m e n t .

Logically, then, once they

are f i l l e d , we have added two new segments to the inventory. The complication of the Praguian description of the development Welsh affricates goes beyond the addition of four new segments.

of

Once again,

we should recall from the previous chapter that the motivation is based upon


191

the feature opposition, and the feature opposition in this model is represented by the order-and-series

framework.

Thus, in addition to the four new seg

ments, we add one new opposition member — the palatal-alveolar member of the opposition of point of a r t i c u l a t i o n .

( A l t e r n a t i v e l y , we could add an a f f r i

cate opposition of manner to the s t r u c t u r a l framework, though this would be somewhat clumsy in the functioning of the system and would also represent a higher order of complexity — a f u l l opposition rather than a member.) Thus we see that what would appear to be a rather simple and neat change within the Welsh mutation system is handled segmentally w i t h a con siderable amount of complexity.

Whether we choose to conduct our analysis

in the highly specialized s t r u c t u r a l generative model or in the more flexible functional Prague School model, we are faced w i t h the prospect of four new segments and accompanying complications in rules and/or in features. Of course, this could be the best generalization case,

there would be no substantial

found here.

argument against

available.

In that

segmentalism

to

be

As we see in the next section, however, dynamic phonology cap

tures the greater generalization, once again demonstrating the deficiency of notional segmentalism.

8.5

A Dynamic Analysis

As always, one of the great strengths of dynamic analysis (indeed, its greatest strength) lies in its faithfulness to the phonetic evidence.

In view of

this f a c t , I should like to take a slightly closer look at the nature of the new Welsh a f f r i c a t e s , particularly

as they may be realized in North Welsh, the

overall dialect area that includes (among many others — see A. R. Thomas 1973:45-57) the Bangor d i s t r i c t , Colwyn Bay, and D y f f r y n Nantlle. First of a l l , it should be pointed out that [ c ] is not the f i r s t a f f r i c a t e in the affected dialect area.

As mentioned in chap. 6.3 (pp. 131-32), above,

the native informant of the Colwyn Bay area as well as speakers throughout the region tend to pronounce the voiceless aspirated dental stop (in t r a d i t i o n al terms) not as [ t ] , but as [ t s ] . The reason why the North Welsh [ t s ] has not been considered an a f f r i -

192


cate lies within the very nature of a f f r i c a t i o n within an aspirate fortis-lenis language.

As pointed out in the phonetic description of the German a f f r i c a t e

in chap. 6, above, the phonetic motivation for a f f r i c a t i o n in a fortis-lenis sys tem is heavy aspiration.

Thus, the sibilant release has simply been analyzed

as an e f f e c t of heavy aspiration — the turbulent release of pressure at the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n , which happens to be dental. Moreover, as pointed out in the phonetic j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the

fortis-

lenis scale in chap. 5, above, this constraining aspiration is typical of prosodic constraint, in that it gives the illusion (to the segmentalist and alphabetician) of a change in segment type or of the addition of a new segment.

In dynamic

r e a l i t y , on the other hand, the same features are realized, though to a d i f f e r ent degree or in an extended range.

(Compare F i r t h 1935.)

If the Welsh affricates had developed internally (as did the German affricates), the difference in the affected dialects between [ts] and [ c ] (or [tsD, then, would have nothing to do w i t h a f f r i c a t i o n , but would be a simple product of the retracted

articulator.

However,

the soft mutation of

tad

[tsa:d] (in this dialect) ' f a t h e r ' is pronounced [da:d], but the soft mutation of [cain] ([tsain]) 'chain' is [ ain] ([dzain]).

From this we see that the p a l a t a l - a l

veolar position of obstruction is of such a configuration as to produce a f f r i c a tion (after the pattern of the English sound system from which the sounds were borrowed). Thus, in the i n i t i a l stages of borrowing, we must concede that the af fricates were borrowed as independent

foreign entities.

Indeed, one could

even speak of them as being borrowed as letters — segmental sounds.

When

we review the history of the borrowing process b r i e f l y summarized in the i n i t i a l section of this.chapter, this should not be at all surprising.

The stumbl

ing block was, after a l l , the spelling and how that related w i t h the manner in which the Welsh speaker should pronounce the word spelled w i t h the appropri ate l e t t e r . The very concept of the segmental l e t t e r , however, was no more nat ural for pronunciation in a borrowed word than it was for pronunciation general.

in

The pressure within the system, then, did not center around a prob

lem of expanding the number of segments (or of manipulating features within


193

them), but rather it concerned the incorporation of the sounds as produced and perceived into the Welsh system.

And the Welsh system (as all systems)

is nonsegmental. Since we cannot incorporate letters into a linguistic system, we must determine some way of incorporating the sounds that obtain within the native system.

Of course, the first thing we must do is to examine the system of

prosodic constraint which Welsh uses to produce its sound structure (that is, to produce what the segmentalist perceives as 'sounds' due to the effects of prosodic

constraint).

To do this, we should first reproduce the system (as

presented in figure 7.3 — p. 162) in figure 8.5 (below).

Figure 8.5: Welsh Obstruction Division Relationships

In this system, the positions of obstruction (again, including pertinent aspects

of a r t i c u l a t o r , point

of

a r t i c u l a t i o n , and a r t i c u l a t o r

configuration)

include the primary labial ({b}), dental ({d}), and dorsal ({g}), which are con strained by the four degrees of aspiration ({1n} to {4h}) and by the possible presence of nasality ({n}); the secondary l a t e r a l ({1}) and t r i l l ({r}), which are constrained by only the f i r s t two two degrees of aspiration; and the t e r t i a r y sibilant or slit ({s}), which is constrained by the second degree of aspiration alone.

194


From a physiological phonetic viewpoint, if

we were to compare the

i n i t i a l obstruction complex of the nonsense syllable [ca] w i t h other extant s y l lables of Welsh, we would find that it comes closest to [ t a ] , involving com plete obstruction in the dental/alveolar area.

Moreover, the release involved

in [ca] is composed of a similar heightened pressure and release through the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n that we find in the North Welsh [tsa]. From an acoustic close.

standpoint,

the [ca] and [ t a ] / [ t s a ] are

extremely

Both exhibit the same position within the r e l a t i v e r a t i o of high-to-low

frequency energy that characterizes the third degree of aspiration in the f o r tis-lenis scale (see chap. 5.4, above). Phonetically, then, we would put the obstruction complex involved in [ca] within

the domain of the primary obstructions.

In so doing, we would

naturally analytically remove the coarticulated third degree of aspiration con straining the position of obstruction, leaving the position of obstruction as { } — the palatal-alveolar w i t h a configuration

that would result in a f f r i c a t i o n

(as a r t i c u l a t o r configuration is pertinent to this model). This is, of course, simply what the linguist would do in the process of conducting a dynamic analysis.

If the theory is accurate, though, it should at

least analogously r e f l e c t the process of incorporation and change itself.

As

we see below, it does. By placing the new position of obstruction within the primary obstruc tion class, we make certain dynamic predictions, quite similar to those made by M a r t i n e t (1952, 1955) in Praguian linguistics.

In a word, we expect

the

new obstruction to behave like the others. When we observe the soft mutation of [cain] 'chain' as [ ain], a dynam ic analysis within the syllabic frame (figure 2.2 — p. 44, above) would classify the { } position of constraint as the main obstruction feature (opposition mem ber) and would constrain the radical w i t h the third degree of prosodic aspira tion {3h}, and the soft mutation form w i t h the second degree {2h}.

This is

exactly as any primary obstruction would behave. Within the structure of the Welsh system, though, we have a develop ment that can be illustrated in figure 8.6 (opposite).

The [ c ] and [ ] are no

longer letters borrowed from English and not f i t t i n g into the real phonetic


195

sound system of Welsh.

Rather, there is now a single new feature or opposi

tion member within the system -- { } (a symbol used here only to designate the position of obstruction and not to imply a segment -- in w r i t i n g , one must use w r i t t e n symbols and try to avoid the obvious confusions resulting from them). This feature interacts w i t h the rest of the system through the natural p r i n ciple of dynamic coarticulatory constraint (as explained in chap. 2, above, and subsequent analyses).

Nothing more is added.

Figure 8.6: 0} Relationships 1

In the Dyffryn Nantlle dialect of North Welsh, however, the develop ment of Welsh 'nasal a f f r i c a t e s ' is quite predictable.

As a prospective mem

ber of the primary obstructions, { } should be expected gradually to take part in the same relationships the other primary obstructions maintain.

The growth

of { } relationships is gradual simply because we are witnessing change in process. Thus, the D y f f r y n Nantlle dialect has { } constrained by the second and third degree of obstruction, it maintains the proper grammatical and phonetic functional characteristics between these relationships, and it

extends

these

relationships to their natural logical conclusion in adding the nasal prosody to both.

This can be illustrated as in figure 8.7 (p. 196, below).

196


Figure 8.7: { } Relationships 2

By using the natural, phonetically verifiable system of dynamic coart i c u l a t o r y constraint within the spoken organizational unit of the syllable, we can thus account for the borrowing of the English affricates by the addition of only one feature. supposes

Moreover, the incorporation of this feature actually p r e

its participation

in the phonetic/phonological

relationships of

the

s t r u c t u r e as well as in the functional relationships of the morphophonological system. Thus, the dynamic analysis provides us w i t h by far

the greater

eralization when compared w i t h either of the cited segmental models.

gen Com

pared w i t h the generative model's four new segments and its lists of rules to create and block processes, the dynamic analysis makes use of the relationships and adds only one feature.

existing

Compared w i t h the Praguian model's

expanded structure filled w i t h new segments, the dynamic model maintains the same s t r u c t u r e , adding nothing but the aforementioned feature or member.

opposition

Once again, then, a comparison of segmental and dynamic analyses

of language data clearly indicates that the segmental approach is deficient, missing important generalizations, while the dynamic approach captures these generalizations missed by notional segmentalism.


8.6

197

Conclusion

The superiority of generalization to be found in the dynamic phonolog ical analysis of the new Welsh affricates is not limited to their development to date.

Given the principle of dynamic coarticulatory constraint and their

application in dynamic analysis, we can make an even greater

generalization

regarding possible developments for this new obstruction { }. We should note that the development illustrated in figure 8.7 (oppo site) is not yet complete.

For a f u l l integration into the Welsh obstruction

division, the new obstruction opposition member should enter into a r e l a t i o n ship w i t h the f i r s t ({1h}) and the f o u r t h ({4h}) member of the prosodic opposi tion of aspiration.

The manner in which these relationships would be i n t e

grated into the phonology, moreover, demonstrates once again the deficiencies of the segmental approach and the adequacy of the dynamic. As noted in G r i f f e n (1974:163), we can approach the task of predicting the spirant mutation variant of / c / (in the segmental sense) and the soft mu tation variant of / / by examining the gaps in the functional order-and-series framework in figure 8.4 (p. 185, above).

These two gaps should be f i l l e d w i t h

voiceless and voiced continuant a f f r i c a t e s .

That they be affricates

is r e

quired not so much by the functional arrangement, as by the s t r u c t u r a l frame work of figure 8.1 (p. 178, above).

As Watkins (1961:19) points out, however,

at least the voiceless a f f r i c a t e * / 0 š / is impossible, and we can certainly con cede that both are impossible from the viewpoint of a f f r i c a t i o n , for a f r i c a tive has nothing to release.

Y e t , delayed release is only part of the descrip

tion — the other part is the palatal-alveolar point of a r t i c u l a t i o n . If one forms the hypothesis that both of the palatal-alveolar stops in Welsh are predictably a f f r i c a t e , and the same w i t h the nasals, then one can conceivably predict that the order can have a f r i c a t i v e series not necessarily a f f r i c a t e , for, in the words of M a r t i n e t (1952:20), "phonemes of a pattern tend to be as fully integrated as c o n f l i c t i n g factors make i t possible". To support this hypothesis, we need only review Fynes-Clinton's de scription of the [s], w i t h its palatalized variant

[š]

Given the existence of

198


this borrowed segment, we could indeed predict that it could be used as the spirant mutation of the homorganic palatal-alveolar stop in f u l l accord w i t h the requisites of the order-and-series framework.

Moreover, the required soft

mutation form [ ž ' ] could conceivably be obtained from the a f f r i c a t e [ ] ([dž]). This hypothesis is quite weak, though, for two major reasons.

First of

a l l , the segmental hypothesis that the palatal-alveolars be predictably cate segments derives from the nature of a f f r i c a t i o n aspiration.

affri

as a result of heavy

This would bring both [ ] and [ň] into c o n f l i c t w i t h this mono-

phonematic interpretation of the a f f r i c a t e s , for they lack the aspiration. the other hand, without

On

this hypothesis and w i t h the a f f r i c a t e nature of [ ]

and [ň], we would have to predict the unacceptable

*[0š]

Furthermore, while the [š ' ] is indeed found in Welsh, the independent [ ž ] is not obtainable.

To create the [ ž ' ] from [J], in which the release portion

is never palatalized to begin w i t h , we would have to interpret the sound as containing two segments.

Again, this is in c o n f l i c t w i t h the evidence.

Even

if we could expand the Praguian orders and series to their logical extension to include [š ' ] and [ž'], the f a c t is that we would again be creating either one (if [ š ' ] is already accepted) or two new segments, bringing the t o t a l involved in the borrowing process and in the native development to a maximum of six. In the generative approach to this problem, things appear to be slight ly more conducive to generalization.

Provided we could get the

rules to work w i t h the a f f r i c a t e s , the spirant

mutation of / c / and the soft

mutation of / / should present no particular problem. [+strident],

the

rule

changing

the

contuant

mutation

As both are marked

specification

to

[+continuant]

would result in the creation of two segments, one marked w i t h the features [+consonantal, -vocalic, -anterior, and the other

marked

+coronal, -voiced, +continuant,

+strident]

w i t h the features [+consonantal, -vocalic,

-anterior,

+coronal, +voiced, +continuant,

+strident].

As i t were, the f i r s t list of fea

tures describes the segment [s], and the second describes the segment Before we become pleased w i t h

the generalization

[ž]

afforded by

generative description, we should review the previous section.

the

The ease w i t h

which the generative model handles this development is built upon the d i f f i culties of those that came before.

Moreover, as in the functional description,


199

we have once more created two new segments. In the dynamic analysis, on the other hand, no new segments and i n deed no new categories of any kind are created in the prediction t h a t ,

for

example, the word [tsain] 'chain' may someday undergo spirant mutation in the phrase * [ i : š'ain] 'his chain'.

A l l that is needed in this analysis is to complete

the incorporation of the position of obstruction { } (here, once again, simply a symbol to represent the palatal-alveolar position of obstruction), as in figure 8.8 (below).

Figure 8.8: {J} Relationships 3

A t this point a segmentalist should object.

A f t e r a l l , in the previous

section I made i t quite clear that the palatal-alveolar ({ }) position of obstruc tion includes an articulator configuration that naturally results in the release perceived by the segmentalist as the f r i c a t i v e portion of an a f f r i c a t e .

Now,

one might object that I am attempting to neglect this aspect of the opposition member in order to create the appropriate results. Indeed, the fact

that

the obstruction is effected w i t h an apico- or

lamino-palatal-alveolar configuration does result in the characteristic release. But let us not forget that this position without

the release would s t i l l pro

duce the same sound as the release in the event of one of the mutations in question.

This is to say that where our hypothetical segmental * / t ' / would be

200


realized in spirant mutation as * [ š ' ] , the hypothetical likewise be realized in the environment

segment * / š ' /

of spirant mutation as

would

*[š']

In a

single position of obstruction, * [ š ' ] plus * [ š ' ] would simply result in * [ š ' ] (com pare the process of coalescence described in chaps. 9 and 13, below). Thus, in the dynamic phonological model and in accordance w i t h p r i n ciples of dynamic coarticulatory constraint, we can predict the f u r t h e r

incor

poration of the obstruction position { } w i t h the addition of not a single addi tional element.

The realization of { 1h} and { 4h} would give us the soft muta

tion of [ am] 'jam' as * [ ž ' a m ] and it would give us the spirant mutation

of

[cain] 'chain' as *[s'ain] without adding a single segment and without any ad ditional features or relationships. As before, what the segmentalist may perceive as a segment is nothing more than the combined acoustic effects of prosodic constraint — the c o a r t i c ulatory influences of the constraining element on the position within the syl lable.

This description, then, is not only simpler and more general, it is also

more in keeping w i t h phonetic f a c t . While the most important

aspect of this analysis from the point

view of the dynamic phonologist is its faithfulness to phonetic r e a l i t y

of and

through that its r e l i a b i l i t y as real sound analysis and sound-system analysis, to the segmentalist this analysis should indicate ever more strongly that notional segmentalism works no better language events. ancy

between

than notional grammar in accounting for

real

In keeping w i t h the Anderson requirement, such a discrep

the segmental generalization

and

the nonsegmental

dynamic

generalization should finally convince the segmentalist to abondon this strong hold of linguistic notionalism.

CHAPTER 9

COALESCENCE OF POSITIONS - WELSH ECLIPSIS

9.1

Introduction

In chap. 5.5, above, we saw very briefly how some provective changes have occurred in Welsh through a process called coalescence, or in more gen eral terms what is traditionally Lockwood 1972:28).

called the portmanteau realization (compare

Of course, in dynamic phonology this process of merger

affects not segments, but various features that come together in a single po sition within the syllabic frame. With the background in the Welsh morphophonological mutation system provided by the previous two chapters, we can now address a large-scale ap plication of historical coalescence, one that has in f a c t created the nasal mutation relationship in Modern Welsh.

As usual, an examination of this phe

nomenon reveals that it cannot be described segmentally, but it can be an alyzed quite adequately in dynamic phonology (see G r i f f e n 1984). example of coalescence is found in chap. 13, below.

A further

That analysis, though,

regards synchronic productive coalescence found in the a l l i t e r a t i v e poetry of Welsh and is used as an example of dynamic analysis in poetics. As we shall be concerned w i t h the effects of nasal mutation and its historical development in eclipsis, it would be best in the following analysis

202


simply to use broad notation — the intermediate (phonemic) level in genera tive phonology (as in Schane 1973).

There is no significant insight to be

gained segmentally by the use of narrow notation; and in f a c t , this would add complications to the segmental analysis.

'As I have handled these complica

tions in chap. 5 and would rather concentrate on the issue at hand here, l i t t l e would be gained by getting off the track simply to repeat the deficiency a l ready noted.

9.2

Early Welsh Eclipsis

In the development of Early Welsh from Brythonic, one of the more salient patterns of sound change was a process called eclipsis (used here to designate the historical change as in Lewis &. Pedersen 1974:119).

Eclipsis

occurred when a grammatical p r o c l i t i c function word attached its f i n a l nasal to a word beginning w i t h a stop consonant - - / p / , / t / , / k / , / b / , / d / , / g / .

The

nasal acted thus as a separate, more intimate p r o c l i t i c , as we see in the the fy n- representation of Jackson (1953:641-43), in which the function word is interpreted as attaching the nasal to the following word if the proper condi tions obtained. /

Under these conditions, the i n i t i a l / p / , / t / , and / k / changed to

h / , / h / , and / h / , respectively; and the i n i t i a l / b / , / d / , and / g / changed to

/ m / , / n / , and / g / , respectively. For example, in Middle Welsh we find the combination of the preposi tion yn ' i n ' (< Old Welsh (h)i, in) w i t h the place name caer Ilion w r i t t e n as ynqhaer Ilion and pronounced w i t h the single nasal in /ә ha:ir li:on/ (see Watkins 1957:143,149-50). Likewise, when the f i r s t person singular possessive adjective _fy_ (< Brythonic *men) was placed before the possessed noun (at least when the noun began w i t h / b / , / d / , or / g / — see, for example, Morris Jones 1913:172-73, Morgan 1952:156), the [n] was separated from the adjec tive and attached directly to the noun, bringing about this eclipsis. Thus, we find in Middle Welsh vyggwreic /vә w r e i g / 'my w i f e ' (Lewis & Pedersen 1947:119; on orthography, see Watkins 1968) from the Middle Welsh noun

qwreic / g w r e i g / ' w i f e ' , and we find in Modern Welsh fy ngwraig /vsg (/ә

w

raig/).

raig/

Welsh Eclipsis

203

In the process of eclipsis, the final nasal disappeared, and the cause of eclipsis was eliminated.

Y e t , as can be seen in the examples above (and as

explained f u r t h e r in the final section below), the process remained and indeed remains in Welsh as the morphophonological relationship

of nasal mutation.

Thus, for example, when the word tad / t a d / ' f a t h e r ' follows the f i r s t person singular possessive adjective _fy_ / v a / (/ә/), in which there is no longer a nasal ending, the noun 'mutates' to nhad / had/.

The same may be said of

other words which (in

nasal

most dialects) effect

the

mutation — saith /sai θ/

'seven' (< *septan), naw / n a u / 'nine' (< * n a an), deg / d e g / ' t e n ' (< *dekan), and cant / k a n t / 'hundred' (< *kanton) (see Watkins 1961:65).

To be sure, the

nasal does remain in the word yn / a n / ' i n ' , but this is only a w r i t i n g conven tion (see Watkins 1957, Morris Jones 1913:172-73).

9.3

Segmental Description of Eclipsis

In dealing w i t h what is going to be an extremely complex and proble matical analysis for segmental phonology, we ought not to lose sight of pre cisely how segmental phonology works.

B r i e f l y , segmental phonology

use of symbols representing individual sound segments, or phonemes.

makes These

phonemes are strung together to represent syllables and words in speech.

For

example, in the word tad / t a d / ' f a t h e r ' , we find three phonemes — / t / , / a / , and / d / .

Each is composed of its own inherent distinctive features: / t / is a

voiceless

aspirated dental stop consonant, / a /

is a low central

unrounded

vowel, and /d/ is a voiced unaspirated dental stop consonant. While the features that

make up the phonemes have been precisely

determined in physiological and acoustic phonetic experiments, the bundling of these features themselves into discrete segments has no phonetic basis.

I t has

been done, though, because it provides the analyst w i t h a convenient organi zational structure for the features.

Moreover, these phonemes are quite f a

miliar to phonologists, for they are in f a c t l i t t l e more than precisely

cate

gorized letters of the International Phonetic Alphabet. In describing the historical change involved in Early Welsh eclipsis, the segmental phonologist formulates the rules governing the change in terms of

204


the segmental phonemes directly involved in the change and in terms of their positions in the string of phonemes forming the syntagm.

This s t r u c t u r a l ap

proach produces a description that is relatively easy for the layman to under stand, as i t is stated basically in l e t t e r s . Thus, the process of eclipsis can be described segmentally in the f o l lowing transformational generative formulae:

/p/

[mh]

/

#

Ν

/t/

[ h]

/

#

Ν

/k/

[ h]

/

#

Ν

/b/

[m]

/

#

Ν

/d/

[n] /

# Ν

/g/

[ ]

#

/

Ν

These formulae can be read in the following manner:

/ p / is r e w r i t t e n as (or

simply becomes) [mh] in the environment preceding a nasal at the beginning of o a word, / t /

becomes [ h] in the environment preceding a nasal at the be

ginning of a word, etc. By making use of features, we can make the rule much simpler.

The

first three formulae a f f e c t voiceless aspirated stops, changing them to voice less aspirated nasals.

The second three formulae a f f e c t voiced

stops, changing them to voiced unaspirated nasals. six formulae into one general rule as follows:

unaspirated

Thus, we can reduce the

Welsh Eclipsis

205

(1)

This states that any stop (marked as [-continuant]) becomes nasal (is specified by the feature [+nasal]) in the environment stated above.

Because we do not

specify voice and aspiration, these two features are simply unaffected by the rule.

Consequently, if the stop is voiceless and aspirated, the nasal is voice

less and aspirated; if the stop is voiced and unaspirated, so is the nasal (see chap. 7). As noted above, the process of eclipsis also included the deletion of the motivating nasal.

We must therefore add another rule to accommodate

this, as follows:

(2)

This rule states that a nasal (a segment marked [+nasal]) is deleted (becomes the null) at the beginning of a word and before another nasal.

The second

nasal must be stated in the environment, as this is what resulted from the eclipsis rule above. While they may mechanically work, these rules are nonetheless proble matical.

Because of the way in which s t r u c t u r a l segmental phonology op

erates, we are r e s t r i c t e d to one rule on one segment at one time.

Thus, the

f i r s t rule must precede the second, as the nasal must be present for the eclip sis rule to operate, and the eclipsis must have occurred for the nasal deletion rule to operate. Although this practice

of

positing

one rule

to

follow

another may

serve to give a description of the states before and after the process (before the f i r s t rule and after the second), i t offers no explanation at a l l regarding how the change occurred or why.

This shortcoming stems from the f a c t that

s t r u c t u r a l segmental phonology is concerned only w i t h the phonemes on either

206


side of the arrow as complete s t r u c t u r a l entities.

There is no mechanism by

which the actual process of change can be observed, described, and explained. The reason for this lack of explanatory capacity is that this t r a d i t i o n al phonology is segmental.

Speech as it is produced and as it is perceived is

nonsegmental, and the processes that govern sound change are not restricted to the a r t i f i c i a l orthographic boundaries so necessary for segmental phonology to operate.

In order to determine how and why Early Welsh eclipsis occurred,

then, we must look beyond the limitations of the segment. It is important to note that the problem I have described here is not at all limited to the notational idiosyncrasies of the transformational genera tive model, although the notational devices and requirements of this model do tend to illustrate the general segmental problem better than do the devices and requirements of most other schools.

Indeed, those models that simply use

segments and more general descriptions of processes (as we f i n d , for example, in the traditional methods of item-and-arrangement structuralism — compare Bloomfield 1933, Hockett 1958) tend to avoid the appearance of

inadequacy

simply by

(historical)

virtue

of

their

lack of detail in

the description

of

processes. The problem

for

segmental

description

in historical

linguistics

lies

mainly in the f a c t that the segmental sounds of this theory do not change gradually.

That is to say that one sound does not change to another in stages

-- in the problem at hand, for example, the / p / does not become slightly nasal one year, more nasal the next, and finally completely nasal.

As Hoenigswald

(1960:72-73) points out, the prephonemic theory of gradualness is quite unten able, as phonemic sounds change directly from one segment to another (com pare also A n t t i l a 1972:77).

In generative terms, sound change is abruptly en

acted by the change in a rule, and then the entire change spreads gradually from speaker to speaker (King 1969:106-19). While I would certainly not contend that sound change is gradual (a notion that, although prephonemic, also presupposes a segment that changes gradually), the notion that one phonemic segment replaces another in itself tells us nothing about the manner in which the change is e f f e c t e d . gives us only a before-and-after representation:

Indeed, it

In one generation people said

Welsh Eclipsis

207

/ ρ / , but in the next they said /

h/.

Although generative phonology claims to offer more insights into sound change by virtue of its feature specifications, the insights are not

explana

tions, but merely descriptions of the differences between the phonemic seg ment before and the phonemic segment after.

In r e a l i t y , the nasalization rule

above simply states that the segment / p / changed to the segment / rationalization

h/.

The

that this was a change in the specification of the nasal f e a

ture tells us nothing that is not obvious and offers no more explanation that a ' - ' changing to a ' ' (compare A n t t i l a 1972:129). Not only does segmental phonology offer no explanation of change, but it implicitly adds a considerable amount of complexity to this type of sound change.

C e r t a i n l y , what we see happening in Early Welsh is the simultaneous

coalescence of two segments (as opposed to the two-step procedure in Irish eclipsis — compare Pokorny 1969:11).

I f we are going to describe such a pro

cess in terms of whole segments that change abruptly, then we must devise some way consistent

w i t h segmental theory to do this.

The complexity i n

volved in such a description of segments somehow melting together would be too great to bear any p r a c t i c a l explanatory adequacy.

9.4

Eclipsis in Dynamic Analysis

Dynamic phonology is, as explained in chap. 2, an outgrowth of modern dynamic phonetics (for example Mermelstein 1973).

Rather than bundling f e a

tures into discrete segmental phonemes in neat sequential strings, dynamic phonology simply organizes the features as they have been found to occur in the actual production and transmission of speech sound.

Given the apparent

complexity of a change by coalescence (at least in the segmental approach), it might be best very briefly

to summarize those main points of the dynamic

model that bear most directly upon the problem at hand. In dynamic analysis, we recognize the f a c t that the basic element of speech sound (acoustically, the fundamental frequency) is produced as the airstream coming up from the lungs is constrained at the larynx.

This sound is

further constrained in the oral c a v i t y , producing the vowels by the position of

208


the tongue body, lips (in protrusion), and jaw (in height).

These vowels form

the s t r u c t u r a l basis of the syllable, the organizational unit of speech (compare Mermelstein 1975). structions.

The syllable is further constrained by consonantal ob

This natural pattern of speech divides itself into three divisions —

the laryngeal division ( a c t i v i t y of the larynx), the syllable division (vocalic configurations), and the obstruction division (consonantal constraints). Furthermore, each division is itself constrained by more precise, finer uses of the apparati, creating modifications (prosodies) to the sounds produced by constraint.

For example, the slight changes in laryngeal constraint of the

airstream produce a pattern of p i t c h and stress. ody is

traditionally

known

as intonation.

This phonation pattern pros

Moreover, when such pitch and

stress are pertinent to the syllable, they are realized as syllable prosodies. Obstruction prosodies include degree of closure, nasality, voice, aspiration, etc.

Each prosody makes use of the physiology involved in its own division or

in a constrained division. We have represented this pattern of constraint found in speech pro duction and perception in figure 2.1 (p. 44, above).

As the syllable is the

organizational unit of speech, and hence of the dynamic phonological model, the features are organized into the syllabic frame shown in figure 2.2 (ibid.). Because it employs only observable processes of speech production and perception without introducing abstract phonemic f i c t i o n s , dynamic phonolog ical analysis can provide us not only w i t h the before-and-after sound change, but also w i t h the capability of looking within

views of a

the process to

see how it occurs and to consider why it might occur. In our dynamic analysis of Early Welsh eclipsis, we organize the phonologically pertinent features into the syllabic frame.

In this case, we are

concerned only w i t h the pertinent features of the i n i t i a l obstruction pattern (cluster), which includes the p r o c l i t i c nasal prosody constraining obstruction.

a primary

By primary obstruction, I refer to those fully mutative positions

— labial ({b}), dental ({d}), and velar ({g}) — as described in the treatment of Modern Welsh mutation in chap. 7.3 above (see also G r i f f e n 1976b).

The

change, then, is represented in the obstruction portion of the a f f e c t e d syl lable in figure 9.1 (opposite)

Welsh Eclipsis

209

Figure 9 . 1 : Old Welsh Eclipsis

In this f i g u r e , 1 represents the primary obstruction positions, {n} r e p resents the nasal prosody, and {h} represents an unspecified degree of aspira tion.

As I have demonstrated in chap. 5 (see also in G r i f f e n 1977a), Welsh

maintains a system of fortis-lenis tension based upon the degree of aspiration, such that the lowest degree of aspiration ({ln}) constraining an obstruction produces the e f f e c t found medially in iddo

/ido/

' t o him', the second degree

of aspiration ({2h}) constraining an obstruction produces the e f f e c t found i n i t i ally in de / d e / ' r i g h t ' , the third degree of aspiration ({3h}) constraining

the

obstruction produces the e f f e c t found i n i t i a l l y in te / t e / ' t e a ' , and the f o u r t h degree of aspiration ({4h}) constraining the obstruction produces the

effect

210


found medially in ithyn / i θ i n / ' a t o m ' .

In this position in Early Welsh, the p r i

mary obstructions could have been constrained only by the second or

third

degree of aspiration ({2h} or {3h}); thus, by leaving the number out of

the

frame, I state that the degree of aspirate' prosody present in this situation is not pertinent -- it can be either {2h} or {3h}. The change that was involved in eclipsis was one of coalescence -- the two obstructions merged into one. was pure and simple.

In this coalescence, moreover, the process

The nasal ending of the grammatical function word a t

tached itself as a close p r o c l i t i c of the head word in the phrase.

Historically,

the obstruction constrained by the nasal prosody would have already become homorganic

w i t h the

following obstruction (as r e f l e c t e d orthographically

in

the representation of Welsh yn), so the obstructions would have been free to merge. In the prosodic portion of the obstruction division, the nasal prosody simply joined w i t h the pertinent degree of aspiration. {2hn}, and {n} + {3h} became {3hn}.

Thus, {n} + {2h} became

For example, grammatical governance by

the preposition yn was realized in combination w i t h the Middle Welsh caer Ilion as ynghaer Ilion

/ә

ha:ir

i:on/,

and possession by the f i r s t person sin

gular possessive adjective reconstructed as Brythonic *men was realized in combination /vә

w

with

Middle

Welsh

qwreic

r e i g / 'my w i f e ' (as cited above).

/gwreig/

'wife'

as

vyqgwreic

The same type of merger can be found

in the Modern Welsh process of provec tion, especially

as it appears in the

poetry rules of the cynghanedd (compare chap. 13, below; see also

Griffen

1981c). This analysis, then, serves not only to describe what form changed to what form, but it also serves to explain how the change came about.

The

final obstruction of the p r o c l i t i c function-word syllable came to be associated more w i t h the i n i t i a l obstruction of the head word of the phrase than w i t h its (historically) own syllable.

This close association brought about the natural

coalescence of the obstructions as they merged into the same position — i n i t i a l position constraining the f i r s t syllable of the head word. Insofar as the phonological facts are concerned, the manner in which the change occurred indeed reveals the reason why it occurred.

I t occurred

Welsh Eclipsis

211

because the i n f l e c t i v e nasal ending became associated w i t h the following syl lable. this

I f we examine other changes occurring at the same time, we find that analysis

is corroborated, for

inflectional

endings were

throughout the language, due to the loss of f i n a l syllables. analysis

being

dropped

Thus, the dynamic

reveals the underlying causes of change and suggests

associations

with other parallel changes occurring simultaneously in Early Welsh. The enhanced descriptive and explanatory capabilities of dynamic pho nology derive from the fact that

this approach proceeds from the phonetic

detail of which speech is composed. mental approach

fails

to reveal

the

On the other hand, the traditional seg explanation

and

even the process of

change because, in limiting itself to the abstract f i c t i o n of the phonemic seg ment, it cannot reach beyond the level of f i c t i v e abstraction into the level of the subject itself — speech sound.

9.5

Nasal M u t a t i o n and Eclipsis in Modern Welsh

As briefly

mentioned above, the process of eclipsis in Early

Welsh

gave rise to the phenomenon of nasal mutation in later stages of the guage.

lan

Whereas eclipsis was an active process of merger (as demonstrated in

the previous section), nasal mutation is perhaps best described as a system of marking due to grammatical environment. In positions that had effected eclipsis, the nasal sounds remained and became associated w i t h these positions as a sort of grammatical

inflection

(compare the development of soft mutation in Morris Jones 1913:161).

For

example, when the preposition yn /әn/ ' i n ' is combined w i t h a noun, the i n i t i a l consonant undergoes nasal mutation as in the sentence Mae Idris yn Nyfed /ma:i idris әnәved/ 'Idris is in Dyfed'.

On the other hand, when the function

word yn / a n / is not a preposition but an aspect marker, there is no nasal mu t a t i o n , as in the sentence Mae Idris yn dod /ma:i- idris әn dod/ 'Idris is com ing' (dod ' t o come'). Thus, the nasal mutation (as is the case w i t h all of the mutations) is a morphophonological operation (compare Hamp 1951, Pilch 1958), w i t h the pho nological realization dependent upon, the grammatical environment (see A w -

212


bery 1975) and even upon the lexicon (see A. R. Thomas 1966:103-5).

In this

last point (the determination of which words effect the nasal mutation), we find the greatest amount of difference among the various dialects and indeed among idiolects (compare Phillips 1969; also Davies 1939, Pilch 1957). In saying that the nasal mutation is now a marking phenomenon, I mean that the nasality does not come from one word to be shifted to the other, but rather

that this nasality is inherent

to the grammatical environment

and is

attached to the word in this grammatical environment (which, as demonstrated in Awbery 1975, may be far removed from the 'surface' information imparted by the sound system).

For example, the nasal is no longer to be found in the

possessive adjective fy /vә/ 'my'.

Y e t , when a word is to be possessed by the

first person singular, it is marked for nasality — thus, tad / t a d / ' f a t h e r ' is marked by nasality in nhad / n h a d / 'my father' and brawd / b r a u d / 'brother' is marked by nasality in mrawd / m r a u d / 'my brother', whether or not the posses sive is actually stated.

As i t were, where we find aspiration, nasality is sim

ply added to yield nasal aspiration; and where we find no aspiration, nasality is again added as a prosody by itself. That this is a marking and not the application of some nasal in the environment is quite clear w i t h the application of fy / v ә / 'my' itself.

As

pointed out by Morgan (1952:156 — see also Morris Jones 1913:172-73, among others), the loss of the / n / from Brythonic *men occurred in such a way that the voiced unaspirated consonants underwent the eclipsis and subsequent nasal mutation, but the voiceless aspirated consonants did not.

Thus, we find M i d

dle Welsh vi-mrid / vәm r i d / 'my intent' w i t h the nasal mutation but vy pen / v a ben/ 'my head' w i t h o u t (Morris Jones ibid.).

The extension of the nasal muta

tion to the voiceless aspirates was accomplished, then, by analogy — not by any active process of eclipsis.

That is, the modern realization of the latter

example as fy mhen /vә hen/ is due to the recognition by the speakers of Early Modern Welsh that the grammatical environment (and not the phonetic) demanded the addition of nasality to the obstruction prosodies (just as i t was already added w i t h voiced unaspiration and also within the word). Perhaps the clearest

examples of the nature of nasal mutation as a

marking phenomenon can be seen in the dialects of Modern Welsh.

The most

Welsh Eclipsis

213

insightful of these for our purposes is the D y f f r y n Nantlle dialect as described by R. O. Jones (1971:168-69) and treated in detail in the previous chapter. we see in that chapter, the English affricates / c / (or

/

As

) and / / (or / d / )

have been borrowed and have, as in a great many other dialects, entered the Welsh system to the point that the l a t t e r is taken as the soft mutation form of the former.

For example, the word /č o p / 'chop' w i l l undergo soft mutation

to ) op/ in a suitable grammatical environment, such as following the person singular masculine possessive adjective — / i

third

op/ 'his chop'.

The D y f f r y n Nantlle dialect, however, has gone f u r t h e r than other dia lects in accepting the affricates.

In environments of nasal mutation, / c o p /

becomes / hop/, as the word / ob/ 'job' becomes / n o b / . "The morphophonemic

As Jones points out,

change involved w i t h mutation is therefore

a simple

case of nasalization; i.e.

aspirated plosives unaspirated plosives

aspirated nasals · unaspirated nasals" ( G r i f f e n 1974:159).

Thus, the nasal mutation clearly identifies itself as a marking phenom enon: The grammatical environment dictates the application of nasality (as a marking), and this marking is simply applied to any appropriate phonetic envi ronment as the phonetic environment may be assimilated into the Welsh sys tem ( G r i f f e n 1974:163-64). This is not to say, however, that historical eclipsis is not to be found in Modern Welsh.

There is in f a c t a case of i n i t i a l eclipsis so widespread in

the dialects that it has become a part of the Cymraeg Byw, the attempt to develop a new colloquial standard (see, for example, Rhys Jones 1977:39 et passim).

In many dialects (and in Cymraeg Byw) the phrase maent hwy /ma:int

hui/ 'they are' has changed to maen nhw /ma:(i) h u / . First of a l l , it should be f a i r l y clear that the change maent hwy > maen nhw is not a case of nasal mutation as such.

For nasal mutation to ap

ply, there would have to be a set grammatical environment calling for marking by the nasal obstruction change in Modern Welsh.

prosody.

On the contrary,

this is an

historical

214


The change could have occurred through the reassignment of the f i n a l cluster in maent to the i n i t i a l obstruction position of hwy. in mae nthwy /ma:i- n t h u i / .

This would result

I f we examine the phonetic environment involved,

we find that i t is precisely the same as that found in the Early Welsh eclipsis described above — it is simply arrived upon by an indirect method. In this analysis, the / t / (which in Welsh is a realization of aspiration constraining the dental obstruction, or {dh} — compare A. R. Thomas 1966) is f i r s t reassigned to the following syllable, and the aspiration of the following syllable coalesces w i t h obstruction prosody of the reassigned obstruction (see also p. 217, below).

This can be illustrated as in figure 9.2 (below)

Figure 9.2: Modern Welsh Eclipsis, Step 1 of First A l t e r n a t i v e

Welsh Eclipsis

215

Next, the / n / is interpreted exactly as is the / n / in the Early Welsh eclipsis p a t t e r n .

I t becomes a p r o c l i t i c

to the following word (for reasons

explained below).

Thus, we find the same process as that involved in the t r a

ditional eclipsis, illustrated in figure 9.3 (below)

Figure 9.3: Modern Welsh Eclipsis, Step 2 of First A l t e r n a t i v e

An alternative analysis would have shifting as a unit.

the / n t /

(that is to say, {ndh})

In this case, the / n / would have to be interpreted as a

nasal prosody in the i n i t i a l obstruction position, where a cluster of separate obstructions would not be acceptable in Welsh.

Thus, the nasal prosody would

necessarily be reinterpreted as a direct constraint on the dental obstruction. The following / h / would, as before, be automatically

interpreted as the ob-

216


struction prosody of aspiration.

In this case, though, the aspiration would a l

ready be realized to the heightened degree that is t y p i c a l of the nasal mu tated forms.

This process is illustrated in figure 9.4 (below)

Figure 9.4: Modern Welsh Eclipsis, Second A l t e r n a t i v e

The reason why such a change would take place is rather transparent. In Welsh, the corresponding third person singular form of the verb bod / b o d / 'to be' is mae / m a : i / .

In all instances in which the t h i r d person plural is used,

it is this singular form that is realized, except in the case of the pronoun subject.

For example, we have the phrases mae bechqyn /matt bexgin/ 'the

boys are' but maent hwy > maen nhw 'they are' (although the same semantic subject may be understood).

Thus, there is a strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the plur-

Welsh Eclipsis

217

al as well as of the singular w i t h the form mәe.

As the n in maen is simply

an orthographic device (following the general nasal mutation patterns

noted

above), it is indeed the mae form that would be realized phonetically in maen nhw /ma:(i) h u / . Furthermore, there is a phonetic reason as well as the aforementioned morphological reason for the change.

The form mae /matt/ has a marked long

nuclear vowel (as is emphasized even in the orthography — see Morris Jones 1942:19).

As such, it tends to belong to an open syllable.

When the phrase

mәent hwy, then, is pronounced in connected speech, there is phonetic pres sure for the final obstruction to be joined w i t h the following syllable, thus creating the open syllable. The process probably

did indeed begin w i t h the present-tense

due to the pressure for an open syllable.

form,

In colloquial Welsh today, though,

the same effect may be seen in the grammatical forms of the other tenses; for example, we find a similar change from ydynt hwy /adint hut/ 'they are' (in nondeclarative sentences) to ydyn nhw /әdi h u / , from byddant hwy / t әda n t hui/ 'they w i l l be' to byddan nhw /bәda h u / , and so f o r t h . I submit that these are analogous forms (and not phonetically

derived

from eclipsis) not only because they lack the long vowel in the affected s y l lable, but also because we find the same phenomenon in the enclitics used in possession and in pronoun objects, where a nasal may not even be present. For example, to say the sentence 'Idris knows them' the p r o c l i t i c

third person

possessive adjective form w i l l precede the verb-noun and the enclitic

form

w i l l follow.

/ma:i

Thus, we have the sentence Mae Idris yn eu nabod nhw

idris an i nabod

h u / in Cymraeg Byw (Rhys Jones 1977:117), w i t h the nhw

/ h u / form (< hwy) following a verb-noun that has never ended in a nasal. This implementation of the change in the t o t a l absence of the phonetic envi ronment for the change clearly indicates the working of analogy. As we have seen in the original Early Welsh eclipsis and in the analog ical leveling of the f i r s t person possessive adjective to accommodate

nasal

mutation, this Modern Welsh eclipsis has indeed extended to f i l l a void as the grammar would indicate.

The inception of this process, however, is (as was

the case in Early Welsh) purely phonetic.

218


Once again, though, if we attempt to account for this process in t r a d i tional segmental terms, we shall find that the description breaks down.

What

we are dealing w i t h here is not the juxtaposition of f i c t i v e segmental entities (discrete bundles of features), but dynamic sound.

In order to analyze this

dynamic sound, we need a dynamic phonological method.

9.6

Conclusion

In dealing w i t h the sound change of coalescence, then, the dynamic phonological model provides us w i t h a method of analysis that captures a sig nificant

linguistic

generalization lost by segmental theory.

While segments

can t e l l us what the alphabetical representation of an obstruction complex is before a change and after a change, it provides us w i t h no mechanism for looking within the coalescence process itself to see how change takes place. When

we describe

and analyze

events

in historical

linguistics,

we

ought not to be satisfied w i t h a mere listing or even a taxonomy of changes, such as that provided by the generative and other schools of notional segmentalism.

What we are interested in in linguistic change is the process of

change, the manner in which the change actually takes place, and reasons why such a change should occur.

This is the generalization of greatest linguistic

significance, and this is the generalization afforded by dynamic analysis yet denied by segmental analysis. Of course, once again, we have satisfied the Anderson requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974:6 — see also pp. 23-26, above) in demonstrating that the segment is deficient in description and analysis precisely where the dynamic approach — recognized as correct yet shunned by Anderson and other seg mentalists on notional grounds — is adequate. As in the analysis of fortis-lenis change (chap. 5.6, above), we see f u r ther that the segmental approach does not and indeed cannot achieve the ex planatory adequacy above).

called for by Chomsky

(1965:25-26

— see pp.

120-21,

If explanatory adequacy is to be defined in terms of the acquisition

of language by the speaker, moreover, then all cases of historical linguistics, whether

they concern such seeming complexities as coalescence or not, are

Welsh Eclipsis

219

necessarily inadequate in the simplistic and atomistic before-and-after alpha betic representations of segmental theory. It is only by examining the evidence of speech sound in its

natural

dynamic organization that we can gain insights into how language is learned, for the child is not born w i t h letters in the brain.

Nor is the child exposed to

letters in speech, but rather to speech sound transmitted and received in ac cordance w i t h principles of dynamic coarticulatory constraint.

CHAPTER 10

CHANGE OF POSITIONS - SLIPS OF THE TONGUE AND METATHESIS

10.1

Introduction

One of the more i n t r i c a t e and complex linguistic phenomena is the slip of the tongue, or lapsis linguae, and its historical manifestation as metathesis. On the surface, no other process of change should be more suited to seg mental phonology, for here we find one entire segment (a whole bundle of features) changing places w i t h another entire segment. Indeed, metathesis is neatly represented historically in the change of position of alphabetical letters.

For example, as we see in the analysis be

low, the Germanic form which we can spell as hros 'horse' changes into Old English hors.

The change then appears to be more suited to the letters

segmental phonology

of

than are those changes described and analyzed in the

preceding chapters. As we see in

the following three

analyses, however,

slips

of

the

tongue and metathesis are far more nonsegmental and indeed far more dynam ic than phonologists have heretofore supposed. quite

These analyses, moreover, are

brief, for in these cases of change of position, the data

make the choice between the segmental and the dynamic easy.

themselves

approaches

rather

222


10.2

Classic Slips of the Tongue

In segmental phonology, speech segments are seen to involve bundles of features inherent to them.

The distinctive features making up the phoneme

are given in the lexicon, and the other features through which the phoneme is realized as an allophone are supplied through transformational rules or allophonic distribution requirements based upon the requisites of the

structural

environment

1951

(that

is,

in

the generative

model following

Harris

and

Chomsky & Halle 1968 or in the t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l model following Bloomfield 1933 -

compare Hockett 1954).

The slip of the tongue, however, is a special case.

Where one struc

tural environment is intended (in the langue of Saussure 1959 or the com petence of Chomsky 1965), another s t r u c t u r a l environment is realized in pro duction (in the parole or performance).

Thus, from a segmental point of view,

a segment that was to be realized in a particular position according to the structure of the word in the lexicon is realized instead in an entirely d i f f e r ent position, one w i t h its own peculiar environmental components. Perhaps the most adequate segmental mode of description for slips of the tongue can be found in the so-called natural phonology of Stampe (1973 — or in the natural generative phonology of Hooper 1976), which of all of the generative approaches best recognizes the role of physiological phonetics.

To

be sure, as Bjarkman (1977) rather pointedly demonstrates, this natural pho nology is in r e a l i t y l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from the t r a d i t i o n a l generative model w i t h the addition of a phonemic level, as practised, for example, by Schane (1973 — also 1971).

That the natural processes of Stampe (1973 — compare Bruck,

Fox & La Galy 1974) do overlap considerably

w i t h the t r a d i t i o n a l rules of

allophonic distribution, though, should only serve to show that the problems with

the segmental

description

could

indeed be

widespread

(compare

pp.

13-14, above). In examining the segmental approach in its natural phonological r e a l ization, let us consider one of Stampe's own examples. h

In attempting to pro

duce the phrase scotch tape [skat∫ t e i p ] , a speaker may

well produce a

Slips of the Tongue and Metathesis

metathesizing

223

performance error, in which the intended utterance h

h

either totch scape [ t a t ∫ sk'eip] or cotch stape [ k a t ∫ steip]. like to

becomes

I should first

examine the realization of p a l a t a l i t y and then to examine that

of

aspiration. As Stampe quite c o r r e c t l y points out, the [ k ] segment in the normal form is not palatal, but in the f i r s t slip version it is palatal.

While t r a d i t i o n

al s t r u c t u r a l transformational phonemics would require a rule in which

the

f

nonpalatal [ k ] is transformed into a palatal [ k ] ([c]) through the r e w r i t i n g of the feature [palatal] from minus to plus, natural phonology recognizes that the palatality

of this [ k ' ] is the result

of a natural process palatalizing

dorsal

consonants occurring before f r o n t vowels. In r e a l i t y , though, the difference between the t r a d i t i o n a l phonological theory and practices (as found, for

example, in Koutsoudas, Sanders & Noll

1974, S. R. Anderson 1974, etc.) and the natural phonology are quite minute. A traditional phonological rule would state the f o l l o w i n g :

This simply says that a consonant is realized as nonback in the envi ronment of a vowel that is also nonback.

This would, of course, result in dor

sal consonants being realized as palatal in the environment of palatal vowels — precisely what the natural phonologist holds as ' n a t u r a l ' . The difference, then, is not at all one of process — in any segmental model, the one segment is changed to (or alternates w i t h , or is so marked or realized as) a palatalized allophonic variant.

The only difference involves the

determination of the precise point or level in the derivation at which the rule (alternation, realization) is to be effected — as an abstract rule or as a sur face 'process'. When we compare this treatment w i t h that in dynamic phonology, how ever, we see just how completely abstract and nonphonetically motivated this segmental representation is.

First of a l l , we should recall from chap. 3 (also

G r i f f e n 1977c) that the palatality of a dorsal obstruction produced as a con-

224


straint upon a front vowel has nothing whatever struction itself.

Where the pertinent

to do w i t h the dorsal ob

mark of the obstruction is dorsality,

then the precise point of constraint on the airstream is purely a matter of the position of the tongue-body in the production of the vowel constrained by this dorsal obstruction. as the obstruction

The palatality is a mark of the front vowel, and insofar is concerned, it is a coarticulated characteristic

of

the

environment that is not at all pertinent to the position of obstruction — the obstruction is dorsal, whether realized in the normal version or in the slip version. One of the most basic advantages of this system is that within the s y l labic frame, characteristics of the consonantal obstructions are a t t r i b u t e d to the obstructions and characteristics of the syllabic

vowels are a t t r i b u t e d to

the vowels, for vocalic characteristics are not mistakenly lumped in w i t h the obstructions through cross-sectional segmentation (compare Fant 1962).

Thus,

as the palatality has nothing whatever to do w i t h the dorsal obstruction, i t need not be entered into the obstruction position of the syllabic simply exists in the coarticulated vocalic

environment

frame.

It

by virtue of being a

vocalic characteristic. Turning our attention now to the aspiration of Stampe's example, a natural phonologist would point out that i t is a natural process of English that causes an i n i t i a l stop to be aspirated and a stop following the sibilant to be unaspirated.

Indeed, this is a significant innovation in transformational pro

cedure, for the traditionalist would have to include the aspiration in w i t h the segment and then delete it after the sibilant.

What the natural phonologist

does, then, is to recognize the effects of the coarticulated environment and to place (in a rather dynamic way) the features of the coarticulated environ ment in the environment, rather than in the segment. Unfortunately, though, the natural phonological innovation does not go far enough.

While it recognizes the f a c t of c o a r t i c u l a t i o n , it does not have

any mechanism w i t h which it can take f u l l · advantage of this f a c t . mental

basis of

the system requires that

The seg

the nonsegmental phenomenon be

realized in the inherent features of a segment and requires further that the segment change its marking from [+aspirated] to [-aspirated] or vice versa, or


225

at least it requires some formal statement of marking for this segment (com pare Vennemann 1972). As I point out w i t h regard to the same situation in Welsh (see G r i f f e n 1976b), however, the 'deaspiration after / s / ' phenomenon is in fact a needless product

of segmental analysis.

The i n i t i a l position of the word is indeed a

position in which the obstruction prosody of aspiration occurs (compare also G r i f f e n 1975b).

This is especially the case in the increased fortis environ

ment involved in the stressed (initial) syllable.

Thus, aspiration becomes a

characteristic of the environment in precisely the same way that the p a l a t a l ity is a characteristic of the environment noted above.

As it is, the aspira

tion does indeed occur in the i n i t i a l (and stressed) position of the slip version as a constraint on the sibilant obstruction, and it

occurs to such a degree

that any aspiration that might occur in constraint of the following obstruction is neutralized (or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , its range is altered). In this slip of the tongue, then, all that has changed is the position of the sibilant obstruction.

The aspiration remains where it is as a character

istic obstruction prosody in that environment — it has not moved, nor has it vanished, nor has it materialized.

If by a slip of the tongue we are to mean

that something is switched around in the syllable or between syllables, then I would certainly maintain that the dynamic nonsegmental model does a far su perior job of describing this phenomenon as a slip of the tongue, without the extraneous slop of potentially

complex natural process, allophonic rules, or

other such formal devices that can only serve to complicate matters where they are not at all complicated in the dynamic phonetic facts. As far as linguistically significant generalizations are concerned (S. R. Anderson 1974:6), the dynamic

model thus provides us w i t h the greater and

even the more descriptive generalization.

In this model, a slip of the tongue

is the change of position of an element (or a complex of elements), and the process is represented thus in the description.

In segmental theory, however,

the slip of the tongue may be represented as the change of position of a seg ment, but it presupposes all sorts of complicated rules or distribution require ments that go along w i t h what should be (and indeed is) a simple process.

226


10.3

Classic Metathesis

In the previous example, we see that segmental analysis of change of position is much more complicated than is the corresponding dynamic analysis. To see just how complicated a segmental analysis of such phenomena can be, let us consider the famous metathesis from the Germanic form hros (as in Old High German) to the Old English hors 'horse' (compare Mitzka 1954:444). A traditional segmental analysis of this metathesis would maintain that the t r i l l segment and the vowel have changed positions. the description, it appears to be very simple and d i r e c t .

On the surface of Moreover, it appears

to be a case in which the transformational mechanics of the r e w r i t e rule can be

used

with

great

precision,

as

in

the

representation

in

figure

10.1

(opposite). Indeed, this analysis appears to be much simpler than a segmentalist would suppose the dynamic analysis to be, for here a consonantal obstruction is actually switching places w i t h a syllabic vowel — the constraining element is being metathesized w i t h the element it is constraining. mental

analysis would appear

at first glance

Thus, the seg

to be the simpler

and

more

direct. A

closer examination of this metathesis, however,

reveals that

rather simple segmental explanation entails not a description of the

the

actual

phonetics of the situation (in spite of the fine array of phonetic features), but a description of the spelling.

The notion that the l e t t e r r is free to leave its

position next to the l e t t e r h, as the l e t t e r s l e f t its position next to the l e t ter c in the previous example, conveniently ignores the f a c t that in the pho netics of the situation this h represents aspiration and voicelessness that a segmental phonologist should be bundling up w i t h the t r i l l into one discrete segment.

As Saussure would put i t , we have committed the single most funda

mental error in phonological analysis by allowing

ourselves

to analyze

the

spelling as if it were the sound (1959:30 — compare also Sturtevant 1917, 1947). In phonetic r e a l i t y , the task facing the segmentalist in accounting for

Figure 10.1: Segmental Metathesis of hros to hors

Slips of the Tongue and Metathesis 227

228


the methathesis involved in the change from hros to hors is indeed an unenvi able one.

Somehow, the segmentalist must j u s t i f y breaking up a single dis

crete segment that is specified [+vocalic, +consonantal, -voice, +aspirated, + t r i l l ] into one discrete cross-sectional segment that is specified [+vocalic, +consonantal, +voice, -aspirated, + t r i l l ] and another discrete

cross-sectional

segment that is specified [-vocalic, -consonantal, +low] (the l a t t e r specified as well for [-voice, +aspirated, - t r i l l ] ) . I f this task can be accomplished without doing irreparable harm to the naturalness of phonology (seen from the segmental point of view) and the gen erality of rules or distribution statements, then the segment in question (or the p a r t i a l segment created from it) can be metathesized w i t h the vowel. That such a thing can be accomplished in a segmental model without its be coming a nonsegmental

model, however,

remains to

be seen.

Indeed,

the

staunch defender of notional segmentalism is in a dilemma here, for the only way to maintain the generalization is to abandon the segment not only in this type of metathesis, but in the overall working of the model as well. In spite of the i n i t i a l impression that a segmentalist might have, the dynamic model can handle this phenomenon simply, d i r e c t l y , and t o t a l l y

in

keeping w i t h the functioning of the system (that is, it loses no generality). First of a l l , the aspiration in i n i t i a l position is a constraint that happens to be coarticulated w i t h the t r i l l .

I f the t r i l l is moved, there is no need for the

aspiration somehow to be cut out or away from it — it simply remains where it is. As for the notion of a consonantal obstruction being metathesized w i t h a vowel, this is only a segmental idea.

In the dynamic model, the change is

only in the position of the t r i l l obstruction opposition member, from syllablei n i t i a l position to syllable-final 'metathesis

position.

Even if

we did have a case of

of consonant and v o w e l ' , moreover, i t would be handled much

more directly and simply as the change of position of the entire obstruction complex, again from syllable-initial position to syllable-final position.

The

notion that segments somehow switch around each other is a segmental one that derives, once more, from the change in spelling as interpreted by early notionalist observers.


229

Finally, we have the alleged problem of the voicelessness that is coarticulated w i t h the t r i l l — from voicelessness in hros to voice in hors.

In hros,

however, the voicelessness is a product of the aspiration, and in hors the voicing is a product of the natural voicing of the syllabic vowel.

In the f i r s t

case, then, voicelessness is perceived by the segmentalist on account of pro sodic constraint; and in the second case, it is perceived by the segmentalist on account

of directional constraint.

In both cases, then, this feature is

simply an element of the environment and does not a f f e c t the t r i l l at all — its inclusion in a cross-sectional segment is simply

the result

of the faulty

process of segmentation. In the dynamic analysis of this classic case of metathesis, then, noth ing has changed except the position of the t r i l l obstruction opposition mem ber.

In the syllabic frame, we would simply move the t r i l l from syllable-ini

t i a l obstruction position to syllable-final.

There has been no change of fea

ture characteristics whatsoever, no additions of any elements, and no dele tions of any elements. I f by metathesis we are to mean a simple change of position, then surely this model handles the phenomenon in precisely the manner we intend — by moving the t r i l l obstruction dynamically and nonsegmentally

from its

coarticulation w i t h the aspirate element to its c o a r t i c u l a t i o n w i t h the priva tion of aspiration and w i t h the presence of plain voicing (phonation) in the vowel. tures

As for the segmental approach, the requirements for separating f e a from one bundle into two, r e w r i t i n g feature specifications, and then

moving what in e f f e c t is a created segment away from a mirror-image clone (that incidentally possesses other idiosyncratic features as well) are require ments that should indeed be very d i f f i c u l t to motivate, at least without mak ing the phonology so powerful as to be unmanageable.

10.4

The Case of Welsh aped

While the foregoing metathesis may be extremely complex and d i f f i c u l t to motivate segmentally, there are to be found metatheses and slips of the tongue that are so complex that they cannot possibly be motivated from a

230


segmental point of view.

Perhaps the clearest example of this can be found

in a slip of the tongue that indeed became institutionalized in metathesis in nineteenth-century Welsh.

The word ateb [ateb] 'answer' widely came to be

mispronounced as aped [aped], and it was even spelled this way, to the extent that it has been entered into the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, the dictionary of the University of Wales (R. J. Thomas 1967:172,226). The segmental analyst would certainly have a d i f f i c u l t time trying to account for this slip.

First of a l l , when the [ t ] changes places w i t h the [b], i t

itself changes to [d]. This part of the metathesis is relatively easy to handle, though, for there is in f a c t a process of archiphonemic neutralization in final position in which voiceless aspirated segments become voiced unaspirated seg ments, due to a neutralization of the aspiration (compare also G r i f f e n 1977e). In using the archiphonemic

neutralization, however, the segmentalist

would s t i l l have to describe this change by rule, marking, r e a l i z a t i o n , or a l ternation.

Thus, as in the classic case of a slip of the tongue, we must enter

rules subsequent to the change.

Such a rule would simply state that [-voice]

is r e w r i t t e n as [+voice] in w o r d - f i n a l position.

While it would work, we find

below that in this particular case, the inclusion of a general rule here a c t u a l ly

obviates

a potentially

dynamic rule

regarding

the other

change (if,

of

course, dynamic facts could be handled in the generative framework, a situa tion that does not appear to be possible — compare G r i f f e n 1983a). The greater problem facing the segmental analyst is explaining how to account for the change of position of the [b] in ateb [ateb] not as [b] (as we should find in a simple metathesis), but as [p] in aped [aped]. the lenition environments that have occurred in the

If we review

history of Welsh (see

chap. 5, above), such a change from the voiced unaspirated segment to the voiceless aspirated segment in intervocalic position and following the stress is completely unnatural and unlikely.

This position in Welsh has always been in

fact a highly productive environment for precisely the opposite change (com pare Jackson 1953, G r i f f e n 1975a). In order to justify such a provection in the Welsh system, we should look for an occurrence of aspiration, in keeping w i t h what we have learned in chap. 5, above (see also G r i f f e n 1980b).

Indeed, such evidence appears to be


231

found in the historical development of the word ateb from the combination of ad [a:d] 'again' and heb [he:b] 'say (archaic)'.

One could argue that at an

abstract level this aspiration is s t i l l there in the word heb, and it causes a similar provection from the metathesized [b] to

[p].

While such an argument

would be quite neat (although, to be sure, it would not be as neat segmentally, but would presuppose a dynamic approach), it would only work so long as the Middle (Medieval) Welsh word heb was around for comparison.

By the

nineteenth century, however, the only form of this word known to the Welsh speaker and thereby available for inclusion in the underlying form or lexicon was eb [e:b], pronounced and spelled without the h [h]. Such a t a c t i c , then, could

be used only as a faulty

rationalization

based upon etymological information not available to the speaker of Modern Welsh.

While such 'reconstructions' (actually, analogic levelings) have

cer

tainly played an important role in the development of Welsh (as we see, for example, in chap. 9, above), forms exist.

they have been possible only

where

analogic

In this case, there is no analogic form.

We are thus faced w i t h the prospect of a change due to metathesis, which involves a process that should be exactly the opposite of what we a c t u ally f i n d .

Segmentally, there is no way either to motivate such a change or

to r a t i o n a l i z e i t after the f a c t in any credible manner. In the

nonsegmental dynamic description, however,

tongue/metathesis causes no problem whatever.

this slip

of

the

As this model has no cross-

sectional segments, change need not be based upon segmentation.

I t is the

individual feature (the member of the pertinent opposition — the fundamental element of this approach) that is involved in the change of position.

A l l we

have to do in the description is to switch around the dental and the labial obstructions within the obstruction portions of the syllabic frames and leave the presence or absence of the obstruction prosody of aspiration where i t is. This is a slip or the tongue or metathesis in its simplest form. This is to say that we simply switch around the {d} and the {b} posi tions of obstruction (again, using these symbols only to designate the position and not to presuppose any coarticulated prosodies).

As it is, whichever posi

tion is in the f i r s t place is c o a r t i c u l a t o r i l y constrained by aspiration — to be

232


perceived by the segmentalist as a voiceless aspirated stop.

Whichever posi

tion is in the second place (quite independent from neutralization, which is here somewhat misleading to the segmentalist) is coarticulatorily

constrained

by no aspiration (actually, by the weaker member -- as in chap. 5, above) -to be perceived by the segmentalist as a voiced unaspirated stop. perception of the segmentalist

This mis-

is, once again, the result of the predictable

effects of prosodic constraint. In this case of change of position, we thus find that the segmental approach cannot handle the data, much less achieve any significant generalization.

linguistic

On the other hand, the dynamic analysis is d i r e c t , simple, and

fully in keeping w i t h principles of real dynamic phonetics.

10.5

Conclusion

The conclusions to be offered here regarding significant linguistic gen eralizations (the Anderson requirement -- see chap. 1.5, above) and explana tory adequacy (the Chomsky requirement -- see chap. 5.6, above), are basical ly the same as those already stated in the conclusion of the previous chapter. There is, however, a more fundamental issue that ought to be addressed — that of simple descriptive adequacy. As noted by Chomsky (1965), the more desirable explanatory adequacy is to be built upon the foundation of descriptive adequacy.

Moreover, the

Anderson requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974:6) that a nonsegmental dynamic analysis achieve linguistically significant insights unobtainable by the old seg mental methods presupposes that the analyses involved should in f a c t describe what is going on.

In neither case does the segmental theory hold any claim to

credence at a l l . In the classic case of metathesis and in the case of Welsh aped, the segmental theory fails to offer

explanations and fails to capture

significant

generalizations (true to a lesser degree in the classic case of slips of tongue) because it fails to account at all for the phenomena.

the

It is not merely

another case of dynamic nonsegmental theory's superiority in analysis and de scription over the notional segmental theory, but i t is a case of dynamic the-


233

ory's ability and segmental theory's inability to account for the most basic change of position -- what the dynamic model describes as a simple change in the position of two or even of one element. What a segmentalist would at f i r s t glance have claimed to be one of the best justifications for segmental description thus becomes perhaps one of the worst.

Indeed, segmental phonology cannot even handle changes that are

apparently segmental in nature. Thus, the question is not:

How can we handle slips of the tongue and

metathesis in a model without the traditional cross-sectional segment? Rather the question is:

How can anyone maintain the traditional cross-sectional seg

ment in the light of the evidence provided by slips of the tongue and metath esis?

While the segmental models handle these phenomena w i t h clumsy machi

nery and questionable or nonexistent motivation (which is to say, it does not handle them), the nonsegmental dynamic model handles them simply, d i r e c t l y , and true to the tenets of s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l theory and to the significant contributions made by feature analysis.

CHAPTER 11

VOWEL AFFECTION - OLD HIGH GERMAN UMLAUT

11.1

Introduction

In segmental phonology, vowel a f f e c t i o n (or umlaut) is described as a process in which a feature of one vowel affects the corresponding feature of a neighboring vowel, bringing about a p a r t i a l or t o t a l assimilation (compare Holtzmann 1977 for more t r a d i t i o n a l descriptions).

Perhaps the classic

ex

ample of vowel affection can be found in the Germanic languages (see Paul 1975:209-16, Cercignani 1980), particularly

in Old High German umlaut (see

especially King 1969:92-101). In Old High German, vowels were pertinently marked by tongue-body height and by

lip

roundedness (protrusion),

marked by tongue-body depth.

but

they were

not

pertinently

Thus, the syllabic vowel in the word

' w o r m ' was marked by the features high and rounded.

wurm

The plural of this word

was spelled wurmi, w i t h the i-stem ending marked by the features high and unrounded.

As it were, this high unrounded vowel was always

w i t h the feature nonback, or shallow (front).

pronounced

Since speakers could pronounce

this later feature during the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the root vowel without any e f f e c t on the pertinent features of the root vowel, the plural form was actually pro nounced as though i t were spelled wyrmi , as speakers anticipated the nonback

236


feature of the vowel ending.

Because the Middle High German plural was

würme (New High German Würmer), we know that the Old High German plural form would better have been represented as wyrmi, and in the analysis that follows, I shall use this spelling for the sake of c l a r i t y . The phenomenon of vowel a f f e c t i o n is very well explained by r e l a t i o n ships described in the l i t e r a t u r e of experimental dynamic phonetics.

For ex

ample, Mermelstein (1973:1083 — see also p. 30, above) states as one of the fundamental principles of his articulatory model:

Consonants are not defined directly in terms of variable values but by constraints on articulator position relative to the fixed structures. A r t i c u l a t o r s independent of the specific constraints are free to take on positions independent of the consonant under production subject to the requirement that they do not otherwise constrict the vocal t r a c t . As the nonback vocalic

feature of the second vowel can transit the

consonantal obstructions without any e f f e c t upon itself, it can thence simply extend back into the f i r s t vowel by simple anticipation.

Indeed, if there were

no apparently 'intervening' consonants, there would be nothing of particular interest phonologically in vowel a f f e c t i o n . straightforward,

phonetic

fact,

Thus, this phenomenon is a simple,

based upon common

articulatory

habits

of

speakers.

11.2

A Segmental Analysis

I t is interesting to see what t r a d i t i o n a l segmental phonology has done w i t h such a simple phonetic occurrence as the vowel a f f e c t i o n we find in the above example of Old High German umlaut.

In most models, this phenomenon

is handled through a choice, alternation, or transformation of one vowel or vo calic feature (or component) in the environment of another vowel or vocalic feature (or component).

For example, we may posit the following generative

s t r u c t u r a l rule for Old High German umlaut:

Old High German Umlaut

This

237

is to say that a vowel segment is specified

w i t h the

feature

[-back] if it precedes any number of consonantal segments and a following vowel segment also specified w i t h the feature [-back].

(Compare the rule in

King 1969:61.) While

this

description

may

differ

significantly

in

many

important

aspects from descriptions in other segmental models, for the purposes of i l lustrating how the segmentality of phonology affects the analysis, we can i n deed accept i t as representative of segmental theory in general (such issues as mutation versus realization as in Lamb 1975, features versus phonemes as documented in V. B. Makkai 1972, etc. aside).

Indeed, whether we say that

an (abstract) underlying segment is r e w r i t t e n w i t h the feature [-back], an un derlying archisegment is w r i t t e n w i t h

the feature [-back], a fundamentally

[+back] segment is r e w r i t t e n as a [-back] segment, the pertinent archiphoneme is realized phonetically

w i t h the feature [-back], a [+back] segment is sup

planted by a [-back] segment, a choice is made for

the marked [-back] seg

ment in lieu of the unmarked [+back] segment, or a [-back] segment is chosen for reasons of complementary distribution over a [+back] segment, the basic segmental t a c t i c is actuated by a segmental environment:

Beyond the n-num

ber of consonants is a vowel that effects the phenomenon (or that necessarily coöccurs w i t h i t ) . A closer examination of this description reveals t h a t , while i t may be a fine 'algebraic' representation of result, it does nothing but obfuscate the real phonetic processes that form the cause.

I t is therefore not explanatory,

nor even descriptively adequate (in the terms of Chomsky 1965 — see chaps. 9.6 and 10.5, above). According to this generative description ( w i t h analogous variations in other segmental models), some feature of the vowel beyond the consonant(s) leaps back over the consonant(s) and affects the vowel in question, causing i t

238


to be realized w i t h the feature [-back].

A c t u a l l y , this c r i t i q u e is rather too

generous in that it supplies the unwritten j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the affection -- the actual s t r u c t u r a l description does not even go so far as to explain why the vowel is a f f e c t e d , save for the collective peculiarities of the s t r u c t u r a l envi ronment.

(It therefore lacks the explicitness called for in such a formal gram

mar -- compare Lyons 1968:155, Chomsky 1964.) Granting an assumption of cause implicit in the description (but r e a l i z ing that it is really not there), we find ourselves analyzing vowel a f f e c t i o n by the process of a feature leaping over at least one consonant that sits between the two vowels. unfounded.

Such a process, however, is physiologically and acoustically

As pointed out by Mermelstein (1973) and by many others, vowels

are produced by certain movements and configurations of the

tongue-body,

lips, and jaw; and consonants are produced by the obstructionary movements of other articulators (or these used in decidedly d i f f e r e n t ways).

In speaking,

one does not produce a vowel, stop, produce a consonant, stop, and produce a vowel; nor for

that matter

does one d r i f t

through vowel

vowel ( w i t h the phoneme targets of D. Jones 1962).

to consonant

to

Rather, one produces the

syllable by a r t i c u l a t i n g the vowel and by simultaneously obstructing this vowel i n i t i a l l y and/or finally by the consonantal articulators. The f a c t is, then, that the consonant in the VCV sequence that forms the environment for vowel affection does not interrupt

the flow from one

vowel to the next, but it is only imposed upon the transition between yowels (at the syllable boundaries).

This description is well supported in the acoustic

l i t e r a t u r e (see, chap. 1 , above), as the vocalic

formants are traced

through

the obstructions from syllable to syllable and are no more interrupted than are the movements of the vocalic articulators

in the oral cavity.

Further

more, as demonstrated by Bell-Berti & Harris (1979), the i n i t i a t i o n of the vo calic feature (in this case, roundedness) is performed at a particular time p r i or to the release of preceding obstructions, regardless of the type and number of

those obstructions.

Vowels

are thus produced

according to

their

own

schedules and independently of consonants. In a segmental model, then, the physiological and acoustic facts of the consonant-vowel relationship are misrepresented.

I t is no wonder that the pro-


239

cess of a feature's leaping over a consonant to get at a vowel already pro nounced should indeed produce an image w i t h something of the absurd.

Such

a description is as unacceptable for explanatory purposes as i t is disappointing in view of the phonetic facts, especially in light of the vocal support given by most segmentalists to the inner approach (Jakobson & Halle 1971:19; see also chap. 1.1, above).

11.3

A Semiseqmental Analysis

There are, however, other, less segmental models of phonology.

For

example, the prosodic analysis of the London School (see F i r t h 1948; compare also chap. 12, below) and the use of the quasi-stepmatrix in s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar (see Lockwood 1976, as well as chap. 12, below) both image of a feature (while certainly

jumping over the consonant.

avoid

the

Again, these approaches

having their differences) are close enough in their

prosodic

descriptions to allow one model to be examined as representative of semisegmental models in general for our purposes in this particular analysis. In the prosodie analysis of F i r t h and his followers, we find a semisegmental framework, w i t h the s t r u c t u r a l realization of a sequence of consonants and

vowels, componentially

empty

either the feature [+consonant] or 1975).

except the

for

the

feature

[+segment] and

feature [+vowel] (compare

Mitchell

This s t r u c t u r a l portion of the description suggests several problems (as

pointed out in G r i f f e n in press) and is not necessarily shared by other semisegmental models (or at least, the problematic

areas are not so openly ex

pressed by them). Of greater importance here is the systemic portion of the description, in which the prosodies (or prosodie features/components) are realized across the segments.

This is, after

a l l , the stronger point of comparison

this model and the quasi-stepmatrix.

between

Such a description can be seen in figure

11.1 (p. 240, below), in which gl is glide, h is high, lb is labial, n is nasal, r is rounded, s is shallow (or nonback), and _tr is t r i l l . There are two rather significant problems w i t h this analysis from the standpoint of modern dynamic phonetic

research.

First of a l l , it is a basic

240


Figure 11.1: Prosodic Analysis


241

tenet of phonetics that the vocalic features are constrained by the consonant al.

As Mermelstein points out in the c i t a t i o n above, for example, it has been

found in a r t i c u l a t o r y experiments that consonantal obstructions in no way i n terrupt the vowels they constrain (though, to be sure, there are some p r e d i c t able effects — see, for example, Gay 1977).

Rather, consonantal instructions

are simply imposed upon a continuous vocalic p a t t e r n , yielding a natural d i v i sion of features into a syllabic consonant/vowel hierarchy of constraint.

The

traditional prosodic method does not account for this fundamental difference in feature type at a l l , but quite deliberately lists all prosodies together w i t h out any further organization.

As such, then, it merely records the prosodic

features and their ranges, while ignoring v i t a l relationships among them in the phonetic syllable organization. Moreover, there is an elementary breakdown in the system due to the lack of proper syllable organization in this particular word.

The i n i t i a l conso

nantal obstruction in wurm is marked by lip-roundedness, but one of the func tionally significant features of the Old High German vowel is its use of very same feature.

the

In order to describe this occurrence of roundedness con

straining roundedness, the t r a d i t i o n a l prosodie approach must introduce a glide prosody.

But a glide is neither a prosody nor a feature (or component, as it

would be realized in the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l quasi-stepmatrix).

Rather, it is a seg

ment type — a segmental classification neither consonantal nor vocalic (com pare

the

classificatory

system

in

Chomsky

&

Halle

1966;

see,

however,

M i t c h e l l 1975:35). Thus, under the guise of a systemic prosodie feature is a new s t r u c t u r al element, one that w i l l greatly complicate the system-structure framework, given the well-known acoustic relationship between the recognition of labial obstruction, glide, and vowel as a function of tempo (see Liberman, D e l a t t r e , Gerstman & Cooper 1956). Nonetheless, the prosodie approach does have one clear advantage over the segmental:

I t eliminates the troublesome necessity of a feature's leaping

back over a consonant.

The prosodie feature nonback simply spreads back

over the root vowel directly from the vowel ending (compare the spreading of a consonantal prosody as in chap. 5, above; also G r i f f e n 1975c).

On the other

242


hand, there is no way of telling that this is a fundamentally vocalic phenom enon (as opposed to a consonantal one), as the crucial difference

between

consonant and vowel is not even clear enough in the structure and is certainly not r e f l e c t e d in the syllable organization.

11.4

A Dynamic Analysis

In dynamic phonology, the problems of describing vowel a f f e c t i o n sim ply do not exist, for dynamic phonology is merely functional dynamic phonet ics and uses precisely the same structure as that developed from the phonetic evidence.

Thus, as long as vowel a f f e c t i o n is a phonetic phenomenon (that is,

as long as it does in f a c t

exist in speech sound), and dynamic phonetics r e

cords and predicts such phenomena f a i t h f u l l y (which it does through workable models

that

do

not

introduce

such insubstantiable

elements

as

segmental

bundles -- compare chaps. 1.3 and 2.2, above), then there is no s t r u c t u r a l rea son why the phenomenon cannot be described just as f a i t h f u l l y

in dynamic

phonology. The basic principle of dynamic phonology (and also of dynamic phonet ics) is that speech sound is a system of dynamic coarticulatory constraint.

As

pointed out in chap. 2, the airstream is constrained by the laryngeal apparat us, creating the fundamental sound; this phonated airstream is f u r t h e r

con

strained by the vocalic apparatus, creating formants and forming the syllable base; and this phonated and syllabicated airstream is f u r t h e r constrained by obstructions, creating disruptions in the harmonic syllable.

Each of the three

divisions (laryngeal, syllable, obstruction) is further constrained by finer a r t i c ulations within the division, or division prosodies. Further

in accordance w i t h

the

findings

of dynamic

phonetics,

the

basic organizational unit — the only segmentable sequence (see Mermelstein 1975) ~

is the syllabic frame.

The t a c t i c of dynamic phonology is simply to

mark functionally pertinent phonetic features within the syllabic frame, just as they occur in the dynamic phonetic change whatever.

evidence and without any s t r u c t u r a l

I t is this l a t t e r point that ensures that there be no i n t e r -

s t r a t a l discrepancies (compare Lockwood 1972:27-29) and that the phonology

Figure 11.2: Dynamic Analysis

Old High German Umlaut 243

244


be nothing more than functional phonetics in fact as well as in theory (com pare Martinet 1949b). When we mark the functionally pertinent features of wurm and wyrmi in the syllabic-frame format, we find the arrangement

in figure 11.2 (oppo

site), which (for ease of comparison) uses the same notations as those in the prosodic analysis of figure 1 1 . 1 . Insofar as the phenomenon of vowel a f f e c t i o n is concerned, we should note that the syllabic vowels in the description are continuous.

This is exact

ly as it is in r e a l i t y , for the vocalic articulators move from position to posi tion independently

of the consonants which (as aptly

demonstrated by Bell-

Berti & Harris 1979) do not a f f e c t the i n i t i a t i o n of the vocalic features and thus do not a f f e c t the transition from vowel to vowel. As in the prosodic analysis, the feature nonback (shallow) simply ex tends back into the r o o t - v o w e l syllable, as the tongue body fronts in anticipa tion of the ending-vowel syllable.

Acoustically, this entails nothing more than

the leveling of a transition formant pattern (representing the listener's i n t e r pretation of the syllabic vowels' maintaining the same nonpertinent features). Such a description does not deviate at all from the phonetic evidence, for no a r t i f i c i a l segmental boundaries have been created. Compared w i t h the prosodie analysis, moreover, the dynamic analysis also fares better.

By maintaining the proper phonetically justifiable syllabic

relationship between the constrained vowel and the constraining obstruction, the

dynamic analysis reflects the organization of the syllable as a speech

unit, not as an a r t i f i c i a l sequence of consonants, vowels, and whatever other s t r u c t u r a l elements one may have t o add to make the description work.

This

is to say that while the prosodie analysis and the quasi-stepmatrix simply list the prosodie features together, the dynamic analysis separates them in the same way that dynamic phoneticians have found them to be separated in real ity.

Thus, the system once again remains f a i t h f u l to the phonetic evidence by

not introducing an a r t i f i c i a l element, albeit it an 'element' of disorganization. (Of course, there is no reason why such feature organization could not be incorporated into prosodie analysis — as pointed out on p. 52, above, dynamic phonology may indeed be considered in many respects to be an outgrowth of


245

the Firthian tradition.) Furthermore, by maintaining the features in the proper places in the syllabic frame, we eliminate the problem of the glide.

The i n i t i a l obstruction

of roundedness (without occlusion) is entered as an obstruction prosody fea ture constraining the syllabic roundedness.

Such a p r a c t i c e has been found to

be quite common -- a characteristic of a constrained division may be realized as a feature of a constraining division.

In such a case, the constraining pros

ody is realized to a heightened degree.

Thus, for example, we can clearly

hear aspiration as an obstruction prosody in whispered speech, w i t h its l a r y n geal characteristic case,

then

of aspiration throughout.

we could not

possibly

understand

Indeed, if this were not a Frenchman w i t h

the

idiolectal

nasalized speech, in which we would have to distinguish among obstructional, syllabic,

and

background

nasality

produced simultaneously

(see pp.

40-41,

above).

In the case at hand, the durational relationship among bilabial ob

s t r u c t i o n , glide, and vowel is r e f l e c t e d in the functional position in the frame — main obstruction division feature, obstruction prosody f e a t u r e , syllable d i v i sion feature (in this instance of gliding).

11.5

Conclusion

Thus, dynamic

phonology produces

a description

of vowel

affection

that introduces no a r t i f i c i a l nonphonetic distinctions and that maintains the phonetic principles that (1) vowels are articulated independently

of the ob

structions that constrain them, (2) the syllabic vowels in sequence are pro duced by continuous movements from one position to another, and (3) the ar ticulator is free to take on the position it w i l l have in a following syllable so long as i t does not a f f e c t the pertinent positions needed in the communication of the syllable currently pronounced.

These principles are indeed basic to the

coarticulatory relationships and are expressed in Mermelstein (1973:1081-82 — compare chap. 2.2, above). Old High German umlaut and vowel a f f e c t i o n in general, then, are a realization of that third principle f a c i l i t a t e d by the f i r s t two. phonological description represents this phenomenon in a simple,

The dynamic straightfor-

246


ward manner that is f a i t h f u l t o observed physiological and acoustic behaviors. I t needs no 'algebraic' manipulation to account for the phonetic event. By making use of these three well-documented and j u s t i f i e d principles of phonetics, we make a significant linguistic generalization about the nature of vowel a f f e c t i o n , particularly as it is realized the the type of experienced in Old High German.

umlauting

Not only do segmental and even semiseg-

mental theories miss the generalization, but they even f a i l to give an ade quate description of the linguistically significant

event itself.

Once again,

then, we see that the analysis of real linguistic data reveals that the Ander son requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974:6 — see also chap. 1.5, above) is satis fied — notional segmentalism fails where the dynamic methods found in the evidence of real language succeed.

This is true, once more, not only of the

specific requirement regarding generalization, but also in the more general requirement regarding adequacy. Furthermore, as we

see

once

again, the

explanatory

adequacy

of

Chomsky (1965) is unattainable in his own model, for the descriptive adequacy cannot even be achieved in the segmental and semisegmental methods.

Of

course, this should be obvious, as we are dealing w i t h a relationship that has grown out of an historical

process — vowel a f f e c t i o n

occurs as historical

change. When we contemplate this last remark about segmentalism's

inherent

inadequacy regarding relationships obtaining from historical change, then we really see just how limited segmental theory is.

As i t were, all languages at

every

that

synchronic

change.

state

maintain

relationships

result

from

historical

Indeed, one could go so far as to say that every relationship has

passed from generation to generation; and as no two idiolects are the same, then

each and

whether

every

perceived

as

relationship such

or

bears

not

the

(compare

effects

of

Saussure

1962a:219, Weinreich, Labov & Herzog 1968:187-88).

historical 1959:90,

change, Jakobson

I t is no wonder, then,

that segmentation is so inadequate in dealing w i t h real language relationships — its only adequacy lying in its natural habitat of orthography. Insofar as simple, elegant descriptions are concerned, I should point out in closing a curious phenomenon regarding the singular of the Welsh word


adar [adar] 'birds'.

247

There are two competing singular forms (derived from the

plural) — aderyn [aderin] and ederyn [ederin] (R. J. Thomas 1967:12).

These

two have competed since the Middle Ages, w i t h the former realized

today

(Evans & Thomas 1968:208 lists the l a t t e r only as an obsolete form) and the l a t t e r found at least concurrently in Middle Welsh (Evans 1960:18).

Indeed,

this stretching of vowel a f f e c t i o n across more than the single preceding syl lable is not all that uncommon, particularly

in the 'irregular'

third

in

person

singular

present-future

tense

Welsh

forms of

(compare

D.

the

James

1966:23-24). Describing this extension of vowel a f f e c t i o n , however,

presents

the

segmentalist (though, to be sure, not the semisegmentalist) w i t h a dilemma. Does the vowel a f f e c t i o n rule forming ederyn from the combination of adar and the singular ending -yn [in] work in a c y c l i c a l fashion (as we f i n d , example, in Kisseberth 1970b and 1972)?

for

That is, does the f i n a l vowel's per

tinent feature specification jump over the [ r ] to a f f e c t the second [a], w i t h the newly a f f e c t e d [e]'s pertinent feature specification in turn leaping over the intervening [d] to get at the f i r s t [a]?

I f so, why does not every occur

rence of [e] in the middle position cause vowel affection? A l t e r n a t i v e l y , does

the f i n a l vowel's pertinent

feature

specification

somehow leap over everything at once, changing the specifications of the f i r s t two vowels in one f e l l swoop? in singulary order?

I f so, how indeed does one w r i t e such a rule

In either case, how does one account

for the f a c t that

the range of rule a f f e c t i o n appears to change? In dynamic phonology, of course, such apparently nettling questions are t r i v i a l , to say the least.

As the vocalic pattern is continuous, the effects of

vowel a f f e c t i o n simply flow back into the previous syllables. a development as the changing range is entirely natural.

Moreover, such

As we see from the

experiments of Bell-Berti & Harris (1979), the vocalic feature begins at a par ticular time without respect for the consonants that may come ' b e f o r e ' .

As

we further see from the principles of Mermelstein (1973:1082), " A r t i c u l a t o r s independent of the specific constraints are free to take on positions inde pendent of the consonant under production subject

to the requirement

they do not otherwise constrict the vocal t r a c t " (see p. 30, above).

that

I t is a l -

248


together natural and proper, then, to have the nonpertinent

vocalic

feature

begin at any point dictated by the dialect (or even by the idiolect) so long as it does not a f f e c t any pertinent features. Thus, extensions of vowel affection

and historical alterations in the

range of a f f e c t i o n are not only acceptable in dynamic phonology, but they are even predictable alternatives in historical change.

Such an approach is far

superior to the mechanisms needed to force the unnatural notional segment to work, for it presupposes only the evidence of the speech event, imposing no a r t i f i c i a l bundles or abstract rules.

Moreover, as pointed out earlier in this

section, the predictive capacity of the model in this regard serves not only to satisfy the Anderson requirement once again, but also to achieve the level of explanatory adequacy demanded but u n f u l f i l l e d by the t r a d i t i o n a l notional segmentalism of the transformational generative school.

CHAPTER 12

T O T A L L Y OBSTRUCTED SYLLABLES - CHINESE /s /

12.1

Introduction

In many languages of the w o r l d , we find a phenomenon in which a word is uttered w i t h one or more syllables apparently lacking a vowel.

In a

study of slightly more than one hundred such languages, A. Bell (1978) found that in those instances in which it is not vocalic, the 'syllabic' is most often a sonorant (a liquid or nasal), though cases of syllabic obstruents are also to be found. Of course, if the 'vowelless syllable' can be found to be precisely that -- a syllable lacking a vowel -- then the implications for dynamic phonology would be rather devastating.

A f t e r a l l , the organizational unit of the syllable

is based upon the steady-state approximation of the vowel.

As in the p r e v i

ous chapter, then, we find a situation in which a segmental approach would appear at f i r s t glance to be superior to the dynamic model proffered here. Once again, however, we see in the following analysis of the Chinese ' v o w e l less syllable' that the segmentalist's premise regarding the efficacy of seg mental theory is based upon a limited ability to view the dynamics of

the

speech event. In this analysis, I rely upon the description of Mandarin Chinese found

250


in Fenn &. Tewksbury (1967), as their Yale transcription is the closest to the 'phonemic' representation of sounds in that language.

Thus, the broad nota

tion used here is basically the Yale transcription within slashes.

In keeping

w i t h this p r a c t i c e , I represent the tones, of Chinese by a d i a c r i t i c

over the

segment as the Yale convention would dictate — / / for falling tone and / / for falling-rising tone (rising and steady tones do not appear among the data used here).

For example, although the falling and rising tone component of

the word / h a u / 'good' would extend over the entire

syllable, the

diacritic

mark itself is simply placed over the / a / .

12.2

The Vowelless Syllable

Within traditional segmental (and to a large extent also within semisegmental) phonological theory, however, there is a large problem w i t h the very concept of a vowelless syllable — a problem that stems from the position of the prosodic feature. been

Among the segmental schools there has traditionally

a dichotomy between

inherent

and prosodic features.

According

to

Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1952:13), for example, "The distinctive features are divided into two classes:

1. inherent and 2.

prosodic.

The l a t t e r are super

posed upon the former and are lumped together w i t h them into phonemes". (On this point, compare Trubetzkoy 1969:182-97.) In segmental p r a c t i c e , the prosodie features have been 'lumped togeth er' w i t h the nuclear vowel of the syllable. difference between

For example, the obvious stress

the English noun permit and the verb permit is repre

sented in segmental phonology as a difference in specification for the vowels. In the noun the segment [Θ] subsumes the feature [+stress], and in the verb the segment [9] subsumes the feature [-stress].

Thus, prosodie features

are

inherent at the higher level of abstraction; and in the actual transition be tween this higher level and the messy phonetic output of speech, they spread over the syllable through some sort of as-yet unformulated scrambling rules (compare Hockett 1955 in principle, Liberman 1970 in hypothesis). Traditionally, the prosodie

features, such as stress and p i t c h , have

been 'lumped together' w i t h the nuclear vowel of the syllable.

Thus, for ex-

Chinese /s /

251

ample, the difference between the English noun permit and the verb permit can be described in terms of the segmental placement of the prosodic feature of stress.

In the noun, the feature is included w i t h the nuclear vowel of the

f i r s t syllable; and in the verb, i t is included w i t h the nuclear vowel of the second. To be sure, there is a rather large gap between theory and practice in this

matter.

Although Chomsky

& Halle (1968:68) state that "This

unique

treatment of the feature 'stress' reflects the fact that stress is a prosodic feature, i.e., a feature whose domain extends over sequences that are longer than a w o r d " ; nonetheless, they go on to formulate their stress placement rules in terms of the prosodie feature's r e s t r i c t i o n to the nuclear vowel. Such an approach creates a problem when it comes to vowelless syl lables.

The f a c t is, that even in English, a vowelless syllable can

contrastive p i t c h .

maintain

For example, let us consider the sentence This is London,

where the word London is pronounced w i t h a syllabic nasal /l nd / .

By plac

ing falling pitch on the syllabic nasal, we utter a statement; and by placing rising pitch on this syllabic nasal, we utter a question.

Thus, somewhere in

this syllable we must place a syllabic prosodie feature of p i t c h , but there is no vowel into which this feature can be 'lumped'. Perhaps the most straightforward manner of alleviating this problem in the generative approach lies in the underlying segment. various

inherent

features,

We can posit an un

derlying

vowel / Θ / w i t h

including

the

feature

[-pitch].

In cases of questions, we simply w r i t e a rule changing the specifica

tion to [+pitch]. This approach to the problem is taken by Wurzel (1970:185-93) in his generative treatment of the German vowelless syllable. enon in German arose historically

Because the phenom

from the centralization of the unstressed

vowel, the underlying vowel coincidentally maintains the inherent features of / Θ / , following the practice of many (if not most) researchers in English (begin ning w i t h Trager & Bloch 1941 and extending into generative practice). Besides the t a c t i c

of using the underlying segment in

deep-to-surface transformation,

a generative

there is another, more generally

tactic used in accounting for the vowelless syllables.

segmental

This t a c t i c entails quite

252


simply the specification of one or another of the consonants of the affected syllable w i t h the feature [+syllabic]. The use of the feature [+syllabic], however, is not without its l i m i t a tions.

As pointed out by Chomsky & Halle (1968:354), "Obstruents would by

definition be excluded from forming syllabic peaks; vowels would normally be syllabic peaks, whereas the remaining sonorants -- i.e., liquids, glides, nasal consonants — would normally be nonsyllabic, but could become syllabic under special circumstances, as, for example, between obstruents". The reason for excluding obstruents from the class of potentially s y l labic consonants is t w o f o l d .

F i r s t l y , if obstruents could be marked [+syllabic],

then the nuclear syllabic of the syllable would be u t t e r l y indeterminable w i t h out some very s t r i c t

phonetic

parameters.

As pointed

out

by

Ladefoged

(1975:272), however, these parameters are themselves indeterminate.

Second

ly, what gross feature characteristics we may attach to the notion of syllabicity are closely aligned w i t h vocalic characteristics, and these are by d e f i nition quite the opposite of obstruence. Of

course, in the data examined

thus far, the

[+syllabic] would cause very l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y .

use of

the

feature

A f t e r a l l , we have been consid

ering syllables that could in f a c t sustain such a f e a t u r e , for they possess nonobstruent consonants.

Indeed, whenever the topic of vowelless syllables ap

pears, such examples as these are commonly used (compare Hyman 1975:43-45).

12.3

The Syllabic Obstruent

When the corpus is expanded to include the instances of syllabic ob struents, however, both tactics f a l l apart.

While certainly rarer than the s y l

labic sonorant, the syllabic obstruent is definitely to be found in the world's languages. noting that

A. Bell has made a particularly concise study of the phenomenon, syllabic

obstruents

stops appear also to exist.

are usually

sibilants and f r i c a t i v e s ,

Concerning the former group, he states:

Sibilant systems occur mainly in SINO-TIBETAN languages, which make up a large part of our sample (seven CHINESE Ian-

though

Chinese /s /

253

guages and the LOLO-BURMISH languages AHI, LAHU, and NYI). Syllabic fricatives in these languages are coronal, s t r i dent, and voiced -- in other words, z-like sounds. In some cases there are contrasts between rounded and unrounded, or between r e t r o f l e x and nonretroflex varieties. Their distribution is limited, occurring only after coronal fricatives and a f f r i cates. The process of origin does not appear to be syncope, as w i t h other systems of syllabic obstruents. I t is rather an as similation of a high vowel to the consonantality of the preced ing sibilant, as attested by the syllabic retaining the vowel's voicing and frequently its rounding. The only non-SINO-TIBETAN language w i t h syllables of this type is LENDU, a CENTRAL SUDANIC language. (A. Bell 1978:183-84) Bell goes on to describe f r i c a t i v e systems (in such languages as Rus sian, Japanese, and Mexican Spanish) as well as syllabic stops (in such lan guages as Cockney English and Bella Coola).

In the present analysis, how

ever, I shall be concerned simply w i t h the sibilant system found in certain dialects of Mandarin Chinese. In Chinese, syllables maintain prosodic tone features, which, according to this approach, would be assigned to the underlying vowel in a vowelless syllable.

As an example, let us consider the word /s / 'four' w i t h falling tone

over a syllable that shifts directly from voiceless sibilance to voiced sibilance without the possibility of a break that could be interpreted as a vowel. As in all questions of dialects, of course, there is debate over precise status of the vowelless syllable in Mandarin Chinese.

the

While linguists

generally treat the phenomenon as vowelless (as do A. Bell 1978; Chao 1948, 1968; Fenn & Tewksbury 1967), Hockett (1947) objects to this designation, considering it rather to be a variant of the high back unrounded vowel.

Of

course, from an historical point of view, he is quite c o r r e c t ; but in an anal ysis of the purely synchronic s t a t e , we should rather be concerned w i t h the fact that nowhere vowel appear.

in

the modern language does this high back

unrounded

Thus, Hockett's analysis may well be backwards, making the

syllabic obstruent the basic (phonemic) realization and the vocalic the variant. Moreover, in a discussion of an earlier version of this chapter ( G r i f f e n 1983b), Hockett admitted that the syllable can be pronounced without a vowel. Addressing f i r s t the tactic

of the underlying vowel (at least in the

254


generative

and related

approaches

to

phonology),

we find

that

the

most

pressing problem is determining where in the underlying syllable to place this abstact vowel.

The most obvious choice of position would be between the

two obstruents.

This choice is not open to us, though, because to place it

here would make the word end in a single / z / , which, according to Fenn & Tewksbury (1967:ix -- compare also Hockett 1947 on the Peiping dialect), can not be done in this language, in spite of the f a c t that the / z / in combination may appear in this f i n a l position, as we find in /ts / 'occasion', for example (Fenn & Tewksbury 1967:xvi). quence /szV/.

This leaves us only w i t h the choice of the se

Unfortunately for the generative segmental approach, this se

quence is not acceptable in this language either (again, see Fenn & Tewksbury 1967:xvi-xvii).

Thus, there is no way within the morpheme structure

con

straints of Chinese to posit a vowel for /s / in the underlying string. Even where an acceptable consonant cluster can be found, the under lying-vowel hypothesis breaks down.

For example, the word / d / ' w o r d ' has

falling tone over a syllable that begins w i t h voiced (unaspirated) closure and releases directly

into homorganic

voiced sibilance.

I t would indeed be pos

sible to posit an underlying structure in which / d / forms the i n i t i a l (but not the final!) consonant cluster w i t h some vowel following, as we find in the word /dz u/ 'be early', for instance. The problem with the analysis relative to / d / is that there is not a single vowel that we can posit on the underlying level w i t h specific tions to delete in the transformation to the surface.

instruc

Of course, we can make

up a vowel that appears nowhere else in the language; but where this tactic of abstactness has been employed previously (as in Hyman 1970), there has been some j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the vowel's feature specifications, some rational reason for positing a particular underlying vowel.

Here, on the other hand,

there is no such j u s t i f i c a t i o n and consequently no connection between such an analysis and linguistic r e a l i t y . The reason for generative

phonology's

inability

to account

vowelless syllable through the underlying vowel is quite transparent: el is far too reliant upon the speech segment.

for

the

The mod

Somewhere on the underlying

level, a feature must be attached to a segment; and where no segment exists,

Chinese /s /

255

one must be created.

But of course, the prosodic feature is not in theory

limited to a segment.

The dichotomy here between phonological theory and

the t o t a l l y segmental generative model has, then, created an enigmatic ob stacle to analysis and description. Of course, the second t a c t i c , that of the syllabic consonant, simply cannot work here either. not be marked [+syllabic].

As pointed out above, obstruents by definition can I f we were mark the / z / as [+syllabic], then any

thing could be so marked, and the distinction between the major classes would break down completely.

segmental

Moreover, when we take into consid

eration the finding of Ladefoged (1975:272) that the parameters of this f e a ture cannot be determined, then we would logically have to realize that such a 'solution' would be based upon a feature that cannot be checked.

As such,

it would be i r r e a l at best.

12.4

Two Semisegmental Analyses

As seen in the previous chapter, not all approaches are so absolutely segmental, though.

Against the most obvious problems of segmental phonology

(and phonetics) F i r t h (1948) developed a method of prosodic analysis, which has been incorporated in the London School tradition of systemic (system/structure) linguistics.

For F i r t h and his followers, the relationships between

inherent and prosodie features is almost the reverse of that found in phonemic models.

Indeed, the s t r u c t u r a l phonematic units (segments) of systemic pho

nology are limited to the barest designation of consonants and vowels in the structure portion of the system/structure dichotomy.

The only features, then,

that we may find in these phonematic units (that is, the only inherent fea tures) are those that identify the s t r u c t u r a l phonematic unit as a consonantal or a vocalic segment.

Laid over the s t r u c t u r a l portion is the systemic portion

made up of prosodie features "determined mutually or shared by consonants and vowels" ( M i t c h e l l 1975:35; compare also Davis 1973). In the systemic approach, one characteristic must be taken into con sideration:

"The vowel is the essential element of the structure of a syllable;

every syllable must have a vowel" (Berry 1977:81).

Thus, perhaps the most

256


s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d way of describing 'vowelless syllables' in prosodic analysis is through the principle of polysystematicity recognize systems

of unitary

--

that "in phonology we should

distinctions appropriate to

i n i t i a l consonantal

and vocalic elements in contrast w i t h those applicable to final and variously medial counterparts, or relevant to tonic syllables in opposition to atonic syl lables, or again apt to short vowels versus long vowels, etc, and this to the utmost

degree

of

refinement

consistent

with

the

facts

in

given

cases"

( M i t c h e l l 1975:34). In a polysystemic analysis, we would simply reinterpret the / z / in the Chinese example as a vocalic phonematic segment.

While this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

may in principle be in keeping w i t h the understandable imposition of the ana lyst upon the analysis (as pointed out by Robins 1957), in actual practice i t is aberrantly and even abhorrently abstract in the systemic approach.

After all,

if an obstruent segment as obviously consonantal as / z / is to be interpreted as a vowel, then why should we not rather i n t e r p r e t the / s / as the vowel?

This

could be generalized by saying that any phonematic segment preceding a lone / z / is a vowel — that is, / s / and / d / . Indeed, this modification would conven iently render the word / t s / 'occasion' (cited above) as a CVC syllable (an analysis that would lead to a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the morpheme structure con straints on f i n a l single / z / ) . The drawback in this analysis should be clear.

Declaring a consonant

to be a vowel by polysystematicity for the convenience of the analysis in es sence leads to an abstract i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , if not to an underlying level of seg mentation. does not

In either case, it is not prosodic analysis at a l l , and i t certainly represent " t h e

utmost degree of refinement

facts" ( M i t c h e l l 1975:34 -- see above).

consistent

with

the

Moreover, regardless of the popularity

of such a solution, it violates the crucial tenet that the consonant and vowel phonematic segments be otherwise devoid of inherent

features, for

the r e

quirements on this description of the phenomenon demand that one segment be specified in terms of its inherent feature (voiced sibilance) in the environment of another segment w i t h its own inherent feature specifications (voiceless sib ilance, closure, etc.). An alternative prosodie analysis would include a vocalic

phonematic

Chinese /s /

257

segment at random into the s t r u c t u r a l syntagm.

For example, we could posit

a CCV structure and leave the prosodic feature of sibilance to cover vowel as falling tone covers the consonants.

the

This analysis faces the very

same dilemma as that facing the generative attempt above.

In essence, we

again become abstract and posit an underlying vowel somewhere where, again, it cannot be justified elsewhere in the language.

Such an analysis is neither

systemic nor indeed systematic. There is one other solution that combines the two previous attempts. We could say that the entire consonant-vowel sequence is really there, but the

prosodic

features of each overlap those of the

other

entirely.

Thus,

Chinese /s / would be represented as CCV, w i t h the prosody of sibilance r e a l ized over the entire syllable from both consonants, voicing over the second half of the syllable from the second consonant (and vowel), voicelessness over the f i r s t half of the syllable from the f i r s t consonant, and falling tone over the entire syllable from the vowel. While this solution may appear to be neat and tidy from a prosodie point of view, there is an inherent problem:

Why should we posit a CCV syl

lable and not a CVC syllable or even a VCC syllable?

To be sure, not one of

these solutions (when applied to all such words in Chinese) would use a gener ally acceptable structure in Mandarin Chinese, w i t h its severe limitations on clusters and final consonants.

An analyst faced w i t h such a question should

be wary, for the solution is apparently ad hoc, and as such it is no less ab stract than the preceding attempts. Thus, in spite of the a f f i n i t y between phonetics and the prosodie anal ysis of phonology, there is s t i l l a disconcerting area in which the analysis must rest upon notions that are quite abstract.

As we examine the nature of

this abstractness, though, it should be quite clear that it does not occur the prosodie portion of the model.

in

Rather, the abstractness comes about from

the structure's requisites in prosodie analysis -- the preliminary requirement that there be a sequence of consonants and vowels.

Indeed, the problem in

prosodie analysis is the very same as that in other current models, and i t lies in the segmental nature of the s t r u c t u r e . What is needed in the prosodie analysis is some way of bypassing the

258


s t r u c t u r a l portion w i t h its bothersome phonematic segments.

I f we could do

this, then we could simply allow falling tone to coincide w i t h sibilance.

Such

an approach, however, is blocked by the segmental component of this semisegmental model.

If we were indeed to eliminate the segmental component and

were to have all features realized prosodically, then we would in f a c t have a dynamic analysis as described below, a method that certainly has its F i r t h i a n influences (see G r i f f e n in press). Prosodic analysis, though, is not the only semisegmental model.

There

is also s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar, which (as we see in Lockwood 1973, 1975) can make use of a quasi-stepmatrix

to allow features properly

to overlap.

Getting to the quasi-stepmatrix, however, may in itself be an insurmountable problem, as pointed out in G r i f f e n (1975d). On the phonemic stratum (as in Lockwood 1972, for example) or on whatever equivalent stratum, substratum, or level may take its place in any particular model, the falling tone of the example would have to couple w i t h the phonotactics somewhere in the syllable.

If it were to join directly to the

vocalic line of the t a c t i c p a t t e r n , we would face the same problems as those above. S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l grammar, however, is more flexible than is analysis.

prosodic

We can in f a c t attach the node over the entire syllable, w i t h p r o v i

sion made for a syllable type w i t h no vowel.

We accomplish this by connect

ing the diamond node w i t h the realizational prosodie input to the t a c t i c line above an ordered-and node conjoining two (or more) consonants, as illustrated in the network diagram in figure 12.1 (opposite). This solves the problem from the point of view of a neat, nonabstract analysis.

Unfortunately, it overlooks a v i t a l aspect of tone:

Tone and other

syllable prosodies are not consonantal, to be placed in dominance over ob structions on the syllable; rather, they are vocalic phenomena produced w i t h nonconsonantal vocalic articulators and producing nonconsonantal vocalic fects acoustically.

ef

To say that there is no vowel in the syllable is to over

look the vocalic nature of the syllable prosody.

In e f f e c t , the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l

analysis makes the same mistake as does the prosodie analysis in a r b i t r a r i l y classifying vocalicity as consonantality for the sake of the analysis.

Chinese /s /

259

Figure 1 2 . 1 : S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Analysis of Mandarin Chinese /s /

12.5

Dynamic Analysis

In the preceding analyses, i t appears as though we have a dilemma. Somewhere in the description (and, indeed, in the syllable) there must be a vowel — a f a c t aptly pointed out by Berry (1977:81, see p. 255, above).

But

from an examination of the sequence of segments, we do not find a vowel. Where is the vowel that must be there but at the same time cannot be there? When faced w i t h such a dilemma, the phonologist

following

the inner ap

proach of Jakobson and Halle (1971:19 — see also chaps. 1 and 2, above) should examine the phonetic evidence. When we do examine the evidence from experimental phonetics, we need not look very deeply to find that speech is not made up of discrete con sonantal and vocalic

segments, one following

another

in neat

progression.

Rather, the features of speech are arranged in accordance w i t h the principle of

dynamic coarticulatory

constraint — certain features

and feature

constrain or obstruct others w i t h which they are simultaneously over time.

types

articulated

Indeed, even 5. R. Anderson (1974:5-7) recognizes this

natural

phonetic f a c t and acknowledges the r e a l i t y of the dynamic principle, though he chooses deliberately

to ignore i t for the sake of t r a d i t i o n , notional seg-

260


mentalism, and generative transformationalism (see chap. 1.5, above). When speech is analyzed from the more realistic dynamic perspective (as called for by Curtis 1954), certain relationships between 'consonants' and 'vowels' become apparent.

In his working a r t i c u l a t o r y

model, for

example,

Mermelstein finds that (as pointed out in chap. 2.2, above) consonants and vowels are not produced in sequence, but in a coarticulatory

hierarchy

in

which consonantal features constrain vocalic features — "Consonants are not defined directly in terms of variable values but by constraints on a r t i c u l a t o r position r e l a t i v e to the fixed structures" (Mermelstein 1973:1082). As noted in chap. 2, the model of dynamic phonology is constructed in accordance w i t h such findings of dynamic phonetics.

Syllabic (vocalic) fea

tures constrain laryngeal features, and these are constrained by obstructional (consonantal) features in an i n t r i c a t e hierarchy of dynamic constraint. our purposes here, the salient point is that simultaneously

For

the syllabic vowel is produced

w i t h and constrained by the consonantal obstructions

the syllabic frame, as illustrated in figure 2.2 (p. 44, above).

within

As the jagged

lines are intended to imply, the beginning and ending points of features are not universal, though the overall hierarchical relationships ( w i t h some l i m i t a tion and variation) are applicable in all cases. Once we break down

the syllable into its natural organization, the

analysis of this supposedly 'vowelless syllable' becomes obvious.

Certainly,

there is a vowel, for the tongue body, lips, and jaw must indeed be in some position and must consequently produce some formant frequency p a t t e r n .

This

can be verified impressionistically by pronouncing the Chinese word /s /

first

w i t h the tongue body in a high f r o n t position and then w i t h i t in a low back position.

The sounds are d i f f e r e n t , so there is a vowel present, although i t is

constrained by obstruction features over its t o t a l dynamic length. In what is properly

termed the t o t a l l y

obstructed syllable, however,

precisely what vowel i t is that is produced and perceived is of no phonologic al pertinence.

A t least, in the example of Mandarin /s / , the features of the

vowel are not pertinent among speakers who regularly pronounce the

word

without the high front unrounded vowel pointed out by Hockett (1947).

In

those dialects that do produce the vowel, the features could possibly be spec-

Chinese /s /

261

i f i e d , depending upon the level of pertinence involved — bearing in mind the tenuous nature of this particular vowel.

Therefore, in marking the phonolog

ical syllabic frame, we simply leave out features relating to tongue-body posi tion, lip protrusion, and jaw height.

We should note, though, that this prac

t i c e makes use of phonological marking within a phonetic structure and dem onstrates that this dynamic phonology is indeed functional dynamic phonetics (compare chap. 2.4, above). On the other hand, the falling tone of /s / is phonologically

pertinent

and is therefore marked in the syllabic frame as a syllable prosody, an imple mentation of finer vocalic or laryngeal features over the duration of the syl lable.

The obstructions, then, are simply realized in their natural function of

constraint over the range of the entire syllable, as illustrated in figure 12.2 (below).

Obstruction Division Consonantal Features

Syllable Division Vocalic Features

Figure 12.2: Dynamic Analysis of Mandarin Chinese /s /

Such an analysis is simple, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , and, above a l l , completely consistent w i t h phonetic observation.

There is no need for abstract levels or

262


for unrealistic designations, because we have conducted our analysis as true to phonetic

observation as possible, holding to a minimum the preconceived

notions of the analyst and extending to the maximum the functional use of the phonetic structure.

12.6

Conclusion

A t this point, to say that dynamic phonology satisfies both the Ander son requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974:6 — see chap. 1.5, above) for capturing a linguistically significant generalization lost by segmental analysis and that it succeeds at least in the descriptive adequacy of Chomsky and can therefore qualify to try for explanatory adequacy (Chomsky 1965:25-26 — see chap. 5.6, above), where Chomsky's own generative segmentalism fails, would be stating the obvious.

In the face of such real linguistic problems (as opposed to the

interesting diversions of rule ordering and the like), segmentation both in its pure s t r u c t u r a l form and in its prosodic and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l forms simply can not describe the phonetic

event.

And if

it

cannot describe the

phonetic

event, it cannot properly abstract directly from i t , but can only make 'ab stractions' of f a u l t y abstractions. Of course, the situation surrounding Mandarin Chinese /s / and other such forms in that language constitutes an especially thorny problem due to the severe morpheme structure constraints.

One cannot, however, sluff off

such situations as though they were simply exceptions (in the terminology of Hjelmslev 1970:30-31).

E n t i r e language phonological systems cannot be i g

nored as simple exceptions. Moreover, the f a c t

that

Chinese

does maintain

a rather

consistent

monosyllabic lexicon makes i t more easy for us t o isolate the problem.

When

we progress to such languages as Bella Coola w i t h long sequences of t o t a l l y obstructed

syllables (see, for

example, Gleason 1961:337), we find

systems

that can only be described segmentally through ad hoc devices (as described by A. Bell 1978:186, w i t h reference to Hockett 1955:57).

Naturally, dynamic

phonology would deal w i t h such complications in precisely the same manner as it has w i t h Mandarin Chinese — by the well-founded principles of dynamic

Chinese /s /

263

coarticulatory constraint

in phonetics and the principle of pertinence

from

functional linguistics (for example, Trubetzkoy 1969). What we find here, then, is the fact that the totally obstructed syl lable, be it monosyllabic as in Chinese or polysyllabic as in Bella Coola, can both in pragmatic analysis and in principle be accounted for in dynamic pho nology.

The reason why this phenomenon that shatters the notions of t r a d i

tional segmentalism offers no problem whatever to dynamic phonology is that dynamic phonology is a direct functional abstraction from dynamic

phonetics

— it is structurally a proper subset of the categories and relationships estab lished

by

dynamic

phonetic

experimentation

and analysis (see

chap.

2.4,

above). Furthermore, dynamic

phonetics

is a methodology

analyzing sound as i t naturally occurs in human speech.

of describing and

Thus, by maintaining

this s t r i c t adherence to the evidence, establishing, as it were, an 'unbroken chain of evidence' from the observation to the analysis, we can be sure that our phonology is reliable and that it describes the facts themselves — not some f i c t i t i o u s 'abstraction' from the facts (that is, some attempt to abstract into a notionally preconceived s t r u c t u r e not evinced from the data). On the other hand, segmental phonology is in deep trouble, for it has broken the chain of evidence.

In order to account for its 'vowelless

syl

lables', it must resort to spurious questions of abstractness and must be con tent w i t h arguments about representations that are not to be found in the evidence, but that are simply devices taken out of conventional w r i t i n g sys tems and treated as though they represented speech both in sound and in or ganization.

Thus, the segmentalist

must posit some underlying segment be

cause there must be a vowel and the segmentalist has only one way of repre senting

a

vowel

—

in

the

discrete

left-to-right

practices

of

Western

orthography. In this analysis, we thus see clearly what segmentalism is. study of w r i t i n g in its most systematic form.

I t is the

As such, it is not only t o t a l l y

inadequate in the Andersonian and Chomskian senses, but i t is a radical de parture from the ideals of Saussure, for i t maintains a notional, conventional orthography in the place of a phonology derived from phonetic observation.

CHAPTER 13

POETICS - PROSODIC A L L I T E R A T I O N IN THE WELSH CYNGHANEDD

13.1

Introduction

In this final chapter, I should like to demonstrate an application dynamic phonology.

of

When we speak of applied linguistics, of course, we f i r s t

think of language teaching; and in phonology and phonetics, this involves the teaching of pronunciation

to students of foreign languages and rhetoric as

well as to those w i t h speech disabilities. nology have profound contributions

While dynamic phonetics and pho

to make to this area, as I have demon

strated in G r i f f e n (1977d, 1980a), this area does not lend itself to the analyt ic comparison between segmental and dynamic approaches that the present work.

characterizes

That is to say, that although the usefulness and even the

superiority of the dynamic approach in teaching pronunciation can be demon strated, the corresponding deficiency

in segmental phonology

is rather

too

subjective for a work such as this, which rests upon the explicit demonstra tion of proof (not simply of opinion) that segments f a i l where dynamic p r i n ciples succeed. For this proof in an area of applied phonology, we should rather turn to poetics.

In poetry, the l i t e r a r y effect rests heavily upon the sounds em

ployed in a poetic work (be it verse or prose).

I f a particular analysis of a

266


poem or of a poetic device should f a i l to account for the sound relationships used in poetry, then the analysis quite simply can be branded as deficient. Any other analysis that succeeds in insightfully accounting for the sound r e l a tionships can thus be proved to have a demonstrable superiority. In this analysis, we shall examine a poetic device in Welsh.

As in the

previous several analyses, the reader may once again jump to the conclusion that as poetry is perhaps most frequently encountered in its w r i t t e n form and Western poetry is w r i t t e n down in alphabets, the segmental approach should inherently have an edge over the dynamic.

As we see in this analysis, how

ever, such a conclusion ignores the very substance of poetic w r i t i n g .

13.2

The Cynghanedd

Throughout its long history, Welsh poetry has been marked by a com plex system of a l l i t e r a t i o n , or consonance, known as the cynghanedd (compare G r i f f e n 1981c).

Developed for the medieval eulogy w i t h its epic embellish

ments, the cynghanedd has survived and often flourished in the changing soci ety, the wandering interests, and the various vogues of post-medieval Wales, in spite of competing free verse and the f l u c t u a t i n g artistic poets.

ability of the

For example, as pointed out by Parry (1962), even the introduction of

tune in the seventeenth century to determine the rhythm served not to dimin ish the cynghanedd, but to accentuate it in the face of the new complications for versification (and indeed of the apparent loss of its own j u s t i f i c a t i o n — see below). The a l l i t e r a t i v e structure of the cynghanedd poetry has been treated at length in such works as Morris Jones (1925), A. L I . Roberts (1973), and Rowlands (1976).

In this s t r u c t u r e , there is a choice among several patterns

of a l l i t e r a t i o n , each following s t r i c t rules.

One of the more complex of these

patterns (cynghanedd groes), employing a t w o - p a r t line, is represented in the following, from A. L I . Roberts (1973:15):

Ochain cloch : a chanu c l i r

The Welsh Cynghanedd

267

From an alphabetical or segmental point of view, we see that the ch [ x ] of ochain [oxain] ' t o groan' alliterates w i t h the ch [ x ] of chanu [xani] ' t o sing' (showing the result of spirant mutation — see chap. 7, above), the n [n] of ochain alliterates w i t h the n [n] of chanu, and the cl [ k l ] combination of cloch [ k l o : x ] ' b e l l ' alliterates w i t h the cl [ k l ] combination of c l i r [ k l i r ] 'clear'. We should further note in this line that Welsh a l l i t e r a t i o n is one of consonants which can be (depending upon the pattern) taken rather indepen dently of their position not only in the word, but even occasionally in the syl lable; although, to be sure, syllable position appears to be much less frequent ly independent.

Thus, for example, in the line above, the n [n] alliterates

between w o r d - f i n a l and word-internal position, and at the same time i t a l l i t erates between syllable-final and s y l l a b l e - i n i t i a l position. The importance of cynghanedd, though, lies far deeper than the simple s t r u c t u r a l realization of one sound corresponding w i t h another in a pattern across a line.

I t is through the use of these patterns that the poets establish

their meters and rhythms, for the reading of a cynghanedd line is dominated by the scansion from a l l i t e r a t i v e element to a l l i t e r a t i v e element in a complex relationship between s t r i c t meter (cynghanedd) and ' f r e e ' meter (rhythm).

As

Parry-Williams (1936:7) points out, "Cynghanedd is primarily characterized by s t r i c t meter, but accent is s t i l l an important element in a cynghanedd (an a l l i t e r a t i o n ) ; and

the system is a single complex that is very i n t r i c a t e " (my

translation from the Welsh). Through its relationship w i t h meter and rhythm, then, the cynghanedd patterns of a l l i t e r a t i o n take on an overriding importance in the understanding of the poetic e f f e c t , the functional meaning of the poem as opposed to prose (compare Parry-Williams 1936:5).

I f the meter and rhythm are to be properly

analyzed (which is to say, if the poetic e f f e c t is to be successful), the p a t terns of a l l i t e r a t i o n must s t r i c t l y establish them — allowing this ' f r e e ' meter in essence t o be a product of the s t r i c t meter. Within

the context

of

the cynghanedd's

importance

to

meter

and

rhythm, it should be stressed that this art form is exclusively verbal, promi nent in eisteddfodic competitions and other public performances, and this as pect of the medium makes it inherently distinct from poetry that is intended

268


for silent reading.

Thus, for the alliterations to yield the meter and rhythm

and thence the entire poetic e f f e c t , one property must consistently be main tained:

The alliterations

of speech sound.

must be phonetically based -- true representations

As the actual sound is needed for the a l l i t e r a t i v e cues to

be taken up and for the scansion to be realized, such a concept as a 'sight a l l i t e r a t i o n ' is simply not at all acceptable.

13.3

The Segmental Problem

In the light of the phonetic basis of cynghanedd a l l i t e r a t i o n as the central aspect in the poetic e f f e c t , we should expect that each l e t t e r , each sound segment, should s t r i c t l y correspond to a like l e t t e r , a like sound seg ment, in every case.

There are, however, some four patterns that defy such a

neat segmental correspondence.

These four (all from A. L l . Roberts 1973:47-

48) are presented here w i t h the dentals ( [ t ] and [dD as representative — the velars and labials follow precisely the same patterns. First of all let us consider the following line:

(1)

Onid hen : yw cerddi'n tud?

In this line, the d [d] in w o r d - f i n a l position of onid [onid] 'is i t not?' followed across the word boundary (which is itself an element in most segmental models — compare Chomsky & Halle 1968:366-70) by h [h] in w o r d - i n i t i a l position of hen [hen] 'old' alliterates not w i t h another d [d] and h [h], but w i t h a single occurrence of w o r d - i n i t i a l t [ t ] in tud [ t i : d ] 'people (country)'. The second pattern of this type is even more complex, as in the f o l lowing example:

(2)

Onid rhyw awr : y w ' n byw t r i s t ?

In this line, the same word final d [d] of onid followed by the w o r d - i n i t i a l rh [ h] (the voiceless aspirated t r i l l ) of rhyw [ hiu] 'some' alliterates w i t h a combination of t [ t ] and r [ ] in w o r d - i n i t i a l position of t r i s t [ t i s t ] 'sad'.


269

The third pattern appears to be more exclusively dental in its motivation, as in the following:

(3)

Onid Duw : ydyw ein tad?

Now, the same word-final d [d] followed across the word boundary by the word-initial d [d] of Duw [diu] 'God' alliterates with a single word-initial t [t] in tad [ta:d] »father1. Finally, in the fourth pattern of this type we find a combination of the patterns in lines (1) and (3), as follows:

(4)

Onid hardd : dy henwlad di?

In this case, the same word-final d [d] alliterates with another word-final d [d] in henwlad (henl w ad] 'old fatherland' just as we would expect.

The allit-

eration appears to break down completely, though, as the word initial h [h] of hardd [hard] 'beautiful' alliterates not with another h [h], but with the wordinitial d [d] of d [di] 'your' (enclitic). The reader of such 'impure' alliterations faces a rather perplexing dilemma.

On the one hand, the phonetic basis of the alliteration is a vital part

of the line, indeed the sine qua non of the cynghanedd poetry; while on the other hand, a left-to-right netically-based

alliteration,

examination of the lines fails to reveal this phointently

sought

by

both

the

reader

and

the

listener. We should stress, however, that it is from the standpoint of traditional segmental phonology and phonetics that there appears to be a problem in the lines above.

Reading from segment to segment, there is no way that a [d]

followed by an [h] could be considered phonetically identical to a [ t ] , that a [d] followed by a [rh] could be considered identical to a [t] followed by an [r], that a [d] followed by a [d] could be considered identical to a [t], or that a [d] followed by an [h] could be identical to a [d] followed by a [d]. When we view the correspondences from this perspective, then, the cynghanedd patterns surely appear to have broken down.

270


In r e a l i t y , however, speakers of Welsh w i l l immediately realize that there is in f a c t no problem at all represented by these lines. The cynghanedd patterns have not broken down, but maintain themselves just as f a i t h f u l l y as do those in the example line above.

The discrepancy between that which ap

pears to obtain in a segmental examination of the lines and that which a c t u a l ly does obtain in a reading of the lines is a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f a c t that speech sound is produced not segmentally, but prosodically (in the sense in which we use the term in dynamic phonology — see chap. 2.3.d, above).

13.4

A Dynamic Analysis

The basic problem w i t h the segmental examination of the

alliterative

lines lies in the f a c t that that approach must organize features into precon ceived notional bundles, or phonemes ( l e t t e r s , as i t were).

As we have seen

in chap. 2, above, and in all of the intervening analyses, however, phonetic features are not naturally organized into segmental bundles, but they are or ganized rather into

an hierarchical system of dynamic coarticulatory

con

straint — some features and feature types (in opposition) constrain other f e a tures and feature types w i t h which they are simultaneously produced and per ceived in a hierarchy within the speech continuum. C e n t r a l to our analysis of this poetic phenonenon is the

recognition

that these features are produced and perceived in coarticulation over not in static cross-sectional segments.

time,

As such, all features are prosodic (as

opposed to inherent — compare Jakobson, Fant & Halle 1952:13-14 — see p. 250, above), and this form of prosody (as distinct from the classic systemic case of F i r t h 1948) is one characterized by a constraint which can sometimes appear (to the segmentalist) to alter drastically or to allow variations in the manner of a r t i c u l a t i o n . Thus, of the principles discussed and illustrated in this work, the type of

analysis

that

we

should

invoke

in

our

treatment

of

these

'impure'

cynghanedd a l l i t e r a t i o n patterns is the analysis by prosodic constraint (see especially chaps. 5 and 6, above).

This type of analysis is most often used in

order to determine the relationships among features within the major divisions


271

(laryngeal, syllable, obstruction) -- that is, to evaluate the e f f e c t of the d i v i sion prosody on the main division opposition.

Of course, in performing the

analysis, we use the organizational unit of the syllabic frame, as in figure 2.2 (p. 44, above). Bearing in mind the phonetic basis of the system, the nature of pro sodic constraint, and the nonsegmental dynamic syllabic frame, as these as pects have been developed throughout this book, we should now approach the apparent discrepancies in the a l l i t e r a t i v e patterns of cynghanedd poetry and examine them from the standpoint of dynamically produced speech sound. examination

of

each line reveals

proper

alliteration

providing

the

An

crucial

meter and rhythm cues quite f a i t h f u l l y . In line (1), the Welsh syllabic frame which favors i n i t i a l l y

obstructed

syllables and the nature of the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n as aspiration, a basically pro sodic element, conspire to bring about a shift in feature distribution within the syllabic frames.

The dental obstruction at the end of the first word is

realized in reading as an i n i t i a l constraint on the next syllable, and that next syllable's g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n , as prosodie aspiration, must now prosodically con strain the dental obstruction, adding enough constraining aspiration to yield the next degree in the gradual opposition. ten], and [ t e n ] alliterates w i t h tud

Thus, onid hen is pronounced [oni

[ t i d ] . This can be illustrated as in figure

13.1 (p. 272, below), which uses the notation developed in chap. 5, above. This analysis, moreover, is quite natural.

As we see in chaps. 5 and 7,

above, the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n in Welsh is not a member of the main obstruction opposition, but an obstruction prosody. shift

As such, i t does nothing to hinder the

of the obstruction from the less-favored syllable-final position to the

more-favored

syllable-initial

position.

Indeed, if

the

aspiration

were

not

there, the speaker would s t i l l shift the obstruction in actual pronunciation. The motivation for the change, then, is general to the language and entirely within the realm of phonetic probability. Furthermore, the actual 'change' that makes it appear (again, to the segmentalist) that a [d] has become a [ t ] is also general to the language.

As

we have seen in the process of coalesence of position treated in detail in chap. 9, above, and in the effects of prosodie constraint in the Welsh obstrue-

272


tion division in chaps. 5 and 7, the prosodic effects on perception that obtain from the shift of position are entirely to be expected.

In d e t a i l , the process

involved here is precisely the same as that in provection from aspiration dis cussed in chap. 5 and illustrated in figure 5.2 (p. 115, above), which is iden t i c a l to figure 13.1 (below).

As in the previous analysis, the second degree of

aspiration constraining the obstruction joins w i t h the aspiration in the f o l l o w ing position, and in the coalescence, the next higher degree (the t h i r d degree) of aspiration is realized constraining the obstruction.

In the

misperceptions

of segmental phonology, this makes i t appear as though a [ d ] plus an [h] result in a

[t].

Thus, the dynamic analysis captures a linguistically significant gen

eralization by using only the categories and relationships extant in the pho netic s t r u c t u r e .

Figure 1 3 . 1 : Dynamic Analysis of First A l l i t e r a t i o n


273

In line (2), we find a situation that is even more overtly a case of pro sodic constraint. strains

The aspiration of the f i r s t syllable of the second word con

the previous syllable's final dental obstruction, for

feature once more shifts to the following syllable.

this

obstruction

This gives rise to an i n i

t i a l obstruction w i t h the next degree of prosodic constraint, just as is the case in line (1).

In the process, the prosodie range of the aspiration is shifted

so as to be reduced over the t r i l l obstruction, minimizing the aspirate f r i c a tion associated w i t h rhyw [

hiu].

A l l of this conspires to produce the actual

pronunciation of onid rhyw as [oni t iu], and [ t iu] alliterates w i t h t r i s t [ t r i s t ] (in more narrow notation to show the range of aspiration/voicelessness). is illustrated in figure 13.2 (below).

Figure 13.2: Dynamic Analysis of Second A l l i t e r a t i o n

This

274


Once again, we find that everything that occurs in this type of a l l i t eration is f a i t h f u l to phonetic observation.

That the obstruction should shift

to the favored s y l l a b l e - i n i t i a l position while there is already an obstruction in this position is quite to be expected within the Welsh system.

For one thing,

w o r d - f i n a l position is a position of neutralization (compare G r i f f e n 1977e), heightening the pressure to reduce (or remove) obstructions from i t .

Further

more, the primary obstruction is capable of t o t a l occlusion, making it obstructionary (or

consonant-like)

chaps. 5 and 7, above).

than

the secondary

more

obstruction (compare

Thus, we would probably not expect that any tenden

cy to keep this primary obstruction out of an occupied syllabic position could be sustained by the secondary obstruction, given the organization of Welsh phonology's all-important prosodic aspiration along the lines of the more-con sonantal versus the less-consonantal. Insofar as the prosodic constraint itself is concerned, we have basical ly the same sort of

coalescence as that

found in the

above (compare also the geminate provection below).

aspirate

provection

The second degree of

aspiration constraining the i n i t i a l obstruction combines through

coalescence

w i t h that constraining the following obstruction, resulting in the next higher third degree.

Once again, this is misperceived by the segmentalist as an oc

currence of a segment

[t].

The reduction of [ r h ] (in the segmental perception)

to the less obstructive [ ] is simply a predictable result of the clustering in Welsh and is handled in more detail in chap. 5.2, above. In line (3), the situation becomes more complex yet, most evidently a l lowing no other i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of events than one afforded by the concept of dynamic constraint.

Since the obstruction constraining the f i n a l position of

the second syllable in the f i r s t word is homorganic w i t h the i n i t i a l obstruction of the next syllable, the two obstructions may be coalesced into one, realized in the favored syllable-initial position (or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , in a lengthened ob struction straddling both positions, a true case of provection).

In such a co

alescence, however, the aspiration constraining the one is added to that con straining the other (as they are not, after a l l , inherent to segments as such), raising the constraining e f f e c t over the now-single obstruction to that of the next degree of the gradual opposition of aspiration.

Thus, onid Duw is pro-


275

nounced [oni tiu] (or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , [ o n i t t i u ] ) , and [ t i u ] alliterates w i t h

tad

[ t a : d ] , as we see in figure 13.3 (below).

Figure 13.3: Dynamic Analysis of Third A l l i t e r a t i o n

This is, of course, the provection from gemination described in chap. 5 and represented in figure 5.4 (p. 117, above).

Once again, the process is en

tirely natural and phonetically probable (even predictable).

As pointed out in

the previous discussion of geminate provection, the homorganic nature of the dental (or velar, or labial) obstructions affords a simple merger or coalescence into a single position, while the second degree of aspiration constraining the one combines w i t h the second degree constraining the other to be realized thus as a single third-degree constraint.

As always, this process is misper-

276


ceived by the segmentalist as two occurrences of [d] becoming one occurrence of

[t]. Finally, line (4) presents us simply w i t h a combination of the patterns

in lines (1) and (3). Onid hardd is thus pronounced [oni t a r d ] , henwlad di is pronounced [henl a t i ] (or, alternatively, [ h e n l w a t t i ] ) , and the alliteration is both read and heard.

Both processes, incidentally, are quite a part of the

pronunciation of the language spoken not only by poets, but by the public at large.

For example, Fynes-Clinton (1913:xviii) notes that in the Bangor dia

lect, the phrase ei thad hi 'her father' is pronounced [ i -0a:t i ] (or more likely [ i -0a:ti], as noted by Morris Jones 1925:206), and that the phrase gwybod dim 'not to know' is pronounced [gubot t i m ] (Fynes-Clinton 1913:xxiii). Thus, dynamic phonology provides us w i t h a reliable method of examin ing these cases of

prosodic

cynghanedd poetry.

The effects of this type of prosodic aspiration and resyl-

constraint in

the a l l i t e r a t i o n

patterns

of

the

labication are perhaps nowhere more transparent than in such lines as the f o l lowing, cited by Morris Jones (1925:206):

Bwrw plyg : ar barabl hygar

In order to account for the aspirate constraint on the labial, we must transcribe this line as [buru plig : ar bara plәgar]. The extension of the aspi rate prosody back through the lateral obstruction and into the labial w i t h no significant extension of the g l o t t a l f r i c a t i o n reflects the issues noted in chap. 5 on the nonsegmental nature of an adequate description of the Welsh cluster prosody (also G r i f f e n 1975c).

Once again, then, the a l l i t e r a t i o n is maintained

in actual p r a c t i c e , and this practice can be described only in terms of a dy namic analysis of prosodie constraint.

13.5

Conclusion

There are several conclusions to be drawn from these analyses, conclu sions pertinent to language and more precisely to the language of l i t e r a t u r e . In the study of language, the impact of these data should be to hasten the

The Weish Cynghanedd

277

adoption of this or of some other dynamic model of phonology, derived not from the outmoded and unproductive segmental phonetics, but from the suc cessfully workable dynamic phonetics.

The phenomena described here by pro

sodic constraint cannot be handled segmentally (even in a hybrid sounds-andprosodies system), nor can they be handled by anything so simple as p o r t manteau realization in such a way as to capture the pertinent dynamic gener alizations. A t f i r s t glance, we might

object

that surely some rule-based segmental model such as the generative

This point should be emphasized.

model

should be able to transform the segments into the necessary coalesced state. As demonstrated

in chaps. 5 and 9, above, however, they cannot do

this.

These phenomena are approachable only from a nonsegmental viewpoint only in accordance w i t h the principles of dynamic coarticulatory

and

constraint.

As it is, the segmental models once again f a i l to capture the linguistically significant generalization of the Anderson requirement (S. R. Anderson 1974:6 — see chap. 1.5, above) and f a i l to achieve the descriptive adequacy (not to mention any chance at explanatory

adequacy) of the Chomsky

(Chomsky 1965:25-26 — see chap. 5.6, above). nomena

are

handled by

the

dynamic

requirement

On the other hand, these phe

model in

a manner

that

is simple,

s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , and t o t a l l y in keeping w i t h phonetic evidence. In Welsh l i t e r a t u r e , these analyses certainly support the central posi tion of phonetically based a l l i t e r a t i o n as the exceptionless characteristic the cynghanedd poetry.

of

In more general terms, they r e a f f i r m the validity and

even the necessity of the age-old practice of reading this poetry, not simply staring at a page of l e t t e r s . its sound, it

must

Where poetry is to be spoken for the e f f e c t of

be experienced audibly

through

its

sound, not

visually

through its segmental l e t t e r s . In a more technical vein, linguistic l i t e r a r y analysis of true sound-po etry must be approached from solid phonetic and phonological principles and methods.

In the analyses presented, i t is phonological information which is

needed so as to establish the Welsh poetic meter, also a phonological charac teristic

of the intonation p a t t e r n , the auditory importance of which is dis

cussed in C r y s t a l (1973).

Without an insightful understanding of the sound

278


structure of a poem, poetry becomes nothing substantially distinct from prose. As we have seen, moreover, the segmental approach fails completely in its description and analysis of this sound s t r u c t u r e , while the dynamic proach gives an accurate and insightful accounting.

ap

We must conclude, then,

that in the analysis of poetry, t r a d i t i o n a l notional segmentalism gives us no more insight i n t o the sound structure of a poem than would an analysis of the type-face used in p r i n t i n g .

In order to achieve an understanding of this sound

structure in poetry, we must approach i t from the standpoint of phonetic r e a l ity — dynamic analysis.

REFERENCES

Adamus, Marian. 1966. "Zur phonologischen Auswertung der (H,X,C)-Laute im Deutschen und Englischen." K w a r t a l n i k Neofiloloqiczny 8:4.415-24. Andersen, Henning. 1973. " A b d u c t i v e and Deductive Change". Language 49.765-93. Anderson, John M. & Charles Jones. 1974. "Three Theses Concerning Phono logical Representation". Journal of Linguistics 10.1-26. Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian Vowel Systems and the Order ing of Phonological Rules. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. . 1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press. A n t t i l a , Raimo. 1972. Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. A t a l , B. S. & S. L. Hanauer. 1971. "Speech Analysis and Synthesis by Linear Prediction of the Speech Wave". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 40.637-55. Awbery, Gwenllian Mair. 1975. "Welsh Mutations: Syntax or Phonology?". A r chivum Linguisticum (New Series) 6.14-25. . 1982. " A Bibliography of Research on Welsh Dialects since 1936". C a r d i f f Working Papers in Welsh Linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by G. E. Jones. C a r d i f f : Welsh Language Research Unit. Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms. 1972. "How Do Languages Get Crazy Rules?". Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, ed. by R. P. Stockwell & R. K. S. Macaulay, 1-21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Baitaxe, Christiane A. M. 1978. Foundations of Distinctive Feature Theory. Baltimore: University Park Press. Baudis, Josef. 1924. Grammar of Early Welsh. O x f o r d : The Philological Society. Becker, Henrik. 1953. "Zur monophonematischen Wertung". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Pho netik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 7.253-58. Bell, A l a n . 1978. "Syllabic Consonants". Universals of Human Language, ed. by J. H. Greenberg, vol. 2, 153-201. Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford Univer sity Press. & Joan Bybee Hooper, eds. 1978. Syllables and Segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Bell, Alexander Graham. 1906. The Mechanism of Speech. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Bell, Alexander M e l v i l l e . 1899. English Visible-Speech in Twelve Lessons. Washington: Volta. B e l l - B e r t i , Fredericka. 1975. " C o n t r o l of Pharyngeal C a v i t y Size for English Voiced and Voiceless Stops". Journal of the Acoustical Society of

280


America 57.456-61. B e l l - B e r t i , F. (continued) & Katherine S. Harris. 1979. " A n t i c i p a t o r y C o a r t i c u lation: Some Implications from a Study of Lip Rounding". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 65.1268-70. Berry, Margaret. 1977. An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 2. Lon don: Batsford. Bethge, Wolfgang. 1954-55. "Die Realisation des r in neuhochdeutscher Vor lessprache schlesischer Färbung". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Phonetik und a l l gemeine Sprachwissenschaft 8.392-96. Bjarkman, Peter C. 1977. "The Role of Autonomous Phonemics in Natural Pho nology". Paper presented at the 1977 International Congress of Pho netic Sciences (PS-77), Miami Beach, Florida, December 1977. . 1978. "The Phonemic Hypothesis and Some Related Issues in Natural Phonology". Papers from the 1977 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by D. M. Lance & D. E. Gulstad, 303-320. Columbia: University of Missouri. Blache, Stephen E. 1978. The Acguisition of Distinctive Features. Baltimore: University Park Press. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. "A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language". Language 2.153-64. . 1930. "German [ ç ] and [ × ] ' . Le Maître Phonétigue 30.27-28. . 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bluhme, Hermann. 1970. "Das phonologische System des Deutschen". Lingua 25.358-80. Boor, Helmut de, Hugo Moser, Christian Winkler, eds. 1979. Theodor Siebs deutsche Aussprache. 19th ed. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Bowen, John T. & T. J. Rhys Jones. 1960. Welsh. K e n t : Hodder & Stoughton. Brandenstein, Wilhelm. 1948. "Zur historischen Phonologie an Hand von a l t griechischen Beispielen". Recueil Linguistigue de Bratislave 1.83-91. Braune, Wilhelm & K a r l Helm. 1967. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 12th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Bruck, Anthony, Robert A. Fox & Michael W. LaGaly, eds. 1974. Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Cercignani, Fausto. 1980. "Early 'Umlaut' Phenomena in the Germanic Lan guages". Language 56.126-36. Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1948. Mandarin Primer: An Intensive Course in Spoken C h i nese. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. . 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r nia Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. " C u r r e n t Issues in Phonological Theory". The Structure of Language, ed. by J. A. Fodor & J. J. K a t z , 50-118. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. . 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. & M. Halle. 1968. The Sound P a t t e r n of English. New York: Harper & Row. Coker, C. &. O. Fujimura. 1966. "Model for Specification of the Vocal-Tract Area Function". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 40.1271. Cooper, Franklin S., Pierre D e l a t t r e , A l v i n M. Liberman, John M. Borst &

References

281

Louis J. Gerstman. 1952. "Some Experiments on the Perception of Syn thetic Speech Sounds". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24.597-606. , A l v i n M. Liberman & John M. Borst. 1951. "The Interconversion of Audible and Visible Patterns of Speech". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 37.318-25. Copeland, James E. 1970. A Stepmatricial Generative Phonology of German. The Hague: Mouton. C r y s t a l , David. 1973. "Intonation and M e t r i c a l Theory". Transactions of the Philological Society, 1-33. Curtis, James F. 1954. "Systematic Research in Experimental Phonetics 3: The Case for Dynamic Analysis in Acoustic Phonetics". Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 19.147-57. Davies, J. J. Glanmor. 1939. "The Nasal Consononants of a Cardiganshire Dia lect". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Celtische Philologie 20.304-314. Davis, Philip W. 1973. Modern Theories of Language. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. D e l a t t r e , Pierre, Alvin M. Liberman & Franklin S. Cooper. 1955. "Acoustic Loci and Transitional Cues for Consonants". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27.739-73. D i e t r i c h , Gerhardt. 1953. " [ ç ] und [ x ] im Deutschen — ein Phonem oder zwei?". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 7.28-37. Dillon, Myles & Donnch ό Crόin n. 1961. Irish. K e n t : Hodder & Stoughton. Dinnsen, Daniel A. 1974. "Constraints on Global Rules". Language 50.29-51. Eliasson, Stig. 1975a. " B i d i r e c t i o n a l i t y and Unidirectionality in Phonology". Reports from Uppsala University Department of Linguistics 5.47-53. . 1975b. "On the Issue of D i r e c t i o n a l i t y " . The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, ed. by K.-H. Dahlstedt, 420-45. Stockholm: A l m gvist & Wiksell. Evans, D. Simon. 1960. Gramadeg Cymraeg Canol. 2nd ed. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol C y m r u . Evans, H. Meurig & W. O. Thomas. 1968. Y Geiriadur Mawr. 4th ed. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer. Falc'hun, François. 1965. "L'énergie a r t i c u l a t o i r e des occlusives". Phonetica 13.31-36. Fant, Gunnar. 1956. "On the P r e d i c t a b i l i t y of Formant Levels and Spectrum Envelopes from Formant Frequencies". For Roman Jakobson, ed. by M. Halle, H. G. Lunt, H. MacLean & C. H. Van Schooneveld, 109-120. The Hague: Mouton. . 1959. Acoustic Description and Classification of Phonetic Units. Ericsson Technics 1. . 1960. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton. . 1962. "Descriptive Analysis of the Acoustic Aspects of Speech". Logos 5.2-17. . 1973. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fenn, Henry C. & M. Gardner Tewksbury. 1967. Speak Mandarin. New Haven: Yale University Press. F i r t h , John R. 1935. "The Use and Distribution of Certain English Sounds: Phonetics from a Functional Point of View". English Studies 17.8-18.

282


F i r t h , J. R. (continued) 1948. "Sounds and Prosodies". Transactions of the Philological Society 1948.127-52. Fischer-Jørgensen, E l i . 1940. "Objektive und subjektive Lautdauer deutscher Vokale". A r c h i v für vergleichende Phonetik 4.1-20. . 1954. "Acoustic Analysis of Stop Consonants". Miscellanea Phonetica

2.42-59. . 1975. Trends in Phonological Theory; A Historical Introduction. Co penhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Foley, James. 1970. "Phonological Distinctive Features". Folia Linguistica 4.87-92. . 1977. Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Forchhammer, Jörgen. 1953. "Zum A f f r i k a t e n - P r o b l e m " . Z e i t s c h r i f t für Pho netik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4.403-408. Fowkes, Robert A. 1949. " I n i t i a l Mutation of Loanwords in Welsh". Word 5.205-213. . 1959. "Phonological Aspects of Welsh-English Bilingualism". General Linguistics 4.23-32. Fries, Charles C. & Kenneth L. Pike. 1949. "Coexistent Phonemic Systems". Language 25.20-50. Fromkin, V i c t o r i a . 1965. "On System-Structure Phonology". Language 4.601609. F u r n i v a l l , Frederick J. 1880. " A n Early English Hymn to the Virgin (15th Cen tury) and a Welshman's Phonetic Copy of it Soon A f t e r " . Transactions of the Philological Society 1880.*33-*44. Fynes-Clinton, O. H. 1913. The Welsh Vocabulary of the Bangor D i s t r i c t . Ox f o r d : Clarendon Press. Gay, Thomas. 1977. " A r t i c u l a t o r y Movements in VCV Sequences". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62.182-93. Gerhardt, D i e t r i c h . 1950. "Zum Lautsystem des Neuhochdeutschen". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4.132-37. . 1952. "Nochmal die schriftdeutschen A f f r i k a t e n " . Z e i t s c h r i f t für Pho netik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 6.57-76. Glave, Rolf Dieter. 1974. "Zur akustischen Struktur stochastischer Schallsi gnale am Beispiel der Sprachlaute [ ç ] und [ x } ' . IKP-Forschungsberichte 50.261-84. Gleason, Henry Α., Jr. 1961. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Re vised ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Goldsmith, Joseph. 1976. " A n Overview of Autosegmental Phonology". Linguis tic Analysis 2.23-68. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. "Some Generalizations concerning I n i t i a l and Final Consonant Clusters". Universals of Human Language, ed. by J. H. Greenberg, vol 2, 243-79. Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford University Press. G r i f f e n , T. D. 1974. "The Development of Welsh A f f r i c a t e s : A Change through Borrowing". Lingua 34.149-65. . 1975a. A New Welsh Consonant Shift, Description and Implications. Ph.D. Dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida. (Ann Arbor, M i c h igan: University Microfilms International #76-4237.)

References

.

1975b.

283

"Lenis

Initials

in

Welsh

Borrowings".

Language

Sciences

36.6-12. . 1975c. "On Describing the Cluster Prosody". The First LACUS Forum, ed. by A. Makkai & V. B. Makkai, 140-47. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1975d. " S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammar and an Hierarchical Phonology". Views on Language, ed. by R. Ordoubadian & W. von R a f f l e r - E n g e l , 245-49. Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Unteruniversity Press. . 1976a. "Some Principles of a Nonsegmental Phonology". 1975 M i d America Linguistics Conference Papers, ed. by F. Ingemann, 145-55. Lawrence: University of Kansas. . 1976b. "Toward a Nonsegmental Phonology". Lingua 40, 1-20. . 1977a. " A n Inner-Approach Analysis of the Fortis-Lenis Scale". Pro ceedings of the 1976 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by R. L. Brown, Jr., K. Houlihan, L. G. Huchinson & A. MacLeish, 109-114. M i n neapolis: University of Minnesota. . 1977b. "Functional Relationships in an Hierarchical Phonology". The Third LACUS Forum, ed. by R. J. DiPietro & E. L. Blansitt, Jr., 473-79. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1977c. "German [ x ] " . Lingua 43.375-90. . 1977d. "Teaching Pronunciation in the Dynamic Mode". Die Unter richtspraxis 10.77-81. . 1977e. "The Archiphoneme in Historical Linguistics". Forum Linguis-

ticum 2.107-118. .

1978a.

"Phonology

-

The

State

of

the

Art".

SECOL

Bulletin

2:2.15-28. . 1978b. "The Case Against Allophony". The Fourth LACUS Forum, ed. by M. Paradis, 484-90. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1979. "Language as a F i r s t - L e v e l A b s t r a c t i o n " . The F i f t h LACUS Forum, ed. by W. Wölck & P. L. Garvin, 555-61. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1980a. "A Nonsegmental Approach to the Teaching of Pronunciation". Revue de Phonétigue Appliguée 54.81-94. . 1980b. "Provection from Prosodic Constraint". The Sixth LACUS Forum, ed. by W. C. McCormick & H. J. Izzo, 102-110. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1980c. "The Passive in Welsh: A Relational Analysis". Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 28.448-78. . 1981a. " A Nonsegmental Model for Description and Analysis". Phonol ogy in the 1980's, ed. by D. Goyvaerts, 617-34. Ghent: Story Scientia. . 1981b. "German A f f r i c a t e s " . Lingua 53.175-89. . 1981c. "Prosodic A l l i t e r a t i o n in Cynghanedd Poetry". Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 29.497-503. . 1981d. "Slips of the Tongue and Metathesis in a Nonsegmental Mod e l " . The Seventh LACUS Forum, ed. by J . E. Copeland & P. W. Davis, 138-44. Columbia, S. C : Hornbeam. . 1981e. "The High German Sound Shift: Phonetic J u s t i f i c i a t i o n " . Pa pers from the 1980 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by M. M. T. Henderson, 199-206. Lawrence: University of Kansas. . 1982a. "German / R / " . Lingua 56.23-42.

284


G r i f f e n , T.D. (continued) 1982b. "Vowel A f f e c t i o n in Dynamic Phonology". The Eighth LACUS Forum, ed. by W. Gutwinski & G. Jolly, 207-217. Columbia, S. C.: Hornbeam. . 1983a. "Nonsegmental Phonology as Functional Dynamic Phonetics". Essays in Honor of Charles F. Hockett, ed. by F. B. Agard, G. K e l l e y , A. Makkai & V. B. Makkai, 350-67. Leiden: E. J . B r i l l . . 1983b. "Totally Obstructed Syllables in Dynamic Phonology". The Ninth LACUS Forum, ed. by J. M o r r e a l , 207-215. Columbia, S. C : Horn beam. . 1984. "Early Welsh Eclipsis: A Dynamic Analysis". Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 31.48-59. . in press. " A Dynamic Nonsegmental Model and the London School Tradition". Advances in Nonsegmental Phonology: The Semicentennial of London School Linguistics, ed. by C. T. Mason. Grimm, Jacob. 1893. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 3. Ed. by Wilhelm Scherer et. al. 4 vols. Berlin & Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann. (Repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967.) Halle, Morris. 1962. "Phonology in Generative Grammar". Word 18.54-72. . 1964. "On the Bases of Phonology". The Structure of Language, ed. by J. A. Fodor & J. J. K a t z , 324-33. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Pren tice-Hall. . 1972. "Theoretical Issues in Phonology in the 1970's". Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by A. Rigault and R. Charbonneau, 179-205. The Hague: Mouton. . 1974. "Morphology in a Generative Grammar". Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, ed. by L. Heilmann, vol. 2, 408-416. Bologna: I I Mulino. , G. W. Hughes & J.-P. A. Radley. 1947. "Acoustic Properties of Stop Consonants". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29.107-116. & Kenneth N. Stevens. 1964. "Speech Recognition: A Model and a Program for Research". The Structure of Language, ed. by J . A. Fodor & J. J. K a t z , 604-612. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Hamp, Eric P. 1951. "Morphophonemes of the K e l t i c Mutations". Language 27.230-47. Harms, Robert T. 1968. Introduction to Phonological Theory. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall. Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartmann, Elisabeth. 1964. "Bestehen Unterschiede zwischen der A f f r i k a t a / t s / und der Lautfolge t+s?". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 14.387-90. Haugen, Einar. 1956. "The Syllable in Linguistic Description". For Roman Jak obson, ed. by M. Halle, H. G. Lunt, H. MacLean & C. H. Van Schooneveld, 213-21. The Hague: Mouton. Heinz, J. M. & Kenneth Ν. Stevens. 1964. "On the Derivation of Area Func tions and Acoustic Spectra from Cineradiographic F i l m " . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 36.1037-38. Heller, Louis G. & James Macris. 1967. Parametric Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.

References

285

Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1949. "Prosodies in Siamese". Asia Major (New Se ries) 1.189-215. Hermann, Eduard. 1932. "Philologische Mehrgültigkeit eines Lautes". Philolo gische Wochenschrift 52.115-18. Hildebrandt, Bruno F. O. & Liselotte M. Hildebrandt. 1965. "Das deutsche R". Linguistics 11.5-20. Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Transl, by F. J. W h i t f i e l d . 2nd revised ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. . 1968. "Neue Wege der Experimentalphonetik". Phonemetrie 5.112-58. . 1970. Language: An Introduction. Transl, by F. J. W h i t f i e l d . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hockett, Charles F. 1947. "Peiping Phonology". Journal of the American O r i ental Society 67.253-67. . 1954. "Two Models of Grammatical Description". Word 10.210-31. . 1955. A Manual of Phonology. (= International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 11.) Baltimore: Waverly Press. . 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Holtzmann, Adolf. 1843. Über den Umlaut. Carlsruhe: G. Holtzmann. (Repr. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1977.) Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1973. Aspects of Natural Generative Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a . . 1976. Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: A c a demic Press. Householder, Fred W. 1965. "On Some Recent Claims in Phonological Theory". Journal of Linguistics 1.13-34. Hyman, Larry M. 1970. "How Concrete is Phonology?". Language 46.58-76. . 1975. Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. International Phonetic Association. 1949. The Principles of the International Phonetic Association. London: Department of Phonetics, University College. Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and History in Early B r i t a i n . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Jakobson, R. 1962a. "Principes de phonologie historique". Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 1 , 201-220. The Hague: Mouton. . 1962b. "The Concept of the Sound Law and the Teleological C r i t e r i on". Selected Writings of Roman Jakobson, vol. 1 , 1-2. The Hague: Mouton. , Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. & Morris Halle. 1971. Fundamentals of Language. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton. & Linda Waugh. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. James, Dan L. 1966. Modern Welsh Course. C a r d i f f : University of Wales Press. . 1973. Cwrs Cymraeg L l a f a r . 3rd ed. Llandybie: Christopher Davies. James, John R. 1969. "The German Consonant System and the Problem of A f -

286


f r i c a t e s " . Linguistics 52.45-52. Jones, Daniel. 1967. The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. 3rd. ed. Cambridge: Heffer. Jones, Robert Owen. 1969. "The Status of the G l o t t a l F r i c a t i v e in the D y f f r y n Nantlle Dialect". Studia C e l t i c a 4.99-109. . 1969. "Comparative Dialectology". Studia C e l t i c a 6.168-74. Kauffmann, F r i e d r i c h . 1890. Geschichte der schwäbischen Mundart. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. K e n t , R. D. & K. L. M o l l . 1969. " V o c a l - T r a c t Characteristics of the Stop Cognates". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 46.1549-55. K i m , Chin-Wu. 1970. "A Theory of Aspiration". Phonetica 21.107-116. K i n g , Robert D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. "Historical Linguistics". A Survey of Linguistic Science, ed. by W. O. Dingwall, 576-692. College Park: University of Maryland Press. . 1973. "Phonological Representations". Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by O. Fujimura. Tokyo: TEC. Kisseberth, Charles. 1970a. "On the Functional Unity of Phonological Rules". Linguistic Inquiry 1.291-306. . 1970b. "Vowel Elision in Tonkawa and Derivational Constraints". Studies Presented to Robert B. Lees by his Students, ed. by J. M. Sadock & A. L. Vaneck, 109-137. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. . 1972. " C y c l i c a l Rules in Klamath Phonology". Linguistic Inquiry 3.3-33. Knudsen, John K. 1973. A Generative Phonological Description of Modern Standard Welsh. Ph.D. Dissertation. A u s t i n : University of Texas. Koenig, W., H. K. Dunn & L. Y. Lacy. 1946. "The Sound Spectrograph". Jour nal of the Acoustical Society of America 17.19-49. Kohier, Klaus J. 1977. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: E. Schmidt. Koutsoudas, Andreas, Gerald Sanders & Craig Noll. 1974. "The Application of Phonological Rules". Language 50.1-28. Kozhevnikov, V. A. & Liudmila A. Chistovich. 1965. Speech: A r t i c u l a t i o n and Perception. Revised ed. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, JPRS: 30,543. K u r a t h , Hans. 1964. A Phonology and Prosody of Modern English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press. Lamb, Sydney. 1966. Outline of S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammar. Revised ed. Wash ington: Georgetown University Press. . 1975. "Mutations and Relations". The First LACUS Forum, ed. by A. Makkai & V. B. Makkai, 540-57. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam. Langacker, Ronald W. 1972. Fundamentals of Linguistic Analysis. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Leben, William R., & Orrin W. Robinson, "'Upside-down' Phonology". Language

53.1-20. Lehiste, Use. 1967. Readings in Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

References

287

Press. , & Gordon E. Peterson. 1961. "Transitions, Glides and Diphthongs". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33.268-77. Leopold. Werner F. 1948. "German c h " . Language 24.179-220. Lewis, Henry. 1946. Datblygiad yr Iaith Cymraeg. 2nd ed. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol C y m r u . (2nd ed., 1961.) , & Holger Pedersen. 1937. A Concise Comparative C e l t i c Grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (2nd ed., 1961.) Liberman, Alvin M. 1970. "The Grammars of Speech and Language". Cognitive Psychology 1.301-323. , Franklin S. Cooper, D. P. Shankweiler & M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1967. "Perception of the Speech Code". Psychological Review 74.431-61. , Frances Ingemann, Leigh Lisker, Pierre Delattre & Franklin S. Cooper. 1959. "Minimal Rules of Synthesizing Speech". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31.1490-99. Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, Perception, and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. . 1970. "Towards a Unified Phonetic Theory". Linguistic Inquiry 1 .

306-322. Lindblom, Björn E. F. 1972. "Phonetics and the Description of Language". P r o ceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by A. Rigault & R. Charbonneau, 63-93. The Hague: Mouton. , & Johan É. F. Sundberg. 1971. "Acoustic Consequences of L i p , Tongue, Jaw, and Larynx Movement". Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Soci ety of America 50.1166-79. Lisker, Leigh, & A r t h u r S. Abramson. 19677. "Some Effects of Context on Voice Onset Time in English". Language & Speech 10.1-28. Lockwood, David G. 1972. Introduction to S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Linguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. . 1973. "On the Nature of the Phonetic Stratal System". Unpublished mimeographed manuscript, based on a paper presented at the Confer ence on S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Linguistics, K i r k l a n d , Washington, August 1973. . 1976. " A l t e r n a t i v e s to M a t r i x Models in Phonetics and Phonology". The Second LACUS Forum, ed. by P. A. Reich, 141-53. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam. Lüdtke, Helmut. 1959. "Deutsche / x / und / ç / in diachronisch-phonologischer Betrachtung". Phonetica 4.178-83. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press. Mackinnon, Roderick. 1971. Gaelic. K e n t : Hodder & Stoughton. MacNeilage, Peter F. 1970. " M o t o r C o n t r o l of Serial Ordering of Speech". Psychological Review 77.182-96. Makkai, Adam, & David G. Lockwood, eds. 1973. Readings in S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Linguistics. University: University of Alabama Press. Makkai, Valerie Becker, ed. 1972. Phonological Theory: Evolution and C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (2nd ed., Lake Bluff, I11.: Jupiter Press, 1977.) Malecot, André. 1955. " A n Experimental Study of Force of A r t i c u l a t i o n " .

288


Studia Linguistica 9.35-44. Malécot, A. (continued) 1970. "The Fortis-Lenis Opposition: Its Physiological Parameters". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47.1588-92. Malmberg, B e r t i l . 1955. "The Phonetic Basis for Syllable Division". Studia L i n guistica 9.80-87. . 1963. Phonetics. New York: Dover Publications. M a r t i n e t , André. 1939. "Un ou deux phonèmes?". A c t a Linguistica 1.94-103. . 1949a. "Occlusives and A f f r i c a t e s w i t h Reference to Some Problems in Romance Phonology". Word 5.116-22. . 1949b. Phonology as Functional Phonetics. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. . 1952. " F u n c t i o n , Structure, and Sound Change". Word 8.1-32. . 1955. Economie des changements phonétigues. Berne: Francke. (3rd ed., 1970.) . 1964. Elements of General Linguistics. Transl, by E. Palmer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. M e i l l e t , Antoine. 1970. General Characteristics of the Germanic Languages. Transl, by W. P. Dismukes. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. Menn, Lise. 1977. " A n Autosegmental Approach to Child Phonology: F i r s t Ex plorations". Harvard Studies in Phonology, ed. by G. N. Clements, vol. 1 , 315-33. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Science Center. Mermelstein, Paul. 1973. " A r t i c u l a t o r y Model for the Study of Speech Produc t i o n " . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 53.1070-83. . 1975. "Automatic Segmentation of Speech into Syllables". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58.880-83. , S. Maeda & O. Fujimura. 1970. "Description of Tongue and Lip Move ment in a Jaw-Based Coordinate System". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49.104. Meyer-Eppler, Wilhelm. 1959. "Zur Spektralstruktur der / r / - A l l o p h o n e des Deutschen". Acustica 9.247-50. M i t c h e l l , Terence F. 1975. Principles of F i r t h i a n Linguistics. London: Longman. M i t z k a , Walther, ed. 1954. Trübners deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 5. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Morciniec, Norbert. 1958. "Zur phonologischen Wertung der deutschen A f f r i katen und Diphthonge". Z e i t s c h r i f t für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprach wissenschaft 11.49-66. Morgan, T. J . 1952. Y Treigladau a'u Cystrawen. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Morris Jones, John. 1913. A Welsh Grammar: Historical and Comparative, Pho nology and Accidence. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. . 1925. Cerdd Dafod. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. , ed. 1942. O r g r a f f yr Iaith Gymraeg. 2nd ed. Caerdydd: Gwasg P r i f y s gol C y m r u . Moulton, William G. 1947. "Juncture in Modern Standard German". Language 23.212-26. . 1962. The Sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of C h i cago Press. Mulder, Jan W. F. 1968. Sets and Relations in Phonology. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press.

References

289

Nakajima, Takayuki. 1977. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a Dynamic A r t i c u l a t o r y Model by Acoustic Analysis". Dynamic Aspects of Speech Production, ed. by M. Sawashima & F. S. Cooper, 251-75. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Nihilani, Paroo. 1974. " A n Aerodynamic Study of Stops in Sindhi". Phonetica 29.193-221. Öhman, Sven E. G. 1966. " C o a r t i c u l a t i o n in VCV Utterances: Spectrographic Measurements". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39.

151-68. . 1967. "Numerical Model of C o a r t i c u l a t i o n " . Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Society of America 41.310-20. & Kenneth N. Stevens. 1963. "Cineradiographic Studies of Speech: Procedures and Objectives". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35.1889. Ondrackova, Jana. 1973. The Physiological A c t i v i t y of the Speech Organs. The Hague: Mouton. Palmer, Frank R. 1964. "Grammatical Categories and their Phonetic Expo nents". Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by H. G. Lunt, 338-45. The Hague: Mouton. Parry, Thomas, ed. 1962. The Oxford Book of Welsh Verse. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. Parry-Williams, T. H. 1923. The English Element in Welsh. London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. . 1936. Elfennau Barddoniaeth. 2nd ed. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Paul, Hermann. 1975. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 9th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Penfield, Wilder & Lamar Roberts. 1959. Speech and Brain-Mechanisms. New York: Atheneum. Penzl, Herbert. 1975. Von Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen: Eine histo rische Phonologie. Berlin: E. Schmidt. P e r k e l l , Joseph S. 1969. Physiology of Speech Production: Results and Implica tions of a Q u a n t i t a t i v e Cineradiographic Study. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Peterson, Gordon E. & Harold L. Barney. 1952. " C o n t r o l Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24.175-84. & June E. Shoup. 1966. " A Physiological Theory of Phonetics". Jour nal of Speech & Hearing Research 9.5-67. Petursson, Magnus. 1971. "Etude de la réalisation des consonnes islandaises p, d, s, dans la prononciation à partir de la radiocinématographie". Pho netica 23.203-216. . 1976. "Aspiration et a c t i v i t é g l o t t a l e " . Phonetica 33.169-98. Phillips, V. H. 1969. "Prefixed Pronominal Forms in a Welsh Dialect". Studies in Folk L i f e : Essays in Honour of I o r w e r t h C. Peate, ed. by G. Jenkins, 315-32. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pike, Kenneth L. 1943. Phonetics: A C r i t i c a l Analysis of Phonetic Theory and a Technigue for the P r a c t i c a l Description of Sounds. Ann Arbor: Uni versity of Michigan Press. . 1947. Phonemics: A Technigue for Reducing Languages to W r i t i n g .

290


Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pilch, Herbert. 1957. "Morphologie der Nasalmutation in der Umgangssprache von Cardiganshire". Lingua 7.269-73. . 1958. "Das kymrische Lautsystem". Z e i t s c h r i f t für vergleichende Sprachforschung 75.24-78. . 1972. " L a théorie de la phonologie". Proceedings of the Seventh I n ternational Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by A. Rigault and R. Charbonneau, 157-78. The Hague: Mouton. . 1974. Phonemtheorie. 3rd ed. Basel: Karger. P i o t k i n , V. Y. 1976. "Systems of Ultimate Phonological Units". Phonetica 33. 81-92. Pokorny, Julius. 1969. A l t i r i s c h e Grammatik. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Powell, Thomas. 1884. "The Treatment of English Borrowed Words in Colloqui al Welsh". Transactions of the Philological Society 1884.335-78. Pulgram, Ernst. 1970. Syllable, Word, Nexus, Cursus. The Hague: Mouton. Pyle, Charles. 1972. "On Eliminating BM's". Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 516-36. Chicago. Reed, C a r r o l l E. 1965. "Vowel Length in Modern Standard German". Seminar 1.41-47. Reich, Peter A. 1968. Symbols, Relations, and S t r u c t u r a l Complexity. New Haven, Conn.: Linguistic Automation Project, Yale University. Rhodes, Richard A. 1974. "Non-Phonetic Environments in Natural Phonology". Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology (Chicago Linguistic Society), ed. by A. Bruck, R. A. Fox & M. W. LaGaly, 285-96. A m sterdam: North Holland. Rhys Jones, T. J . 1977. Living Welsh. K e n t : Hodder & Stoughton. Roberts, Alan Lloyd. 1973. Anghenion y Gynghanedd. Caerdydd: Gwasg P r i f y s gol C y m r u . Roberts, E. Wyn. 1979. "Perspectives in Prosodic Phonology I I : Eugénie J. A. Henderson". Lingua 48.101-122. Robins, R. H. 1957. "Aspects of Prosodic Analysis". Proceedings of the Uni versity of Durham Philosophical Society 1.1-12. Rowlands, E. I., ed. 1976. Poems of the Cywyddwyr. (= Dublin I n s t i t u t e for A d vanced Studies; Medieval and Modern Welsh Series, 8.) O x f o r d : C l a r e n don Press. Salesbury, William. 1547. A Dictionary in English and Welsh. London. (Repr. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969.) . 1550. A Brief and Plain Introduction. London. (Repr. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969.) Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. Transl, by W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. Savitt, Joan Neuburger. 1978. "Pour une prise de conscience des habitudes articulatoires maternelles dans l'étude d'une langue seconde". The Fourth LACUS Forum, ed. by M. Paradis, 165-71. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam. Sawashima, Masayuki & Franklin S. Cooper. 1977. Dynamic Aspects of Speech Production. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

References

291

Schane, Sanford A. 1971. "The Phoneme Revisited". Language 47.504-521. . 1973. Generative Phonology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Scholes, Robert J. 1968. "Phonemic Interference as a Perceptual Problem". Language & Speech 2.86-103. Singh, Sadanand. 1976. Distinctive Features: Theory and Validation. Baltimore: University Park Press. Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Modern Phonology. Baltimore: University Park Press. Stampe, David. 1973. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Stevens, Kenneth N. & A r t h u r S. House. 1961. " A n Acoustical Theory of Vowel Production and Some of its Implications". Journal of Speech & Hearing Research 4.303-320. Strevens, Peter. 1960. "Spectra of F r i c a t i v e Noise in Human Speech". Lan guage & Speech 3.32-49. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1917. Linguistic Change: An Introduction to the Historic al Study of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Repr. 1961.) . 1947. An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven: Yale Univer sity Press. Sweet, Henry. 1884. "Spoken North Welsh". Transactions of the Philological Society 1884.409-484. . 1909. A Primer in Phonetics. 3rd ed. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. Thomas, Alan R. 1961. "Ffonemau Cytseiniol Tafodiaith Dyffryn Wysg". Bulle tin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 19.193-201. . 1966. "Systems in Welsh Phonology". Studia C e l t i c a 1.93-127. . 1973. The Linguistic Geography of Wales. C a r d i f f : University of Wales Press. Thomas, Ceinwen H. 1964. "Rhai o Nodweddion Ffonolegol Tafodiaith Nantgarw". Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 21.18-26. Thomas, R. J . , ed. 1967. Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru. Vol. 1. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru. Trager, George L. & Bernard Bloch. 1941. "The Syllabic Phonemes of Eng lish". Language 17.223-46. & Henry Lee Smith. 1951. An Outline of English Structure. Norman, Oklahoma: Battenburg Press. Trim, John L. M. 1951. "German [h], [ ç ] and [ x ] " . Le M a î t r e Phonétigue 96. 41-42. Trost, Pavel. 1958. "Systemic Support for the x/ç Distinction in German". Word 14.243-46. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1968. Introduction to the Principles of Phonological Descriptions. Transl, by H. Bluhme. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. . 1969. Principles of Phonology. Transl, by C. A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1935. On Defining the Phoneme. Language Monograph No. 16. Baltimore: Waverly Press for Linguistic Society of America. . 1939. Review of N.S. Trubetzkoy: Grundzüge der Phonologie (Prague, 1939). A c t a Linguistica 1.60-63. Ulbrich, Horst. 1972. Instrumentalphonetisch-auditive R-Untersuchungen im

292


Deutschen, (= Schriften zur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommu nikationsforschung, 13. Berlin: Akademieverlag. Ungeheuer, Gerold. 1969. Das Phonemsystem der deutschen Hochlautung". The odor Siebs deutsche Aussprache, ed. by M. de Boor, H. Moser & C. Winkler, 27-42. Berlin: DeGruyter. Vennemann, Theo. 1968. "Die A f f r i k a t e n in der generativen Phonologie des Deutschen". Phonetica 18.65-76. . 1972. "Sound Change and Markedness Theory". Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, ed. by R. P. Stockwell & R. K. S. Macaulay, 1-21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. & Peter Ladefoged. 1973. "Phonetic Features and Phonological Fea tures". Lingua 32.61-74. Verner, K a r l . 1876. "Eine ausnahme der ersten lautverschiebung". Z e i t s c h r i f t für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23.97-180. Wängler, Heins-Heinrich. 1960. Grundriß einer Phonetik des Deutschen. Mar burg: E l w e r t Verlag. . 1972. Instruction in German Pronunciation. 3rd ed. St. Paul: EMC

Corporation. Watkins, T. A r w y n . 1957. " Y r Arddodiad HG. (h)i, in; C C . y (=yn), yn". Bulle tin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 17.137-58. . 1961. Ieithyddiaeth: Agweddu ar Astudio I a i t h . Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol C y m r u . . 1968. "Dulliau Orgraffyddol Cymraeg Canol o Ddynodi'r Treiglad Trwynol". Bulletin of the Board of C e l t i c Studies 23.7-13. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & M. I. Herzog. 1968. "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change". Directions for Historical Linguis tics, ed. by W. P. Lehmann & Y. M a l k i e l , 95-188. A u s t i n : University of Texas Press. Werner, Otmar. 1972. Phonemik des Deutschen. S t u t t g a r t : M e t z l e r . Williams, Glanmor. 1979. Religion, Language and Nationality in Wales. C a r d i f f : University of Wales Press. Wright, Joseph. 1907. Historical German Grammar. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press. Wurzel, Wolfgang U l l r i c h . 1970. Studien zur deutschen L a u t s t r u k t u r. (= Studia Grammatica, 8.) Berlin: Akademieverlag. Z w i c k y , Arnold Ml. 1974. "Taking a False Step". Language 50.215-24.

SUBJECT INDEX

Α. abstract: 254, 256-57, 261-63 acoustic phonetics: 3-4 acquisition: 218 a f f r i c a t e : 128-48, 169-200 A h i : 253 a l l i t e r a t i o n : see cynghanedd allophone: 20, 22, 38, 43, 47-50, 54-60-72, 75-79, 8 1 , 83, 95, 119, 149-50, 222-23 analogy: 217, 231 Anderson requirement: 54, 7 1 , 1 0 1 , 150, 154, 159, 200, 218, 232, 246, 248, 262, 277; see also Anderson, S. R. in Name Index aspirate mutation: 166-68 aspiration: 50, 52, 59, 96-103, 110, 111-21, 127, 131-32, 138, 145-46, 159-68, 184, 189, 192-94, 209-210, 212, 214, 216, 228-30, 271-76 Auslautsverhärtung: 84, 140 autosegmental phonology: 14, 23, 103, 146, 168 B. Bella Coola: 253, 262-63 beta-strength: 48, 108 binary features: 106, 133, 157 biuniqueness: 129 borrowing: 69-70, 162-64, 169-70 Brythonic: 1 5 1 , 202, 210, 212 C. C e l t i c : 150-151 C e n t r a l Sudanic: 253 change of positions: 221-33 Chinese: 37, 249-63

Chomsky requirement: 232, 277 cluster: 126, 128, 143; cluster pros ody: 96-103 coalescence: 114-18, 128, 200, 2 0 1 219, 271-77 c o a r t i c u l a t i o n : 8-10, 17, 33, 41-43, 47, 49, 57-58, 65, 68, 70, 74, ' 8 3 , 89, 114, 142-43, 145-46, 163-64, 167, 194, 200, 224, 229, 231-32, 245 coexistent phonemic systems: 70, 177, 185 combinatory variant: see allophone commutation: 124-26, 142 competence: 222 complementary distribution: 47 conspiracies: 12 constraint: 8, 16, 28-39, 43, 45, 48-49, 58, 67, 85, 97-90, 92, 95, 103, 109-110, 113, 1 3 1 , 143, 145, 192, 207-208, 224, 226, 231-32, 241, 245 contrastive d i s t r i b u t i o n : 61 coӧccurrence r e s t r i c t i o n : 165 Copenhagen School: 52; see also Hjelmslev, L. in Name Index counter-example: 69, 129 Cymraeg Byw: 213, 217 Cymraeg Safonol: 159 cynghanedd: 105, 146, 265-78 D. degree of constraint: 87, 111 delayed release: 131-32, 180, 197 dependency model: 17 descriptive adequacy: 232, 237, 246, 262, 277 dialect: 75, 77 direction of constraint (directional constraint): 53-72, 73-93, 95, 119,

294

149, 229 discrepancies, i n t e r s t r a t a l : 27, 242 distinctive features: 19-22, 187, 189, 203, 222 divisions: 39, 84, 95, 112, 208, 242, 270-71 duration: 80-93, 145 Dutch: 71 dynamic coarticulatory constraint: 35, 81, 86, 93, 112, 142, 148, 149, 159, 168, 195-96, 200, 219, 242, 269, 262-63, 277 dynamic model, diagram: 44 dynamic phonetics: 8-9, 14-18, 2833, 45-48, 52, 54, 58, 7 1 , 74, 79, 90, 91-92, 142, 159, 236, 239-42, 260-61, 263, 265, 277 E. eclipsis: 201-219 English: 25, 40, 96, 100, 104, 106, 130-32, 134-37, 146, 155, 162-63, 170-73, 176, 186, 192, 194, 196, 213, 221-34, 226-29, 250-51, 253 exception 69-70, 126, 262 explanatory adequacy: 120-21, 207, 218, 232, 237, 246, 248, 262, 277 F. false step: 164-55 features: as basis of phonetics and phonology 2-6 First Germanic Sound Shift: 104, 134 F i r t h i a n : see London School fortis-lenis change: 103-121 fortis-lenis scale: 84-86, 94-121, 123, 130-42, 157, 159, 161, 192-94, 209-210, 218, 225 Fourier analysis: 31 French: 4 1 , 70, 186, 245 function: 1 , 6, 16, 25, 35, 50-51, 61-62, 71, 79, 125, 129, 139-41, 146-47, 149, 158, 177, 181, 184, 190, 196-97, 261-63 functional unity: 156 functionalism: see function, Prague School, structural/functionalism

Aspects of Dynamic Phonology G. Gaelic: 42 geminate: 105-106, 116-17, 134-35, 137-38, 274-75 generative: 11-15, 19, 21-22, 51, 55-57, 61, 63, 89, 99-101, 106-107, 114-15, 117, 119, 121, 128-29, 149-58, 164-65, 168, 173-77, 180, 183-84, 187-91, 191, 196, 198, 204-207, 218, 222-24, 226-28, 230, 236-39, 248, 251-52, 254-55, 257, 277 German: 40, 42, 53-72, 73-93, 96, 103, 128-48, 164, 186, 192, 235-48, 251; Old High German 40, 49-50, 134-38, 140-41, 226-29, 235-48; Middle High German 139, 236; High German 134, 136; Upper German 127, 128, 133-41, 145-46; Alemannic: 7 1 ; Old Alemannic 134; High Alemannic: 128, 136, 138; Franco nian: 137; East Franconian 136; Old Saxon 134; see also English (Old English), High German Consonant Shift Germanic: 103, 104, 2 2 1 , 226-29, 235; Gothic 104; Old West Ger manic 136 global rules: 12 glossematics: 15 glottal fricative: 98, 110-11, 11415, 132, 184, 271, 276 Gothic: see Germanic Greek: 70, 103 Gruppenphonologie: 125, 128, 142 H. Halle hypothesis: 12-13, 15, 72 hard mutation: 105 hierarchy of constraint: 29, 33, 45, 53, 65, 92, 112, 241, 260 High German Consonant Shift: 13335, 136, 138, 140 historical change: 91, 103-121, 13339, 151-52, 155-56, 167-68, 169200, 201-219, 2 2 1 , 246-48 hypercorrect: 79, 127, 130 hypothetical-deductive method: 16

Subject Index

I. Indo-European: 103; protolanguage 104 inherent feature: 250, 256, 270 inner approach: 1 , 8, 1 1 , 23, 27, 33, 66, 68, 79, 95, 106, 108-109, 239, 259 International Phonetic Alphabet: 169, 203 intonation: 36, 53; see also larynge al pattern Irish: 42, 207

295

metathesis: 1 0 1 , 2 2 1 , 226-33 minimal pairs: 61-62, 68 mirror-image phenomenon: 126 monophonematicity: 124-48, 170, 198

morpheme: 63, 127, 129, 140-41, 146, 217

Japanese: 253

morpheme structure constraint: 254, 262 morphology: see morpheme morphophonology: 169-200, 149-68, 201, 211 motor theory: 12 mutation system: see Welsh (muta tion system), aspirate mutation, hard mutation, nasal mutation, soft mutation, spirant mutation mutual support: 13, 15-16, 18, 79

L.

N.

Lahu: 253 laleme: 127 language teaching: 265 langue: 222 lapsis linguae: see slip of the tongue laryngeal division: 39, 43, 53, 109, 208 laryngeal p a t t e r n : 39, 42, 53; de fined 36 L a t i n : 25, 104-105, 133, 150-52, 162-64 Lendu: 253 length: 89, 90 lengthening: 133, 135 lenition: 42, 86, 96, 104, 110, 118-

nasal mutation: 98, 1 0 1 , 156,

J.

158,

164-65, 175, 182-84, 189, 190, 201, 203, 211-18 natural class: 22, 154-57, 165, 167 natural generative phonology: 13, 14, 222-24 Neo-Prague: see Prague School neogrammarian: 168 neurological phonetics: 5 neutralization: 42, 134, 140, 225, 230, 232, 274; absolute 155 notionalism: 12, 25-26, 58, 68, 113,

121, 200, 218, 263 Nyi: 253 O.

20, 151, 154, 156, 165, 174, 230; see also soft mutation Liberman hypothesis: 10, 14, 45, 55-57, 103 linear ordering: 12 local ordering: 12 Lolo-Burmish: 253 London School: 14-18, 23, 26, 52,

102-103, 116, 239-42, 244-45, 255 M. Mandarin: see Chinese markedness: 70, 212-13

obstruction: defined 38 obstruction division: 39, 43, 53, 83,

109, 114, 162, 193, 208, 245, 27172 obstruction opposition: 109-110, 113, 159 obstruction prosody: 110-11, 120, 143, 145-46, 212, 245 onomatopoeia: 138-40 order and series: 177-81, 184-87, 190-91, 197-98 o r g a n i z a t i o n : d y n a m i c phonology 43-52

296


outer approach: 9, 17, 33, 108-109

S.

P.

segmantalism: and phonetic organization 7-19 series: see order and series simplification: 180, 185 Sino-Tibetan: 252 slip of the tongue: 221-25, 229-33 soft mutation: 96-97, 99-100, 110, 154-58, 163-65, 174-75, 179-84, 184, 188, 192, 194, 197-98, 213 sound shifting: 134 Spanish: 19-21, 48, 54, 103, 119; Mexican Spanish 253 spirant mutation: 97-98, 157-58, 164-68, 175, 180, 189-90, 197-200 spirantization: 104 Sprachsilbe: 63 Sprechsilbe: 63, 75 stratificational grammar: 15-16, 23, 52, 55, 63, 102, 149, 161, 239-42, 258-59 strength: 85, 106, 120, 162 strengthening: 104, 137 structural/functionalism: 15, 18, 20, 45-46, 50-52, 62, 70, 84, 129, 140-41, 223 structuralism: 11, 13, 15, 20-22, 25, 51, 61, 63, 124-30, 141, 158, 190, 204-207, 222, 236-39

parole: 222 performance: 222-23 phonematic unit: 255-58 phoneme: 7, 9, 19, 21, 47, 76, 109, 124, 132, 150, 189, 197, 203-204, 222, 238, 258, 270 phonemic: 187 phonemic constancy: 129 phonemic distribution: 130 physiological phonetics: 4, 5, 13 plus-juncture: 62-64 poetics: 201, 265-78 polyphonematicity: 124-48 polysystematicity: 256 portmanteau: 201, 277 position of obstruction: 65, 70, 7475, 83, 86, 110, 115, 143, 146, 194-95, 199, 224, 231 position of strength: 136-37 postulates: of dynamic phonology 33-43 Prague School: 15, 20, 52, 173, 177-81, 190-91, 194, 196-98 prediction: 194-200 process: 223 pronunciation: 265 prosodic analysis: see London School prosodic constraint: 49, 95-121, 123-48, 149, 192, 193, 200, 229, 232, 270-78 prosodie feature: 250, 255, 257, 270 prosodies: 14, 100-103, 208, 239, 242, 270; defined 38-43 provection: 84, 103-109, 113-18, 133-39, 201, 230-31, 272, 274-75

suprasegmental: 26

Q.

syllabic: 91, 249-63 syllabic frame: 43-46, 59, 68-69, 86-89, 91, 109-110, 114-18, 142, 150, 170, 194, 201, 208-209, 224, 229, 231, 242-45; 260-61, 271-75 syllable: defined 36-38 syllable division: 39, 43, 49, 53, 83, 109, 120, 208 syllable prosody: 261 symmetry: 128, 177, 184, 187

quasi-stepmatrix: 102, 239-42, 258

T.

R.

teleological criterion: 140 tension: 84, 86-88, 92, 108, 111, 119, 138, 141, 157, 209 tone: 258 totally obstructed syllable: see syllabic

relativity: 39, 53, 84, 112 restriction: 37, 167 Russian: 253

Subject Index

297

transformation: see generative transition: 37, 8 1 , 90 transparencies: 12

W.

U.

Welsh: 41-43, 46-49, 87, 96-121, 149-68, 133, 136, 146, 169-200, 201-219, 225, 229-32, 246-47, 265-78; mutation system: 4 1 , 96103, 149-68, 169, 173-200, 2 0 1 , see also aspirate mutation, hard muta tion, nasal mutation, soft mutation, spirant mutation; North Welsh 132, 133, 135, 1 9 1 , 194-95; protolanguage 105; Early Welsh 201-211, 214-15, 217; Old Welsh 104, 1 5 1 , 202; Middle Welsh 202, 212, 231, 247; Early Modern Welsh 118, 212

umlaut: 40, 235-48 universal interpretive conventions: 99 upside-down phonology: 13 V. variant: see allophone visible speech: 7-8 vocalic p a t t e r n : 37, 49 vowel a f f e c t i o n : 40, 235-48

weakening: 104, 110, 118 weakness 86

NAME INDEX

A. Abramson, Andersen, Anderson, Anderson,

C. A. S.: 111 H.: 16 J . M.: 17 S. R.: 12, 23-24, 26-27,

Cercignani, F.: 235 Chao, Y . - R . : 253 Chistovich, L. Α.: 10, 43, 55 Chomsky, N.: 12-13, 16, 19, 22, 99,

33, 51-52, 54-55, 57-58, 71, 101, 113, 150, 164, 218, 223, 225, 232,

101, 106, 108, 120-21, 155, 157, 218, 222, 232, 237-38, 241, 246, 251-52, 262-63, 268, 277 Coker, C : 31 Cooper, F. S.: 4, 8, 10, 32-33, 55,

246, 259, 262-63, 277 A n t t i l a , R.: 16, 168, 206-207 A t a l , B. S.: 31 Awbery, G. M.: 152, 158,

168,

211-12 B. Bach, E.: 180 Baltaxe, C. A. M.: 20, 157, 187 Barney, H. L.: 3 Baudis, J . : 151 Becker, H.: 126, 128, 139 Bell, Α.: 55, 249, 252-53, 262 Bell, A. G.: 4, 7 Bell, A. M · : 4 B e i l - B e r t i , F.: 9, 33, 68, 108, 238, 244, 247 Berry, M.: 255, 259 Bethge, W.: 77 Bjarkman, P. C : 13-14, 72, 222 Blache, 5. E.: 45 Bloch, Β.: 251 Bloomfield, L.: 4, 21-22, 6 1 , 169, 186-87, 206, 222 Bluhme, H.: 126-27 Borst, J . M.: 4, 83 Boor, H. de: 75 Bowen, J . T.: 170 Brandenstein, W.: 127 Braune, W.: 134-35 Bruck, Α.: 222

83, 90, 109, 241 Copeland, J . E.: 63 C r y s t a l , D.: 277 C u r t i s , J . F.: 3, 29, 33, 260 D. Davies, J . J . G.: 212 Davis, P. W.: 255 D e l a t t r e , P.: 4, 8, 32, 55, 83, 90, 241 D i e t r i c h , G.: 62-63, 70, 75 Dillon, M.: 42 Dinnsen, D. Α . : 12 Dunn, H. Κ.: 3, 7 Ε. Eliasson, S.: 12 Evans, D. S.: 247 Evans, H. M.: 1 7 1 , 247 F. Falc'hun, F.: 106 Fant, G.: 2-3, 8-10, 22, 36, 45, 55, 102, 224, 250, 270 Fenn, H. C : 250, 253-54 F i r t h , J. R.: 14, 17, 102, 192, 239, 255, 270

300

Fischer-Jørgensen, E.: 3, 19, 82, 86 Foley, J . : 33, 48, 103, 108 Forchhammer, J . : 127 Fowkes, R. Α . : 162, 180 Fox, R. Α.: 222 Fries, C. C : 70, 177 Fromkin, V.: 100 Fujimura, O.: 31 Furnival, F. J . : 172 Fynes-Clinton, O. H.: 96-98, 105,

135, 166, 171, 173, 177, 180, 186, 197, 276 G. Gay, T.: 8-10, 33, 35, 241 Gerhardt, D.: 125-30, 139-40 Gerstman, L. J . : 4, 83, 90, 241 Glave, R. D.: 66-68, 83 Gleason, Η. Α.: 1 9 - 2 1 , 42, 54, 76, 119, 179, 262 Goldsmith, J . : 14, 102, 168 Greenberg, J . H.: 132

Griffen, T. D.: 12, 17, 25, 34, 41, 48-51, 55, 58-59, 69-71, 79, 83, 85, 87, 102, 110, 112-13, 116, 134, 136, 138, 146, 154, 159, 162, 183, 187, 197, 201, 208, 210, 213, 223, 225, 230, 239, 241, 253, 258, 265-66, 274, 276 Grimm, J . : 104 H. Halle, Μ.: 1, 3, 11-16, 19, 22, 25, 55, 72, 79, 95, 99, 101-102, 106, 108-109, 155, 157, 165, 188, 222, 239, 241, 250-52, 259, 268, 270 Hamp, E. P.: 1 5 1 , 211 Hanauer, S. L.: 31 Harms, R. T.: 63, 129, 154, 157, 164, 180 Harris, K. S.: 9, 33, 68, 238, 244, 247 Harris, Z. S.: 14, 222 Hartmann, E.: 130, 142 Haugen, E.: 67 Heinz, J. M.: 3, 30 Heller, L. G.: 14 Henderson, Ε. J . Α.: 17, 52


Hermann, E.: 62 Herzog, M. L: 246 Hildebrandt, Β. F. O.: 75-77, 85 Hildebrandt, L. M.: 75-77, 85 Hjelmslev, L.: 12, 15, 34-35, 5 1 , 63,

68-69, 126, 177, 262 Hockett, C. F.: 11, 13, 15, 19, 27, 34, 63, 206, 222, 250, 253-54, 260, 262 Hoenigswald, H. M.: 206 Holtzmann, Α.: 235 Hooper, J. Β.: 13, 55, 222 House, A. S.: 3 Householder, F. W.: 19, 170 Hughes, G. W.: 3 Hyman, L. M.: 2 1 , 54, 119, 157, 252, 254 I. Ingemann, F.: 8, 32, 55 J. Jackson, K.: 103, 105, 133, 1 5 1 , 155-56, 170, 202, 230 Jakobson, R.: 1 , 3, 1 1 , 22, 25, 39, 53, 79, 84, 95, 102, 106, 108-109, 112, 140, 157, 239, 246, 250, 259, 270 James, D. L.: 170-71, 247 James, J . R.: 128, 130, 145 Jeuan ap Howel Swrdwal: 172 Jeuan ap Rydderch ab Jeuan L l o y d : 172 Jones, C.: 17 Jones, D.: 62, 64, 69, 238 Jones, J . : 118 Jones, R. O.: 98, 156, 162, 180,

182-84, 213 K. Kauffmann, F.: 140 K e n t , R. D.: 111 K i m , C.-W.: 48, 67, 71 K i n g , R. D.: 168, 185, 206, 235 Kiparsky, P.: 12, 155 Kisseberth, C.: 12, 156, 247 Knudsen, J. K.: 152

Name Index Koenig, W.: 3, 7 Kohier, Κ. J . : 75-77 Koutsoudas, Α.: 223 Kozhevnikov, V. Α.: 10, 43, 55 K u r a t h , H.: 100 L. LaGaly, M. W.: 222 Labov, W.: 246 Lacy, L. Y.: 3, 7 Ladefoged, P.: 48, 109, 111, 252, 255 Lamb, S.: 161 Langacker, R. W.: 21 Leben, W. R.: 13 Lehiste, I.: 3, 37, 45 Leopold, W. F.: 62 Lewis, H.: 150, 170-71, 202 Liberman, A. M.: 4, 8, 10, 14, 32,

37, 45, 47, 55-57, 83, 90, 102, 241, 250 Lieberman, P.: 5, 3 1 , 36-37 Lindblom, B. E. F.: 11-13, 15, 3 1 , 34 Lisker, L.: 8, 32, 55, 111 Lockwood, D. G.: 16, 47, 55, 102, 161, 2 0 1 , 239, 242, 258 Lüdtke, H.: 67, 71 Lyons, J . : 25, 238 M. Mackinnon, R.: 42 MacNeilage, P. F.: 5 Macris, J . : 14 Maeda, S.: 31 Makkai, Α . : 161 Makkai, V. B.: 19 Malécot, Α.: 48, 106, 108, 159, 164 Malmberg, B.: 37, 43, 85, 154 M a r t i n e t , Α . : 6, 15, 5 1 , 54, 79, 123,

125-28, 177, 181, 187, 194, 197, 244 Meillet, Α.: 104, 110, 118, 137-38 Menn, L.: 14, 168 Mermelstein, P.: 8, 22, 28-31, 33, 35, 37, 43, 55, 58-59, 65, 109, 142, 207-208, 236, 238, 241-42, 245, 247, 260

301 Meyer-Eppler, W.: 81 M i t c h e l l , T. F.: 17, 239, 241, 255-56 M i t z k a , W.: 226 M o l l , K. L.: 111 Morciniec, Ν.: 126-27, 129 Morgan, T. J . : 96, 105, 158, 173, 202, 212 Morris Jones, J . : 96, 105, 118, 1 5 1 ,

155, 170,

180,

202,

211-12,

217,

266, 276 Moulton, W. G.: 62, 63-64, 75, 77, 126-27, 129 Mulder, J. W. F.: 16 Ν. Nakajima, T.: 33 Nihalani, P.: 111 Noll, C.: 223 O. ó Cróin h , D.: 42 Öhman, S. Ε. G.: 4, 8, 31-32, 35, 38, 58, 65, 109 Óndračková, J . : 5 P. Palmer, F. R.: 102, 108, 111 Parry, T.: 266 Parry-Williams, T. H.: 162, 267 Paul, H.: 235 Pedersen, H.: 150, 170, 202 Penfield, W.: 5 Penzl, H.: 1 3 1 , 137-38

Perkell, J. S.: 5, 8, 31-32, 35, 48, 60, 65, 68, 73, 1 1 1 , 159 Peterson, G. E.: 3, 5, 37 Petursson, M.: 106 Phillips, V. H.: 212 Pike, Κ. L.: 14-15, 70, 177 Pilch, H.: 1 1 , 130, 211-12 P l o t k i n , V. Y . : 55 Pokorny, J . : 207 Powell, T.: 173 Pulgram, E.: 67 Pyle, C.: 63

302

R. Radley, J.-P. Α . : 3 Reed, C. E.: 82, 86 Reich, P. Α.: 5 Rhodes, R. Α.: 13 Rhys Jones, T. J . : 170, 213, 217 Roberts, A. L I : 105, 266, 268 Roberts, E. W.: 17-18, 52 Roberts, L.: 5 Robins, R. H.: 17, 43, 95, 256 Robinson, O. W.: 13 Rowlands, E. L.: 266

S. Salesbury, W.: 171-72 Sanders, G.: 223 Sapir, E.: 62 Saussure, F. de: 7, 74, 170, 222, 226, 246, 263 Savitt, J . Ν.: 7 Sawashima, (vi.: 33, 109 Schane, S. Α.: 23, 25, 189, 202, 222 Scholes, R. J . : 131 Shankweiler, D. P.: 10, 32 Shoup, J. E.: 5 Singh, S.: 2, 45, 106, 131 Smith, H. L.: 169 Sommerstein, A. H.: 168 Stampe, D.: 13, 222-24 Stevens, Κ. Ν.: 3-4, 12, 30 Strevens, P.: 3 Studdert-Kennedy, M.: 10, 32 Sturtevant, Ε. Η.: 7, 186, 226 Sundberg, J. E. F.: 31 Sweet, H.: 4, 7 T. Tewksbury, M. G.: 250, 253-54 Thomas, A. R.: 159, 180, 187, 191, 212, 214


Thomas, C. H.: 180 Thomas, R. J . : 230 Thomas, W. O.: 1 7 1 , 247 Trager, G. L.: 169, 251 Trim, J . L. M.: 63

Trost, P.: 61 Trubetzkoy, N. S.: 1-2, 15, 19, 35, 40, 51, 54, 61-62, 70, 79, 83, 106-109, 124-25, 129-30, 132, 157, 250, 263 Twaddell, W. F.: 9, 18, 95, 125, 129 U. Ulbrich, H.: 8 1 , 86 Ungeheuer, G.: 64, 126 V. Vennemann, T.: 48, 109, 128-29, 184, 225 W. Wängler, H.-H.: 7, 75 Watkins, Τ. Α.: 159, 170, 180, 184, 197, 202 Waugh, L.: 39, 53, 84, 112 Werner, O.: 64, 128 Williams, G.: 173 Wright, J . : 134 Wurzel, W. U.: 82, 86, 9 1 , 251 Ζ. Z w i c k y , A. M.: 154-55

Aspects of Dynamic Phonology

Phonology

Aspects of Akan Grammar and the Phonology-Syntax Interface: Phonology and Syntax

The Phonology of Norwegian

The Phonology of Norwegian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Hungarian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Polish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Mongolian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Dutch

Principles of Phonology

The Phonology of Danish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Catalan (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Italian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Italian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

Basque Phonology

A Computational Phonology of Russian

Modeling of dynamic systems

Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects

Methods of dynamic economics

Elements of Dynamic Optimization

The Dynamic of Secession

Dynamic Behavior of Materials

Welsh Phonology: Selected Readings

Understanding Phonology (Understanding Language)

Strength Relations in Phonology

Laboratory Phonology VII

Dissertation on Natural Phonology

Understanding Phonology (Understanding Language)

Ancient Egyptian Phonology

Introducing Phonetics and Phonology

Patterns in Child Phonology

Aspects of Dynamic Phonology

Phonology

Aspects of Akan Grammar and the Phonology-Syntax Interface: Phonology and Syntax

The Phonology of Norwegian

The Phonology of Norwegian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Hungarian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Polish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Mongolian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Dutch

Principles of Phonology

The Phonology of Danish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Catalan (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Italian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Italian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

Basque Phonology

A Computational Phonology of Russian

Modeling of dynamic systems

Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects

Methods of dynamic economics

Elements of Dynamic Optimization

The Dynamic of Secession

Dynamic Behavior of Materials

Welsh Phonology: Selected Readings

Understanding Phonology (Understanding Language)

Strength Relations in Phonology

Laboratory Phonology VII

Dissertation on Natural Phonology

Understanding Phonology (Understanding Language)

Ancient Egyptian Phonology

Introducing Phonetics and Phonology

Patterns in Child Phonology

Recommend Documents