c) Binarity
We have assumed that features are binary (a segment is either nasal or it is not) following Jakobson's (1941) original formulation of distinctive feature theory and this premise was adopted in Chomsky & Halle's (1968) Sound Pattern of English. There were many reasons why Jakobson (1941) advocated a binary approach. Firstly, as we have seen, this is the most efficient way of reducing the phoneme inventory of a language. Secondly, he argued that most phonological oppositions are binary in nature (e.g. sounds either are or are not produced with a lowered soft-palate and nasalisation) and he even proposed that it has a physiological basis i.e. that nerve fibers have an 'all-or-none' response. But the binary principal is certainly not adopted by all linguists, and many phoneticians in particular have argued that some features should be n-ary (where "n" is any relevant number of degrees or levels - see for example, Ladefoged's 1993 treatment of vowel height which is 4-valued to reflect the distinction between close, half-close, half-open, and open vowels).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chomsky and Halle (1968-1983)
c) Binarity
We have assumed that features are binary (a segment is either nasal or it is not) following Jakobson's (1941) original formulation of distinctive feature theory and this premise was adopted in Chomsky & Halle's (1968) Sound Pattern of English. There were many reasons why Jakobson (1941) advocated a binary approach. Firstly, as we have seen, this is the most efficient way of reducing the phoneme inventory of a language. Secondly, he argued that most phonological oppositions are binary in nature (e.g. sounds either are or are not produced with a lowered soft-palate and nasalisation) and he even proposed that it has a physiological basis i.e. that nerve fibers have an 'all-or-none' response. But the binary principal is certainly not adopted by all linguists, and many phoneticians in particular have argued that some features should be n-ary (where "n" is any relevant number of degrees or levels - see for example, Ladefoged's 1993 treatment of vowel height which is 4-valued to reflect the distinction between close, half-close, half-open, and open vowels).
We have assumed that features are binary (a segment is either nasal or it is not) following Jakobson's (1941) original formulation of distinctive feature theory and this premise was adopted in Chomsky & Halle's (1968) Sound Pattern of English. There were many reasons why Jakobson (1941) advocated a binary approach. Firstly, as we have seen, this is the most efficient way of reducing the phoneme inventory of a language. Secondly, he argued that most phonological oppositions are binary in nature (e.g. sounds either are or are not produced with a lowered soft-palate and nasalisation) and he even proposed that it has a physiological basis i.e. that nerve fibers have an 'all-or-none' response. But the binary principal is certainly not adopted by all linguists, and many phoneticians in particular have argued that some features should be n-ary (where "n" is any relevant number of degrees or levels - see for example, Ladefoged's 1993 treatment of vowel height which is 4-valued to reflect the distinction between close, half-close, half-open, and open vowels).
No comments:
Post a Comment