Cover not available

In:Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 1–16

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

English /au/

An acoustic explanation for a phonological pattern

 | Tohoku Gakuin University
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c1
When a consonant follows the English diphthong /au/, it must be coronal, e.g. loud, count (cf. *loub, *counk). This is a robust pattern but also an unnatural one, as there is no obvious synchronic link between /au/ and coronal place. A diachronic approach fares better, where historical changes obscured the original motivation for the pattern. The claim is that the rarity of /uː/+labial and /uː/+velar sequences in Old English resulted from a once-active constraint banning |U|-type consonants (labials, velars) after long /uː/ (also |U|). Later, /uː/ developed into /au/ while its coronal (i.e. non-labial/velar) context remained unchanged. Words such as room, soup are well-formed because their /uː/+labial sequences evolved after the constraint had become inactive.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The phonotactics of English /au/
  • 3.The historical development of /au/
  • 4.A negative constraint on |U|
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1/uː/ in modern English
    • 5.2A parallel constraint
  • 6.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (22)
References
Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? In Robert P. Stockwell & Ronald K.S. Macaulay (eds), Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip. In prep. Head-dependent relations in Element Theory: Binarity and multiple heads. To appear in Glossa: Special Issue on Headedness.
. 2011. An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Kuniya Nasukawa. 2009. Representing labials and velars: A single ‘dark’ element. Phonological Studies 12: 3–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32(2): 117–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 2002. Rule naturalness and the acquisition of phonology. Paper presented at the Second North American Phonology Conference (NAPhC2), University of Montreal, Canada.
Cruttenden, Alan. 2014. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, 8th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, 34–79. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John, Nick Neasom & Kevin Tang. 2016. Phonotactics with [awt] rules: The learnability of a simple, unnatural pattern in English. Paper presented at the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting, University of Manchester, UK.
Hayes, Bruce & James White. 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1): 45–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leben, William R. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Phillip Backley. 2014. Contrastiveness: The basis of identity avoidance. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Identity Relations in Grammar, 13–37. Boston and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1988. Anti antigemination and the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 451–475.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie S. Masek, Robert A. Hendrick & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, Markus A. 2013. Alveolars, size and lenition. Paper presented at the 21st Manchester Phonology Meeting, University of Manchester, UK.
Rice, Keren. 1994. Peripheral in consonants. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39: 191–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A., Bernard Tranel & Harlan Lane. 1975. On the psychological reality of a natural rule of syllable structure. Cognition 3(4): 351–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2007. Sound Change and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wełna, Jerzy. 1999. Middle English vowel length and the cluster <ng>: More on quantity changes before homorganic clusters. In Guy A.J. Tops, Betty Devriendt & Steven Guekens (eds.), Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, 143–155. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue