Change in obstruent laryngeal specifications in English : historical and theoretical phonology
Two traditions have arisen from an ongoing debate concerning cross-linguistic laryngeal representations in series of obstruents. The first, âtraditionalâ approach assumes universally identical laryngeal representations: /p, t, k/ are unspecified and /b, d, g/ carry |voice|. The second, Laryngeal Realism (LR), assumes underlyingly different representations between languages: âaspiration languagesâ have unspecified /b, d, g/, and /p, t, k/ specified for |spread|. âVoice languagesâ have unspecified /p, t, k/, and /b, d, g/ specified for |voice|. In this thesis, I use historical data in order to determine which of these two traditions is correct. Chapter 1 introduces the thesis subject and places it in the broader context of representational models of theoretical phonology and general historical linguistics. In chapter 2, I discuss the discrepancy between traditional laryngeal features and their cross-linguistic implementation, the basis of the debate outlined above. The two traditions are then discussed in detail. It is shown that evidence for LR is drawn from surface facts in aspiration- and voice languages such as respective presence or absence of aspiration of /p, t, k/, respective absence or presence
Spaargaren, Magdalena Jeannette
linguistics ; phonology ; phonology ; English language ; phonology ; historical
Change in obstruent laryngeal specifications in English : historical and theoretical phonology. Two traditions have arisen from an ongoing debate concerning cross-linguistic laryngeal representations in series of obstruents. The first, âtraditionalâ approach assumes universally identical laryngeal representations: /p, t, k/ are unspecified and /b, d, g/ carry |voice|. The second, Laryngeal Realism (LR), assumes underlyingly different representations between languages: âaspiration languagesâ have unspecified /b, d, g/, and /p, t, k/ specified for |spread|. âVoice languagesâ have unspecified /p, t, k/, and /b, d, g/ specified for |voice|. In this thesis, I use historical data in order to determine which of these two traditions is correct. Chapter 1 introduces the thesis subject and places it in the broader context of representational models of theoretical phonology and general historical linguistics. In chapter 2, I discuss the discrepancy between traditional laryngeal features and their cross-linguistic implementation, the basis of the debate outlined above. The two traditions are then discussed in detail. It is shown that evidence for LR is drawn from surface facts in aspiration- and voice languages such as respective presence or absence of aspiration of /p, t, k/, respective absence or presence
change specification english historical theoretical phonology tradition arisen ongoing_debate concern cross_linguistic representation series first traditional assumes universally identical representation unspecified carry voice second realism assumes different representation language aspiration language unspecified specify spread voice language unspecified specify voice use historical data order_determine tradition correct introduces subject place broader context representational model theoretical phonology general historical_linguistics discus discrepancy traditional feature cross_linguistic implementation basis debate outline above tradition discuss_detail show evidence_drawn surface facts aspiration voice language respective presence_absence aspiration respective absence presence