By examining evidence for the SSP in a large cross-linguistic dataset, we aim to clarify the empirical status of the SSP – an essential step towards a more complete and theoretically satisfactory understanding of this fundamental principle of syllable structure ( Clements 1990 Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). In this paper, we re-visit the SSP in a study of nearly five hundred languages. However, the SSP has been challenged by persistent disagreement over its definition, and a growing inventory of counterexamples reported from lesser-studied languages. We discuss where existing theoretical accounts of the SSP require further development to account for our crosslinguistic results.Įver since Sievers (1876) related the relative loudness of segments to their permitted linear arrangements within syllables and formulated this relation as the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP), the SSP has been a major explanatory tool in phonology. Violations in onsets and codas are not symmetrical, especially when complex segments are treated as units. We examine which clusters cause the violations, and find a wide range: not only the notorious case of clusters with sibilants, but also with nasals, approximants and other obstruents. We find a significant proportion of languages violate the SSP: almost one half of the language sample. We consider the treatment of complex segments both as sonority units and as clusters. We adopt a phonetically-grounded definition of sonority – acoustic intensity – and examine how many languages contain SSP-violating clusters word-initially and word-finally. This study aims to clarify the empirical status of the SSP in a cross-linguistic study of 496 languages. Deadline Extended: Pedagogical Approaches to Laboratory Phonology – March 1 deadline.The Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) is a fundamental governing principle of syllable structure however, its details remain contested.CfP Neural network models for articulatory gestures (LabPhon Satellite Workshop) February 27, 2020.AMP 2020 abstract submissions now open February 27, 2020.Bakovic and Mai (2020) Cumulative constraint interaction and the equalizer of HG and OT February 27, 2020.Danis (2020) Long-distance major place harmony February 27, 2020.Phonolist is now an open e-mail list August 31, 2020.Registration for the 2020 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP) is now open August 31, 2020.Phonology position at UC Santa Cruz August 31, 2020.Post navigation ← Boskovic (2016) – Tone sandhi in Taiwanese and phasal spell-out Kawahara (2017) – Vowel-coda interaction in Spontaneous Japanese utterances → Syllable structure, lenition, sonority, gorgia toscana, phonology, generative grammar, strict cv, interlude theory, phonology (please use that when you cite this article) Unlike sonority based analyses, the phonological definition of the clusters offered here has a clear relationship with the phonological processes that occur to them. Informed in part by interlude theory (Steriade 2008), it offers an alternative account for the lenition facts: compressible CCs (Branching onsets) are equivalent to a singleton stop, while non-compressible clusters (Coda-Onset and Bogus clusters) are equivalent to geminates. I will provide a suggestive sketch for a competing representational solution based on Strict CV (in particular Lowenstamm 2003 and Brun-Trigud & Scheer 2010). In seeking an alternative analysis, Gorgia Toscana will be presented in some detail along with its implications for sonority. Using a Sonority Differential analysis (Parker 2011), it becomes evident (process by process) that sonority is not the primary (or a preferable) mechanism in determining these sets. Comparing the two sets of remnant allows for the extraction of the Coda-Onset set. Elsewhere, the process of Epenthesis (in non-standard dialects) filters out the Bogus clusters instead leaving Branching onsets and Coda-Onset clusters as remnant. Metrical lengthening and Gorgia Toscana filter out Branching onsets leaving behind Coda-Onset and Bogus clusters as remnant. Using three phonological diagnostics, it will be possible to split the consonant clusters (CCs) of Tuscan into three types: Branching onset, Coda-Onset and Bogus clusters. In this study, I evaluate this claim in light of Tuscan Italian. It is widely believed that syllabification is determined by a sonority-driven algorithm like the Sonority Sequencing Principle (Selkirk 1984 Clements 1990, Vaux and Wolfe 2009). Bogus Clusters and Lenition in Tuscan Italian: Implications for the theory of sonority
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |