Volume 35, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919



Phonological processes typically affect natural classes of sounds, with the members of such classes sharing some phonetic property to the exclusion of other sounds. Recent typological work shows that not all phonological classes are natural, however (Mielke 2008). This paper considers the class of glides and laryngeals, a combination of sounds which resists a straightforward characterization in terms of shared features. Adopting the framework of Element Theory (Harris & Lindsey 1995Backley 2011), we argue that class behaviour of glides and laryngeals is due not to their having shared phonetic content, but shared phonological structure: glides and laryngeals contain a single element in their melodic structure. We conclude that phonological processes can be sensitive to the difference between simple and complex expressions.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Árnason, Kristján
    2011The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199229314.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199229314.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Backley, Phillip
    2011An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolognesi, Roberto
    1998The phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A unitary account of a self-organizing structure. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Botma, Bert & Janet Grijzenhout
    2018 “Voiced fricatives in Element Theory: Evidence from the Nordic languages” (paper presented atElements: State of the art and perspectives, June 15, Nantes).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Botma, Bert & Marijn van ’t Veer
    2013 “A fraction too much friction: The phonological status of voiced fricatives.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013ed. by S. Aalberse and A. Auer , 46–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/avt.30.04bot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.04bot [Google Scholar]
  6. Brunner, Jana & Marzena Żygis
    2011 “Why do glottal stops and low vowels like each other?” Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciencesed. by W. -S. Lee and E. Zee , 376–379. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Burenhult, Niclas
    2001 “Jahai phonology: A preliminary survey.” Mon-Khmer Studies31: 29–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
    1968The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clements, George N.
    1990 “The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification.” Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speeched. by J. Kingston and M. Beckman , 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clements, George N. & Elizabeth V. Hume
    1995 “The internal organization of speech sounds.” The handbook of phonological theoryed. by J. Goldsmith , 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Crosswhite, Katherine
    2001Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ewen, Colin J. & Harry van der Hulst
    2001The phonological structure of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gussmann, Edmund
    2002Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164108
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164108 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hall, Daniel Currie
    2010 “Probing the unnatural.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010ed. by J. van Kampen and R. Nouwen , 73–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/avt.27.07hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.27.07hal [Google Scholar]
  15. Hall, T. A.
    1992Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111657882
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111657882 [Google Scholar]
  16. Harris, John
    1994English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1996 “Phonological output is redundancy-free and fully interpretable.” Current trends in phonology: Models and methodsed. by J. Durand and B. Laks , 305–332. Salford, Manchester: ESRI.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1997 “Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralization.” Phonology14: 315–370. 10.1017/S0952675798003479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675798003479 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006 “The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority.” Lingua116: 1483–1494. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 “Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening.” Strength relations in phonologyed. by K. Nasukawa and P. Backley , 9–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218596.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218596.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey
    1995 “The elements of phonological representation.” Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivationsed. by J. Durand and F. Katamba , 34–79. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Honeybone, Patrick
    2008 “Lenition, weakening and consonantal strength: Tracing concepts through the history of phonology.” Lenition and fortitioned. by J. Brandão de Carvalho , T. Scheer and P. Ségéral , 9–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211443.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211443.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jakobson, Roman , Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle
    1952 “Preliminaries to speech analysis.” Tech. rep. 13, MIT Acoustics Lab.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ladefoged, Peter
    1971Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lombardi, Linda
    2002 “Coronal epenthesis and markedness.” Phonology19: 219–251. 10.1017/S0952675702004323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675702004323 [Google Scholar]
  26. Loos, Eugene
    1969The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Oklahoma: Norman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mansen, Karis & Richard Mansen
    1984Aprendamos Guajiro. Bogota: Editorial Townsend.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCarthy, John J.
    1988 “Feature geometry and dependency: A review.” Phonetica43. 84–108. 10.1159/000261820
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261820 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mielke, Jeff
    2008The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nettle, Daniel
    1998The Fyem language of northern Nigeria. München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Odden, David
    1996The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2005Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808869
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808869 [Google Scholar]
  33. Osborn, Henry
    1966 “Warao I: Phonology and morphophonemics.” International Journal of American Linguistics32: 108–132. 10.1086/464890
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464890 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pompino-Marschall, Bernd & Marzena Żygis
    2011 “Glottal marking of vowel-initial words in German.” Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciencesed. by W. -S. Lee and E. Zee , 1626–1629. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rice, Keren
    2007 “Markedness.” The Cambridge handbook of phonologyed. by P. de Lacy , 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schourup, Lawrence
    1973 “A cross-linguistic study of vowel nasalization.” Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics15: 190–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Shiraishi, Hidetoshi & Bert Botma
    2017 “On the diachronic origin of Nivkh height restrictions.” Sonic signaturesed. by G. Lindsey and A. Nevins , 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.14.c12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c12 [Google Scholar]
  38. Solnit, David
    1997Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sóskuthy, Márton
    2013 “Analogy in the emergence of intrusive-r in English.” English Language and Linguistics17: 55–84. 10.1017/S1360674312000329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000329 [Google Scholar]
  40. Steriade, Donca
    2008 “The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization.” The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparskyed. by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas , 151–180. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Uffmann, Christian
    2007 “Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants.” Language Sciences29: 451–476. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  42. Walker, Rachel
    2000Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Yar-Shater, Eshan
    1969A grammar of Southern Tati dialects. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Element Theory; glides; laryngeals; melodic structure; natural class
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error