Cover not available

Article published In: Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 16:1/2 (1989) ► pp.61–88

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The binarity hypothesis in phonology: 1938–1985

 | Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid
Published online: 1 January 1989
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.16.1-2.05gil
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.
Résumé
L’hypothèse de la binarité des traits distinctifs a été un des problèmes phonologiques qui a suscité une des plus grandes polémiques depuis sa formulation jusqu’à nos jours. Dans la phonologie structurale, et plus précisément dans la pensée jakobsonnienne, le binarisme a toujours été une notion fondamentale sur laquelle une grande partie des analyses phonologiques des différents systèmes ont été fondées. Également dans la phonologie surgie de The Sound Pattern of English, toutes les ‘représentations sous-ja-centes’ sont considérées binaires. Actuellement, quand l’intérêt des phono-logues semble se déplacer vers l’étude du niveau suprasegmental, le caractère binaire ou non binaire des traits distinctifs continue sans être résolu; il ne semble pas facile de trouver une solution capable de satisfaire complètement tous les spécialistes. Les opinions pour et contre le binarisme ont été nombreuses et variées. D’un côté, on a argumenté que la théorie de la binarité contrevient à quelques faits incontestables de la réalité phonétique, comme celui du phénomène de la coarticulation, ce qui la transforme en construction arbitraire. D’autres linguistes ont allegué le caractère non-positiviste de l’analyse phonologique ou l’utilité de classifier les traits binaires, pour defendre à outrance l’hypothèse binariste. Finalement, dans d’autres exposés, le principe dichotomique a été accepté sous réserves, en le considérant d’une façon moins stricte et en choisissant un modèle plus flexible. Pourtant, il est evident qu’il y a une necessité de se poser de nouveau la question et en approfondir encore, et se servant, si necessaire, des méthodes instrumentales, pour vérifier si cette construction phonologique répond vraiment au fonctionnement réel de l’esprit des sujets parlants.
References (88)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. “On the Description of Apicalized Consonants”. Lin 21.103–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1974. The Organization of Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anglin, M. 1971. Perceptual Space of English Vowels in Word-Context. Ph. dissertation, Howard Univ., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Armstrong, Daniel & Cornells H. van Schooneveld, eds. 1977. Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Robert Harms, eds. 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baitaxe, Christiane. 1978. Foundations of Distinctive Feature Theory. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1957. “Three Methodological Remarks on Fundamentals of Language ”. Word 131.323–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bluhme, Herman. 1974. “Segmental Phonemes versus Distinctive Features in English”. Linguistics 1261.11–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondarko, L. V. & L. R. Zinder. 1968. “Distinctive Features of Phonemes and Their Physical Characteristics”. ZPhon 211.74–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1974. “Phonological Features: Problems and proposals”. Language 501.52–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1954. Review article on Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1951). RomPh 81.40–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1969a. “Simplicity, Descriptive Adequacy, and Binary Features”. Language 451.1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1969b. “Vowel Fusion in Spanish”. Hispania 521.60–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crothers, John. 1978. “Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems”. Greenberg, Ferguson & Moravcsik 1978:94–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delas, Daniel. 1973. “Phonétique, phonologie et poétique chez Roman Jakobson”. Langue Française 191.108–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ege, Niels. 1965. “The Danish Vowel System”. Gengo Kenkyu 471.21–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1973. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1953. Review article on Jakobson, Fant & Halle (1951) Language 291.472–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goyvaerts, Didier & Geoffrey Pullum, eds. 1975. Essays on the Sound Pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik, eds. 1978. Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice, Morris Halle & Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, eds. 1973. The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages. Paris: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Kenneth Stevens. 1969. “On the Feature ‘Advanced Tongue Root’”. MIT RLE Quarterly Progress Report 941.209–215.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanson, Göte. 1967. “Dimensions in Speech Sound Perception: An experimental study of vowel perception”. Ericsson Technics 231.3–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge; Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1970. “Sequences of Vowels in Spanish”. Lin 11.129–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henrici, Gert. 1975. Die Binarismus-Problematik in der neueren Linguistik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A Manual of Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holenstein, Elmar. 1974. Jakobson ou le structuralisme phénoménologique. Paris: Éditions Seghers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. “Jakobson’s Contribution to Phenomenology”. Armstrong & van Schooneveld 1977:145–162.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurford, James. 1971. “The State of Phonology”. Linguistics 211.5–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1901–1928. Logische Untersuchungen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, Kunihiko. 1975. Review article on Chomsky & Halle (1968). Goyvaerts & Pullum 1975:413–432.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1965. “Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology”. Linguistics 181.35–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962 [1938]. “Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes”. Selected Writings I1, 272–279. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. (2nd ed., 1971.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Linda R. Waugh. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change”. Bach & Harms 1968:170–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krohn, Robert. 1972. “On the Sequencing of Tautosegmental Features”. Papers in Linguistics 51.114–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. “Is there a Constraint on Tongue-Height Features?”. Lingua 531.353–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1971a. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980a. “What Are the Linguistic Sounds Made of?”. Language 561.485–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980b. “Articulatory Parameters”. Language and Speech 231.25–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona. 1978. “Vowel Features”. Language 541.541–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. “The Feature ‘Expanded’”. Journal of Phonetics 71.163–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson. 1964. “A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical measurements”. Word 201.384–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1973. “On the Role of Notation in Generative Phonology”. Gross et al. 1973:51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil. 1963. Structural Linguistics and Human Communication. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: A. Francke. (3rd ed., 1971.)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1965. La linguistique synchronique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
1971. “Resolution of Vocalic Hiatus in Portuguese: Diachronic evidence for binary features”. Language 471.381–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1985. “Around flat”. Phonetic Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Peter Ladefoged, 223–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Jeri J. Jaeger, eds. 1986. Experimental Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parker, Frank. 1976. “Refining the Notion of Distinctive Feature”. Lingua 381.61–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pauliny, Eugen. 1966. “The Principle of Binary Structure in Phonology”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 21.121–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of Phonological Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1963. Préface to Roman Jakobson, Essais de linguistique générale, 7–21. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šaumjan, Sebastian. 1968. Problems of Theoretical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald A. 1974. “The Simplex-Feature Hypothesis”. Glossa 81.141–192.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Singh, Sadanand & D. R. Woods. 1971. “Perceptual Structure of 12 American English Vowels”. JASA. 491.1861–1866. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Modern Phonology. Baltimore, Md: University Park Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungeheuer, Gerold. 1959. “Das logistische Fundament binärer Phonemklassifikationen”. SL 131.69–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Utaker, Arild. 1974. “On the Binary Opposition”. Linguistics 1341.73–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Pater Ladefoged. 1973. “Phonetic Features and Phonological Features”. Lingua 321.61–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1968. “Vowel Features, Paired Variables and the English Vowel Shift”. Language 441.695–708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert D. 1966. “A Criticism of Distinctive Features”. Journal of Linguistics 21.195–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williamson, Kay. 1977. “Multivalued Features for Consonants”. Language 531.843–871. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winteler, Jost. 1876. Die Ker enzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargelegt. Leipzig & Heidelberg: F. C. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Moyna, María Irene & Víctor Fernández-Mallat
2025. Introduction. In Beyond Binaries in Address Research [Topics in Address Research, 6], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
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 10 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue