Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T14:09:51.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some constraints on medial consonant clusters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Charles Jones
Charles Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It can be argued that syllable shape is a function of the morpheme structure constraints in a given language—and that, in segments more than one syllable long, the composition of medial clusters is a reflection of those constraints as they apply to initial and final groups. Further, given a convention for syllable bracketing, it is possible to show a further characteristic of medial clusters: namely, that they ideally overlap, i.e. have simultaneous membership of both the preceding and following syllable segment. Examples will be chosen from the diachronic phonology of English to illustrate the last two characteristics of syllables and to further support the claim that the syllable is a phonological prime.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 121 - 130
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

Anderson, J. M. 1973a. A wee note on interludes and truncation in French. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 2.90–92.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. 1973b. Syllable structure and gemination in Old English. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 3.100–105.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. 1975. Principles of syllabification. York Working Papers in Linguistics 5.7–20.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M., and Jones, C. 1974. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10.1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M., and Jones, C. MS. Historical English phonology.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. 1973–74. Hjelmslev's outline of the Danish expression system, I–II. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 13.173–211, 14.1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, R. 1960. Einführung in das Studium des Mittelenglischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cheng, R. L. 1966. Mandarin phonological structure. Journal of Linguistics 2.135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N. 1974. Syllabification in English words with medial sp, st, sk. Journal of Phonetics 2.15–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. 1969. Syllables. Journal of Linguistics 5.253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, M. 1973. Abbreviation of consonants in English pre- and post-vocalic clusters. Journal of Phonetics 1.9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbottom, E. 1965. Glottal reinforcement in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 1964:129–142.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. 1972. The syllable in phonological theory. Lg. 48.525–540.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 1973. Pleasant interludes. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 3.38–41.Google Scholar
Kim, C. W. 1971. Experimental phonetics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, W., 16–135. College Park: University of Maryland, Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1967. Modern English phonology. Lingua 19.145–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurath, H. 1956. The loss of long consonants and the rise of voiced fricatives in Middle English. Lg. 32.435–445.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1971. Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal strength hierarchies. Journal of Linguistics 7.15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R, and Anderson, J. M. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luick, K. 1921. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. D., and Trim, J. L. M. 1953. Vowel, consonant and syllable: a phonological definition. Word 9.103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, M. K. 1952. From Latin to Modern French. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
Prokosch, E. 1938. A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: LSA.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 1970. On the need for a phonological base. Lg. 46.586–626.Google Scholar
Schwarz, M. 1970. Duration of /s/ in /s/-plosive blends. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47.1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Streitberg, W. 1963. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1972. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18.1–18.Google Scholar
Wagner, K. H. 1969. Generative grammatical studies in the Old English language. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar