Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:48:10.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vowel Quantity and Syllabification in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Michael Hammond
Michael Hammond*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 [hammond@u.arizona.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on the distribution of vowel qualities in medial and final syllables, I argue that there is phonological gemination in English. The analysis is cast in terms of optimality theory and has important implications in several domains: first, ambisyllabicity is not the right way to capture aspiration and flapping; second, languages where stress is dependent on vowel quality are perhaps best treated in terms of the kind of covert gemination proposed here.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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. 1984. A metrical interpretation of some traditional claims about quantity and stress. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard T., 83–106. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni J. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni J, Itõ, Junko; and Mester, Rolf-Armin. 1984. The formal representation of ambisyllabicity: Evidence from Danish. North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. 34–48.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart, and Hammond, Michael. 1994. On the status of onglides in English. Phonology 12. 159–82.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Mohanan, K. P., Vergnaud, and J.-R. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1982. Foot domain rules and metrical locality. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1. 207–218.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1989. Cyclic secondary stresses in English. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 8. 139–53.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1994. Resyllabification in English and heavy trochees. Formal Linguistic Society of Mid-America 4. 104–22.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael, and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 1996. Psychophonology. Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, ed. by Durand, J. and Laks, B., 281–304. Salford: University of Salford Publications.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane, and Zepeda, Ofelia. 1992. Derived words in Tohono O'odham. International Journal of American Linguistics 58. 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 1989. A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1990. Dutch schwa in moraic phonology. Chicago Linguistic Society 26(2). 241–56.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Lowenstamm, Jean. 1986. Compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew. Studies in compensatory lengthening, ed. by Wetzels, Leo and Sezer, Engin, 97–132. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 421–41.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1987. Between epenthetic and excrescent vowels. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 6. 187–202.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Technical Report 3, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Walsh, Laura, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384.Google Scholar
Meador, Diane, and Ohala, Diane. 1992. The status of ambisyllabicity in English. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 485–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nouveau, Dominique. 1994. Language acquisition, metrical theory, and optimality: A study of Dutch word stress. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Peng, Long. 1992. A unified theory of tone-voice. Tucson: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. Chicago Linguistic Society 26. 355–98.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
Pulgram, Ernst. 1970. Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Curt. 1994. Extrametricality and quantity sensitivity: An optimality-theoretic proposal for English, Dutch, and Norwegian. Paper presented at the European Science Foundation Word Prosody Systems group meeting, Le Bischenberg.Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A., and Ingemann, Frances. 1961. An Eastern Cheremis manual. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The syllable. The structure of phonological representations. vol. 2, ed. by van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N., 337–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, and Danis, Carol. 1988. Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, Danis, Carol, and Zukowski, Andrea. 1990. Toward an understanding of English syllabification. Journal of Memory and Language 29. 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1987. English vowel epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 463–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar