WORKING PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS # 25 PAPERS IN PHONOLOGY Edited by Arnold M. Zwicky ...

182 Pages·2013·10.58 MB·English

WORKING PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS # 25
PAPERS IN PHONOLOGY
Edited by Arnold M. Zwicky
Papers By
Donald G. Churma, Roderick D. Goman
and Lawrence Schourup
Department of Linguistics
The Ohio State University
1841 Millikin Road
Columbus, Ohio 43210
January, 1981
------------ ---------------
OSU Working Papers in Linguistics # 25
Papers in Phonology
The five papers in this volume deal with various aspects of phonological
theory, and all show the influence of Stampe's Natural Phonology. Schourup's
contribution (originally a seminar paper) proposes to revive the notion
'basis of articulation' within this framework. Churma's contributions
(the first an extended extract from his 1979 Ph.D. dissertation) deal
critically with argumentation in various versions of generative phonology.
Finally, Goman proposes (in a revised extract from his 1979 Ph.D. disserta-
tion) a Natural Phonological treatment of consonant processes, paralleling
Donegan's vowel study in WPL 23.
AMZ
ii
- ---
----- -- --~--
Table of Contents
Page
List of WorkingPapersin Linguistics iv
. . . . .
Lawrence Schourup, liTheBasis of Articulation" 1
Donald G. Churma, "Diachronic Evidence for Synchronic Analyses
in Phonology" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Donald G. Churma, "A Further Remark on the 'Hallean
Syllogism'" . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Donald G. Churma, "Some Further Problems for Upside-
Down Phonology" . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Roderick D. Goman, On the Natural Phonology of Consonants 107
Hi
List of Working Papers in Linguistics
No.1, December 1967 out of print
Articles by Dale Elliott, Charles Fillmore, James
Heringer, Terence Langendoen, Gregory Lee, Ilse
Lehiste, and Sandra Thompson.
No.2, November 1968 (OSU-CISRC-TR-68-3) PB-182 596
Articles by Charles Fillmore and Ilse Lehiste.
No.3, June 1969 (OSU-CISRC-TR-69-4) PB-185 855
Articles by Dale Elliott, Shuan-fan Huang,
Terence Langendoen, Gregory Lee, and Ilse Lehiste.
No.4, May 1970 (OSUCISRC-TR-70-26) PB-192 163
Articles by Gaberell Drachman, Mary Edwards,
Charles Fillmore, Gregory Lee, Patricia Lee,
Ilse Lehiste, and Arnold Zwicky.
No.5, June 1969 out of print
Twana Phonology, by Gaberell Drachman.
No.6, September 1970 (OSU-CISRC-TR-70-12) PB-194 829
Articles by Charles Fillmore, Ilse Lehiste,
David Meltzer, Sandra Thompson, and Marcel
Tatham.
No.7, February 1971 (OSU-CISRC-TR-71-7) PB-198 278
Articles by Alexander Grosu and Gregory Lee.
No.8, June 1971 (OSU-CISRC-TR-71-7) PB-202 724
Articles by Dale Elliott, Michael Geis,
Alexander Grosu, Barry Nobel, Ann Zwicky, and
Arnold Zwicky.
No.9, July 1971 (OSU-CISRC-TR-71-8) PB-204 002
Articles by Zinny Bond, Richard Gregorski,
Andrew Kerek, Ilse Lehiste, Linda Shockey,
and Mary Wendell.
No. 10, August 1971 Edited by Charles Fillmore out of print
Articles on Case Grammar.
No. 11, February 1972 ED 062 850
Articles by James Heringer, Patricia Miller,
Lawrence Schourup, and Richard Wojcik.
No. 12, June 1972 (OSU-CISRC-TR-72-6) PB-210 781
Articles by Richard Gregorski, David Meltzer,
Ilse Lehiste, and Linda Shockey.
iv
No. 13, December 1972 ED 077 268
Alexander Grosu, The Strategic Content of Island
Constraints.
No. 14, April1973 ED
Studies in Phonology and Methodology. Articles
by James Hutcheson, Ronald Neeld, Mieko Ohso,
Lawrence Schourup, Holly Semiloff, Clare Silva,
and Arnold Zwicky.
No. 15, April 1973 ED 082 566
Articles by Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, Gaberell
Drachman, Mary Edwards, Jonnie Geis, and
Lawrence Schourup.
No. 16, December 1973 ED
Mostly Syntax and Semantics. Articles by Michael
Geis, Fred Goodman, Patricia Lee, Ronald Neeld,
Jerrold Sadock, Clare Silva, and Arnold Zwicky.
No. 17, May 1974 S2.00
Articles by Sara Garnes, Ilse Lehiste, Patricia
Miller, Linda Shockey, and Arnold Zwicky.
No. 18, June 1975 S2.00
Articles by Michael Geis, Sheila Geoghegan,
Jeanette Gundel, Ronald Neeld, Geoffrey Pullum,
and Arnold M. Zwicky
No. 19, September 1975 Edited by Robert Herbert S2.50
Patterns in Language, Culture, and Society: Sub-
Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the Symposium on
African Language, Culture and Society.
No. 20, September1975 Editedby RobertHerbert S2.50
Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on African
Linguistics.
No. 21, May 1976 Editedby ArnoldZwicky S2.50
Papers on Nonphonology. Articles by Steven Boer,
Marion Johnson, Robert Kantor, Patircia Lee,
William Lycan, and Jay Pollack.
No. 22, February1977 Editedby Olga Garnica S3.50
Papers in Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics.
Articles by Mary Louise Edwards. Sara Garnes. Olga
K. Garnica, Roy C. Major, and John Perkins.
v
No. 23, December 1978
Patricia Donegan, On the Natural Phonology of
Vowels.
No. 24, March 1980 Editedby ArnoldM. Zwicky
Clitics and Ellipsis. Articles by Robert J. Jeffers,
Nancy S. Levin, Gregory T. Stump, and Arnold M. Zwicky.
Orders for those issues still available (indicated by price) should be sent
to:
OSUWPL
Department of Linguistics
The Ohio State University
18rl Millikin Road
Columbus, OH 43210
Issues with PB numbers are available through:
The National Technical Information Center
The U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Issues with ED numbers--ll, 13, parts of 14 (articles by Holly Semiloff-
Zelasko, "Glide Metatheses" [ED 1p4 140] and Clare M. Silva, "Metathesis
of Obstruent Clusters" [ED 105 735], 15, and parts of 16 (articles by Clare
M. Silva, "Adverbial -ing" [ED 095 720], Clare M. Silva and Arnold M.
Zwicky, "Discord" [ED 095 719], and Arnold M. Zwicky, "Bibliography I,
Voivs" [ED 096 826] and "Bibliography III, Forestress and Afterstress,
Compounds and Phrases" [ED 095 721] ) are available from ERDS (ordering
information is in the back of each issue of Resources in Education):
ERDS
ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics
Center for Applied Linguistics
3520 Prospect St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
vi
OSU WPL # 25 (1981) 1-13.
The Basis of Articulation*
Lawrence Schourup
O. Introduction.
Most of those who have written about the basis of articulation have done
so with mixed feelings. Bloomfield considered the basis worth discussing
but characterized observations regarding it as necessarily "vague...hazy
and inaccurate" (1933:127-8). Sweet, though according the topic prominent
mention (1906:74-5; 1911:4), cautioned that "no language carries out the
tendencies of its basis with perfect consistency" (1906:75). Malmberg,
likewise granting the existence of an "articulatory basis", refers to
the term as "a convenient, but not strictly scientific label" (1963:71).
The reaction of Vildomec appears to typify that of many writers: claiming
not to know what the basis is exactly, he assures us that it is nonetheless
"of primary importance" (1963:218). Definitions have been attempted,
such as this disconcertingly vast one by Honikmanl
the gross oral posture and mechanics, both external and internal,
requisite as a framework for the comfortable, economic, and
fluent merging of and integrating of the isolated sounds into
that harmonious, cognizable whole which constitutes the
established pronunciation of a language (1964:73)
but despite her attempt to refine the notion and revive interest in it,
and the more recent attempt to do so by Drachman (1970), present-day linguists
have all but abandoned this traditional concept.
There are at least two reasons for the current neglect of the basis
of articulation. The first is practical: as Table 1 indicates, almost
every aspect of phonology has on occasion been consigned to the basis.
Clearly, by swallowing up all these considerations the basis has made
itself unapproachable. But there have also been theoretical reasons to
ignore the basis: Chomsky and Halle specifically exclude it from considera-
tion on grounds that its effects are "not locatable in particular segments
but rather extend over entire utterances" (1968:295). As such, the basis,
though acknowledged to exist, is seen as essentially irrelevant to both
underlying and phonetic representation, hence to phonology.
Table I
Some Aspects of Phonology Included in the Basis of
Articulation According to Various Writers
1. Favored position of the tongue (DHfHMST)
2. Degree of lip activity (DHMS)
3. 'Gravitation' of all articulatory muscles toward a particular
locus or axis (H)
4. Syllable division (BD)
5. Degree of tension of the articulators (HaHMV)
6. Shape of lips (H)
- 1 -
- 2 -
7. Characteristics of timing, stress, and pitch (TV)
8. Time consumedby articulatorygestures(HT)
9. Segment inventories (BDM)
10. Retraction of the jaw (B)
11. Voice onset time (D)
12. Features of the articulators determined by race (T)
13. Precision of articulation (BM)
14. Locationof resonancecenters (D)
15. Extent of articulatory gestures (B)
16. Spread of nasalization (D)
17. Degree of nasalization (M)
18. Psychological dominance of vowels over consonants (D)
19. Point of articulation (D)
20. Diphthongization (M)
B - Bloomfield 1933
D - Delattre 1966
H - Honikman 1964
Ha - Haden 1938
Hf - Heffner 1950
M - Malmberg 1963
S - Sweet 1906
T - Thalbitzer 1904
V - Vildomec 1963
1. The basis and Natural Phonology.
It is within the context of a natural theory of phonology that the
possible significance of global properties of utterances reemerges. While
at present the basis of articulation as such plays no important role in
any phonological theory, the theory of Natural Phonology (Stampe 1969,
1973; Donegan and Stampe 1979) invites reassessment of the basis in a
way that the standard generative model does not: in the generative frame-
work a theory is explanatory if it provides a description of the set of
possible grammars and a procedure for selecting the correct grammar for
given data (Chomsky 1965:34). Natural Phonology identifies explanation
instead with determining how phonology is "governed by forces implicit
in human vocalization and perception" (Donegan and Stampe 1979:126), thus
inviting the question of whether the way the tract is set up for speaking
affects the nature and interaction of these phonological forces ('processes').
A difficult hurdle stands before anyone who would resuscitate the
basis of articulation, however. Even if it can be shown that, say, the
French tongue 'prefers' a particular position, how can we know that this
position does not simply reflect the rule system of French; that is, how
do we know that the favored tongue position is not a secondary effect
deducible from the rule system of the language by somehow plotting what
would be the most convenient 'homing' position for the articulations of
French? If the basis of a language is of any great phonological importance,
it must to some extent play a determining role.
It is at first hard to see what kinds of evidence might be brought
to bear on the issue. If language L homes to tongue position T and employs
process P, application of which is facilitated by T, we certainly can't
claim that T is responsible for the existence of P in L; neither can we
indisputably claim the reverse--that T is determined by the processes