Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:21:28.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Gregory R. Guy  and
Charles Boberg
Gregory R. Guy
Affiliation:
York University
Charles Boberg
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English coronal stop deletion is constrained by the preceding segment, so that stops and sibilants favor deletion more than liquids and nonsibilant fricatives. Previous explanations of this constraint (e.g., the sonority hierarchy) have failed to account for the details, but we show that it can be comprehensively treated as a consequence of the obligatory contour principle (OCP). The OCP, introduced to account for a variety of categorical constraints against adjacent identical tones, segments, and so forth, can be generalized as a universal disfavoring of sequences of like features: *[αF] [αF]. Therefore, coronal stop deletion, which targets the set of segments /t, d/ defined by the features [−son, −cont, +cor], is favored when the preceding segment shares any of these features. But this requires adopting the assumption of inherent variability and interpreting the OCP as a probabilistic constraint with cumulative effects (the more shared features, the greater likelihood of deletion). This suggests an attractive theoretical integration of categorical and variable processes in the grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 1997 , pp. 149 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Berkley, Deborah M. (1994). Variability in Obligatory Contour Principle effects. In Proceedings of CLS 30. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni. (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. (1993). Tigrinya root consonants and the OCP. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1992). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1994, October). Violable is variable: Principles, constraints, and linguistic variation. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIII, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Black well.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, Gregory. (1993). Syllabification and consonant co-occurrence conditions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Leben, Will. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17:207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43:84–108.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. (1993). The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Keating, P. & Hayes, B. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, Chris. (1984). The linguistic constraints on a variable process: /t, d/ deletion in Sydney speech. BA Honors thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. (1993). Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In Proceedings of NELS 23. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. (1994). Knowledge of variation. In Proceedings of CLS 30. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto. (1996). Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English. Language Variation and Change 8:63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. (1978). Probability and linguistic variation. Synthèse 37:217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, Thomas. (1991). English vowels: Their surface phonology and phonetic implementation in vernacular dialects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–195.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. (1988). The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry 19:65–100.Google Scholar