On ich-Laut, ach-Laut and Structure Preservation

Hall (1989) introduces a rule of Fricative Assimilation (FA) in German, which, he claims, poses a challenge to the principle of Structure Preservation in Lexical Phonology, as presented in Kiparsky (1985). This claim is based on the observation that FA is demonstrably lexical because it respects morpheme boundaries, but nonetheless introduces a nondistinctive feature, thus violating a marking condition. However, Hall has not appreciated the force of the analysis of Catalan in Kiparsky (1985), which suggests that assimilated sequences may show special behaviour with respect to marking conditions. In this paper we show first, based on arguments in Kiparsky (1985), Hayes (1986) and Itô (1988), that a general constraint on the interpretation of autosegmental formalism specifically rules out the application of the marking condition to the output of FA.

Download Full-text

Lexical Phonology and the distribution of German [ ç ] and [ x ]

Phonology ◽

10.1017/s0952675700000920 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-17 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Tracy Alan Hall

Keyword(s):

General Tendency ◽

Distinctive Features ◽

Structure Preservation ◽

Basic Segment ◽

Lexical Phonology ◽

Modern Standard

This paper examines the distribution of the palatal fricative [ç] and the velar fricative [x] in Modern Standard German. The data are significant with respect to the theory of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982, 1985; Halle & Mohanan 1985; Mohanan 1986) because the rule of Fricative Assimilation (FA) which spreads the feature of backness from a vowel onto an immediately following tautomorphemic [ —voice, + high] fricative is a counterexample to Kiparsky's (1985) Structure Preservation hypothesis, according to which non-distinctive features must be introduced postlexically. It is also noteworthy that the present analysis produces both [x] and [ç] from a [— voice, + high] fricative which is unspecified for backness, contrary to the general tendency among previous researchers who have taken either /ç/ or /x/ to be the basic segment.

Download Full-text

The Limit of Structure Preservation in Dakota Lexical Phonology

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics ◽

10.17161/kwpl.1808.322 ◽

1994 ◽

Author(s):

John Kyle

Keyword(s):

Structure Preservation ◽

Lexical Phonology

Download Full-text

The phonology of ‘/ɔː/’ and ‘/ɑː/’ in RP English: Henry Sweet and after

English Language and Linguistics ◽

10.1017/s1360674300000344 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 25-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Heinz J. Giegerich

Keyword(s):

Twentieth Century ◽

Theoretical Framework ◽

Structure Preservation ◽

Rule Application ◽

Preservation Conditions ◽

Lexical Phonology

This paper attempts to account for the synchronic representations and surface distributions of the long low vowels (particularly of [ɔː] and [ɔə]) in present-day RP and Cockney, as well as to map in detail the twentieth-century developments that have given rise to them. It is argued that the long low vowels must still be underlyingly centring diphthongs in modern RP (as they were at Henry Sweet's time), now synchronically monophthongized by a spread-and-delink rule, while the corresponding underliers in Cockney must since have been restructured into monophthongs. The theoretical framework for this analysis is a version of Lexical Phonology that assumes an English lexicon comprising two levels, where the first level is characterized by cyclic rule application and the presence of the Strict Cycle and Structure Preservation Conditions (Giegerich, 1988; Kiparsky, 1982), and the second level by noncyclic rule application as well as the presence of neither condition (Borowsky, 1989).

Download Full-text