linguistic structures - Professor Binkert's Webpage - Oakland ...

(51) a. Assimilate [+NASAL] consonants to the place of articulation of a following stop,
that is, to the features [ANTERIOR] and [CORONAL].
b. Assimilate adjacent [–NASAL] consonants in voicing.
Of course, (51) is directly related to the nature of the human vocal apparatus. It is more natural to
make adjacent features similar because it is easier to articulate them when they are similar. Children
engage in such simplification from the earliest stages of language acquisition when their vocal
apparatus is still not completely formed. For example, they say things such as gig kig for big pig
assimilating the stops to the same place of articulation because it is too difficult for them to
articulate a syllable like big which begins with an anterior stop and ends with a nonanterior one; it
is easier to make them both the same, so children say gig.
With regard to levels of adequacy, the above characterization proceeds as follows. If it stops at
simply noting the data in (46), then only observational adequacy would be attained. If it stops at the
rule (48), which describes (44) in generalized terms applicable to other data (cf. (49)), then
descriptive adequacy would be attained. If the characterization continues to principle (51) and
relates (51) to the structure of the human vocal apparatus, then explanatory adequacy has been
attained.
The significance of the highest level is that one can separate what is expected to occur in natural
language from what is not expected to occur. Also, at the level of explanatory adequacy, the real
nature of apparent exceptions is often clarified. To see this, notice that the rule (48) is not always
followed, even in English. Consider the following data involving the prefix non– meaning ‘not,’
which is also of Latin origin:
(52) a. [n] nonperson, nonbiodegradable, nonman
b. [n] nontaxable, nondelivery, nonnative
c. [n] noncombat, nongaseous
Notice that non is always pronounced with a final [n]. We must say, therefore, that, if non is a
prefix, it is an exception to (48). However, the matter does not stop there. The prefixes in– and
con– are of Latin origin, and, in Latin, they also function as prefixes, though they are related to
independent words (in and cum). Similarly, syn–, which is of Greek origin, functions as a prefix in
Greek, though it is related to an independent Greek word (syn). The element non, on the other hand,
never functions as a prefix in Latin; it occurs only as a separate word meaning ‘not’ and in a few
compound words. Even in English, the merger of non with the following word is not as complete
as the merger with in– or con– or syn–. Notice the slight pause and shift of articulatory posture after
saying non in the examples of (52). Such hesitation and adjustment does not occur in the examples
in (46), (49) and (50). This indicates that our characterization has missed something. Even in
English, it is probably wrong to consider non a prefix, though it looks like one. If we treat words
like nonman as compounds like snowman or manhole, then non is not a prefix and, accordingly, is
not subject to rule (48). Thus, an apparent exception, after closer examination, is seen not to be an
exception at all.
41