In:Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 101–116
Underlying representations and Bantu segmental phonology
Published online: 30 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c6
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c6
Advances in output-oriented derivational theory are progressively subverting the notion of an underlying-surface distinction in phonology. Moreover, categorical patterning in languages’ sound systems can no longer be taken as immediate proof that phonological or phonetic forms are themselves represented in terms of categorical entities. (Harris 2007: 137)
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Bantu [d] ~ [l] alternations
- 3.Lusoga [p] ~ [ɣ] alternations
- 4.Conclusion
Notes References
References (33)
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2015. Allomorphs in a connected world. Colloquium, University of California, Berkeley, March 16, 2015.
Bastin, Yvonne, André Coupez, Evariste Mumba & Thilo C. Schadebergs (eds). 2002. Bantu lexical reconsgtructions 3 / Reconstructions lexicales bantoues 3. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Central. [URL]
Blanchon, Jean Alain. 1991. Le pounou (B43), le mpongwè (B11a) et l’hypothèse fortis/lenis. Pholia 6: 49–83.
Botne, Robert. 1992. Double reflexes in eastern and southern Bantu. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 29: 131–148.
Brown, Gillian. 1972. Phonological Rules and Dialect Variation: A Study of the Phonology of Lumasaaba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burzio, Luigi. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representations. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models, and Methods, 118–136. University of Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.
Byarushengo, Ernest Rugwa. 1977. On the phonological status of p/h and d/l. In Ernest Rugwa Byarushengo, Alessandro Duranti & Larry M. Hyman (eds), Haya Grammatical Structure, 17–34. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.
Currie Hall, Kathleen. 2013. A typology of intermediate phonological relationships. The Linguistic Review 30: 215–275.
. 2007. Representation. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 119–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. On what to teach the undergraduates: Some changing orthodoxies in phonological theory. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3: 59–77. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Hyman, Larry M. 2015. Why underlying representations? Henry Sweet Lecture, Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, September 16, 2015. Submitted. [JM6] [URL]
. 2016. The autosegmental approach to tone in Lusoga. To appear in Diane Brentari & Jackson Lee (eds), Shaping phonology. University of Chicago Press.
Hyman, Larry M. & Sharon Inkelas. 2000 [2012]. Complementarity and opacity: [l] – [d] in Bantu. Phonology Laboratory Annual Report, 321–326. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley. [URL]
Janssens, Baudouin. 1993. Doubles réflexes consonantiques: Quatre études sur lel bantou de zone A. Doctoral dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Maho, Jouni Filip. 2009. NUGL Online. [URL]
Meeussen, A.E. 1969 [1980]. Bantu Lexical Reconstructions. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scheer, Tobias. 2014. The Corpus: A tool among others, Corela [En ligne], HS-13 | 2013, mis en ligne le 19 février. 2014, consulté le 09 juillet 2015. URL: [URL]
Volk, Erez. 2007. High, low and in between: Giryama tonology. Masters Thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
. 2011. Mijikenda tonology. Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Wal, Jenneke van der. 2004. Lusoga phonology. Masters Thesis, Afrikaanse Taalkunde, Leiden University.
