Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 51–64

Glides and laryngeals as a structural class

 | Leiden University
 | Leiden University
 | Leiden University
Phonological processes typically affect natural classes of sounds, with the members of such classes sharing some phonetic property to the exclusion of other sounds. Recent typological work shows that not all phonological classes are natural, however (Mielke 2008). This paper considers the class of glides and laryngeals, a combination of sounds which resists a straightforward characterization in terms of shared features. Adopting the framework of Element Theory (Harris & Lindsey 1995; Backley 2011), we argue that class behaviour of glides and laryngeals is due not to their having shared phonetic content, but shared phonological structure: glides and laryngeals contain a single element in their melodic structure. We conclude that phonological processes can be sensitive to the difference between simple and complex expressions.
Keywords: natural class, glides, laryngeals, melodic structure, Element Theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Element Theory and the idea of a “structural class”
  • 3.Some implications of our proposal
  • 4.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 3 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00004.kok
References (43)
References
Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A unitary account of a self-organizing structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert & Janet Grijzenhout. 2018. “Voiced fricatives in Element Theory: Evidence from the Nordic languages” (paper presented at Elements: State of the art and perspectives, June 15, Nantes).
Botma, Bert & Marijn van ’t Veer. 2013. “A fraction too much friction: The phonological status of voiced fricatives.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013 ed. by S. Aalberse and A. Auer, 46–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Jana & Marzena Żygis. 2011. “Why do glottal stops and low vowels like each other?” Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences ed. by W. -S. Lee and E. Zee, 376–379. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas. 2001. “Jahai phonology: A preliminary survey.” Mon-Khmer Studies 311: 29–45.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. “The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification.” Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech ed. by J. Kingston and M. Beckman, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. & Elizabeth V. Hume. 1995. “The internal organization of speech sounds.” The handbook of phonological theory ed. by J. Goldsmith, 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & Harry van der Hulst. 2001. The phonological structure of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2010. “Probing the unnatural.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010 ed. by J. van Kampen and R. Nouwen, 73–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. A. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Phonological output is redundancy-free and fully interpretable.” Current trends in phonology: Models and methods ed. by J. Durand and B. Laks, 305–332. Salford, Manchester: ESRI.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralization.” Phonology 141: 315–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority.” Lingua 1161: 1483–1494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening.” Strength relations in phonology ed. by K. Nasukawa and P. Backley, 9–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey. 1995. “The elements of phonological representation.” Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations ed. by J. Durand and F. Katamba, 34–79. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2008. “Lenition, weakening and consonantal strength: Tracing concepts through the history of phonology.” Lenition and fortition ed. by J. Brandão de Carvalho, T. Scheer and P. Ségéral, 9–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle. 1952. “Preliminaries to speech analysis.” Tech. rep. 13, MIT Acoustics Lab.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 2002. “Coronal epenthesis and markedness.” Phonology 191: 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loos, Eugene. 1969. The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Oklahoma: Norman.Google Scholar
Mansen, Karis & Richard Mansen. 1984. Aprendamos Guajiro. Bogota: Editorial Townsend.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1988. “Feature geometry and dependency: A review.” Phonetica 431. 84–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1998. The Fyem language of northern Nigeria. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1996. The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborn, Henry. 1966. “Warao I: Phonology and morphophonemics.” International Journal of American Linguistics 321: 108–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pompino-Marschall, Bernd & Marzena Żygis. 2011. “Glottal marking of vowel-initial words in German.” Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences ed. by W. -S. Lee and E. Zee, 1626–1629. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2007. “Markedness.” The Cambridge handbook of phonology ed. by P. de Lacy, 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1973. “A cross-linguistic study of vowel nasalization.” Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 151: 190–221.Google Scholar
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi & Bert Botma. 2017. “On the diachronic origin of Nivkh height restrictions.” Sonic signatures ed. by G. Lindsey and A. Nevins, 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solnit, David. 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton. 2013. “Analogy in the emergence of intrusive-r in English.” English Language and Linguistics 171: 55–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2008. “The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization.” The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky ed. by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas, 151–180. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uffmann, Christian. 2007. “Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants.” Language Sciences 291: 451–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2000. Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Yar-Shater, Eshan. 1969. A grammar of Southern Tati dialects. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar