Untitled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Shortcomings of the Sonority Sequencing Principle27accused of circularity (Scheer 1999b). Very briefly, it is generally acceptedthat whatever appears before the first vowel in a word must bean onset, hence the beginning of the word is tantamount to the beginningof the syllable, that is, both start with the onset. Furthermore, inlanguages like English and German word-initial clusters are invariablyof the rising-sonority type. 13 These two observational facts have led toargumentation which is circular in nature. Thus, word-initial consonantclusters must have a rising-sonority profile because they are in onsets.How do we know that they are in onsets? Because the sonority rises.Although found word-initially in certain languages, falling-sonority clusterscan never be recognised as onsets in theories relying on SSP. Theyviolate the sonority principle and hence cannot constitute a potentialonset.Summing up, the Sonority Sequencing Principle, which says thatsonority must rise word-initially, has been based on the traditional phonotacticstudies of the typical western Indo-European languages, whichhappen to possess only rising-sonority clusters word-initially. The answerto the question why the clusters with decreasing-sonority profileare not possible at the left edge of the word falls out naturally in sonority-basedtheories, i.e., they would simply violate SSP.The two major flaws mentioned above are sufficient to disqualify thesonority-based theories from the game. Consequently, what is needed isa theory which could answer the question why in the vast majority ofIndo-European languages word-initial clusters are of the rising-sonoritytype. It should also explain the fact that there exist languages whichallow for clusters with both increasing- and decreasing-sonority profilesword-initially. Moreover, we would like to know the reason why certainlanguages possess complex consonant sequences, while the rest are happywith simple ones. Ideally, such a theory should replace the notion ofsonority by deriving phonotactic restrictions from the internal structureof segments. The internal composition of segments should be independentlymotivated by playing a direct role in phonological processing. Itmust be noted here that the last two problems have been overcome byGovernment Phonology, in particular by Harris’ (1990) complexity condition.In short, Harris (1990) derives phonotactic restrictions fromthe complexity of segments, where complexity is calculated on the numberof elements a segment enjoys. This step makes the sonority principleredundant.13The only exception to this observation is exemplified by clusters starting with /s/.Note, however, that /sC/ clusters behave peculiarly not only in English but also in mostIndo-European languages.
28 The frameworkIn general, we can divide languages into two basic groups. The divisionis based on the co-occurrence restrictions imposed on the wordinitialconsonant clusters. The first group is represented by languageswhich tolerate rising-sonority consonant clusters only (#TR, where ‘T’and ‘R’ stand for a typical obstruent and a sonorant respectively). Herebelong languages like, for example, English, German, French, etc. Thesecond group includes languages which are more permissive, i.e. theyallow for both rising- and falling-sonority clusters (#TR and #RT). In thisgroup we find languages from the Slavic family, e.g. Polish, Czech, Slovak,etc. 14In this work we shall focus on the phonotactic restrictions and syllabificationin languages which are the representatives of both groups, i.e.English and Polish. Where appropriate or required some additional datafrom other languages will be provided. Let us start the discussion withsome basic facts from English and Polish phonotactics.4.2. Some unanswered questions in Englishand Polish phonotacticsEnglish is probably one of the most thoroughly analysed languages.A mass of detailed descriptions and analyses of the language has accumulatedwith each passing decade. All major theories have been testedon English and in consequence many interesting observations have beenmade, which in turn have given rise to new theoretical concepts. Onesuch observation, which has contributed to the postulation of a crosslinguisticprinciple, that is, SSP, concerns the co-occurrence restrictionson word-initial consonant clusters. In this section, we shall look at themajor constraints holding in the word-initial position in English. Thediscussion is rather brief as even a cursory look at the English data sufficesto establish a general phonotactic pattern (4). 15 However, it will bepointed out that the constraints built on the SSP are not explanatoryenough. The chart has been adopted from Harris (1994:57). 1614Such clusters are also characteristic of languages which lie outside the Indo-European family, e.g. some Afro-Asiatic languages.15A more detailed analysis of certain English consonant clusters will appear inChapter Three.16Some co-occurrence possibilities considered as marginal are omitted, e.g. [vr-]vroom, [sf-] sphere, [Sr-] shrink.
Page 2 and 3: Polish and EnglishConsonantal Clust
Page 4 and 5: Artur KijakPolish and EnglishConson
Page 6 and 7: ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9: PrefaceThe phonotactic peculiaritie
Page 10 and 11: Preface92000), Ploch (1999), van de
Page 12: List of abbreviationsBrODIdim.FODge
Page 15 and 16: 14 The frameworkemploying the simpl
Page 17 and 18: 16 The frameworksion in section 3 b
Page 19 and 20: 18 The frameworkmodel is able to ha
Page 21 and 22: 20 The frameworkhanan 1986). Thus,
Page 23 and 24: 22 The frameworkare not derived at
Page 25 and 26: 24 The frameworkWhat is interesting
Page 27: 26 The frameworklateral relations,
Page 31 and 32: 30 The frameworkobstruents followed
Page 33 and 34: 32 The frameworkLet us look more de
Page 35 and 36: 34 The framework(7) PGO N O N O N O
Page 37 and 38: 36 The frameworkby all sounds. Thus
Page 39 and 40: 38 The frameworkexist. What is a Br
Page 41 and 42: 40The frameworkLowenstamm’s (1999
Page 43 and 44: 42 The frameworksky and Halle’s (
Page 45 and 46: 44 The phonological nature of the b
Page 79 and 80:
78 The phonological nature of the b
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
III. Bogus clusters, syllabic conso
Page 103 and 104:
102 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
152 Conclusionnisms available in th
Page 155 and 156:
154 ReferencesBotma, B. (2004) Phon
Page 157 and 158:
156 ReferencesGussmann, E. (1998) D
Page 159 and 160:
158 ReferencesPawelec, P. (1989) Cy
Page 161 and 162:
160 ReferencesScheer, T. (1997) Vow
Page 164 and 165:
Author indexAbercrombie, David 103A
Page 166 and 167:
Artur KijakGrupy spó³g³oskowe w
Page 168 and 169:
Zusammenfassung167für alle anderen
show all

Untitled

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?