Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:02:47.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strict Cyclicity, Structure Preservation and the Scottish Vowel-Length Rule1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Philip Carr
Philip Carr
Affiliation:
School of English, University of Newcastle Upon TyneNewcastle upon Tyne NEl 7RU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The analysis of vowel length in Standard Scottish English (SSE) and Scots dialects has proved problematical for some time now. With most analyses the Scottish Vowel-Length Rule (SVLR) is taken to lengthen underlyingly short vowels, and the principal problem with this approach has been in giving a phonological characterization of the set of vowels which act as input to the rule. A complicating factor here is the fact that the set of input vowels seems to vary across dialects. A recent analysis by Anderson (to appear), couched in dependency-phonology (DP) representations which allow for non-specification, argues rather persuasively that SVLR is a shortening operation on underlyingly long vowels, thus resolving the problem of the phonological definition of the input set (for some dialects at least). It also goes some way towards dealing with variation across dialects by giving an explanation for the variable behaviour of the lower mid vowel [ↄ,], which participates in SVLR in some dialects but not in others.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 91 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Agutter, A. (1988). The not-so Scottish vowel length rule. In Anderson, J. M. & Macleod, N. (eds) Edinburgh studies in the English language. Edinburgh: John Donald. 120–132.Google Scholar
Aitken, A. J. (1962). Vowel length in modern Scots (duplicated). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Department of English Language.Google Scholar
Allan, S. (1985). A note on AYE distribution. JL 21. 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (to appear). Contrastivity and non-specification in dependency phonology. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Ewen, C. J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds) (1974). Historical Linguistics II. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Carr, P. (1987). Instrumentalism, realism, and the object of inquiry in theoretical linguistics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Carr, P. (1990). Linguistic realities: an autonomist metatheory for the generative enterprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, P. (1991a). Lexical properties of postlexical rules: postlexical derived environment and the elsewhere condition. Lingua 85. 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, P. (1992b). Autonomism, realism and linguistic change. Folia Linguistica Historica 9. 13–31.Google Scholar
Casagrande, J. (1984). The sound system of French. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1990). Generative and non-linear phonology. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ewen, C. J. (1977). Aitken's Law and the phonatory gesture in dependency phonology. Lingua 41. 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewen, C. & van der Hulst, H. (1988). [high, [low] and [back] or [I], [A] and [U]? Linguistics in the Netherlands 49–57.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). The segmental phonology of Modern English. LIn 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1989). Derived phonological contrasts. In Ramsarap, S. (ed.) Studies in the pronunciation of English: a commemorative volume in honour of A.C.Gimson. London: Croom Helm. 87–105.Google Scholar
Harris, J. & Lindsay, G. (1990). Phonetic interpretation in generative grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 355–369.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I. (1989). The strict cyclicity condition and non-cyclic rules. LIn 20. 675–680.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. & Shaw, P. (1985). On the theory of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1974). Remarks on analogical change. In Anderson & Jones (eds). 257–275.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds) The structure of phonological representations, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1974). Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quality and the English length conspiracy. In Anderson & Jones (eds). 311–352.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). On defining pseudo-features: some characteristic arguments for ‘tenseness’. In Lass, R., English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 39–50.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1984). Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1989). Constraining lexical phonology: evidence from English vowels. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1990). Vowel shift, free rides and strict cyclicity. Lingua 80. 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1991). Lexical phonology and sound change: the case of the Scottish vowel length rule. JL 27. 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (to appear). Lexical phonology and diachrony. Proceedings of the 6th ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Majewicz, A. F. (1986). A contrastive analysis of Japanese and Polish phonemic and phonetic systems. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznańiu.Google Scholar
Noske, R. G., Schinkel, J. & Smith, N. S. H. (1982). The question of rule ordering. JL 18. 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plénat, M. (1987). On the structure of the rime in standard French. Linguistics 25. 867–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and lexical phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. (1974). Analogy reconsidered. In Anderson & Jones (eds). 427–437.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English, vol. 2: The British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. (1975). Tense and lax vowels: degree of constriction or pharyngeal volume? Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University. 109–134.Google Scholar