The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority

Phonotactic restrictions reflect preferences in the way the carrier signal in speech is modulated from one moment to the next. This effect is largely unaccounted for in sonority-based analyses of phonotactics. The phonetic specification of sonority remains in any case controversial. However, treating it as an independently phonological entity is not an appealing option. Unlike distinctive features, sonority makes no contribution to the core of phonological knowledge that enables listener-talkers to attach linguistic meaning to modulations of the speech signal. Modulations carry the linguistic message, while the carrier enables the message to be heard. The sonority proposal attempts to characterise how messages are heard and has little to say about how they are understood.

[1]  Juliette Blevins,et al.  Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns , 2004 .

[2]  Maria Gouskova,et al.  Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: the case of syllable contact , 2004, Phonology.

[3]  J. Ohala.  PHONETIC EXPLANATIONS FOR SOUND PATTERNS: IMPLICATIONS FOR GRAMMARS OF COMPETENCE. , 2005 .

[4]  P. Price,et al.  Sonority and Syllabicity: Acoustic Correlates of Perception , 1980, Phonetica.

[5]  Draga Zec.  Sonority constraints on syllable structure , 1995, Phonology.

[6]  Robert Kirchner,et al.  Phonetically Based Phonology , 2008 .

[7]  G. Lindsey,et al.  Vowel patterns in mind and sound , 2000 .

[8]  K. Stevens,et al.  Primary Features and Their Enhancement in Consonants , 1989 .

[9]  Keren Rice,et al.  On deriving sonority: a structural account of sonority relationships , 1992, Phonology.

[10]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  The Structure of phonological representations , 1982 .

[11]  J. Ohala,et al.  Acoustic basis for universal constraints on sound sequences , 1980 .

[12]  Kenneth N Stevens,et al.  Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  C. Browman,et al.  Articulatory Phonology: An Overview , 1992, Phonetica.

[14]  Terry G. Halwes,et al.  Discrimination in speech and nonspeech modes , 1971 .

[15]  G. Clements.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification , 1990 .

[16]  Bruce P. Hayes,et al.  Phonetically Driven Phonology: The Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding 1 , 2008 .

[17]  F. D. Saussure.  Cours de linguistique générale , 1924 .

[18]  A M Liberman,et al.  Some characteristics of perception in the speech mode. , 1970, Research publications - Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.

[19]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader , 2003 .

[20]  Jacques Durand,et al.  Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures and Derivations , 1995 .

[21]  D. Steriade.  Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification , 1982 .

[22]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[23]  Graham McGregor,et al.  Language for hearers , 1987 .

[24]  Ian Maddieson,et al.  Patterns of sounds , 1986 .

[25]  Stephen G Parker,et al.  Quantifying the sonority hierarchy , 2002 .

[26]  Alan C. L. Yu,et al.  Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and history , 2004 .

[27]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[28]  P. Mermelstein.  Automatic segmentation of speech into syllabic units. , 1975, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  H. Traunmüller.  Conventional, Biological and Environmental Factors in Speech Communication: A Modulation Theory , 1994, Phonetica.

[30]  G. Docherty,et al.  Phonological knowledge : conceptual and empirical issues , 2000 .