Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T19:22:28.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A phonetic constraint on a syncope rule in Telugu

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert W. Wilkinson
Robert W. Wilkinson*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basic formulation of a Telugu vowel syncope rule is discussed here, and certain peculiarities of its application to /CVC/ sequences containing a retroflex obstruent are pointed out. These peculiarities can be explained within the framework provided by the theory of natural assimilation in Schachter 1969. Situations arise where the syncope rule must choose the vowel to be deleted among several potentially deletable vowels. In certain cases of this sort, it is the output of a rule applying later than the syncope rule which provides a means of predicting which vowel is deleted. If we allow the syncope rule to look ahead in derivations at possible outputs, and impose on it a constraint derived partly from Schachter's assimilation theory, the phenomena of syncope can be explained.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 1974, pp. 478 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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

Bach, Emmon. 1968. Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Glossa 2. 128–49.Google Scholar
Cairns, Charles E. 1969. Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Lg. 45. 863–85.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Foley, J. 1972. Rule precursors and phonological change by metarule. Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 96–100. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. 1970. A peeking rule in Cupeño. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 534–9.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. 1970a. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. 1970b. Vowel elision in Tonkawa and derivational constraints. Studies presented to Robert B. Lees by his students, ed. by Sadock, Jerrold M. & Vanek, Anthony L., 108–37. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. 1957. Sandhi in modern colloquial Telugu. Indian Linguistics 17. 177–88.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. 1963. Introduction to spoken Telugu. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1969. Natural assimilation rules in Akan. IJAL 35. 342–55.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. 1972. Natural rules in phonology. Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 199–229. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. W. MS. Phonological rules and the avoidance of homonymy.Google Scholar