Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 16:1/2 (1989) ► pp.61–88

The binarity hypothesis in phonology: 1938–1985

| Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid
This paper presents a short history of what has been one of the central hypotheses of phonological theory for many years. The binarity problem has been one of most discussed issues of distinctive feature theory since it was first formulated. In structural phonology (more precisely, the Jakobsonian system) binarism has always been a fundamental concept, and most phonological systems have been based on it. Similarly, all the underlying representations postulated in the SPE framework are thought of as being binary. In current phonology, however, the main interest of many investigators has moved to the suprasegmental level or to metrical phonology, and consequently, the binarity problem remains unresolved. There have been numerous and varied opinions regarding binarism in distinctive feature theory. Some authors argue that binarity proposals are not compatible with phenomena such as coarticulation, but others claim that the non-positivist nature of phonological analysis and the indisputable usefulness of binary features are arguments strong enough to maintain the hypothesis. Finally, other linguists (working from different perspectives) propose a somewhat more relaxed conception of binarity adopting its basic implications. It seems, therefore, time for a review of this classic problem in modern phonology. At the same time, it is also worth restating the question and trying to get some insight into it using the instrumental methods that phonetics provide. This seems to be the construct truly corresponding to the speaker’s mind.
Published online: 1 January 1989
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.16.1-2.05gil
References (88)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. “On the Description of Apicalized Consonants”. Lin 21.103–107.Google Scholar
1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anglin, M. 1971. Perceptual Space of English Vowels in Word-Context. Ph. dissertation, Howard Univ., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Armstrong, Daniel & Cornells H. van Schooneveld, eds. 1977. Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Robert Harms, eds. 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Baitaxe, Christiane. 1978. Foundations of Distinctive Feature Theory. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1957. “Three Methodological Remarks on Fundamentals of Language ”. Word 131.323–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bluhme, Herman. 1974. “Segmental Phonemes versus Distinctive Features in English”. Linguistics 1261.11–24.Google Scholar
Bondarko, L. V. & L. R. Zinder. 1968. “Distinctive Features of Phonemes and Their Physical Characteristics”. ZPhon 211.74–76.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1974. “Phonological Features: Problems and proposals”. Language 501.52–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnochan, John. 1962. Contribution to the Discussion on Roman Jakob-son, “The Phonemic Concept of Distinctive Features”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Helsinki 1961) ed. by Antti Sovijäri & Pentti Aalto, 444–445. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1954. Review article on Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1951). RomPh 81.40–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1969a. “Simplicity, Descriptive Adequacy, and Binary Features”. Language 451.1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1969b. “Vowel Fusion in Spanish”. Hispania 521.60–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crothers, John. 1978. “Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems”. Greenberg, Ferguson & Moravcsik 1978:94–152.Google Scholar
Delas, Daniel. 1973. “Phonétique, phonologie et poétique chez Roman Jakobson”. Langue Française 191.108–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donegan, Patricia J. 1976. “Raising and Lowering”. Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 145–160. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ege, Niels. 1965. “The Danish Vowel System”. Gengo Kenkyu 471.21–35.Google Scholar
Eramian, Gregory M. 1978. “Some Notes on Trubetzkoy’s Abandonment of Disjunctive Oppositions”. HL 51.275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1967. The Nature of Distinctive Features”. To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 634–642. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1973. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1977. “New Directions in Phonological Theory: Language acquisition and universals research”. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory ed. by Roger Cole, 247–299. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1958. “What can the New Techniques of Acoustic Phonetics Contribute to Linguistics?”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists (Oslo, 1957) ed. by Eva Sivertsen, 433–478. Oslo: Oslo Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1953. Review article on Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1951) Language 291.472–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goyvaerts, Didier & Geoffrey Pullum, eds. 1975. Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik, eds. 1978. Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice, Morris Halle & Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, eds. 1973. The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages. Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1957. “In Defense of the Number Two”. Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough on his Sixtienth Birthday, 65–72. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Kenneth Stevens. 1969. “On the Feature ‘Advanced Tongue Root’”. MIT RLE Quarterly Progress Report 941.209–215.Google Scholar
Hanson, Göte. 1967. “Dimensions in Speech Sound Perception: An experimental study of vowel perception”. Ericsson Technics 231.3–175.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge; Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1970. “Sequences of Vowels in Spanish”. Lin 11.129–134.Google Scholar
Henrici, Gert. 1975. Die Binarismus-Problematik in der neueren Linguistik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A Manual of Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Holenstein, Elmar. 1974. Jakobson ou le structuralisme phénoménologique. Paris: Éditions Seghers.Google Scholar
. 1977. “Jakobson’s Contribution to Phenomenology”. Armstrong & van Schooneveld 1977:145–162.Google Scholar
Horálek, Karel. 1964. “À propos de la théorie des oppositions binaires”. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, 1962) ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 414–417. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hurford, James. 1971. “The State of Phonology”. Linguistics 211.5–41.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1901–1928. Logische Untersuchungen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Imai, Kunihiko. 1975. Review article on Chomsky & Halle (1968). Goyvaerts & Pullum 1975:413–432.Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1965. “Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology”. Linguistics 181.35–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962 [1938]. “Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes”. Selected Writings I1, 272–279. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle. 1951. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Our reference is to the 11th ed. of 1976.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. (2nd ed., 1971.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Linda R. Waugh. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change”. Bach & Harms 1968:170–202.Google Scholar
Krohn, Robert. 1972. “On the Sequencing of Tautosegmental Features”. Papers in Linguistics 51.114–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. “Is there a Constraint on Tongue-Height Features?”. Lingua 531.353–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1968. “The Nature of General Phonetic Theories”. Georgetown University Round Table: Selected Papers in Linguistics (1961–1965), 283–298. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
. 1971a. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1971b. “The Limits of Phonology”. Form and Substance: Phonetic and linguistic papers presented to Eli Fischer-Jørgensen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. 47–56.Google Scholar
. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
. 1980a. “What Are the Linguistic Sounds Made of?”. Language 561.485–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980b. “Articulatory Parameters”. Language and Speech 231.25–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindau, Mona. 1978. “Vowel Features”. Language 541.541–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. “The Feature ‘Expanded’”. Journal of Phonetics 71.163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson. 1964. “A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical measurements”. Word 201.384–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1973. “On the Role of Notation in Generative Phonology”. Gross et al. 1973:51–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil. 1963. Structural Linguistics and Human Communication. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: A. Francke. (3rd ed., 1971.)Google Scholar
. 1965. La linguistique synchronique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1973. “Vowel Systems with Five Heights”. Lexicography and Dialect Geography: Festgabe für Hans Kurath, 187–194. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Naro, Anthony J. 1970. “Binary or n-ary Vowel Height Features? Historical evidence”. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 533–542. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1971. “Resolution of Vocalic Hiatus in Portuguese: Diachronic evidence for binary features”. Language 471.381–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1985. “Around flat”. Phonetic Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Peter Ladefoged, 223–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Jeri J. Jaeger, eds. 1986. Experimental Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Frank. 1976. “Refining the Notion of Distinctive Feature”. Lingua 381.61–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauliny, Eugen. 1966. “The Principle of Binary Structure in Phonology”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 21.121–126.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rivas, Alberto. 1978. “Hierarchical Classes of Features in Binary-Feature Phonology”. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 178–188. Cambridge, Mass. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1963. Préface to Roman Jakobson, Essais de linguistique générale, 7–21. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Šaumjan, Sebastian. 1968. Problems of Theoretical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, Mario. 1973. “Orthogonality, Naturalness and the Binary Framework”. Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 798–807. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald A. 1974. “The Simplex-Feature Hypothesis”. Glossa 81.141–192.Google Scholar
Schourup, Laurence. 1973. “Where Binarity Fails”. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 141.27–36. Columbus, Ohio: Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio State Univ.Google Scholar
Singh, Sadanand & D. R. Woods. 1971. “Perceptual Structure of 12 American English Vowels”. JASA. 491.1861–1866. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Modern Phonology. Baltimore, Md: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeyevič. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologic (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague. (Our reference is to the French translation, Principes de phonologie , transl. by Jean Can-tineau: Paris: Klincksieck, 1949.)Google Scholar
Ungeheuer, Gerold. 1959. “Das logistische Fundament binärer Phonemklassifikationen”. SL 131.69–97.Google Scholar
Utaker, Arild. 1974. “On the Binary Opposition”. Linguistics 1341.73–93.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Pater Ladefoged. 1973. “Phonetic Features and Phonological Features”. Lingua 321.61–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1968. “Vowel Features, Paired Variables and the English Vowel Shift”. Language 441.695–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert D. 1966. “A Criticism of Distinctive Features”. Journal of Linguistics 21.195–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Kay. 1977. “Multivalued Features for Consonants”. Language 531.843–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winteler, Jost. 1876. Die Ker enzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargelegt. Leipzig & Heidelberg: F. C. Winter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Maciukenas, James & Kathryn Riley
2007. 2007 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.