Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T17:25:09.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redundancy, markedness, and simultaneous constraints in phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Michael M. T. Henderson
Michael M. T. Henderson*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the markedness model of SPE (Chomsky & Halle 1968), redundancy rules lose their ability to characterize regularities and must convert ‘optimal’ phonemes to ‘real’ ones. Lexical redundancy and low-level segmental redundancy are confused in the SPE model, in which values are specified for all features in lexical matrices. In assigning values to features with no phonetic correlates in certain major classes, absolute marking conventions create unnatural classes and unpronounceable segments; their output should be expressed in u's, and interpretive marking conventions should assign values only to meaningful features.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 314 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 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

Bloch, Bernard. 1950. Studies in colloquial Japanese, IV: phonemics. Lg. 26. 86–125.Google Scholar
Cherry, Colin, Halle, Morris; and Jakobson, Roman. 1953. Toward a logical description of languages in their phonetic aspect. Lg. 29. 34–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1964. On the bases of phonology. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J., 324–33. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert. 1968. Introduction to phonological theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Henderson, Michael. 1972. Dari (Kabul Persian) phonology. (University of Wisconsin dissertation.) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar; and Halle, Morris. 1963. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1970. On the need for a phonological base. Lg. 46. 586–626.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1968. French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1971. The phoneme revisited. Lg. 47. 503–21.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1973. Generative phonology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg. 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Max. 1972. Distinctive features and natural classes in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics 8. 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert. 1966. A criticism of distinctive features. Journal of Linguistics 2. 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar