Studies In Lexical Phonology

Studies in Lexical Phonology

Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject American Studies - Linguistics, grade: 2,0, University of Cologne (Englisches Seminar), 17 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The study of linguistics is a large branch of knowledge that deals with language and communication systems. Since a variety of linguists work on different interests concerning this science, there have been a lot of theories and models to describe specific approaches in human language. Since Chomsky and Halle's Sound Pattern of English (1968), there are a number of further developments according to linguistics. The theory of lexical phonology is one part of the study of linguistics which passes through several conceptions from the 1950s until today. Lexical phonology was developed in the early 1980s by K. P. Mohanan and P. Kiparsky and is the one most similar to classical generative phonology. In the theory of lexical phonology, the lexicon is given a key role and that represents a significant departure from classical models. In the following paper an outlook is given of what is meant by the term lexical phonology, and also a historical background to achieve a general overview. After having arranged the theory into linguistics and historical developments, there is a distinction between lexical and generative phonology. The relation between lexical phonology and morphology with its sharp distinction between lexical and postlexical rules, is presented afterwards. The interaction of phonology and morphology with the levels of representation will be explained to get to mechanisms of phonological changes and the output of phonology. For that reason, the information of the arrangement of affixes will be given. Different word formation processes such as vowel shift rule, vowel reduction, voicing or stress placement are mentioned to show the effect on what was elaborated before. The aim of this paper is to give a general overview of the theory of lexical phonology with its clas

This book contains some of the material which originally appeared in my Ph. D. thesis Lexical Phonology, submitted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but it can hardly be called a revised version of the thesis. The theory that I propose here is in many ways radically different from the one that I proposed in the thesis, and there is a great deal of new data and analyses from English and Malayalam. Chapter VI is so new that I haven't even had the time to try it out on my friends. As everyone knows, research is a collective enterprise, even though an individual's name appears on the first page of the book or article. I would think of this book as a joint project involving dozens of people, in which I acted as the project coordinator, collecting suggestions from a wide variety of sources. Four major influences on what the book contains were Morris Halle, Paul Kiparsky, Mark Liberman, and Joan Bresnan. I learned the ropes of doing research on phonology, phonetics, and morphology from them, and almost everything that I discuss in this book owes its shape ultimately to one of them. Among the others who contributed generously to this book are: Jay Keyser, James Harris, Douglas Pulleyblank, Diana Archangeli, Donca Steriade, Elizabeth Selkirk, Francois Dell, Noam Chomsky, Philip Lesourd, Mohammed Guerssel, Michel Kenstovicz, Raj Singh, Will Leben, Joe Perkell, Victor Zue, Paroo Nihalani. P. Madhavan, and Stephanie Shattuck-Hafnagel.

This book is a revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation that was submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. Although much of the analysis and argumentation of the dissertation has survived rewriting, the organization has been considerably changed. To Paul Kiparsky and Morris Halle, lowe a major debt. Not only has it been a great privilege to work on phonology with both of them, but it is hard to imagine what this piece of research would have looked like without them. (They, of course, may well imagine a number of appropriate ways in which the work could be different had I not been involved .... ) In addition, special thanks are due to Ken Hale, the third member of my thesis committee. Our discussions of a variety of topics (including tone) helped me to keep a broader outlook on language than might have otherwise been the result of concentrating on a thesis topic.

The present volume consists of nine articles dealing with the role of the constituent ‘phonological word’ (or ‘prosodic word’) in various typologically diverse languages. These languages and their respective families subsume Indo-European (Dutch, German, English, European Portuguese), Bantu (SiSwati, KiNande), Algonquian (Cree), Siouan (Dakota), and Salishan (Lushootseed). One contribution examines the phonological word in a sign language. The theoretical issues dealt with in the book include: evidence for the phonological word (e.g. rules, phonotactics, syllabification, stress patterns), the connection between morphosyntactic and prosodic structure (e.g. alignment phenomena in Optimality Theory), and the relationship between the phonological word and other prosodic constituents (e.g. the prosodic representation of clitics). The volume will be of interest to all linguists and advanced students of linguistics working on Prosodic Phonology, phonology-morphology and phonology-syntax interface and Optimality Theory.

Seminar paper from the year 2009 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: A, University of Wales, Bangor, course: Phonology, language: English, abstract: Lexical Phonology (LP) is one of the numerous phonological approaches, which has been established after the publication of Chomsky’s and Halle’s (1968) phonological theory the Sound Pattern of English (SPE). The model of Lexical Phonology, which is based on Paul Kiparsky (1982) as well as Halle and Mohanan (1985), is especially characterized by the connection of phonology, morphology, and the lexicon as well as their influence on each other. It contradicts many of SPE’s main theses and thoughts and became one of the leading phonological theories in the 1980s. This essay provides a sketch of LP and its constraints and conventions. This model is illustrated by using some examples of the various components of this approach. Furthermore, the differences between LP and Postlexical Phonology are pointed out. After this section, the controversies of this theory are discussed.

The architecture of the human language faculty has been one of the main foci of the linguistic research of the last half century. This branch of linguistics, broadly known as Generative Grammar, is concerned with the formulation of explanatory formal accounts of linguistic phenomena with the ulterior goal of gaining insight into the properties of the 'language organ'. The series comprises high quality monographs and collected volumes that address such issues. The topics in this series range from phonology to semantics, from syntax to information structure, from mathematical linguistics to studies of the lexicon.

This thesis develops the model of Lexical Phonology, in which a subset of phonological rules applies in the lexicon as part of the word formation component. Phonological rules apply after every morphological operation, to the output of which morphological operations may apply once again. The lexicon consists of ordered lexical strata which function as the domains of application Of these phonological and morphological rules. This model eliminates the need for the use of distinct boundary symbols by allowing phonological rules to have direct access to morphological information, and imposes severe restrictions on the class of possible grammars. The model of Lexical Phonology yields three levels of phonological representation, namely, the underlying, the lexical, and the phonetic. The lexical level of representation is the output of the lexical rule applications, which is also the input to lexical insertion. it is shown that several interesting formal and psychological properties converge on this level. Pauses are assigned to lexical representations after lexical insertion, and therefore, lexical rule applications are unaffected by pauses, while post lexical rule applications are blocked by intervening pauses. Speakers' judgments on the 'sameness' and 'distinctness' of speech sounds are based on lexical representations. Secret code languages, such as Pig Latin and the Alb language, take the lexical representation as the input, and so do speech errors which permute phonological segments. It is suggested that the lexical level may also have interesting consequences for theories of speech acquisition, speech recognition, and speech production.