Li6 Assignment 3 answer key
25 November 2006
Chomsky and Halle 1968 asserted that the phonological patterns found in the world's
languages can all be accounted for without recourse to the abstract notion of the
syllable. Summarise and discuss the arguments for and against this position.
The main trick here was that Chomsky and Halle do not overtly state their reasons for not
believing in syllables; they just decided before the book was published that they preferred not
to add an extra boundary symbol (in this case for syllable boundaries) if they didn’t have to,
and then wrote the book accordingly. One challenge in writing an ideal essay was therefore
how to link in SPE to the syllable debate. Gethin came up with a clever strategy, which was to
identify some processes that one would expect to involve syllables, see how SPE dealt with
these, and then identify problems with the SPE analysis. Here’s an excerpt:
The main difficulty in critiquing the assertion found in Chomsky and Halle (1968) is that their
way of asserting this idea that recourse to the ‘syllable’ is unnecessary in phonology is by not
discussing or referring to the issue and although, as we shall see later, it does appear to be
quite a deliberate omission, no reason or discussion is provided for us to assess and critique.
However, some linguists have discussed the issue of syllables in phonological patterns – some
bringing up and discussing the issue independently and some in direct reference to Chomsky
and Halle1. Hill and Nessly (1973) draw attention to the issue in their review found in
Goyvaerts and Pullum (1975), “A curious omission is any serious discussion of the syllable.
‘Syllabicity’ is mentioned briefly […] as a segmental feature to distinguish vowels from
corresponding glides [Chomsky and Halle (1968:354)], but nowhere do C-H discuss the
syllable itself to many linguists a fundamental unit in the organization of sounds.” First of all,
we will try and extract some reasons for why Chomsky and Halle did not use or discuss the
notion of the syllable – mainly by looking at some examples of where we might expect the
issue to arise, and finding what is used instead. Then we will go on to consider some of these
reasons and discuss whether the assertion is suitable and if not, we will discuss the
possibilities of where syllables could apply in phonological patterns.
One area that we would expect some recourse to the syllable is that of stress
assignment as stress is generally considered as a feature applied to syllables but Chomsky and
Halle (p.69ff.) do not do this – rather, stress is applied to a vowel. The rule that is used in
each case is
“V → [+stress]” rather than σ → [+stress] – this is the most obvious way in
which they show that they do not wish to refer to the notion of the syllable. However,
Sampson (1970 – found in Goyvaerts and Pullum) gives a clear explanation of how this
cannot be an accurate representation of how stress is assigned and how we need to use the
idea of the syllable in this case:
“Stress […] is acoustically a feature of the whole syllable; and although C&H (69ff.) treat it
as a feature of the nuclear vowel, it seems that, for the native speaker’s intuition (which C&H
should regard as relevant in this respect, cf. their 25-6), it is syllables rather than vocalic
segments which are stressed (a newspaper or phrase-book will instruct one to pronounce e.g.
Dostoevsky as ‘duster-YEFF-ski’ rather than as ‘duster-yEff-ski).”
Mainly those, whose writings have been included in Goyvaerts and Pullum’s (1975) compilation of “Essays on
the Sound Pattern of English”.
1
Sampson also gives the example of another feature applied to the syllable rather than to any
other kind of phonological segment, which is that of tone, as we see it in tone languages such
as Chinese. He explains that, according to native-speaker intuition, “the tone was regarded as
a feature of the final […] i.e. all the rest” after the initial consonant – “and no segmental
vowels or consonants were recognized within the final”. So in looking at these examples of
where the syllable seems to be deliberately omitted, we have an argument against this
implication that recourse to the syllable is unnecessary as it seems to be in opposition with
native-speaker intuition, which paradoxically, Chomsky and Halle showed they counted as
valid (as pointed out by Sampson). In one respect, it is understandable how we could view
the syllable as simply a phonetic segment with no value on any abstract level – it seems
strange that we should divide words in syllables when we can already divide in morphemes
however the evidence we see suggests quite clearly that we do indeed divide words into
syllables on an abstract level.
Another strong argument for the existence of the syllable as an abstract notion is one
that is named and explained by many linguists who use several examples from various
languages – it is simply that some rules and changes in language apply to syllables. As
Clements and Keyser (1983:1) point out, “There has been increasing evidence that the
exclusion of the syllable is a serious omission in generative phonology and that many
phonological rules only receive appropriate formulation in terms of this notion.”
Other keys for this essay (which can be generalised for all linguistic analyses, at least ones
done for me) include:
 Present “worked examples”. This involves:
o Presenting a phenomenon, typically with a reference to whoever first pointed
out its significance for the matter at hand.
o Giving key data illustrating the phenomenon.
o Showing how each theory you’re comparing would analyse the phenomenon.
o Identifying strengths and weaknesses of each analysis, and providing your
arguments for favoring one over the other. This process will typically involve
identifying predictions of each model, and then testing these predictions
against relevant data (or against hypothetical data you’ve constructed, if
necessary).
 Try to give each theory proper shrift! Don’t just spew out what you think the person
marking the essay will want to hear. (At least not when I’m the person doing the
marking.)
 Ideally, show that you have found and read and understood some relevant literature,
AND that you have thought about the issue yourself and have your own ideas on the
matter.
Here is an essay that did almost all of what I was looking for, as a result of which I was
willing to overlook the fact that bits of it were hurried.
In the SPE period the notion of the syllable was rejected in favour of fewer theoretical
constructs. General criteria of simplicity plays an important role in evaluating phonological
analyses – in rejecting notion of syllable, they are creating more complex rules which could
be expressed more simply and more adequately using the notion of the syllable.
There is a very strong case for asserting that the syllable is a phonological constituent.
Arguments in favour of a constituent generally centre on the assertion that certain
generalisations can be more insightfully stated with reference to a given constituent than
without reference to such a constituent. We will see that reference to the syllable enables us to
capture significant generalisations which we could not capture without such a constituent.
Hooper (1972) shows that it is necessary to refer to positions of segments within a syllable in
order to adequately describe Spanish phonology. Harris (1969) in describing Spanish
phonology encounters several problems which can be solved with reference to the syllable.
We can take nasal assimilation in Allegretto speech as an example of such a problem. Nasals
assimilate before obstruents in the same word or across word boundaries, as the examples
below show:
um beso
un gato
[ um.beso]
[ uŋ.gato]
‘a kiss’
‘a cat’
Nasal assimilation also occurs before glides but only across word boundaries, not within a
word, as shown below:
miel
nieto
un huevo
[myel]
[nyeto]
[uŋweβo]
‘honey’
‘grandson’
‘an egg’
There is no nasal assimilation in miel or nieto as there is no intervening word boundary
between the nasal and the glide, whereas in un huevo there is an intervening word boundary
and hence nasal assimilation. It is important to be able to collapse these two rules, the rules
for nasal assimilation before obstruents and before glides, as they are clearly examples of the
same phenomenon. If we invoke the notion of the syllable we can account for all cases of
nasal assimilation with one rule. When we consider the syllable boundaries in the above
words, we see that nasal assimilation before a consonant or a glide only if a syllable boundary
intervenes. Hooper (1972) captures this with the following rule:
[+nasal] → [αcoronal
]
βanterior
γback
δdistributed
/__ $ [ αcoronal
βanterior
γback
δdistributed
]
The above rule captures the appropriate generalisation, namely that nasals assimilate only
before segments that begin syllables, and this generalisation could not be captured without
reference to the syllable. Reference to syllable boundaries enables us to capture other
significant generalisations. There are more examples from Spanish phonology where
reference to the syllable is required. Spanish has a lateral assimilation process where /l/
becomes palatal /y/ across word boundaries but there is no assimilation within a word, as
shown below:
al hielo
[aλ.yelo]
aliento
[al.yento]
When we consider the syllable boundaries, we see that /l/ only assimilates before /y/ that
begins a syllable. The above examples support the assertion that phonological rules can often
be more insightfully expressed if we refer to the syllable. The existence of phonological
processes in English which apply at syllable-edges, such as glottalisation of syllable-final [t]
and aspiration of syllable-initial [t], also support this assertion.
The syllable is the natural domain for the statement of many phonotactic constraints. We can
illustrate this with an example from English. #tr and #str are possible word-initial clusters,
whereas #tl and #nt are not. We can account for this by asserting that every word must be
parsed into syllables. [tr] is a well-formed syllable-onset but [tl] is not. It is only by referring
to the syllable in place of referring to word boundaries that we can explain the glottalisation
of the first [t] in Atlantic and the aspiration of the first [t] in atrocious. In order to parse these
words into syllables in English and obey the above constraints on what is well-formed
syllable onset, Atlantic will have a syllable break within the [tl] cluster, whereas atrocious
will not have a break within [tr] as [tr] is a well-formed onset cluster. The aspiration rule
applies to [t] in atrocious as it is syllable-initial and the glottalisation rule applies to [t] in
Atlantic as this [t] is syllable-final. We need to refer to the syllable in order to explain why in
[tl] the [t] is glottalised, whereas in [tr] the [t] is aspirated. If we view the ban on word-initial
[tl] clusters as a constraint on word shapes, as opposed to a constraint on syllable onsets, we
cannot explain why there is a connection between the possibility of having a given string
word-initially and the behaviour of such a string word-medially.
The syllable is also the domain for some phonological processes. Blevins (1995) notes that
some rules are sensitive to a domain which is larger than the segment, but smaller than the
word, and which contains a single sonority peak. Pharyngealisation in Arabic and Berber
dialects is an example of a phonological process involving the whole syllable. The existence
of such processes immediately suggests the any attempt to describe the phonological patterns
of the world’s languages will be descriptively and inadequate. Pharyngealisation, syncope and
epenthesis in Berber dialects cannot be analysed without reference to the syllable. In Arabic
and Berber dialects an underlying pharyngealised consonant results in the presence of
pharyngealised segments in the surface representation. These segments are larger than the
individual segment and smaller than the word. In Cairene Arabic the minimal domain for
pharyngealisation is CV, which is also the minimal syllable type for this language. This
suggests that the domain of pharyngealisation is the syllable. Saib (1978) outlines the process
of pharyngealisation in Tamazight Berber. Pharyngealisation spreads over an entire syllable if
that syllable contains an independent emphatic consonant. The emphasis spreads to the
preceding syllable if that syllable is open, and to the following syllable if the syllable
containing an independent emphatic consonant is open, as the examples below demonstrate:
/βað̩/
[β̩a̩ð̩]
‘to be able’
/að̩ar/
[a̩ð̩a̩r̩]
‘foot’ – syllabified as a.ð̩ar
/θaðərɣalθ/
[θ̩a̩ð̩ər̩ ̩ɣalθ]
syllabified as θa. ðər. ɣalθ
/i+xrið̩+en/
[i̩x̩r̩i̩ð̩en]
‘bags’
Saib (1978) considers whether you can account for pharyngealisation without reference to the
syllable. Saib considers the two rules below, which were proposed under the segmental
approach and use the mirror-image convention following Anderson (1974).
a. V → V̩ % C̩
b. C → C̩ % V̩
Applying rules a and b yields the correct output for [a̩ð̩a̩r̩] and [i̩x̩r̩i̩ðen] but not for [θ̩a̩ð̩a̩r̩θ̩]
‘little feet’ which has the underlying representation ̩/θað̩arθ/. The two rules above would not
spread pharyngealisation to all the tautosyllabic elements of the second syllable., and for this
reason we require rukes which refer to syllables. Saib (1978) proposes the following
condition: a syllable is pharyngeal if it contains an independent pharyngeal consonant, and
this can be represented as below:
If … [
$
[C
+ phar
, then [ $
]
]
+phar
This approach which refers to syllables is more intuitively correct given the data and also
provides a more descriptively adequate account of the phonological process.
Another phenomenon which suggests that we require the syllable as a phonological
constituent to correctly account for the phonological patterns in the world’s languages is the
presence of a contrast between ballistic and controlled syllables in Otomanguean Amuzgo and
Chinantecan languages. The group of properties which distinguish ballistic syllables from
controlled syllables take domains larger than the single segment. Properties of ballistic
syllables include aspiration, a rapid crescendo to peak intensity with a sudden decrescendo,
and tongue root retraction. Controlled syllables, on the other hand, are unaspirated, show even
rises and falls of intensity and have no tongue root retraction. In addition, ballistic syllables
are shorter in duration than controlled syllables. Properties such as aspiration are spread
across the maximal C0V(V)C0 span and the intensity patterns we find are also mapped over
this domain. Ballisticity must be treated as a property of the syllable in order to explain the
range of properties and the multisegmental domains over which they are mapped.
Further arguments in favour of syllables centre on language games in which syllables function
as targets. Numerous language games have been described with reference to syllables and the
syllable must therefore be a phonological constituent that speakers are aware of. Syllable
reversing ludlings, such as Verlan, constitute compelling evidence that syllables should be
recognized as a phonological unit. Syllables are also the target of morphological processes
such as deduplication.
We have seen that there is significant evidence for the existence of the syllable as a
phonological constituent. The natural domain for the statement of many phonotactic
constraints is the syllable and many phonological processes can be more insightfully captured
if we refer to the syllable. The next question that should be addressed is what is the internal
structure of a syllable, and it is also debated whether or not underlying representations are
syllabified.