The binarity hypothesis in phonology: 1938–1985

Juana Gil
Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid
Summary

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.

Quick links
Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Anderson, Stephen R.
1971 “On the Description of Apicalized Consonants”. Lin 2.103–107.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 13.323–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bluhme, Herman
1974 “Segmental Phonemes versus Distinctive Features in English”. Linguistics 126.11–24.Google Scholar
Bondarko, L. V. & L. R. Zinder
1968 “Distinctive Features of Phonemes and Their Physical Characteristics”. ZPhon 21.74–76.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1974 “Phonological Features: Problems and proposals”. Language 50.52–65. 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 8.40–46.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 45.1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969b “Vowel Fusion in Spanish”. Hispania 52.60–62. 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 19.108–119. 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 47.21–35.Google Scholar
Eramian, Gregory M.
1978 “Some Notes on Trubetzkoy’s Abandonment of Disjunctive Oppositions”. HL 5.275–288. 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 29.472–481. 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 94.209–215.Google Scholar
Hanson, Göte
1967 “Dimensions in Speech Sound Perception: An experimental study of vowel perception”. Ericsson Technics 23.3–175.Google Scholar
Harris, James W.
1969 Spanish Phonology. Cambridge; Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1970 “Sequences of Vowels in Spanish”. Lin 1.129–134.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 21.5–41.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 18.35–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1962 [1938] “Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes”. Selected Writings I, 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 5.114–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 “Is there a Constraint on Tongue-Height Features?”. Lingua 53.353–369. 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 56.485–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980b “Articulatory Parameters”. Language and Speech 23.25–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindau, Mona
1978 “Vowel Features”. Language 54.541–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 “The Feature ‘Expanded’”. Journal of Phonetics 7.163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson
1964 “A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical measurements”. Word 20.384–422. 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 47.381–394. 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 38.61–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauliny, Eugen
1966 “The Principle of Binary Structure in Phonology”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2.121–126.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 8.141–192.Google Scholar
Schourup, Laurence
1973 “Where Binarity Fails”. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 14.27–36. Columbus, Ohio: Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio State Univ.Google Scholar
Singh, Sadanand & D. R. Woods
1971 “Perceptual Structure of 12 American English Vowels”. JASA. 49.1861–1866. 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 13.69–97.Google Scholar
Utaker, Arild
1974 “On the Binary Opposition”. Linguistics 134.73–93.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Pater Ladefoged
1973 “Phonetic Features and Phonological Features”. Lingua 32.61–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viel, Michel
1983 “Nouvelles remarques à propos de l’abandon par Trubetzkoy des oppositions disjointes”. HL 10.267–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y.
1968 “Vowel Features, Paired Variables and the English Vowel Shift”. Language 44.695–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert D.
1966 “A Criticism of Distinctive Features”. Journal of Linguistics 2.195–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Kay
1977 “Multivalued Features for Consonants”. Language 53.843–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winteler, Jost
1876 Die Ker enzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargelegt. Leipzig & Heidelberg: F. C. Winter.Google Scholar