Difference between revisions of "Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis"
AndrewCarnie (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | For a definition of Epenthesis (also known svarabhakti) see [[Epenthesis (definition)]] | |
| + | |||
| + | Epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel between a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditioning. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == [[Theoretical Treatments]] == | ||
| + | [[Autosegmental Phonology]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-contrastiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | - Type A relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Clements notes an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to ''h''" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /V'''C'''V/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below: | ||
| + | |||
| + | i | ||
| + | |||
| + | V | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | - Type B relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Articulatory Phonology]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Bosch (1995) adopts a | ||
| − | |||
[[Category:Phonology]] | [[Category:Phonology]] | ||
[[Category:Phonetics]] | [[Category:Phonetics]] | ||
Revision as of 14:39, 25 September 2009
For a definition of Epenthesis (also known svarabhakti) see Epenthesis (definition)
Epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel between a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditioning. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.
Theoretical Treatments
Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-contrastiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:
- Type A relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] poem vs. V.V [du.an] hook
Clements notes an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to h" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /VCV/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below:
i
V
- Type B relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] bread vs. V.CV [a.ram] army
Bosch (1995) adopts a
