Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 121–152

Chapter 6
The phonetic salience of phonological head-dependent structure in a modulated-carrier model of speech

 | Tohoku Gakuin University
In terms of the roles of heads and dependents, there is a mismatch between phonology and syntax. In phonology, heads are important in both structural and informational terms. In syntax, on the other hand, heads have a different function: syntactic heads, like phonological heads, have an important structural role because they license dependent structure, but unlike phonological heads their informational role is relatively unimportant because they usually bear less linguistic (e.g. lexical) information than dependents. In order to achieve a greater degree of uniformity between phonology and syntax, this chapter proposes a reassessment of the roles of heads and dependents in phonology. Contrary to the widespread view, it is argued that heads in phonology, like those in syntax, are structurally important but lexically unimportant whereas dependents are structurally unimportant but lexically important. This view is supported not only by segmental distribution patterns but also by the size of the modulated carrier signal (rather than by the more standard phonetic measure, the sonority scale).
Keywords: head, dependent, prominence, linguistic information, modulated carrier signal
Article outline
  • 1.Segmental and structural markedness
  • 2.Syntactic structure and its phonetic realisation
  • 3.Defining the notion of prominence
    • 3.1The sonority scale
    • 3.2The modulated carrier-signal
    • 3.3Head-dependent relations between syllable constituents
  • 4.Phonological structure
    • 4.1Head-dependent structure in phonology
    • 4.2Head-dependency relations in the foot
    • 4.3Redefining head-dependency relations in the foot
    • 4.4Redefining head-dependency relations in the rhyme, the nucleus and the onset
  • 5.Phonological structure: melody
    • 5.1Head-dependent relations in intra-segmental structure
    • 5.2More complex melodic compounds
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.06nas
References (51)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosphy.Google Scholar
Anderson, John & Ewen, Colin. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2009. Representing labials and velars: A single ‘dark’ element. Phonological Studies 12: 3‒10.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2010. Consonant-vowel unity in Element Theory. Phonological Studies 13: 21‒28.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2004. Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1): 7–22.Google Scholar
. 2008. Exocentric compounds. Morphology 18: 51–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 51‒70.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239‒297.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & Botma, Bert. 2009. Against rhymal adjuncts: the syllabic affiliation of English postvocalic consonants. In Strength Relations in Phonology, Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds), 221‒250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7(2): 255–300.Google Scholar
. 1994. English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. Vowel reduction as information loss. In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 259], Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds), 119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority. Lingua 116(10): 1483‒1494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Why final devoicing is weakening. In Strength Relations in Phonology, Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds), 9‒46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Lenition [Intensive Lecture Series]. Sendai: The Graduate School of Tohoku Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 34‒79. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2000. Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty (eds), 185–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard & McCully, Christopher B. 1987. Metrical Phonology: A Coursebook. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2008. Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies 11: 295–310.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1995. Radical CV Phonology: The categorical gesture. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 80‒116. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2011. Dependency-based phonologies. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John A. Goldsmith, Allan C. L. Yu & Jason Riggle (eds), 533–570. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51: 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 293–313.Google Scholar
. 1995. Derivations and Interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 289‒332. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7: 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic thythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249‒336.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2012. Recursion in intra-morphemic phonology. Paper presented at Workshop: Language and the Brain. The 9th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang IX), Kyoto, Japan, 13 March.
. 2014. Features and recursive structure. Special issue on Features, Martin Krämer, Sandra-Iulia Ronai & Peter Svenonius (eds). Nordlyd 41(1): 1‒19.Google Scholar
. 2015. Recursion in the lexical structure of morphemes. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, Marc van Oostendorp & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 211‒238. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. A precedence-free approach to (de-)palatalisation in Japanese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 9. 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2008. Affrication as a performance device. Phonological Studies 11: 35‒46.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Heads and complements in phonology: A case of role reversal? Phonological Studies 18: 67‒74.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Syllables without constituents: Towards melody-prosody integration. Paper presented at the Workshop “Around the syllable: phonetics, phonology and acquisition”, University of Poitiers, France, 13 November.
. 2016. Recursion in element-based prosodic structure. Paper presented at Workshop: Recursion in Phonology. Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan, 1 September.
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS 26: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable, Michael Ziolkowsky, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds), 319–338. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko. 1997. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Language and its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 100], Stig Eliasson & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds), 343‒365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Nancy. 2003. On the logical order of development in acquiring prosodic structure. In Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye, Stefan Ploch (ed.), 29‒54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology: What Is CVCV and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody II, Thorstein Fretheim (ed.), 111‒140. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Toyomi. 2009. Identity avoidance in the onset. In Identity Relations in Grammar, Kuniya Nasukawa & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 101‒120. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. 1994. Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory. Phonetica 51: 170‒183.Google Scholar
. 2005. Speech considered as modulated voice. Ms, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Nasukawa, Kuniya
2017. The relative salience of consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing. In Sonic Signatures [Language Faculty and Beyond, 14], ► pp. 146 ff. DOI logo
Nasukawa, Kuniya
2020. Lexicalising phonological structure in morphemes. Acta Linguistica Academica 67:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 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.