Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T22:28:02.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vowel degemination and fast speech rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2020

Marina Nespor
Marina Nespor*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last two years, two very interesting books about the interaction of phonology and syntax, Selkirk (1984a) and Kaisse (1985), have addressed the problem of characterising fast speech processes and made interesting proposals about the status of fast speech rules (FSRs) and their place in the grammar. Essentially, Kaisse's proposal is that fast speech rules belong to a separate subcomponent of the phonology, which is ordered after the sandhi rules subcomponent: while sandhi rules are sensitive to their syntactic environment, fast speech rules have only phonetic motivation. That is, they operate throughout a string, within as well as across words, independently of its structure (cf. also Rotenberg 1978; Hasegawa 1979).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 4 , May 1987, pp. 61 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Irene Vogel and Brian Joseph for carefully reading this paper and giving helpful comments and suggestions, Bruce Hayes for important criticisms and suggestions about the main issues of this article, Mauro Scorretti for some interesting discussions on fast speech phenomena, the participants of the 1986 Thessaloniki Linguistics Symposium, in particular Angela Ralli for observations on vowel degemination as well as other aspects of Greek phonology, and Donna Jo Napoli, as well as the participants of the 1986 Z.W.O. Workshop on Phonological Features held in Wassenaar, for interesting comments on an earlier version of part of this paper. Many thanks also to the native speakers of Greek, Italian and American English who were always willing to talk into a tape recorder. For financial support, I wish to thank Z.W.O. for a grant that allowed me to spend part of the Fall 1985 semester in Athens, where the field work on Greek was carried out.

References

Booij, Geert (1983). Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics 21. 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camilli, Amerindo (1965). Pronuncia e grafia dell'italiano. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Chadzidakis, Georgios N. (1905). Mεσαıωνıкά кαı Nέα Eλληνıкά. [Meseoniká ke Néa Eliniká]. Athens: Sakelariu.Google Scholar
Cheng, Chin-Chuan (1968). Mandarin phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Cheng, Chin-Chuan (1973). A synchronic phonology of Mandarin Chinese. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (1982). Syntactic conditions on external sandhi in Italian and the metrical grid. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Fogarasi, Miklós (1969). Grammatica italiana del novecento. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko (1979). Casual speech vs. fast speech. CLS 15. 126–137.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1984). The phonology of rhythm in English. LI 15. 33–74.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (to appear). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, P. & Youmans, G. (eds.) Rhythm and meter. Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans H. (1976). Review of Anttila, R. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. (1976). Lg 52. 202–220.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1977). Substantive evidence for linearity: vowel length and nasality in English. CLS 13. 152–164.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1977). On the syntactic environment of a phonological rule. CLS 13. 173–185Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1982). On the preservation of stress in Modern Greek. Linguistics 20. 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax andphonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In Van Der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse (1979). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries. In Lindblom, B. & Öhman, S. (eds.) Frontiers of speech communication research. New York: Academic Press. 191–201.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Alan, Prince (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Malécot, André (1960). Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Lg 36. 222–229.Google Scholar
Martin, James G. (1970). On judging pauses in spontaneous speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9. 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles & Jonathan, Kaye (1982). The syntactic bases for French liaison. JL 18. 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Marina, Nespor (1979). The syntax of word-initial consonant gemination in Italian. Lg 55. 812–841.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina (1986). O Aπoδıπλασıασμóς σтα Eλληνıкά. [O Apodiplasiasrnos sta Eliniká]. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Linguistic Department, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki. 21–28.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene, Vogel (1979). Clash avoidance in Italian. LI 10. 467–482.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene, Vogel (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In Van Der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 225–255.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene, Vogel (1983). Prosodic structure above the word. In Cutler, A. & Ladd, D. R. (eds.) Prosody: models and measurements. Heidelberg: Springer. 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene, Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rotenberg, Joel (1978). The syntax of phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio (1983). Morfologia lessicale. Padua: Clesp.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1981 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Paper presented at the Conference on Mental Representation in Phonology. Distributed 1980 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, M. & Kean, M.-L. (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984 a). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984 b). (Dis)juncture in sentence phonology as a temporal phenomenon. Paper presented at the 4th Internationale Phonologietagung, Eisenstadt. Setatos, Marios (1969). Phonological rules in Modern Greek koiné. Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Theofanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra T. (1973). Fast speech rules and some phonological processes of Modern Greek: a preliminary investigation. Athens: University of Athens, School of Philosophy Publications.Google Scholar
Vogel, IreneMarina Drigo, Alessandro Moser & Irene, Zannier (1983). La cancella-zione di vocale in Italiano. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 12. 191–230.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene & Sergio, Scalise (1982). Secondary stress in Italian. Lingua 58. 213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William D. (1889). Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1972). On casual speech. CLS 8. 607–615.Google Scholar