Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T01:01:44.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feature Classes in Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Jaye Padgett
Jaye Padgett*
Affiliation:
UC Santa Cruz
*
Department of Linguistics, Stevenson College, UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [padgett@cats.ucsc.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues for a particular understanding of feature class behavior—the recurrent patterning together of certain phonological features, such as place of articulation and laryngeal features. The proposals build on the well-known work of feature geometry in assuming the importance of feature classes in phonology, but differ in that features of a class are targeted directly and individually by constraints (or rules), even when a feature class such as Place is mentioned. Further, constraints mentioning feature classes are gradiently violable. Evidence for this view of feature classes comes from two sources. First, assimilation involving feature classes is sometimes only partially successful; an adequate understanding of such cases requires the proposed view of feature classes. Second, there are broad categories of feature class generalization that require it, including dissimilatory effects usually handled by the obligatory contour principle. Overall, the proposals broaden the explanatory potential of the feature class idea due to feature geometry. At a more general level, the results here suggest that linguistic representations sometimes need to be reconsidered in the context of optimality theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993), since they can effectively function as inviolable constraints and so hinder our understanding of the more subtle kind of phenomena revealed by analyses employing gradiently violable constraints.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 81 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

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

Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1997. Kalahari vowel harmony. Linguistic Review 14.2.97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. North Eastern Linguistic Society 27.17–31.Google Scholar
Anderson, John, and Ewen, Colin. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. 1985. Yokuts harmony: Evidence for coplanar representation in nonlinear phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 16.335–72.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14.1.1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Bird, Steven. 1995. Computational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Broe, Michael. 1992. Introduction to feature geometry. Papers in laboratory phonology 2: Gesture, segment, prosody, ed. by Docherty, Gerard J. and Ladd, D. Robert, 149–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen. 1995. Skeletal positions and moras. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 175–205. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cahill, Mike. 1995. Nasal assimilation and labiovelar geometry. Paper presented at ACAL 26 [Also ms., SIL and The Ohio State University, 1994].Google Scholar
Cahill, Mike, and Parkinson, Frederick. 1997a. Overgeneration in feature class theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cahill, Mike, and Parkinson, Frederick. 1997b. Partial class behavior and feature geometry: Remarks on feature class theory. North Eastern Linguistic Society 27.79–91.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2.225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1991. Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified theory. Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5.77–123. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Hume, Elizabeth V. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 245–306. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1983. CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. The structure of phonological representations 2, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 213–55. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer, and Kisseberth, Charles W. 1994. An optimal domains theory of harmony. Urbana-Champaign: Cognitive science technical report UIUC-BI-CS-94–02, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. On the status of redundant features: The case of backing and rounding in American English. Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology IV, ed. by Connell, Bruce and Arvaniti, Amalia, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donegan, Patricia. 1978. The natural phonology of vowels. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J., and van, Harry Hulst, der. 1988. [high], [low] and [back], or [I], [A], and [U]. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988, ed. by Coopman, P. and Hulk, A., 49–57. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan, Broe, Michael; and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1995. The role of similarity in phonotactic constraints. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, ms.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 1996. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 1993. On the configuration of height features. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6.162–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1972. Phonological targets and unmarked structures. Language 48.2.365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26.1.1–46.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, Vaux, Bert; and Wolfe, Andrew. 2000. On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry 31.3.387–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1984. Autosegmental phonology, lexical phonology, and Spanish nasals. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 67–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1990. Diphthongization and coindexing. Phonology 7.31–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1988. Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi. Phonology 5.255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1995. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. North Eastern Linguistic Society 25.287–302. [Also in longer form: Berkeley: University of California, ms.]Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Orhan; and Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. by Roca, Iggy, 393–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7.217–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1993. Licensed segments and safe paths. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38.2.197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 2001. Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Mester, Armin; and Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Licensing and underspecification in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26.4.571–614.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar; and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman; and Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: An optimality theoretic account. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, I. S., 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1993. Round and back vowel harmony and disharmony: An optimality theoretic account. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Korn, David. 1969. Types of labial vowel harmony in the Turkic languages. Anthropological Linguistics 11.3.98–106.Google Scholar
Leben, Will. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1961. The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Uralic and Altaic Series 6. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1990. The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published New York: Garland, 1994.]Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995. Laryngeal features and privativity. Linguistic Review 12.35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1983. Phonological levels and assimilatory processes. Paper presented at GLOW, 1983, York (UK).Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12.373–418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1985. Features and tiers: Semitic root structure constraints revisited. Paper presented at the University of Illinois at Urbana, October 1985.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17.207–63.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43.84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1991. On guttural transparency. Paper presented at the Distinctive Features Workshop, 1991 LSA Institute, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. Papers in laboratory phonology 3, ed. by Keating, Patricia A., 191–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2001. The fundamentals of optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.249–384.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin. 1986. Studies in tier structure. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1983. The structure of the melody. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 61–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ni Chiosáin, Máire. 1994a. Irish palatalisation and the representation of place features. Phonology 11.1.89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni Chiosáin, Máire. 1994b. Barra Gaelic vowel copy and (non-)constituent spreading. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13.3–15.Google Scholar
Ni Chiosáin, Máire, and Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. Constraints and representations: Segmental phonology in optimality theory, ed. by Lombardi, Linda, 118–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 1991. Vowel geometry. Phonology 8.261–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. Papers in laboratory phonology 1, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary, 258–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1991. Stricture in feature geometry. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995a. Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation. Proceedings of the South Western Optimality Theory Workshop 1995, 145–83. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Coyote Papers.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995b. Feature classes. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.385–420.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995c. Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford, CA: CSLI Press. [Revised version of Padgett 1991.]Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2001. The unabridged feature classes in phonology. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, ms. [Available at http://ling.ucsc.edu/~padgett/papers.html.]Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. North Eastern Linguistic Society 23.367–81.Google Scholar
Polgárdi, Krisztina. 1994. Turkish vowel harmony in optimality theory. Leiden: HIL/ Leiden University, ms.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14.19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado, ms.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1993. Vowel harmony and optimality theory. Actas do workshop sobre fonologia: University of Coimbra, Portugal, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1987. Non-constituent spreading in Barra Gaelic. Irvine, CA: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1972. [back] and [round]. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 174–84. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1984. The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology 1.129–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James. 1991. Attribute value phonology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1991a. Major place in the vowel space: Vowel height features. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1991b. A two-root theory of length. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 14: Papers in Phonology, 123–71.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality, markedness, and underspecification. Paper presented at the Rutgers University Optimality Workshop, New Brunswick, NJ. Revised version available on the Rutgers Optimality Archive: http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1981. Parameters of metrical vowel harmony rules: The underlying representation of harmonic vowels. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek Prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Locality conditions and feature geometry. North Eastern Linguistic Society 17.595–617.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1994. Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. Handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A., 114–74. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1989. Primary features and their enhancements in consonants. Language 65.81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel J.; and Kawasaki, Haruko. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. Invariance and variability in speech processes, ed. by Perkell, J. S. and Klatt, D. H., 426–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Straight, H. Stephen. 1976. The acquisition of Maya phonology: Variation in Yucatec child language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67.283–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Grundzüge der phonologic Güttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1988. The geometry of vocalic features. Features, segmental structure and harmony processes 2, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 77–125. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval. 1985. Vowel features and umlaut in Djingili, Nyangumarda and Warlpiri Phonology 2.277–303.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval. 1987. Vowel harmony in Khalkha and Buriat (East Mongolian). Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. by Beukema, F. and Coopmans, P., 81–91. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and van, Jeroen Weijer, de. 1991. Topics in Turkish phonology. Turkish linguistics today, ed. by Boeschoten, H. and Verhoeven, L., 11–59. Kinderhook, NY: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 1998. Nasalization, neutral segments, and locality: Santa Cruz, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Welmers, William. 1962. The phonology of Kpelle. Journal of African Languages 1.69–93.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1969. The morphology of Kpelle nominals. Journal of African languages 8.73–101.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1989. Feature geometry and cooccurrence restrictions. Phonology 6.349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Karl. 1969. Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Language 45.309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar