Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-07T10:41:32.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Phonological Primes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

E. C. Fudge
E. C. Fudge
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ideas of this paper spring from an attempt to grapple with certain phonological problems in a number of languages, and in particular with the special problems which arise when one desires to use a generative, ‘distinctive-feature’ approach. The facts of Tswana phonology summarized below (§5.1) proved especially awkward to handle; when the original twelve features were taken and assigned in a ‘classical’ manner (i.e. [+Vocalic, + Consonantal] for all Liquids, [—Vocalic, —Consonantal] for all Glides, etc.), there were found to be many different ways of characterizing the various segment-types. What was disturbing was that every one of these ways entailed writing phonological rules which failed to highlight the underlying structure, or even obscured it. Conversely, if assignments other than the ‘classical’ were permitted, any attempt to group the segment-types into an arrangement which faithfully reflected the relationships between them (such as Table 8 below) left one with insuperable phonetic problems of feature-assignment. Both these types of difficulty are exemplified in Appendix i.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , April 1967 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, W. S. (1956). Structure and system in the Abaza verbal complex. TPhS. 127–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. (Janua Linguarum, 38). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. JL. I. 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. T. (1955). Introduction to Tswana Grammar. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Fant, C. G. M. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. (Description and Analysis of Contemporary Standard Russian, 2.) 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.) (1964). The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. & Pike, K. L. (1949). Coexistent phonemic systems. Lg. 25. 29–50.Google Scholar
Gray, G. W. & Wise, C. M. (1959). The Bases of Speech, 3rd edition. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1958). The bases of phonology. In Fodor & Katz (1964). 324–333.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1944). Simultaneous components in phonology. Lg. 20. 181–205; also in Joos (1957). 124–138.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1939). The syllable as a structural unit. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Ghent: Laboratory of Phonetics of the University. 266–272.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Horálek, K. (1965). Zur Theorie der unterscheidenden Eigenschaften (‘Distinctive Features’). Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Basel: Karger. 365–366.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1952). Review of Harris's Methods in Structural Linguistics. IJAL 18. 260–268.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1962). The distributional determination of English phonemes. Lingua ii. 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1965). On some recent claims in phonological theory. JL i. 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (1939). Concrete and abstract sounds. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Ghent: Laboratory of Phonetics of the University. 1–7.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (1962). The Phoneme, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (ed.) (1957). Readings in Linguistics. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. (M.I.T. Press Research Monograph, 26). Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964). On alternation, transformation, realization and stratification. Georgetown Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 17. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 105–122.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1962). Phonemic and non-phonemic phonology. IJAL 28. 127–133.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. (1949). Morphology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1948). Tone Languages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pilch, H. (1965). Zentrale und periphere Lautsysteme. Proceedings of the Fifth Internanational Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Basel: Karger. 467–473.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1964). Boas and the development of phonology. IJAL 30. 260–280.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (forthcoming). On the mentalistic character of so-called ‘sound change’. Two Studies in the Theory of Phonology.Google Scholar
Potter, R. K., Kopp, G. A. & Green, H. C. (1947). Visible Speech. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. (1965). Analyse spectrographique et interprétation fonctionnelle de la nasalité dans un parler de l'Italie du nord (Rossano, prov. Massa Carrara). Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Basel: Karger. 512–516.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1925). Sound patterns in language. Lg. I. 37–51; also in Joos (1957) 19–25.Google Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. (1943). Notes on the Hungarian vowel phonemes. Lg. 19. 162–164.Google Scholar
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1949). On simplicity of descriptions. TCLC 5. 61–70.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. (1956). Some aspects of the phonology of the Turkish word. BSOAS 18. 578–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. D. (1966). A criticism of distinctive features. JL. 2. 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar