It is recommended that this module is read with module 24 of course 2. It was also suggested there that the syllable as a unit is of current interest. At the beginning of generative phonology presented in Chomsky and Halle , the theory did not include the syllable as a unit for explicating phonological phenomena. It was argued that phonological rules and processes could be formulated entirely in terns of CV units.
There were attempts to incorporate the syllable in phonological theory in Fudge However, it was Kahn who successfully demonstrated the need to incorporate the syllable in phonological theory because of its efficacy in explicating phonological rules more simply than the existing linear formulations.
For example, he showed that there were many processes that are dependent on the coda position of the syllable. These typically refer to the contexts of word-final and preceding a consonant. On a linear phonological representation, the rule can be stated as in 2 2 Clearly, the rule as stated above appears to yoke two contexts without any explanation: it fails to show what is common between the two contexts so that the change in the rule takes place before either of them.
Kahn showed that it is easy to explain the commonness between the two contexts as owing to they occupying the position of the Coda of a syllable.
Syllables as organizing units The main role of the syllable in phonological structure is that of an organizing unit. It groups the consonants and the vowels in a word, as you would already know. With the rise of the theory of Metrical Phonology e. We will turn to Prosodic Phonology for a more detailed discussion in a following module. In short, the main feature of prosodic phonology can be seen from the figure in 4 as lying in a conception of phonological structure consisting of hierarchically organized units.
An IP is a unit that consists of at least one nuclear tone. A PP consists of at least one phrasal accent, a word consists of at least one stress Foot, and a Foot consists of at least one Syllable. The theory holds that a higher-level unit consists of the immediately lower level unit, next in hierarchy. It is a single syllable, a single Foot, a single Pwd, a single PP, a single IP with typically a Falling nuclear tone and a single utterance.
The notion of sonority is of long standing.
In phonological theory today, it is assumed that segments are categorized in terms of a sonority hierarchy or sonority scale. This notion is succinctly stated in Blevins , and reproduced in Figure 1 below.
The entire hierarchy can be worked out as in 6 : 6 Fig. It determines to a large extent the syllabification of segments into syllables, following both universal and language-specific principles.
Universal Syllabification Principles: Sonority Sequencing Principle SSP The SSP Selkirk , Clements states that segments rank highest on sonority scale at the centre, that is, the nucleus, and are increasingly lower as they move to the edges of the syllable, that is, to the onsets and codas of syllables. The sonority ranking is determined by the sonority scale as given in Fig. In general, languages allow syllabification of segments in the pattern following the SSP. For example in English, in the words bird and bend, the consonants closer to the vowels are more sonorous that the consonants at the end, and in the words, treat and blog, the consonants closer to the vowels are more sonorous than the initial consonants.
The phonotactics of the words violates the SSP, as the relatively more sonorous fricative consonant is further away from the vowels than the less sonorous plosive consonant. There are languages in which the phonotactics may violate the SSP to a greater extent. However, in general, world languages follow it.
Informally, the principle says, that consonants syllabify maximally as the onset, unless prevented by language-specific phonotactic constraints. Given a single consonant in a VCV sequence, the C goes with the following vowel as its onset, e. There are few exceptions to this generalization. CCV However, it is difficult for native speakers to agree on syllable divisions beyond two or three consonants. Single intervocalic consonants sometimes belong to both syllables.
This phenomenon is known as ambisyllabicity, which we discussed in Module 24 of Course 2. Go back to it for more discussion. Universal Constraints The concern for the search for universal principles governing syllabification has continued in the current constraint-based phonological theory, Optimality Theory OT , about which you will learn in subsequent modules. These determine the formation of syllables according to MOP. Some of those are discussed in Module 22 of Course 2. These also provide strong evidence for the significance of the syllable as a phonological unit.
(PDF) Metrical Phonology: The Syllable | Pramod Pandey - conlauguterleo.ga
We cannot do without the syllable in phonological theory. Syllable Structure As we noted in Module 22, there have multiple proposals for the structure of syllables in generative phonology since Kahn , where a flat structure of the syllable is proposed- Onset-Nucleus- Coda. Current phonology accepts two main models of syllable structure- a binary branching structure and a moraic structure. The separation of the Rime allowed the theory to represent the weight of syllables on the tree. The binary-branching tree structure allows the Rime to be projected when the Onset is not involved in a phonological process, such as Word-stress.
The division of the Syllable into the Onset-Rime structure is well motivated by many other considerations see e.
- Mechanics of materials : a modern integration of mechanics and materials in structural design.
- Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology.
- Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume XII: Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 1998.
- Flora of the Hudson Bay Lowland and Its Postglacial Origins.
- Christmas in the Dukes Arms.
- Phonology - Definition and Observations.
- Calculations of electrostatic interactions in biological systems and in solutions.
Languages may require an obligatory onset in the canonical syllable structure, but there is no language requiring an obligatory coda in its canonical syllable structure. Onsets must be released; codas, more often than not, are unreleased. Codas may have moraic weight in quantity-sensitive systems, while onsets do not have any moraic weight. Onsets allow more open classes of consonants than codas.
It is characteristic of consonants to be inserted in the form of glides or glottal stops in many languages requiring obligatory onsets. On the Rime projection, all languages have V as a Light syllable. The counting of consonants and vowels in the Rime for moraic weight may differ among languages. The b type languages are those that do not have codas, while c type languages are those that do not have vowel length distinction. The syllable length distinction is necessary, as was mentioned, to account for certain processes. For example, consider the stress patterns in Hindi in 6 below: 6 The forms in a and b differ the weight of the syllables in the medial position.
The occurrence of a Light syllable in the forms in a and a Heavy syllable in the forms in b leads to a difference in the stress patterns in them. Some languages, such as Hindi and Punjabi, require a third type of syllable with a higher degree of weight- a tri-moraic syllable. Look at the data in 7 below from Hindi: 7 The forms in the two sets differ only in the final syllable. Clearly, the occurrence of an additional C at the end in the Rime position in Hindi causes the difference in the stress patterns in 7.
Does phonological theory need both the syllable and the mora, or only one of them? The answer is- we need them both. Many phenomena, such as Japanese stress, need to refer to both the mora and the syllable see Kubozono for details. Syllabification There are two approaches to constructing syllables. These are the rule-based approach e.
Hayes , Steriade, and the templatic approach e. Halle and Vergnaud , McCarthy and Selkirk Both the approaches have at least one feature in common. Both ignore the internal structure of the rime as consisting of the nucleus and coda. However both differ in terms of what they consider is a well-formed syllable structure.
Rule-based approach The rule-based approach raises syllables based on the association of the vowel and consonant elements in an ordered application. The normal order is that vowels are projected as a syllable each. The remaining consonants are associated with the vowel first as onset s and then as coda s , going by the universal and the language-specific rules. The rules in 8 are in fact not specific to Hindi but to all languages in generating core syllables- CV. The rules of syllabification further add to those in 8 a and b to generate simple and complex codas and complex onsets,, as in 8 c and d.
This knowledge is intuitive to native speakers; to such an extent that most people are not aware of what is really coming out of their mouths! Here is an example from Standard English. But do we really? Allophones are all allo the sounds phones that may represent one sound in differing phonological environments. So in this language, aspiration is distinctive. Allophones can also be distinct phonemes in a language, surfacing in specific, rule-driven environments.