Weak and Semiweak Phonological Positions in English

Authors

  • Katalin Balogné Bérces Pázmány Péter Catholic University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.160

Keywords:

English phonology, lenition, vowel reduction, syncope, Government Phonology, CVCV phonology

Abstract

The paper argues that, besides the distinction between strong and weak phonological positions, a further dichotomy of weak and semiweak positions is justified in English, manifesting itself in consonant lenition as well as vowel reduction and syncope. Namely, a consonant/vowel immediately following the metrical head is more prone to lenite/reduce than a later consonant/vowel. An extensive discussion of the relevant data, taken from t-allophony and vowel reduction, as well as the introduction of the novel results of an investigation of schwa syncope in British English are provided. The analysis is set in a subbranch of Government Phonology called Strict CV (or CVCV) phonology, in which a licensed position is strong, a governed position is weak, and one which is both licensed and governed is semiweak. It is also shown that previous accounts of some of the data, making reference to foot adjunction structure, handle the observed facts inadequately either because they are unable to predict the observed patterning of strong vs. semiweak realisations, or because they allow for reduction where it is not on record.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, J. and C. Ewen. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Burzio, L. 1994. Principles of English Stress. Cambridge: CUP.

Davis, S. 2001. “On the analysis of aspirated weak syllables in English”. Lecture given at Stanford University.

Davis, S. 2003. “The footing of dactylic sequences in American English”. A New Century of Phonology and Phonological Theory. Eds. T. Homna, M. Okazaki, T. Tabata and S. Tanaka. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 277-289.

Davis, S. 2005. “‘Capitalistic’ vs. ‘militaristic’: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered”. Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Eds. L. Downing, T. A. Hall and R. Raffelsieffen. Oxford: OUP. 107-121.

EPD = Searchable English Pronunciation Dictionary: http://seas3.elte.hu/epd.html

Harris, J. and J. Kaye. 1990. "A tale of two cities: London glottalling and New York City tapping". The Linguistic Review 7: 251-274.

Hayes, B. 1982. “Extrametricality and English stress”. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227-276.

Hooper, J. B. 1978. “Constraints on schwa-deletion in American English”. Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. Ed. J. Fisiak. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 183-207.

Jensen, J. T. 1987. “English stop allophones in metrical theory”. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Volume 2. 153-156.

Jensen, J. T. 2000. “Against ambisyllabicity”. Phonology 17.2: 187-235.

Kahn, D. 1976/1980. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. MIT dissertation published by New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.

Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1985. "The internal structure of phonological representations: a theory of charm and government". Phonology Yearbook 2: 305-328.

Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm and J.-R. Vergnaud. 1990. “Constituent structure and government in phonology”. Phonology 7: 193-231.

Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell.

Kreidler, Ch. 1989. The Pronunciation of English. Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell.

Lowenstamm, J. 1996. “CV as the only syllable type”. Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Eds. J. Durand and B. Laks. European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford Publications. 419-442.

Lowenstamm, J. 1999. “The beginning of the word”. Phonologica 1996. Syllables!? Eds. Rennison, J. and K. Kühnhammer. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 153-166.

LPD = Wells, J. C., ed. 1990. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. London: Longman.

McCarthy, J. J. 1982. “Prosodic structure and expletive infixation”. Language 58: 574-590.

Pater, J. 2000. “Nonuniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints”. Phonology 17.2: 237-274.

Patterson, D. and C. M. Connine. 2001. “Variant frequency in flap production. A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production”. Phonetica 2001; 58: 254-275.

Scheer, T. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol 1: What is CVCV, and Why Should it Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ségéral, P. and T. Scheer. 1999. “The Coda Mirror”. Ms., Université de Paris 7 and Université de Nice.

Selkirk, E. O. 1982. (written in 1978) “The syllable”. The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II. Eds. H. van der Hulst and N. Smith. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 337-383.

Steriade, D. 2000. “Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology. Vol.5. Eds. J. Pierrehumbert and M. Broe. Cambridge, CUP. 313-334.

Szigetvári, P. 1999. VC Phonology: A Theory of Consonant Lenition and Phonotactics. Unpublished PhD dissertation. MTA/ELTE, Budapest: Hungary.

Vaux, B. 2002. “Aspiration in English”. Ms., Harvard University.

Van Dam, M. and P. Weaver. 2001.“Aspiration of stressless intervocalic voiceless stops in English”. Ms., Indiana University, Bloomington.

Van Oostendorp, M. 2000. Phonological Projection. A Theory of Feature Content and Prosodic Structure. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Withgott, M. M. 1982. Segmental Evidence for Phonological Constituents. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Texas, Austin: USA.

Downloads

Published

29-05-2011

How to Cite

Balogné Bérces, K. (2011). Weak and Semiweak Phonological Positions in English. Journal of English Studies, 9, 75–96. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.160

Issue

Section

Articles