EGG 2021 online, 26 July to 6 August
Transcript of EGG 2021 online, 26 July to 6 August
1
B. Elan Dresher
Foundations of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)EGG 2021 online, 26 July to 6 August
Class 1: Foundations of CHT in pre-generative phonology
Introduction
Monday 26 July 2021
2
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
3
Course AbstractFoundationsofContrastiveHierarchyTheory
ElanDresherUniversityofToronto
This course will present the foundations and main tenets of Contrastive HierarchyTheory(CHT).CHTbuildsonideasthatgobacktoJakobsonandTrubetzkoy,adaptedto thegenerativephonologyofChomskyandHalle.Two ideas that are central to thetheory are (a) contrastive phonological primes (in my case binary features but thesame holds for unary elements) are computed hierarchically, with the choice andordering of the features being language particular; and (b) only contrastive featuresplayaroleinthephonology(theContrastivistHypothesis).Wewilldemonstratewhycontrastivefeaturesmustbecomputedhierarchically,andconsidertheimplicationsofthistheoryforwhetherfeaturesareinnateoremergent.Wewillshowhowcontrastivehierarchiesworkandreviewcasestudiesthatshowhowtheycontributetosynchronicanddiachronicphonology.
CourseOutline1. FoundationsofCHTinthehistoryofphonology,withareviewofkeyideasfoundintheworkofSweet,Sapir,Trubetzkoy,Jakobson,andHalle.
Selectedreadings: Dresher(2014,2016,2019);Dresher&Hall(2020).2. Atheoryofphonologicalcontrast:language-particularhierarchies;theContrastivistHypothesis; contrast and phonological activity; enhancement; markedness; thenatureoffeatures.
Selectedreadings:Dresher(2009:ch.7);Hall(2007;2011);Ko(2018:ch.4).3. Contrastivehierarchiesinsynchronicphonology:vowelharmony,vowelreduction,consonantco-occurrencerestrictions,consonantalcontrasts,andloanphonology.
Selectedreadings: Dresher (2021); Herd (2005); Mackenzie (2012, 2013); Spahr(2012,2014).
4. Contrastivehierarchiesindiachronicphonology. Selectedreadings: Compton & Dresher (2011); Dresher (2018): Krekoski (2017);
Oxford(2015).
5. Inthisclasswecantakeupoutstandingquestionsand,dependingoninterest,lookatnewones.
References
Compton, Richard & B. Elan Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and ‘strong i’ across Inuit dialects. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique 56: 203–28. Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: CUP. Dresher, B. Elan. 2014. The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd 41(2):
165–181, University of Tromsø — The Arctic University of Norway. Dresher, B. Elan. 2016. Contrast in phonology 1867–1967: History and development. Annual Review of Linguistics
2: 53–73. Dresher, B. Elan. 2018. Contrastive feature hierarchies in Old English diachronic phonology. Transactions of the
Philological Society 116(1): 1–29. Dresher, B. Elan. 2019. Contrastive feature hierarchies in phonology: Variation and universality. In David W.
Lightfoot and Jonathan Havenhill, eds., Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, 13–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Dresher, B. Elan. 2021. Contrastive hierarchies and phonological primes. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Ali Tifrit, & Laurence Voeltzel (eds.), Perspectives on Element Theory, 33–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Dresher, B. Elan & Daniel Currie Hall. 2020. The road not taken: The Sound Pattern of Russian and the history of contrast in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 57(2): 405–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD thesis, Univ. of Toronto. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/ view/6497.
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28: 1–54.
Herd, Jonathon. 2005. Loanword adaptation and the evaluation of similarity. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 24: 65–116. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ twpl/article/view/6195.
Ko, Seongyeon. 2018. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in Northeast Asian languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Krekoski, Ross. 2017. Contrast and complexity in Chinese tonal systems. PhD thesis, Univ. of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/77472.
Mackenzie, Sara. 2012. Near-identity and laryngeal harmony. Proceedings from the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto
(MOT) Phonology Workshop 2011: Phonology in the 21st Century: In Honour of Glyne Piggott. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1). https://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/files/mcgwpl/mackenzie2012.pdf.
Mackenzie, Sara. 2013. Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: Contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30: 297–235.
Oxford, Will. 2015. Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language 91: 308–57.
Spahr, Christopher. 2012. Positional neutralization in the Contrastive Hierarchy: The case of phonological vowel reduction. Ms., Univ of Toronto. http://individual.utoronto.ca/ spahr/.
Spahr, Christopher. 2014. A contrastive hierarchical account of positional neutralization. The Linguistic Review 31(3–4): 551–85.
ThiscoursewillpresentthefoundationsandmaintenetsofContrastiveHierarchyTheory(CHT).
Introduc0on
CHTassumes thatphonologyisaboutcontrast;personally,Ithinkthatwithoutcontrast,thereisnophonology,onlyphoneticsorthephysicsofspeech(Dresher&vanderHulsttoappear).
4
Argumentsthatcontrastisnot relevanttophonologywillbetakenupinthesecondcoursenextweek.
Introduc0on
ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisbuiltonessentiallytwoideas:
5
TheFirstideaisthatphonologicalprimes(inmycase,binaryfeatures)arecomputedhierarchically,withthechoiceandorderingoftheprimesbeinglanguageparticular.
Thesecondhypothesisisthatonly contrastiveprimesarecomputedbythephonology;non-contrastivefeaturescanbeadded,forexamplebyenhancement,inapost-phonologicalcomponent.
Wewillelaborateontheseideasthroughoutthecourseandshowhowthetheoryworks.
Introduc0on
Thenwewillreviewcasestudiesthatshowhowcontrastivehierarchiescontributetoaccountingforavarietyofpatternsinsynchronicphonology.
6
Tostartoff,IwouldliketobrieFlyshowhowthenotionofcontrast,whichiscentraltoCHT,canbefoundintheworkofsomeofthegreatestphonologists,startingrightatthedawnofmodernphonologicaltheoryinthelate19th century.
Wewillalsoshowhowcontrastivehierarchiescanprovideilluminatingaccountsofdiachronicphonology.
7
1. Sweet 1877
Contrastive Properties and
‘Broad Romic’ Transcription
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
HenrySweet(1845–1912)wasaGermanicphilologist,phonetician,andpioneeringphonologist.
8
AccordingtoJones(1967:256),SweetwastheFirsttodistinguishadetailedphonetictranscription(whathecalled‘NarrowRomic’)fromaphonemictranscriptionsuitabletoanindividuallanguage(‘BroadRomic’).
HenrySweet(1877)Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Forexample,thevowelsintheEnglishwordsbait andbet differinthreeways:thevowelinbait islongerandtenserthaninbet,andisadiphthong,whereasthevowelinbet isamonophthong.
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
Anaccuratephonetictranscriptionwouldindicateallthesedistinctions;inthecurrentnotationoftheInternationalPhoneticAlphabet(IPA),theyaretranscribedasshown.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
baitbet
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
9
Thesethreedifferences,however,arenotindependent:recombiningthevariouspropertiestocreatenewvowelsasshownwouldnotresultinanewworddistinctfrombothbait andbet,butwouldbeheardassome(perhapsodd-sounding)variantofoneofthesewords.
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
Sweet(1877:104)writes:“wemaylaydownasageneralrulethatonlythosedistinctionsofsoundsrequiretobesymbolizedinanyonelanguagewhichareindependentlysigniFicant.”
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences Non-contrastingvowels
[eː], [ej], [e], [ɛː], [ɛj], [ɛːj]
10
Further,“iftwocriteriaofsigniFicanceareinseparablyassociated,suchasquantityandnarrownessorwideness[i.e.,tensenessorlaxness/BED],weonlyneedindicateoneofthem.”Sweetproposes(1877:109–110)thatinbroadtranscription[eːj]shouldbetranscribed‘ei’(or,equivalently,‘ej’)and[ɛ]as‘e’.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
Broadei or eje
Thus,ofthethreedifferencesinthevowels,hechoosesthepresenceofanoff-glidej assigniFicant,ignoringbothquantity(length)andnarrownessorwideness(tensenessorlaxness).
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
11
Inthiscasehegivestherationaleforhischoice.Heobserves(p.110):“Thenarrownessofall[English]vowelsisuncertain”,especially/ij/and/ej/.
Thatis,vowelscanvaryinthedegreetowhichtheyaretenseorlaxwithoutessentiallychangingtheidentityofthevowel,aslongasotherpropertiesdonotchange.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
Broadei or eje
Narrownessnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ɛ:j][ɛ] or [e]
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
12
Similarly,heFinds(p.18)that“originallyshortvowelscanbelengthenedandyetkeptquitedistinctfromtheoriginallongs.”
Thatis,[bɛt](bet)canbelengthenedto[bɛːt]withoutpassingintobait,and[beːjt](bait)canbeshortenedto[bejt]withoutbeingperceivedasbet.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
Lengthnotcontrastive[e:j] or [ej][ɛ] or [ɛ:]
Broadei or eje
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
13
Whiletensenessandlengthcanbealteredwithoutchangingonevowelphonemeintoanotherone,presumablythesameisnotthecaseforthethirddistinguishingproperty.
Addingaglidetothevowelinbet,orremovingitfrombait,couldcausetheresultingvoweltobeperceivedashavingchangedcategory.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
Glideiscontrastive[e:j] not [eː][ɛ] not [ɛj]
Broadei or eje
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
14
WecanconcludefromhisdiscussionthatSweet’sanalysispositsthatthecontrastivepropertiesofboththevowelsinbait andbet aremidandfront,withnocontrastivespeciFicationfortensenessorquantity.
Thedifferenceinthetwowordsresidesintheadditionofasecondsegmenttothevowelinbait.
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
baitbet
IPA[eːj][ɛ]
long, tense, +jshort, lax, +Ø
Differences
15
Contrastivepropertiesmid, front, off-glide jmid, front
Broadei or eje
Sweetdidnotproposeamethodforcomputingcontrastiveproperties,nordidheconsistentlyattempttoidentifywhatthecontrastivepropertiesareforeverysegment(Dresher2016).
Contrast and Broad Transcrip0on
Thatis,thenotionthatcontrastiscentraltophonologyhasitsrootsintheearliestworkinphonologicaltheoryinthelate19th century.
!onlycontrastivepropertiesneedbetranscribed,
!andthesepropertiescanbeidentiFiedbyobservinghowsoundsfunctioninalanguage.
However,wecanseeinhisworktheideasthat:
16
ThissectionisbasedonDresher(2016:54–57):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.
17
18
2. Sapir 1925
‘Sound Patterns’ are Not
Determined by Phonetics
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
19
Sweet’snotionofabroad—i.e,phonemic—transcriptionwastakenfurtherbytheAmericanlinguistEdwardSapir(1884–1939).
The importance of contrast in phonology
IntheveryFirstvolumeofLanguage,Sapir(1925)arguesthat‘soundpatterns’,notsimplyphonetics,shouldbethemainfocusofphonologicaltheory.
Butwhatdoeshemeanbysoundpatterns?Ithinkthatsoundpatternsrefertothecontrastiveproperties ofthephonemesofalanguage.
Toillustrate,Sapirconstructsfourlanguages,A,B,C,andD,thatdrewonlanguageshewasfamiliarwith.
LanguagesAandBhaveidenticalsounds;here,wewilllookonlyatthevowels:
AlthoughlanguagesAandBsharethesephoneticvowelsounds,thewaytheyareorganizedphonemicallyistotallydifferent.
The importance of contrast in phonology
20
uː oi iː ua aː ɛ ɛː e eː oː ɔ ɔː
21
u (o)uː (oː)
i (e)iː (e:)
aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)
Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments
LanguageA
LanguageAhasthreeshortandthreelongcontrastivevowels:/iau/and/iːaːuː/;theothervowelsareallophonesofthesevowels.
22
nonlow
back/roundedu (o)uː (oː)
front/un-roundedi (e)iː (e:)long
longshort
aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)
low
Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments
LanguageA
Sapirdidnothaveatheoryoffeatures,butonepossiblesetoffeatureswecanassignareshownabove;intermsofbinaryfeatures:
[±long][±low][±front]or [±back]or [±rounded]
LanguageAhasthreeshortandthreelongcontrastivevowels:/iau/and/iːaːuː/;theothervowelsareallophonesofthesevowels.
short
23
a (aː)
i (iː, j)
e (e:)
ɛ (ɛ:)
u (uː, w)
o (oː)
ɔ (ɔː)
Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments
LanguageB
LanguageBisverydifferent:itisaseven-vowelsysteminwhichthelongvowelsarepredictableallophonesoftheshortones.
24
high
mid
low a (aː)
front/un-roundedi (iː, j)
e (e:)
ɛ (ɛ:)
back/roundedu (uː, w)
o (oː)
ɔ (ɔː)
Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments
LanguageB
LanguageBisverydifferent:itisaseven-vowelsysteminwhichthelongvowelsarepredictableallophonesoftheshortones.
Again,wecananachronisticallyassignasetofbinaryfeaturestothisvowelinventory;insteadof[±long]asinA,wehaveanotherheightfeature,[±high]:
[±high][±low][±front]or [±back]or [±rounded]
25
high
mid
low a (aː)
front/un-roundedi (iː, j)
e (e:)
ɛ (ɛ:)
back/roundedu (uː, w)
o (oː)
ɔ (ɔː)
Same phone0cs, different pa?ern alignments
LanguageB
AandBhavethesamesounds,theircontrastivestructuresareverydifferent.
nonlow
back/roundedu (o)uː (oː)
front/un-roundedi (e)iː (e:)
aː (ɛ:, ɔ:)a (ɛ, ɔ)
low
LanguageA
SapiralsoconstructslanguagesCandDthatillustratetheconversesituation:theyhavedifferentsounds,buttheir‘patternalignments’areisomorphic.
long
longshort
short
Different phone0cs, similar pa?ern alignments
β
pʰ
f
ɣ
kʰ
ç
ʁ
qʰ
ħ
ð
tʰ
ʃ
m ŋv ʒ rh
b
p
f
m n
g
k
x
w
ɢ
q
χ
j l
d
t
s
h LanguageC
LanguageD
TheconsonantsofLanguageCareshownontheleft.
ThesearetheconsonantsofLanguageD.
26
Different phone0cs, similar pa?ern alignments
β
pʰ
f
ɣ
kʰ
ç
ʁ
qʰ
ħ
ð
tʰ
ʃ
m ŋv ʒ rh
b
p
f
m n
g
k
x
w
ɢ
q
χ
j l
d
t
s
h LanguageC
LanguageD
Sapirarrangesthephonemesthisway(recallhedidnothaveatheoryoffeatures).
HejustiFiesthepositionsof/v/and/ʒ/bytheirphonologicalbehaviour:theyactlike/w/and/j/,respectively,inC. 27
Sapir (1925)
“Andyetitismostimportanttoemphasizethefact,strangebutindubitable,thatapatternalignmentdoesnotneedtocorrespondexactlytothemoreobviousphoneticone.”
EdwardSapir,Soundpatternsinlanguage,Language 1:37–51,1925.
28
Different phone0cs, similar pa?ern alignments
β
pʰ
f
ɣ
kʰ
ç
ʁ
qʰ
ħ
ð
tʰ
ʃ
m ŋv ʒ rh
b
p
f
m n
g
k
x
w
ɢ
q
χ
j l
d
t
s
h LanguageC
LanguageD
Theisomorphicalignmentscanbeunderstoodasindicatingthatcorrespondingphonemeshavethesamecontrastivevalues.
29
Contras0ve specifica0ons
Wecanmatchupthecorrespondingconsonantsinthetwolanguagesasinthechartbelow.
k/kʰ
x/ç
g/ɣ
q/qʰ
χ/ħ
ɢ/ʁ
n/ŋ
p/pʰ
f/f
b/β
m/m
w/v h/h
t/tʰ
s/ʃ
d/ð
j/ʒ
l/r
30
Ineachcell,theFirstsegmentisfromLanguageC,thesecondisfromD.
Sapirdoesnotsaywhatthefeaturesofeachcellmightbe,
butwecan(anachronistically)suggestsome.
Contras0ve specifica0onsHereisonesetofpossiblecontrastivespeciFications.ThedifferencesbetweenCandDineachcelldonotinvolvecontrastivefeatures.
voiceless
voiced
k/kʰ
x/ç
g/ɣ
dorsal
q/qʰ
χ/ħ
ɢ/ʁ
post-dorsal
obstruent
sonorant n/ŋ
labial
p/pʰ
f/f
b/β
m/m
w/v h/h
stop
spirant
nasal
glide
liquid
coronal
t/tʰ
s/ʃ
d/ð
j/ʒ
l/r
31
Contras0ve specifica0ons
Somephonemesappeartobeinthewrongplace,suggestingthattheirunderlyingspeciFicationsareliketheircounterparts.
voiceless
voiced
k/kʰ
x/ç
g/ɣ
q/qʰ
χ/ħ
ɢ/ʁobstruent
sonorant n/ŋ
p/pʰ
f/f
b/β
m/m
w/v h/h
stop
spirant
nasal
glide
liquid
t/tʰ
s/ʃ
d/ð
j/ʒ
l/r
32
Contras0ve specifica0ons
Somephonemesappeartobeinthewrongplace,suggestingthattheirunderlyingspeciFicationsareliketheircounterparts.
sonorant n/ŋm/m
w/v h/h
nasal
glide
liquid
j/ʒ
l/r
33
Lessattentionhasbeenpaidtotheotherexamples,whichdon’tappealtoabstractness,butwhichshowtheimportanceofestablishingthecontrastivepropertiesofsegments.
ThesetypesofexampleshavebeenmuchdiscussedinconnectionwithhowabstractSapir’stheoryofphonologywas(Chomsky1964;McCawley1967).
Contras0ve specifica0onsForexample,theobstruentsinredarecontrastivelyvoicedandredundantlystopsorspirants.
voiceless
voiced
k/kʰ
x/ç
g/ɣ
dorsal
q/qʰ
χ/ħ
ɢ/ʁ
post-dorsal
obstruent
sonorant n/ŋ
labial
p/pʰ
f/f
b/β
m/m
w/v h/h
stop
spirant
nasal
glide
liquid
coronal
t/tʰ
s/ʃ
d/ð
j/ʒ
l/r
34
Contras0ve specifica0onsNoabstractnessisatissuehere,butwehavetodistinguishbetweencontrastiveandnon-contrastiveproperties.
voiceless
voiced
k/kʰ
x/ç
g/ɣ
dorsal
q/qʰ
χ/ħ
ɢ/ʁ
post-dorsal
obstruent
sonorant n/ŋ
labial
p/pʰ
f/f
b/β
m/m
w/v h/h
stop
spirant
nasal
glide
liquid
coronal
t/tʰ
s/ʃ
d/ð
j/ʒ
l/r
35
Contrast and synchronic analysis
Therefore,asynchronicanalysisofthephonologyshould,amongotherthings,giveanaccountofthecontrastivefeatures ofeachphoneme.
Ofcourse,Sapirlackedatheoryoffeatures.ForthefurtherdevelopmentoftheseideasweneedtoturntotheworkofthePragueSchoollinguists,notablyN.S.Trubetzkoy(1890–1938)andRomanJakobson(1896–1982).
! thepatternalignmentofaphonemeamountstoitscontrastivestatus;
Thus,forSapir:
! thisstatusisnotdeterminedbyitsphonetics,butisafunctionofitsphoneticandphonologicalbehaviour.
36
ThissectionisbasedonDresher(2009:38–42;2016:57–58):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.
Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.
37
3. Trubetzkoy 1939
Phonemic Content and
Contrast as ‘Point of View’
38
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
N.S.Trubetzkoy’sGrundzügederPhonologie (1939;Englishversion1969,newcriticalSpanishedition2019)isnotableforitsinsightsintothenatureofcontrast.
Trubetzkoy’s Grundzüge der Phonologie
39
AnimportantnotionofTrubetzkoy’sisphonemiccontent:“Byphonemiccontent weunderstandallphonologicallydistinctivepropertiesofaphoneme…”(Trubetzkoy1969:66).
Phonemic content
“EachphonemehasadeFinablephonemiccontentonlybecausethesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeFiniteorderorstructure.”(1969:67–8)
“thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthegivenphonemicsystem …”(1969:67)
40
Phonemic content and structure of the system
“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeAiniteorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe
givenphonemicsystem …”
Theseremarkssuggestthatthephonemiccontentofaphoneme,thatis,thesetofitscontrastiveproperties,oughttoderive fromitspositioninthesystemofdistinctiveoppositions.
Therefore,weneedawaytodetermineaphoneme’spositioninthesystemofoppositionsbefore wehavedetermineditsdistinctiveproperties.
41
Phonemic content and structure of the system
“thesystemofdistinctiveoppositionsshowsadeAiniteorderorstructure…thecontentofaphonemedependsonwhatpositionthisphonemetakesinthe
givenphonemicsystem …”
Trubetzkoydoesnotexplicitlyshowushowtodothis;however,awayofprovidinganorderorstructure tothesystemofcontrastsisviathehierarchicalbranchingtreesthatbecameprominentlaterintheworkofJakobson.
FeaturehierarchiesarealreadyimplicitinTrubetzkoy(1939);considerhisdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.
42
Thatis,thelowvowel/a/ischaracterizedonlybyitsheight;inourterms,itisassignedonlythefeature[+low].
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
The vowel system of La0n
[+low]
[–low]
TrubetzkoyobservesthatinLatin,asinmanyFive-vowelsystems,thelowvoweldoesnotparticipateintonalitycontrasts;‘tonality’referstobacknessorliprounding,thatis,propertiesthataffectthesecondformant(F2).
Latin
Buthowcanweprevent/a/fromreceivingotherfeatures?
Wecanifweassigncontrastivefeaturesinanorder,inafeaturehierarchy.
43
Inordertoexclude/a/fromreceivingtonalityfeatures,itisnecessarytoorder[±low]atthetopofthefeaturehierarchy:thishastheeffectofseparating/a/fromtheothervowels.
Since/a/isalreadyuniquelydistinguished,itwillreceivenofurtherfeatures.
/a/[+low] [–low]
The vowel system of La0n
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
[+low]
[–low]
Latin Topofthehierarchy:[low]
44
Whattheothertwo(or,moreunusually,three)featuresaredependsontheevidencefromthelanguage.
CommonFive-vowelsystemsusethefeatures[±back]or[±round]and[±high].
45
/a/[+low] [–low]
Topofthehierarchy:[low]
The vowel system of La0n
[–high] [+high] [–high] [+high]
[–back/round] [+back/round]
/e/ /i/ /o/ /u/
45
Thenotionofafeaturehierarchyisonlyimplicit inTrubetzkoy’sdiscussionoftheLatinvowelsystem.
Invokingafeaturehierarchyisawaytomakesenseofhisanalysis.
InthecaseofPolabian,however,Trubetzkoyexplicitly referstoahierarchy.
Feature hierarchies
46
Heobserves(1969:102–3;2019:156)that“acertainhierarchyexisted”inthevowelsystemofPolabian,wherebythecontrastbetweenfrontandbackvowelsishigherthanthecontrastbetweenroundedandunroundedvowels.
Lookingatthehighvowels,forexample,thismeansthat/u/iscloserto/i/thanitisto/u/;thecontrastbetweenunroundedi androundedu isasub-classiFicationofthefrontvowels.
Polabian: “A certain hierarchy”
47
Front
ui u
BackPolabian
Unrounded Rounded
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
ThisisthevowelchartofPolabianaspresentedbyTrubetzkoy.
ɑ
48
It’sabitstrange(whichI’llcomebackto),buthisreasonsforsayingthatu isclosertoi thantou areclearenough.
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
Hisevidenceisthattheoppositionsbetweenbackandfrontvowelsareconstant,butthosebetweenroundedandunroundedvowelsofthesameheightcanneutralize totheunroundedvowels.
backfront
unrounded rounded
ɑ
49
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
Further,palatalizationinconsonantsisneutralizedbeforeallfrontvowelsandbefore‘themaximallyopenvowelɑ whichstoodoutsidetheclassesoftimbre’(1969:102;2019:156).
backfront
ɑlow
nonlow
50
unrounded rounded
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
Trubetzkoyobservesfurther:“thepropertiesoflipparticipationwerephonologicallyirrelevantforthebackvowels.”Thatis,unlikeinthefrontvowels,roundingisnotadistinctivephonologicalpropertyofthebackvowels.
backfront
ɑlow
nonlow
51
unrounded rounded
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
WhileTrubetzkoy’sgeneralpointisclear,hispresentationofthePolabianvowelsystemishardtounderstand:Whatvowelis/a/?Whatarethephoneticvaluesof/e/and/e/?
backfront
ɑlow
nonlow
52
unrounded rounded
The Polabian vowel system
e o o
e a
u ui
Finally,whydoes/ɑ/,thevowel‘outsidetheclassesoftimbre’,patternwiththefrontvowelsinneutralizingpalatalization? ThenewSpanisheditionbyHerreraZendeyasandKnapp(Trubetzkoy2019)shedssomelightonthisexample.
backfront
ɑlow
nonlow
53
unrounded rounded
The Polabian vowel system
e o
e
ɒ
y ui
NexttoTrubetzkoy’svowelchart,theypresent(2019:157)analternativemorenatural-lookingchartbyPolanski (1993:798–9).
54
ø
a
The Polabian vowel system
e o
e
ɒ
y ui
Nowitbecomesclearwhy/a/patternswiththefrontvowels.It’sbecauseit’scontrastivelyfrontinoppositiontoback/ɒ/.
back
alow
nonlow
55
ø
front
unrounded rounded
The Finnish vowel system
e o
a
u ui
TrubetzkoypresentsFinnishasexemplifyingadifferenttypeoflanguagewiththreeclassesoftimbre/i,u,u/(and/e,o,o/).
a
56
o
InFinnish,front-backvowelharmonyrelatesu ~u,o ~o,anda ~a,whereas/i/and/e/arenotinvolved.
front back
front back
The Finnish vowel system
e o
a
u ui
InFinnishthefront-backcontrastisundertherounded-unroundedoneinthenon-lowvowels;thisistheoppositeofthefeatureorderinginPolabian.
rounded
a
57
o
unrounded
front back
front back
ThedifferencebetweenPolabianandFinnishexempliFiesanotherimportantinsight,containedina1936articleaddressedtopsychologistsandphilosophers(Trubetzkoy2001[1936]:20):
Contrast depends on point of view
Whatdoesthismean?TosaythatthecorrectclassiFicationdependsonone’spointofviewmeansthatphonologicalcontrastscanvary fromlanguagetolanguage,andcannotbedeterminedsimplybyinspectinganinventory.
ThecorrectclassiFicationofanopposition“dependsonone’spointofview”;but“itisneithersubjectivenorarbitrary,for
thepointofviewisimpliedbythesystem.”
58
WehaveseenthatinLatinthelowvowel/a/issetapartfromtheothervowels,inTrubetzkoy’sanalysis.
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
ButthisisnottheonlywaytodrawthecontrastsinaFive-vowelsystem.
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
[+low]
[–low]
Latin
59
Itispossible,forexample,togroupthelowvowel/a/withtheother[–round]vowels.Troubetzkoy proposesthatArchi(EastCaucasian,inCentralDaghestan)hasavowelsystemthatisdividedinthismanner.
[+round][–round]
Hesaysthisbecauseofthewaythesoundsbehave.
Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
60
Trubetzkoyobservesthataconsonantalroundingcontrastisneutralizedbeforeandaftertheroundedvowels/u/and/o/,contrastingthesevowelswithunrounded/i/,/e/,and/a/.
[+round][–round]Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
“Thismeansthatallvowelsaredividedintoroundedandunroundedvowels,whilethebackorfrontpositionofthetongueprovesirrelevant…”(Trubetzkoy1969:100–1).
61
Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[±round]First,dividingthevowelsintotwogroups:/i,e,a/and/u,o/.
[+round][–round]Archi
‘Point of view’ means contrast is variable
/i/ /u/
/a/
/o//e/
Furtherdistinctionswithinthesegroupsaremadebyotherfeatures;thetreebelowshowsonepossiblefeaturehierarchy.
[round]>[high]>[low]
[+high] [–high]/i/
[+high] [–high]/u/ /o/
[–low] [+low]/e/ /a/
[–round] [+round]
62
Japanese
InJapanese,Trubetzkoyarguesthatneutralizationoftheoppositionbetweenpalatalizedandnon-palatalizedconsonantsbefore/i/ and /e/ showsthatthesevowelsareputintooppositionwiththeothervowels/a,o,u/.
[+front] [–front]
Five-vowel systems: Japanese
Thegoverningoppositionisthatbetweenfrontandbackvowels,“liproundingbeingirrelevant”(Trubetzkoy1969:101).
/a/
/o//e/
/i/ /u/
63
Japanese[+front] [–front]
Five-vowel systems: Japanese
/a/
/o//e/
/i/ /u/
Thisanalysiscorrespondstoordering[front]First.TherestofthetreeisadaptedfromHirayama(2003).ThesefeaturetreesareimplicitinTrubetzkoy,buttheybecomeexplicitintheworkofRomanJakobsonandhiscollaborators.
[front]>[open]>[low]
[+front] [–front]
[+open] [–open]/e/ /i/
[+open] [–open]/u/
[+low] [–low]/a/ /o/
64
Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2007;2009:42–59;2016:60–63):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.2007.VariabilityinTrubetzkoy’sClassiFicationofPhonologicalOppositions.TheLACUSForum33,133–142.
Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.
Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.
65
4. Jakobson 1941
The Acquisition of
Phonological Contrasts
66
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
Jakobson’sKindersprache (1941;Englishtrans.1968,Spanish1974),advancesthenotionthatcontrasts arecrucialinphonologicalacquisitionandthattheydevelopinahierarchicalorder.
Jakobson’s Kindersprache
Inparticular,heproposesthatlearnersbeginwithbroadcontraststhataresplitbystagesintoprogressivelyFinerones. 67
TheacquisitionofvowelsystemssetoutinJakobson(1941)andJakobson&Halle(1956)followsthisschema.
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
AttheFirststage,thereisonlyasinglevowel.Astherearenocontrasts,wecansimplydesignateit/V/.
/V/
vowel
68
Jakobson&Hallewritethatthislonevowelisthemaximallyopenvowel[a],the‘optimalvowel’.
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
Butwedon’tneedtobethatspeciFic:wecanunderstandthistobeadefaultvalue,oratypicalbutnotobligatoryinstantiation.
/V/
vowel
[a]
69
Inthenextstageitisproposedthatthesinglevowelsplitsintoanarrow(high)vowel/I/,whichistypically[i],andawide(low)vowel,/A/,typically[a].
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
Iwillcontinuetounderstandthesevaluesasdefaults.
vowel
/I/
widenarrow
/A/
/V/
70
Inthenextstagethenarrowvowelsplitsintoapalatal(front)vowel/I/andavelar(backorround)vowel/U/,typically[u].
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
/A/palatal velar
/I/ /U/
/I/
71
AftertheFirsttwostages,Jakobson&Halleallowvariationintheorderofacquisitionofvowelcontrasts.
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
palatal velar
/I/ /U/
Thewidebranchcanbeexpandedtoparallelthenarrowone.
/A/
/æ/ /a/
palatal velar
72
Orthenarrowvowelscandeveloparoundingcontrastinoneorbothbranches.
Acquisi0on sequences (vowels)
vowel
widenarrow
palatal velar /a/
unrnd rnd
/i/ /y/
unrnd rnd
/ɨ/ /u/
73
Contras0ve features assigned hierarchically
Thisapproachhastwonotablecharacteristics:
Continuinginthisfashionwewillarriveatacompleteinventoryofthephonemesinalanguage,witheachphonemeassignedasetofcontrastivepropertiesthatdistinguishitfromeveryotherone.
!Onlycontrastivefeaturesareassignedtoeachphoneme.
!Contrastivefeaturesareassignedhierarchically,inawaythatcanberepresentedbyabranchingtree.
74
Contras0ve hierarchies in child phonology
Fikkert(1994)presentsobservedacquisitionsequencesinthedevelopmentofDutchonsetsthatfollowsthisgeneralscheme,andBohn(2015,2017)showstheroutesthatthreechildrentakeinacquiringthevowelsystemofBrazilianPortuguese(seealsoBohn&Santos2018).
ThebranchingtreesofJakobson(1941)remainedinFluentialinchildlanguagestudies,fortheyareanaturalwaytodescribedevelopingphonologicalinventories(Pye,Ingram,&List1987;Ingram1988,1989;Levelt1989;Dinnsenetal.1990;Dinnsen1992,1996;seeDresher1998forareview).
75
Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(1998;2019):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.1998.Childphonology,learnability,andphono-logicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Dresher,B.Elan.2019.Contrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology:Variationanduniversality.InDavidW.Lightfoot&JonathanHavenhill (eds.),Variablepropertiesinlanguage:Theirnatureandacquisition,13–25.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
76
5. Halle 1959
An argument for specification
by branching trees
77
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
An argument for branching trees
InTheSoundPatternofRussian (1959;SPR), Hallemakesanargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees;thisistheFirstsuchargumentIhavefoundintheliterature.
78
HearguesthatfeaturespeciFicationbyabranchingtreeistheonlywaytoensurethatsegmentsarekeptproperlydistinct.
Figure I-1 in The Sound Pattern of Russian, p. 46
79
(ThisishistreeforRussian.)
SpeciFically,Halleproposed(1959:32)thatphonemesmustmeettheDistinctnessCondition:
Segment-type/A/willbesaidtobedifferentfromsegment-type/B/,ifandonlyifatleastonefeaturewhichisphonemicinboth,hasadifferentvaluein/A/thanin/B/;i.e.,plusintheformerandminusinthelatter,orviceversa.
TheDistinctnessCondition
Thisformulationisdesignedtodisallowcontrastsinvolvingazerovalue ofafeature.
The Dis0nctness Condi0on
80
Considerthetypicalsub-inventory/p,b,m/shownbelow,andsupposewecharacterizeitintermsoftwobinaryfeatures,[±voiced]and[±nasal].
IntermsoffullspeciFications,/p/is[–voiced,–nasal],/b/is[+voiced,–nasal],and/m/is[+voiced,+nasal].
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++
Whichofthesefeaturesiscontrastive?Manypeoplereasonasfollows:
How do we establish contrasts?
81
Weobservethat/p/and/b/aredistinguishedonlyby[voiced];sothesespeciFicationsmust becontrastive.Similarly,/b/and/m/aredistinguishedonlyby[nasal];thesespeciFicationsmustalso becontrastive.Whatabouttheuncircled speciFications?Thesearepredictablefromthecircledones:
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++
82
How do we establish contrasts?
Since/p/istheonly[–voiced]phonemeinthisinventory,itsspeciFicationfor[nasal]ispredictable,henceredundant.Wecanwritearuleorconstraint:Similarly,/m/istheonly[+nasal]phoneme,soitsspeciFicationfor[voiced]isredundant:Thisisastill-popularwayofthinkingaboutcontrastivespeciFications;wecancallitthe‘MinimalDifference’approach(e.g.Padgett2003,Calabrese2005,Campos-Astorkiza 2009,Nevins2010).
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/––
/m/
++ If[–voiced],then[–nasal]
If[+nasal],then[+voiced]
83
How do we establish contrasts?
AccordingtoMinimalDifference,afeatureisonlycontrastiveinasegmentifitistheonly featurethatdistinguishesthatsegmentfromanotherone.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+
ButaccordingtotheDistinctnessCondition,/p/isnot ‘differentfrom’/m/:whereonehasafeature,theotherhasnone.
Therefore,thesespeciFicationsarenotproperlycontrastive.
84
How do we establish contrasts?
TheyviolatetheDistinctnessConditionbecausenofeaturehierarchyyieldsthisresult.
Ifweorder[voiced]>[nasal],wegeneratean‘extra’speciFicationon/m/.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
++
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/
[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/
The Dis0nctness Condi0on
85
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/
–/m/
+
[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/–
Ifweorder[nasal]>[voiced],wegeneratean‘extra’speciFicationon/p/.
86
The Dis0nctness Condi0on
EitherofthespeciFicationsbelowisproperlycontrastive.
[voiced][nasal]
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/
[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/
+
Contras0ve ≠ unpredictable
/b/+–
/p/–
/m/
+–
[–nasal] [+nasal]/m/
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/ /b/
[voiced] > [nasal] [nasal] > [voiced]Notethatinahierarchicalapproach,acontrastivefeatureisnotnecessarilyunpredictable.
87
Therefore, according to SPR, to ensure that all the phonemes of a language aredistinct from one another, it is necessary that their feature speciFications must begenerable by a branching tree.
88
Contrast is hierarchical
IbelievethatHalle’sargumentiscorrect:asdemonstratedbyArchangeli (1988)andinmoredetailbyDresher(2009),theMinimalDifferenceapproachoftenfailstoyieldany intelligiblesetofspeciFications.Itisthewrongtheoryofcontrast.
Conceptually,themainFlawofMinimalDifferenceisitsfailuretorecognizethatcontrastiverelationsinaninventoryexistnotjustbetweenpairsofsegments,butalsobetweengroups ofsegmentsatdifferentlevelsofthehierarchy.
Consideragainthe/pbm/examplewhere[±voiced]>[±nasal]:
89
[–voiced] [+voiced]/p/
[–nasal] [+nasal]/b/ /m/
Contrast is hierarchical: contras0ve ≠ unpredictable
[voiced] > [nasal]
Atthehigherlevel,[±voiced]distinguishesbetween[–voiced/p/and[+voiced]/b,m/.
90
Thecontrastisminimalatthislevel:atthispoint,[±voiced]istheonlyfeaturethatdistinguishes/p/from/b,m/.
Thus,thereisasenseinwhichcontrastisindeedminimal,almostbydeFinition;butonly whenviewedinhierarchicallayers,andnotinpairwisecomparisons.
Thisdoesnotchangeeventhoughatthelowerlevel/m/receives[+nasal],whichfurtherdistinguishesitfrom/p/.
Decline of the branching trees
ItisironicthatwhileTheSoundPatternofRussian containsthisoriginalargumentonbehalfofbranchingtrees,atthesametimeitsanalysisofRussiancontributedtounderminingthewholenotionofcontrastivespeciFication(Dresher&Hall2020).Becauseofthat,andduealsotoargumentsbyLightner(1963)andStanley(1967),underspeciFicationwasabandonedaltogetherinChomsky&Halle’sTheSoundPatternofEnglish (SPE,1968),alongwiththebranchingtrees(forreasons,seeDresher2009:96–104).Theresultwasthatlanguage-particularfeaturecontrastsdidnotplayaroleinthetheoryofgenerativegrammarthatdevelopedfromSPE.
91
Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2009:11–30;96–104);Dresher&Hall(2020):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.2020.Theroadnottaken:TheSoundPatternofRussian andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.JournalofLinguistics 57(2),405–444.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.
92
6. Chomsky & Halle 1968
The Generative Framework
and Approach to Phonology
93
Monday 26 July 2021
Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG)
ThoughIdepartfromSPEwithrespecttocontrastandthenatureoffeatures,Chomsky&HalleprovidethebroadgenerativeframeworkandcognitiveapproachtophonologythatIassume.
The genera0ve framework
94
Generativephonology,asIunderstandit,isnotatheoryabouteverythingtodowiththesoundsideoflanguage,butlooksatthefollowingschematicsituation:
The goals of phonological theory
Alearnerbornintoacommunitythatspeaksalanguage,L,isexposedtodatafromL,andsomehowarrivesatagrammarofL.
Generativegrammaraimstoanswerthreequestions:95
GrammarofLThelearner
???D
DataofL
1.What isthenatureofthegrammarofL,whichwecancallGL?
The goals of phonological theory
IfwecancorrectlycharacterizeGL thenwehaveadescriptivelyadequate theory.
Thesecondquestionismoreambitious:96
GrammarofLThelearner
???D
DataofL
GL
2.How,givenD,doesthelearnerarriveatGL?
The goals of phonological theory
Thelearnermustbeequippedwithasetofcognitiveprinciples,calledUniversalGrammar(UG),thatisabletoconvertDintoGL.
AtheorythathasacorrectmodelofUGissaidtoachieveexplanatoryadequacy.97
GrammarofLThelearner
UGD
DataofL
GL
Inthe21st centuryathirdquestionhasbeenasked:
The goals of phonological theory
3.Why doesUGhavethepropertiesthatithas?
Answeringthisquestionrequiresustogobeyond explanatoryadequacy tolookatbiologicalandevolutionaryfactorsthatcouldhaveshapedUG.
98
GrammarofLThelearner
UGD
DataofL
GL
Moremodestly,weshouldkeepinmindthattheUGwecomeupwithshouldbeplausiblewithrespecttotheseconsiderations.
???
Proposinga(partial)theoryofUGamountstocharacterizingwhatphonologicalgrammarsarepossible;thisentailsthatwealsomakehypothesesaboutwhatgrammarsareimpossible.
Phonological theory is empirical
Mielke(2008:20)arguesthatphonologicaltheoryshouldnot trytodistinguishpossiblephonologicalphenomenafromimpossibleones,becausewehavenoevidencethatunattested=impossible.Hegoeson:
“Whentherearesomanylinguisticphenomenafoundinonlyahandfulofattestedlan-guages,howcanwebecertainthatanyphonologicalpatternneverexistedinthepast,neverwillexistinthefuture,anddoesn’texistcurrentlyinanunderstudiedlanguage?”
99
Ofcourse,wecan’t becertain:phonologyisnotmath,it’sanempiricalventure!EmpiricalFieldshavetomakehypothesesthatmightbe(probablyare)wrong.
IfwewanttohaveanexplanatorilyadequatetheoryofUG,ourmodelofUGhastohavesomecontent,whichwouldnecessarilybeuniversal.
Thereisthussomemotivationtotrytomakephonologicalnotions,likefeaturesandmarkedness,asuniversalaspossible.
Thetheory,however,hastoallowforthecross-linguisticvariationthatweFind.
100
GrammarofLThelearner
UGD
DataofL
GL
Universals and phonological theory
Thatis,wecanaskwhatinphonologyisuniversalandwhatcanvary?
IthinkthateffortstomakeindividualfeaturesuniversalworkatalevelthatistoospeciFic anddoesnotaccountforthecross-linguisticvariabilitythatweFind.
Butthereissomethingrightaboutsayingthatfeaturesareuniversal—notatthelevelofindividualfeaturesbutataconceptuallevel.
101
Universals and variable proper0es in phonological theory
ContrastiveHierarchyTheoryisatheorythatallowsustohaveauniversalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.
Andthatiswhatwewilltalkabouttomorrow.
Forfurtherreading,seeDresher(2014;2019):
References and further reading
Dresher,B.Elan.2014.Thearchnotthestones:Universalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.Nordlyd 41.2:165–181.UniversityofTromsø— TheArcticUniversityofNorway.
Dresher,B.Elan.2019.Contrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology:Variationanduniversality.InDavidW.Lightfoot&JonathanHavenhill (eds.),Variablepropertiesinlanguage:Theirnatureandacquisition,13–25.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
102
ReferencesArchangeli,Diana.1988.UnderspeciEicationinphonology.Phonology 5(2):183–207.Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2015.AquisiçaodasvogaistonicasepretonicasdoPortuguesBrasileiro.Doctoraldissertation,UniversityofSaoPaulo.
Bohn,Graziela Pigatto.2017.Theacquisitionoftonicandpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.JournalofPortugueseLinguistics 16(7),1–5.DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.184
Bohn,Graziela Pigatto &RaquelSantanaSantos.2018.Theacquisitionofpre-tonicvowelsinBrazilianPortuguese.Alfa:Revista deLinguística (SaoJosedoRioPreto)62(1):191–221.
Calabrese,Andrea.2005.Markednessandeconomyinaderivationalmodelofphonology.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
CamposAstorkiza,Judit Rebeka.2009.Minimalcontrastandthephonology– phoneticsinteraction.Munich:Lincom Europa.
Chomsky,Noam.1964.Currentissuesinlinguistictheory.TheHague:Mouton.Chomsky,Noam&MorrisHalle.1968.ThesoundpatternofEnglish.NewYork,NY:Harper&Row.Dinnsen,DanielA.1992.Variationindevelopingandfullydevelopedphoneticinventories.InCharlesA.Ferguson,LisaMenn,&CarolStoel-Gammon(eds.),Phonologicaldevelopment:Models,research,implications,191–210.Timonium,MD:YorkPress.
Dinnsen,DanielA.1996.Context-sensitiveunderspeciEicationandtheacquisitionofphoneticcontrasts.JournalofChildLanguage 23:31–55.
103
Dinnsen,DanielA.,StevenB.Chin,MaryElbert,&ThomasW.Powell.1990.Someconstraintsonfunctionallydisorderedphonologies:Phoneticinventoriesandphonotactics.JournalofSpeechandHearingResearch33:28–37.
Dresher,B.Elan.1998.Childphonology,learnability,andphonologicaltheory.InTej Bhatia&WilliamC.Ritchie(eds.),Handbookoflanguageacquisition,299–346.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Dresher,B.Elan.2009.Thecontrastivehierarchyinphonology.Cambridge:CUP.Dresher,B.Elan.2007.VariabilityinTrubetzkoy’sClassiEicationofPhonologicalOppositions.TheLACUSForum33,133–142.
Dresher,B.Elan.2014.Thearchnotthestones:Universalfeaturetheorywithoutuniversalfeatures.Nordlyd41.2:165–181,specialissueonFeaturesed.byMartinKramer,SandraRonai,&PeterSvenonius.UniversityofTromsø— TheArcticUniversityofNorway.
Dresher,B.Elan.2016.Contrastinphonology1867–1967:Historyanddevelopment.AnnualReviewofLinguistics 2:53–73.
Dresher,B.Elan.2019.Contrastivefeaturehierarchiesinphonology:Variationanduniversality.InDavidW.Lightfoot&JonathanHavenhill (eds.),Variablepropertiesinlanguage:Theirnatureandacquisition,13–25.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Dresher,B.Elan&DanielCurrieHall.2020.Theroadnottaken:TheSoundPatternofRussian andthehistoryofcontrastinphonology.JournalofLinguistics 57(2):405–44.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000377.
104
Fikkert,Paula.1994.Ontheacquisitionofprosodicstructure(HILDissertations6). Dordrecht:ICGPrinting.Halle,Morris.1959.ThesoundpatternofRussian:Alinguisticandacousticalinvestigation.TheHague:Mouton.Secondprinting,1971.
Hirayama,Manami.2003.ContrastinJapanesevowels.TorontoWorkingPapersinLinguistics 20:115–32.https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6234.
Ingram,David.1988.Jakobsonrevisited:SomeevidencefromtheacquisitionofPolishphonology.Lingua 75:55–82.
Ingram,David.1989.Firstlanguageacquisition:Method,descriptionandexplanation.Cambridge:CUP.Jakobson,Roman.1941.Kindersprache,Aphasie,undallgemeine Lautgesetze.Uppsala:UppsalaUniversitetsArsskrift.
Jakobson,Roman.1968.Childlanguage,aphasia,andphonologicaluniversals.TranslationbyA.R.Keiler ofJakobson1941.TheHague:Mouton.
Jakobson,Roman.1974.Lenguaje infantil yafasia.TranslationbyEstherBenıtezofJakobson1941.Madrid:Ayuso.
Jakobson,Roman&MorrisHalle.1956.Fundamentalsoflanguage.TheHague:Mouton.Jones,Daniel.1967.Thephoneme:Itsnatureanduse,3rdedition(withanAppendixonthehistoryandmeaningoftheterm“phoneme”).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Levelt,ClaraC.1989.Anessayonchildphonology.M.A.thesis,LeidenUniversity.Lightner,TheodoreMcGraw.1963.Anoteontheformationofphonologicalrules.Quarterlyprogressreport(ResearchLaboratoryofElectronics,MIT)68:187–9. 105
McCawley,JamesD.1967.Sapir'sphonologicrepresentation.InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics 33:106–11.
Mielke,Jeff.2008.Theemergenceofdistinctivefeatures.Oxford:OUP.Nevins,Andrew.2010.Localityinvowelharmony. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Padgett,Jaye.2003.Contrastandpost-velarfrontinginRussian.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory 21:39–87.
Polanski,Kazimierz.1993.Polabian.InBernardComrie&Greville G.Corbett(eds.),TheSlavoniclanguages,795–824. London:Routledge.
Pye,Clifton,DavidIngram,&HelenList.1987.AcomparisonofinitialconsonantacquisitioninEnglishandQuiche.InKeithE.Nelson&AnnVanKleeck(eds.),Children'slanguage(vol.6),175–90.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Sapir,Edward.1925.Soundpatternsinlanguage.Language 1:37–51.Stanley,Richard.1967.Redundancyrulesinphonology.Language 43:393–436.Sweet,Henry.1877.Ahandbookofphonetics.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1939.Grundzuge derPhonologie.Gottingen:Vandenhoek &Ruprecht.Trubetzkoy,N.S.1969.Principlesofphonology.TranslationbyChristianeA.M.Baltaxe ofTrubetzkoy1939.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Trubetzkoy,N.S.2019.Principiosdefonología.Newtranslationandcriticaledn.byEstherHerreraZendeyas &MichaelHerbertKnapp.MexicoCity:ElColegiodeMexico,CentrodeEstudiosLinguısticosyLiterarios.
106