Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:20:25.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The implications of Wichita phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

David S. Rood
David S. Rood*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wichita phonology is unusual in several ways. The system contains no labials, no nasals, only front vowels, and a three-way length contrast in vowels. Examination of the system and of the morphophonemic rules leads to these observations, among others: coalescence is not deletion, and the rules should not imply that it is; the feature [delayed release] is incorrect (here) for distinguishing affricate /c/ from stop /t/; /t/ is palatalized but /k/ is not; Kiparsky's ‘elsewhere’ principle must be invoked; and the Chomsky–Halle phonetic features and marking conventions for glides are wrong, but a feature hierarchy [round, back, high, low] can be established. Finally, we discuss the psychology of speaking a language in which one perceptual/articulatory event frequently has a multitude of underlying phonological representations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1975, pp. 315 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by 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

Anderson, Stephen R., and Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1959. Internal reconstruction in Seneca. Lg. 35.477–495.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew. 1973. On the formal expression of natural rules in phonology. JL 9.223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1971. Vowels and tones in Sarcee. Lg. 47.164–179.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1966. Assumptions about nasals: a sample study in phonological universals. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 2nd ed., 53–60. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1950. Wichita I: phonemics. IJAL 16.179–184.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1974. An outline of the historical phonology of Arapaho and Atsina. IJAL 40.102–116.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1969. Internal reconstruction of the Nootka–Nitinat pronominal suffixes. IJAL 35.108–124.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1944. Simultaneous components in phonology. Lg. 20.181–205.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. Manual of phonology. (IUPAL Memoir 11 = IJAL 21, no. 4, part 1.) Baltimore.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar; and Halle, Morris. 1963. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson & Kiparsky, 93–106.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. Hubert. 1973. Thoughts on k-fronting in Crow. In Anderson & Kiparsky, 153–157.Google Scholar
Miller, Wick R. 1965. Acoma grammar and texts. (UCPL 40.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rood, David S. 1971. Wichita: an unusual phonology system. Colorado Research in Linguistics 1.R1–R24.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1973a. Generative phonology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1973b. [Back] and [round]. In Anderson & Kiparsky, 174–184.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1958. Grundzüge der Phonologic Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar