1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the historical and phonological properties of in Japanese. It shows that, by analysing a specific case of segmental variation, we not only deepen our understanding of the sound which varies but also shed light on some general characteristics of the sound system as a whole. Using an Element Theory approach (Anderson and Jones 1974Kaye . 1985Harris and Lindsey 1995Scheer 1999Nasukawa 2005Cyran 2010Backley 2011), the discussion focuses on the distribution of the element |U|, arguing that |U| is naturally weak in Japanese. This helps explain two idiosyncrasies in Japanese phonology – the restricted distribution of labial consonants and rounded vowels, and the patterning of with labials.

In modern Japanese, labiality is phonologically and phonetically weak. In vowels, and are produced without lip rounding, as unrounded [ɯ] and [ɰ]. And in consonants, the labial stop is banned from certain contexts. These facts point to the inherent weakness of |U| in Japanese, where weakness refers to structural headedness; following Backley and Nasukawa (2009), it is assumed that labials are represented by headed |U| (cf. non-headed |U| in velars). To account for the restricted distribution of labials, it is argued that labiality (headed ||) is only realised in Japanese if a specific structural condition is met: |U| must co-occur with (i.e. be supported by) another element from the same sub-group of ‘dark’ elements. Thus, the paper exploits the natural division between dark elements {|A|, |U|, |L|} and light elements {|I|, |H|, |Ɂ|}.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16012.bac
2020-01-21
2020-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, John M. and Charles Jones
    1974 “Three theses concerning phonological representations”. Journal of Linguistics10. 1–26. 10.1017/S0022226700003972
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003972 [Google Scholar]
  2. Backley, Phillip
    2001 “The stability of geminate consonants”. Studies in Languages and Cultures14. 61–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2011An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 “Variation in Element Theory”. Language Variation12(1). 57–102. 10.1075/lv.12.1.03bac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.12.1.03bac [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 “Headedness in Element Theory: the case for multiple heads”. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics2(1). 89. 10.5334/gjgl.463
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.463 [Google Scholar]
  6. Backley, Phillip and Kuniya Nasukawa
    2009 “Representing labials and velars: a single ‘dark’ element”. Phonological Studies12. 3–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010 “Consonant-vowel unity in Element Theory”. Phonological Studies13. 21–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brockhaus, Wiebke
    1992 Final devoicing: principles and parameters. PhD dissertation. University of London (UCL).
  9. Cyran, Eugeniusz
    1997Resonance Elements in Phonology: A Study in Munster Irish. Lublin, Poland: Wydawnictwo Folium.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010Complexity Scales and Licensing in Phonology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110221503
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110221503 [Google Scholar]
  11. Golston, Chris and Harry van der Hulst
    1999 “Stricture is structure”. The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, ed. byBen Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp, 153–173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Harris, John
    1990 “Segmental complexity and phonological government”. Phonology7. 255–300. 10.1017/S0952675700001202
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001202 [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris, John and Geoff Lindsey
    1995 “The elements of phonological representation”. Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, ed. byJacques Durand and Francis Katamba, 34–79. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Itô, Junko and Armin Mester
    1999 “The phonological lexicon”. The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, ed. byNatsuko Tsujimura, 62–100. Malden, Massachusetts and Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm and Jean-Roger Vergnaud
    1985 “The internal structure of phonological representations: a theory of charm and government”. Phonology Yearbook2. 305–328. 10.1017/S0952675700000476
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000476 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kula, Nancy
    1999 “On the representation of NC clusters in Bemba”. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1999, ed. byRenée van Bezooijen and René Kager, 135–148. John Benjamins Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lavoie, Lisa
    2001Consonant Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York and London: Garland. 10.4324/9780203826423
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826423 [Google Scholar]
  18. Nasukawa, Kuniya
    2005A Unified Approach to Nasality and Voicing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110910490
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110910490 [Google Scholar]
  19. Nasukawa, Kuniya and Phillip Backley
    2008 “Affrication as a performance device”. Phonological Studies11. 35–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2011 “The internal structure of ‘r’ in Japanese”. Phonological Studies14. 27–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pöchtrager, Markus
    2006 The structure of length. PhD dissertation. University of Vienna.
  22. Rennison, John
    1987 “Vowel harmony and tridirectional vowel features”. Folia Linguistica21. 337–354. 10.1515/flin.1987.21.2‑4.337
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1987.21.2-4.337 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rennison, John and Friedrich Neubarth
    2003 “An x-bar theory of Government Phonology”. Living on the Edge: 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye, ed. byStefan Ploch, 95–130. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110890563.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890563.95 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ritter, Nancy
    1997 “Headedness as a means of encoding stricture”. Phonology in Progress – Progress in Phonology, ed. byGeert Booij and Jeroen van der Weijer, 333–365. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Scheer, Tobias
    1999 “A theory of consonantal interaction”. Folia Linguistica32. 201–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Schwartz, Geoff
    2010 “Auditory representations and the structure of GP2.0”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica57(4). 381–397. 10.1556/ALing.57.2010.4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.57.2010.4.2 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1990The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Szigetvári, Péter
    1994 “Coronality, velarity and why they are special”. The Even Yearbook2. 185–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2004 “Manner as a skeletal relation”. Phonologica 2002: Structure and Melody, Proceedings of the 9th International Phonology Meeting, ed. byFriedrich Neubarth, Markus Pöchtrager & John Rennison.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Takayama, Tomoaki
    2015 “Historical phonology”. Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology, ed. byHaruo Kubozono, 621–650. Berlin, Boston and Munich: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Williams, Geoff
    1998 The phonological basis of speech recognition. PhD dissertation. University of London (SOAS).
  32. Yoshida, Shohei
    1989 Some aspects of governing relations in Japanese phonology. PhD dissertation. University of London (SOAS).
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16012.bac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16012.bac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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