The place of Structure Preservation in German diminutive formation

Iverson, Gregory K.; Salmons, Joe

doi:10.1017/s0952675700001524

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A pplying neutralizin g rules to nonderived forms would make the lexical form of the word essentially unlearnable because there would be no alternations from which the learner could acquire the phonemic representation. Likewise, Structure Preservation -which in the tiered model of lexical phonology associates chiefly with lexical rules above the 'word level' (compare Booij and R ubach, 1987;Iverson and Salmons, 1992) and is not applicable in the postle xical component -correlates generally with the distinction between phonemic and allophonic distr ibution. Since postle xical rules are typically (though not exclusively) allophonic, and since lexical rules almost always result in the loss of contrast between sounds in specific environments, the long-standing distinction between distr ibutional statements defined on phonemes and those defined on allophones is accommodated directly, reflectin g the apparent primary cognitive status of the traditional phoneme.…”

Section: A Llophonic Splitmentioning

confidence: 97%

Some principles of second language phonology

Eckman

Elreyes²,

Iverson

2003

Second Language Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research we report here is intended to build an understanding of several well-known yet poorly comprehended problems relating to phonemic contrasts in the learning of L2 pronunciation. The competing influences of similarity and difference between native and target language sound systems, in particular, are central to this understanding, which we believe show that L2 phonology is a highly abstract enterprise parallel to the phonologies of primary languages, rather than -as has been assumed -a mere imitation of the target language's pronunciations. We identify three interesting learning situations which involve the target language's having different phonemic contrasts from the native language. In the first situation, the native language has neither of two sounds which contrast in the target language; in the second situation, the native language includes just one of two sounds which contrast in the target language. And in the third situation, the na…ive language has both of the sounds in question but shows no contrast between them, i.e., a phoneme of the native language has two (or more) allophones that categorize as separate phonemes in the target language.

show abstract

Section: A Llophonic Splitmentioning

confidence: 97%

Some principles of second language phonology

Eckman

Elreyes²,

Iverson

2003

Second Language Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1989. As proposed by Booij and Rubach (1987) and supported by Iverson and Salmons (1992) who point out that the German rule is a word-level rule as well, the hypothesis of structurc-preservingness should be restricted to the cyclic rules, i.e., word-level rules need not be structure-preserving. Thus, the rule of vowel lengthening discussed here does not form a problem for the theory since it is a word-level rule.…”

Section: Fricative Devoicingmentioning

confidence: 88%

The Phonology of Dutch

Wiltshire¹,

Booij²

1996

Language

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book presents a survey of the phonological system of Dutch. Its primary aim is providing insight into that system as a whole, based on a considerable number of studies in the phonology of Dutch. Thus, this book can function as a reference work that provides access to more detailed studies of aspects of the phonology of Dutch that are available in the linguistic literature. The analyses proposed are couched in terms of present-day generative phonology, in accordance with the saying that 'description without theory is blind'. Although the book is not primarily meant as an original contribution to phonological theory, the analyses will appear to be relevant for a number of current issues in phonological theory. Moreover, a comprehensive analysis of the phonological system of one language can keep us from too hasty general¬ izations and theoretical conclusions based on the analysis of just a few phenomena. A substantial part of the first draft of this book was written while 1 was a visiting scholar in the Department of Linguistics of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, from May to July 1992. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the staff members of the department who made my stay there pleasant and fruitful. In particular, I thank my 'hostess', Lisa Selkirk, and the other two phonologisls of the department. John Kingston and John McCarthy, for the inspiring and fruitful discussions I had with them and for their hospitality and helpfulness in practical matters. 1 also thank the Faculty of Letters of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for making my stay in Amherst possible.

show abstract

“…Hall (1989) first introduces a marking condition to represent that backness in [x] and [ç] is nondistinctive and then formulates the fricative assimilation rule to derive both [x] and [ç] from the archiphoneme /X/, which is underlyingly unspecified for backness, via the fricative assimilation rule, which applies tautomorphemically, and a default rule that assigns [-back] (i.e., [ç]) to /X/. 14 On the other hand, it has been argued that the fricative assimilation rule is not a counterexample to the classic structural preservation principle, if it is considered within the theory of feature geometry with rules and marking conditions containing autosegmental links (Macfarland and Pierrehumbert 1991) or if it is considered as a word-level postcyclic lexical rule (Iverson and Salmons 1992). In Iverson and Salmons's (1992) analysis, structure preservation is relaxed for just word-level lexical rules, rather than, as Macfarland and Pierrehumbert (1991) claim, for all rules in the lexicon that produce shared feature configurations.…”

Section: Version III Of the Fricative Voicing Rule And Its Disparate mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 On the other hand, it has been argued that the fricative assimilation rule is not a counterexample to the classic structural preservation principle, if it is considered within the theory of feature geometry with rules and marking conditions containing autosegmental links (Macfarland and Pierrehumbert 1991) or if it is considered as a word-level postcyclic lexical rule (Iverson and Salmons 1992). In Iverson and Salmons's (1992) analysis, structure preservation is relaxed for just word-level lexical rules, rather than, as Macfarland and Pierrehumbert (1991) claim, for all rules in the lexicon that produce shared feature configurations. Structure preservation then holds only of cyclic lexical rules, not (noncyclic) word-level rules, because the principle ceases to be in effect or turns off "upon entrance to, rather than exit from the word level of lexical phonology."…”

Section: Version III Of the Fricative Voicing Rule And Its Disparate mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical Phonology and the Fricative Voicing Rule

Kim

2001

Journal of English Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Old English fricative voicing rule (FVR) has been variously formulated in both linear and nonlinear frameworks, yet to no complete satisfaction. Moreover, no attempt has yet been made to define the nature of the FVR and its status in lexical phonology. The peculiarity of the rule is that it has both lexical and postlexical properties. In general, a lexical rule is structure preserving and a postlexical rule nonstructure preserving; hence, a lexical rule should not create novel allophonic, nonneutralizing segments absent from the underlying inventory. However, unlike other non-structure-preserving rules, the FVR does not apply across the board-it applies only lexically, inside morphemes in nonderived words or stems and in derived words only across inflectional suffix boundaries.In the following discussion, linear and nonlinear versions of the FVR are first reviewed, followed by the restatement of the FVR as lexical but noncyclic and nonstructure preserving-that is, as a word-level rule that applies at level 3 to nonderived and derived forms. It is argued that since the rule introduces nondistinctive segments, it is therefore problematic for both the strict cycle condition and structure preservation, but if the rule operates on underspecified segments, all these problems can be avoided.

show abstract

The place of Structure Preservation in German diminutive formation

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Some principles of second language phonology

Some principles of second language phonology

The Phonology of Dutch

Lexical Phonology and the Fricative Voicing Rule

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About