Phonology

by

Paul de Lacy

• LAST REVIEWED: 21 June 2019
• LAST MODIFIED: 28 October 2011
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0033

Introduction

The term “phonology” has several meanings. It is often used to refer to generalizations about sounds and sound combinations (often called sound patterns) in and across languages. In contrast, within generative grammar “phonology” refers to a particular cognitive module. Many generative theories propose that the module takes inputs, consisting of strings of symbols (called phonological symbols, segments, phonemes, underlying forms, or the input, depending on the theory). The symbols may be accompanied by information about morphology, syntax, and perhaps even some aspects of meaning. The module produces an output representation, which serves as the input to the phonetic modules; these modules ultimately provoke muscle movements that can result in speech sounds. A common point of confusion is the belief that the phonological module manipulates speech sounds; in fact the phonology manipulates representations that are sent to the phonetic module, which then converts them into phonetic representations that are then implemented as muscle movements that, given the right factors, can produce audible sound. The two meanings of “phonology” are not in opposition. Phonology (sound patterns) makes up some of the data used in theorizing about the phonology (the cognitive module). There are large variations in sound patterns across languages. For example, Hawai’ian has nine contrastive consonants, whereas Ubykh has eighty-six. However, there are commonalities too, though many are disputed. For example, every language has either an alveolar voiceless stop of some kind or a glottal stop or both. Similarly, no language lacks words that start with a consonant. There are also large variations in phonological modules among humans; however, a great deal of research contends that all phonological modules share common properties, at least in their underlying structures. Although the outputs of languages are diverse, much work has argued that the representations and processes used to generate phonological outputs are very similar—perhaps identical—in all phonological modules, with only certain aspects of the phonological module (e.g., rules, constraint ranking) differing between modules.

Foundational Works

Pāṇini’s grammar of Classical Sanskrit includes the earliest comprehensive description of a phonological system (see Pāṇini 1897 for a translation). In the modern era, Saussure 2011 (originally published in 1916) was instrumental in directing research toward the synchronic study of phonology and away from diachronic change (see Diachronic Phonology). Trubetzkoy 1969 (originally published in 1939) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding synchronic phonologies as logical systems. Until the middle of the 20th century, phonological research focused on taxonomy and description. Chomsky and Halle 1968 changed the focus of research to the cognitive processes that generate and perceive speech sounds: the phonological module and its interfaces became the object of study for many researchers, and phonologies came to be understood as the outcome of those processes. There are many extant theories of phonology (see Theories). Anderson 1985 provides a history of theoretical developments in the 20th century up until the early 1980s.

• Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century: Theories of rules and theories of representations. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A history of theoretical developments in phonology up until the early 1980s.

  Find this resource:

• Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Studies in Language. New York: Harper and Row.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Commonly referred to as SPE, this book is the founding text in generative phonology. It established the study of phonology as part of the cognitive sciences.

  Find this resource:

• Pāṇini. 1897. The Ashtadhyayi. Book 6. Translated by Srisa Chandra Vasu. Benares, India: Sindhu Charan Bose.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A translation of Pāṇini’s Ashtadhyayi (अष्टाध्यायी), the central part of his grammar. The earliest complete grammar of any language (in this case, Classical Sanskrit).

  Find this resource:

• Saussure, Ferdinand de. 2011. Course in general linguistics. Rev. ed. Edited by Perry Meisel and Haun Saussy. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Originally published in 1916. Marks the beginning of the modern study of synchronic phonological systems. Introduced important notions, such as arbitrariness and contrast.

  Find this resource:

• Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1969. Principles of phonology. Translated by Christine A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Originally published in 1939. One of the earliest and most comprehensive theories of sound patterns. Part of the Prague school (see The Prague School). Introduced significant concepts, such as the phoneme, contrastiveness, and the distinction between phonetics and phonology.

  Find this resource:

Collections, Resources, Software, and Databases

There are several online collections of articles. The most extensive is Prince, et al. Rutgers Optimality Archive, an online archive for articles, theses, and resources related to optimality theory (OT). There are specific collections for individual theories; see the appropriate subsections in Theories for details. Baković 2011 is the longest-running web blog devoted to phonology. There are a variety of databases for phonological research. Some have very broad scope, such as the Typological Database System and Ian Maddieson and Kristin Precoda’s phonemic inventory database (UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database). Others have a narrower focus, either on a particular phonological mode (e.g., Yvan Rose and Greg Hedlund’s phonological language acquisition database Phon), a phenomenon (e.g., Hume 2000), or a theoretical issue. There is a small but growing number of software programs devoted to phonological analysis, such as Hayes, et al. 2003, as well as software that includes phonological analysis and learning functions, such as Paul Boersma and David Weenink’s Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer.

• Baković, Eric, ed. 2011. Phonoloblog: All Things Phonology.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  The longest-running web blog devoted entirely to phonological theory.

  Find this resource:

• Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink, eds. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Version 5.2.35.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Very popular software for phonetic research and phonological analysis, including learning algorithms for OT and harmonic grammar.

  Find this resource:

• Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw, eds. 2003. OTSoft: Optimality Theory Software. Version 2.3.1.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A Windows program that performs a variety of analytical tasks in OT.

  Find this resource:

• Hume, Elizabeth, ed. 2000. Metathesis.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A database devoted to a specific phonological phenomenon (i.e., metathesis). Provides descriptions of metatheses in a variety of languages.

  Find this resource:

• Maddieson, Ian, and Kristin Precoda, eds. UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A database with accompanying software of phonemic systems in 451 languages. An online interface is available. The UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID) has been used in many typological studies of phoneme frequency.

  Find this resource:

• Prince, Alan, Eric Baković, and Paul de Lacy, eds. Rutgers Optimality Archive.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  The largest active online archive devoted to a specific phonological theory (i.e., OT).

  Find this resource:

• Rose, Yvan, and Greg Hedlund, eds. Phon.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Software for phonological analysis with particular focus on language development.

  Find this resource:

• Typological Database System.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Typological Database System provides data on specific topics for many languages aggregated from many other databases. There is a section devoted to phonological phenomena.

  Find this resource:

Derivation and Relatedness Between Forms

The idea that there are formal relations that hold between distinct phonological representations is found in all phonological theories. In pregenerative theories a phonemic representation contained abstract phonological symbols and was related to an allophonic representation that provided detailed phonetic symbols (see Joos 1966). This distinction carried over into generative phonology: in The Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968, cited under Foundational Works) the “underlying form” is transformed by rules through a series of intermediate forms into the “surface form.” In contrast, optimality theory (OT), and in particular correspondence theory within OT (McCarthy and Prince 1999), departs from the SPE conception in significant ways: the underlying (or “input”) form is associated via a relation called correspondence to multiple surface forms (called candidates). The correspondence relation holds not only between input forms and output candidates but also between morphemes within the same output form (specifically between reduplicative morphemes and bases), thereby blurring the distinction between derivational relatedness and other types of morphological relatedness. Correspondence relations have also been argued to hold between members of a morphological paradigm (Benua 2000) and between distinct output forms (as in opacity). A great deal of work has focused on determining how many related representations (or “levels”) there are and how they can be related. Some of the most complex interactions involve opacity, in which the surface form’s relationship to the underlying form is significantly obscured (Kiparsky 1976, McCarthy 1999). The theory of lexical phonology and morphology (LPM) posits several self-contained levels of representations (see Lexical Phonology and Morphology and Stratal Optimality Theory). Although generative phonology’s distinction between underlying and surface forms has been highly influential, some theories and proposals seek to eliminate underlying forms, with relations holding solely between output forms (e.g., Burzio 1998).

• Benua, Laura. 2000. Phonological relations between words. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Argues that the same formal relations that hold between inputs and outputs also hold between derivationally related output forms of morphological paradigms.

  Find this resource:

• Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Multiple correspondence. Lingua 103:79–109.

  DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00025-9Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Contends that there is no need for underlying forms; phonological processes are expressed via relations between surface forms.

  Find this resource:

• Joos, Martin. 1966. Readings in linguistics I: The development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925–56. 4th ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A collection of work in structuralist linguistics containing several significant contributions in phonology. Those contributions emphasize the relation between an abstract phonemic representation and a more phonetically detailed allophonic level.

  Find this resource:

• Kiparsky, Paul. 1976. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In The application and ordering of grammatical rules. Edited by Andreas Koutsoudas, 160–184. Janua Linguarum: Series Maior. The Hague: Mouton.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Identifies types of opacity, in which the relationship of the surface form to the underlying form is not straightforwardly recoverable. Cases of opacity have proved to be some of the most challenging to explain in a restrictive manner in a variety of phonological theories.

  Find this resource:

• McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16:331–399.

  DOI: 10.1017/S0952675799003784Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Proposes a theory to account for opacity that uses the same relations that hold between underlying and surface forms.

  Find this resource:

• McCarthy, John J., and Alan S. Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The prosody-morphology interface. Edited by René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 218–309. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627729Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Proposes a highly influential theory (correspondence theory) of the relationship between inputs and outputs and extends it to other dimensions. An earlier, lengthier version is available at the Rutgers Optimality Archive (Prince, et al., cited under Collections, Resources, Software, and Databases), ROA #60.

  Find this resource:

Contrastiveness

The concept of contrast is found in the earliest phonological theories. Trubetzkoy 1969 (originally published in 1939) argues that phonological systems could be understood as systems of minimally contrasting elements. The idea that only contrasting phonological specifications are present—or have a significant status—figured in many subsequent phonological theories. It can be seen in some theories of underspecification in which representations are pared down to only those elements that are contrastive (see Dresher, et al. 1994). The concept is also central to some early-21st-century phonological theories (e.g., Dresher 2009). However, the theories of The Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968, cited under SPE) and classical optimality theory (OT, see Optimality Theory and OT Theories) adopt full specification: all feature values are present in output candidates. In fact, in classical OT the principles of richness of the base and lexicon optimization mean that noncontrastive output forms will be stored in lexical entries (so [k^hæt] “cat” will have the underlying form /k^hæt/, not /kæt/). However, there are versions of OT that have contrast as a central concept, as discussed in Łubowicz 2011. Dresher 2009 includes a detailed history of contrast in phonological theories. Steriade 2007 provides an introduction to contrast and its manifestation in modern theories. Dresher and Rice Annotated Bibliography on Contrast and Complexity is an extensive annotated bibliography on contrast.

• Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511642005Save Citation »Export Citation »

  The first part of this book provides a history of contrast in phonology. The second part presents a theory in which contrastiveness is a central concept.

  Find this resource:

• Dresher, B. Elan, Glyne Piggott, and Keren Rice. 1994. Contrast in phonology: Overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13:iii–xvii.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A summary of theories of contrast and a reference list up until 1994.

  Find this resource:

• Dresher, Elan, and Keren Rice, eds. Annotated Bibliography on Contrast and Complexity.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An extensive annotated bibliography about contrast and the related notion of minimizing representation.

  Find this resource:

• Łubowicz, Anna. 2011. The phonology of contrast. Advances in Optimality Theory. Oakville, CT: Equinox.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Argues for the centrality of a notion of contrast, set within OT. Note that the author’s last name may be spelled “Lubowicz” or “Łubowicz” on various websites.

  Find this resource:

• Steriade, Donca. 2007. Contrast. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Edited by Paul de Lacy, 139–157. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.008Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A critical overview of theories of contrast with particular attention paid to OT. The accompanying web page includes a recommended reading list and references.

  Find this resource:

• Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1969. Principles of phonology. Translated by Christine A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Originally published in 1939. One of the earliest phonological works to identify contrastiveness and give it a central explanatory role. Trubetzkoy’s ideas about contrast and the related notion of the phoneme have influenced almost all phonological theories and continue to be influential.

  Find this resource:

Representation

A great deal of research in phonology has focused on representation: phonological symbols and the nonderivational relations that hold between them. Linear representational theories treat phonological representations as a single string of symbols (discrete units); such representations were used in the Prague school and The Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968, cited under SPE). Nonlinear representations have many parallel strings coordinated by relations. The earliest nonlinear theory was Firthian prosodic analysis (Firth 1948). The autosegmental phonology theory of representation forms the basis of the most widely used nonlinear theories in generative theories (Goldsmith 1976). Nonlinear representations were originally established for tone (Goldsmith 1976) but soon spread to subsegmental features (Clements and Hume 1995) and prosodic structure (Selkirk 1984). A somewhat different type of representational theory is the grid (Prince 1983), which consists of vertical strings of grid marks connected to prosodic elements. Grid theory is used primarily in theories of metrical structure and differed from its precursors in having no constituents (though constituents were added in later versions of grid theory). The relationship between theories of representation and theories of rules/constraints is complex. In some cases, elaboration of representational structure has allowed rule/constraint formalism to be simplified. An example is the introduction of syllable constituents (Kahn 1976), which simplified rules that formerly had to specify disjunctive environments (e.g., “word final or preconsonantal” was replaced by “syllable final”). A major issue in representational theories is how much information is included in phonological representations. Some theories have phonological representations that are close to phonetic ones in terms of the fine detail of their specifications (see Phonetics). At the other extreme, some theories have very sparsely specified phonological representations with redundant features systematically eliminated (Steriade 1995; also see Contrastiveness). Harris 2007 provides an introduction to central issues in theories of phonological representation.

• Clements, George N., and Elizabeth Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In The handbook of phonological theory. Edited by John Goldsmith, 245–306. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A review of the linear and nonlinear approaches to subsegmental features.

  Find this resource:

• Firth, J. R. 1948. Sounds and prosodies. Transactions of the Philological Society 47.1: 127–152.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1948.tb00556.xSave Citation »Export Citation »

  Helped establish Firthian prosodic analysis—an approach that emphasizes the independence of aspects of phonological representation.

  Find this resource:

• Goldsmith, John. 1976. An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2.1: 23–68.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An overview of the autosegmental theory, which argues that phonological representations consist of several strings connected by “autosegmental” relations.

  Find this resource:

• Harris, John. 2007. Representation. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Edited by Paul de Lacy, 119–138. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.007Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An overview of the development of representational theories in phonological theory with particular attention paid to the linear-nonlinear distinction.

  Find this resource:

• Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  One of the earliest works to argue for the formal representation of a prosodic element in a generative theory.

  Find this resource:

• Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14.1: 19–100.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Introduced the grid, consisting of vertical strings of gridmarks “x” over particular prosodic entities. Grid theory provides a very straightforward way of establishing rhythmic structure without representing constituency.

  Find this resource:

• Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  The antithesis of a linear theory, Selkirk’s proposal has many layers of prosodic elements and forms the basis of most early-21st-century conceptions of phonological prosodic organization. This book summarizes Selkirk’s previous proposals and work on the prosodic hierarchy.

  Find this resource:

• Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In The handbook of phonological theory. Edited by John Goldsmith, 114–174. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A critical overview of theories of underspecification, where phonological representations omit predictable or noncontrastive features.

  Find this resource:

Markedness and Universals

The terms “markedness” and “universal” have many meanings. For current purposes it is useful to classify the two as either “surface” or “theoretical.” Surface universals and markedness are generalizations about sound patterns and their frequency. For example, the observation that almost every language has a [t] is a universal tendency; it has been taken as evidence that [t] has a special status—that it is “less marked” than the less typologically frequent [p], for instance. Many examples are in Greenberg 1978. Theoretical universals and markedness are about asymmetries in the structure of a particular theory. Certainly, such theoretical asymmetries may result in asymmetries in sound patterns, but this is not necessarily the case. For example, many authors have argued that certain generative theories permit the input->output context-free mapping /p/->[t] but not /t/->[p] (e.g., de Lacy 2006). However, translating this theoretical claim into an observation about sound patterns is very difficult; it does not guarantee that every language with a [p] also has a [t]; underlying /t/ could be eliminated by other processes. In practice, the two meanings of “universals” and “markedness” are often used interchangeably. It is also difficult—in fact impossible—to make any statement about sound patterns without expressing the generalization in terms of some theory. There are many disagreements about which surface universals exist and how to explain them. Some see universals/markedness as a side effect of language change, whereas others assert that at least some are due to synchronic restrictions on cognitive mechanisms (see Diachronic Phonology). Several general approaches to explaining universals and markedness in generative theories have been taken. Some theories contend that markedness effects are due to asymmetries in feature values and how rules/constraints refer to them (e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1968, de Lacy 2006). Others argue that markedness relates to the absence of certain features (or feature values) and representational structures (see Representation) and still others to restrictions on constraint ranking (see Optimality Theory and OT Theories). Rice 2007 identifies many of the uses of the term “markedness” and provides critical commentary on its relation to theories in generative phonology.

• Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Studies in Language. New York: Harper and Row.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Commonly referred to as SPE, this book is the founding text in generative phonology. Chapter 9 presents a conception of markedness that derives from specialized segmental feature values and restrictions on how rules may refer to them.

  Find this resource:

• de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486388Save Citation »Export Citation »

  One of the more recent theories of theoretical markedness, set within optimality theory (OT). The book argues that although there are clear theoretical universals, their interactions mean that surface universals are difficult to detect.

  Find this resource:

• Greenberg, Joseph H., ed. 1978. Universals of human language. Vol. 2, Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A collection of articles on surface universals (e.g., palatalization, syllabic consonants, nasal vowels, and so on). Greenberg’s work is highly influential in its methods and findings.

  Find this resource:

• Rice, Keren. 2007. Markedness in phonology. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Edited by Paul de Lacy, 79–97. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.005Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An overview of the concept of markedness in phonological theory. Identifies many uses of the term “markedness” and discusses work on the concept in phonological theories.

  Find this resource:

Innateness and Substance

A major research topic is whether phonological representations and processes are hardwired (innate) or learned. For example, assuming that there is a restriction on [k] at the end of words (*k#), *k# could either be innate or have been learned using a mechanism that is sensitive to the relative difficulty of perceiving (or producing) word-final [k]. Ohala 2010 argues that many phonological phenomena have phonetic motivations. Diana Archangeli and Douglas Pulleyblank’s theory of grounded phonology (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994) is significant in asserting that phonetic factors influence phonological restrictions within a generative theory, focusing on vowel harmony. A great deal of work since then has argued the same point within the framework of optimality theory (OT); overviews are provided in Hayes and Steriade 2004 and Gordon 2007. In the early 21st century there is a spectrum of views about which aspects of the phonological module are innate and which are learned. Phonetic grounding is not the only alternative to innateness; it is also possible that rules/constraints are constructed by detecting patterns in the synchronic language, leading to nonphonetically grounded rules/constraints. Taken to an extreme, the learner would deduce the synchronic form of the phonological module by detecting patterns in the input, a view that may be espoused in some versions of evolutionary phonology (see Diachronic Phonology).

• Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Asserts that phonetic factors influence the form of phonological rules and restrictions, set within generative theory.

  Find this resource:

• Gordon, Matthew. 2007. Functionalism in phonology. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Edited by Paul de Lacy, 61–77. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.004Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An overview of theories of how phonetic factors influence phonological rules/constraints and representations.

  Find this resource:

• Hayes, Bruce, and Donca Steriade. 2004. Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Phonetically based phonology. Edited by Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, 1–33. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.001Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Provides an overview of arguments for the idea that the form of phonological constraints (set in OT) is determined or influenced by a speaker’s “partial understanding of the physical conditions under which speech is produced and perceived” (p. 1).

  Find this resource:

• Ohala, John J. 2010. The relation between phonetics and phonology. In The handbook of phonetic sciences. 2d ed. Edited by William J. Hardcastle, John Laver, and Fiona E. Gibbon, 663–677. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  DOI: 10.1002/9781444317251Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An overview of a variety of conceptions about how phonetics influences phonological representation and computation.

  Find this resource:

Interfaces

A great deal of research has focused on the “interfaces” of phonology—the points of connection between the phonological module and other cognitive modules. There is no doubt that phonological processes can be influenced by (or refer to) information from other modules or representations. For example, phonological processes often refer to morphological (see Morphology) and syntactic (see Syntax) information in their environments. However, there is disagreement about whether phonological processes may refer directly to semantic information (see Semantics). Similarly, it is controversial whether the structure of the lexicon (as in lexical frequency information) can influence phonological processes (see Lexicon). Exactly how phonological processes might refer to phonetic information is a lively area of research (see Phonetics, Innateness and Substance). The handbooks cited under Edited Collections provide useful introductions to the many issues surrounding phonological interfaces.

Diachronic Phonology

Diachronic phonology (also called historical phonology) is the study of how and why sound systems change over time. In the 19th century diachronic phonology was almost the sole focus of research into phonological systems. Discoveries such as Grimm’s law established that there was regularity in phonological change that could be studied rigorously. Some late-20th- and early-21st-century theories have placed a heavy emphasis on sound change as a means of explaining synchronic phonological patterns; they argue that certain (or perhaps all) synchronic patterns are the side effect of regularities in and restrictions on diachronic change and are not due to synchronic generative processes (e.g., Ohala 1983, Blevins 2004). There is much controversy around this issue (e.g., Kiparsky 2008). One of the most significant debates was over whether diachronic phonological change (and perhaps all diachronic change) is sudden or gradual. Labov 1994 presents evidence that both types occur and advances a theory, as does Kiparsky 1995. However, some have argued that all change is gradual (Bybee 2001). There are a variety of textbooks about diachronic phonology; they invariably contain significant portions devoted to phonological and phonetic change, such as Hock 1991 and Crowley and Bowern 2010. Short introductions to diachronic linguistics can be found in the handbooks cited under Edited Collections. Many language descriptions used to include (or even be entirely about) diachronic change in the language; it has now become common for discussion of diachronic change to be minimized or omitted.

• Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486357Save Citation »Export Citation »

  One of the lengthiest arguments that patterns seen in synchronic sound systems are due to the processes involved in diachronic change.

  Find this resource:

• Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511612886Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Argues that all sound change is gradual and diffusing as opposed to sudden.

  Find this resource:

• Crowley, Terry, and Claire Bowern. 2010. An introduction to historical linguistics. 4th ed. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  One of many introductions to historical linguistics. It is updated very regularly and focuses on non-Indo-European languages. The majority of the book is about phonological and phonetic change.

  Find this resource:

• Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. 2d ed. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A classic and comprehensive introduction to historical linguistics with a significant portion devoted to sound change.

  Find this resource:

• Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In The handbook of phonological theory. Edited by John Goldsmith, 640–670. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Asserts that both gradual and abrupt diachronic change occur because of the form of generative theory, particularly lexical phonology and morphology (LPM) (see Lexical Phonology and Morphology and Stratal Optimality Theory).

  Find this resource:

• Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Linguistic universals and language change. Edited by Jeff Good, 23–53. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Argues that innate restrictions on the phonological components limit how languages change.

  Find this resource:

• Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An influential work that advanced both research methodology in and understanding of sociolinguistics and diachronic linguistics. Identifies mechanisms and limits on linguistic change as well as how change is influenced by and influences broader linguistic systems.

  Find this resource:

• Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In The production of speech. Edited by Peter F. MacNeilage, 189–216. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An early and influential argument that factors involved in production and perception of speech influence typological sound patterns.

  Find this resource:

• Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes. Edited by Leiv Egil Breivik and Ernst Håkon Jahr, 173–198. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  DOI: 10.1515/9783110853063Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A significant article in proposing two mechanisms—hypocorrection and hypercorrection—to explain why sound change occurs.

  Find this resource:

Theories

A comprehensive theory of phonology consists of many different parts, both derivational and representational. Some parts are often relatively independent from each other and even interchangeable between theories, with minor modifications. For example, classical optimality theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky 2002, cited under Optimality Theory and OT Theories) has almost no commitment to any particular theory of constraint substance or theories of representation. Consequently, designating a particular cluster of parts as a distinct theory from another cluster of parts is to some extent subjective. Even so, there are commonly accepted clusters of concepts and subtheories that are designated “theories of phonology.” A selection of some of the major phonological frameworks is in this section. Introductions and overviews to various theories and parts of theories are provided in the handbooks cited under Edited Collections and the textbooks cited under Textbooks. The earliest theory discussed here is that of the Prague school, which established that phonological systems could be analyzed as logical systems and introduced many influential concepts. The Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968) proposed the first generative phonological theory and has profoundly influenced every theory since. In some sense, later theories can be seen as a reaction to SPE’s permissive rules and rule-ordering system. Lexical phonology and morphology (LPM) imposes restrictions on how and where rules can apply; its concepts of levels and cyclicity remain highly influential and current (see Lexical Phonology and Morphology and Stratal Optimality Theory). Government phonology emphasizes the role of representations and severely limits derivational processes. OT rejects SPE’s rule ordering for a system of constraints that are ranked and violable, though there are many OT theories (see Optimality Theory and OT Theories).

Phonological Phenomena

Many phonology books and articles are about specific phonological phenomena, such as tone, assimilation, and stress. Such divisions should be treated with caution. For example, authors differ on what constitutes a tonal phenomenon; in fact within particular theories there is often no clear formal distinction between tonal and intonational phenomena. Even so, although the labeling of a cluster of phenomena as tonal is somewhat arbitrary, it has proven to be useful and something that many phonologists apparently find intuitively satisfying. The same comments can be made for any other phenomenon. Phonological phenomena are often arranged into two broad classes: subsegmental (or just segmental) and suprasegmental. The division relates to where the action takes place—to whether there is change in segments or their features or in prosodic structure. In reality, subsegmental change is often limited to specific suprasegmental domains, and suprasegmental processes are often sensitive to segmental sonority or features.

Computational Phonology

Implementing models of phonological theories is crucial in understanding how those theories work. The algorithms and complex data structures that theories manipulate are beyond (and perhaps have always been beyond) manual methods of exploration. Early work in computational phonology includes Bobrow and Fraser 1968 and Johnson 1972, a work on finite-state transducers and the formalism in The Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968, cited under SPE). Even so, at the end of the 20th century Bird 1994 asserted that “phonology remains largely unexplored from a computational standpoint” (p. iii). However, since the late 20th century there has been significant growth in computational phonology in part fueled by the rise of constraint-based theories (e.g., Bird 1995), particularly optimality theory (OT) (e.g., Tesar 1995). Many works in OT are in the Rutgers Optimality Archive (Prince, et al., cited under Collections, Resources, Software, and Databases). The website of the group Sigmorphon offers a bibliography and news on computational phonology and morphology, though the bibliographies do not seem to have been updated since 2000. Although there are few introductory works on computational phonology, Jurafsky and Martin 2009 presents an accessible introduction that covers more recent developments. Bird 2003 provides an accessible, concise introduction.

• Bird, Stephen. 1994. Introduction to computational phonology. In Special issue: Computational phonology. Computational Linguistics 20.3: iii–ix.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Lays out fundamental issues in computational phonology.

  Find this resource:

• Bird, Stephen. 1995. Computational phonology: A constraint-based approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A survey of work on computational phonology and an implementation of a phonological system that uses principles of late-20th-century phonological theories.

  Find this resource:

• Bird, Stephen. 2003. Computational phonology. In International encyclopedia of linguistics. Vol. 1. 2d ed. Edited by William J. Frawley, 380–381. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An updated overview of work in computational phonology.

  Find this resource:

• Bobrow, Daniel G., and J. Bruce Fraser. 1968. A phonological rule tester. Communications of the ACM 11.11: 766–772.

  DOI: 10.1145/364139.364165Save Citation »Export Citation »

  One of the earliest works in computational phonology focusing on rule-based theories.

  Find this resource:

• Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal aspects of phonological description. Monographs on Linguistic Analysis. The Hague: Mouton.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An early work on computational phonology that expresses SPE’s rule formalism as finite-state transducers

  Find this resource:

• Jurafsky, Daniel, and James H. Martin. 2009. Computational phonology. In Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. 2d ed. By Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin, 361–384. Prentice Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Brief and accessible introduction to computational phonology and learning. Discusses finite-state models, OT, and stochastic OT.

  Find this resource:

• SIGMORPHON.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  The website for the Association for Computational Linguistics Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology. The site provides bibliographies, conference proceedings, and a forum for announcements.

  Find this resource:

• Tesar, Bruce. 1995. Computational optimality theory. PhD diss., Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An influential implementation of OT illustrating the close connection of computational phonology to learnability (see Acquisition and Learnability)

  Find this resource:

Descriptions of Individual Languages and Families

Broadly speaking, there are two types of phonological descriptions: (1) descriptions of the phonological systems of specific languages and (2) descriptions of the phonological modules of individuals. In practice the distinction between the two types of description is often blurred; in fact work in phonological theory frequently assumes that descriptions of phonological systems are descriptions of phonological modules. Descriptions of the first type are often presented in a putatively “theory-neutral” way; such a style still makes a significant commitment to specific theories (usually rule-based serialist ones and theories of contrast), but the theoretical formalism chosen is assumed to allow comprehensive description and translate readily into other theoretical frameworks (e.g., the Routledge Descriptive Grammars series). There are fewer descriptions that commit to a particular theory and provide a description within that framework, though the Oxford University Press series Phonology of the World’s Languages mixes description and specific theoretical examination. Some books have an intense theoretical orientation, using particular theories to structure the description. For example, Buckley 1994 describes Kashaya phonology in the context of lexical phonology and morphology. Occasionally, particular phonological systems have provided a vehicle for advancing or illustrating a specific phonological theory (e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle and Mohanan 1985). Phonological descriptions come in many forms, as books, book chapters, or journal articles; however, they most often appear as a part of larger description of grammars. Kaye 1997 is one of the few collections of articles devoted solely to phonological description.

• Buckley, Eugene. 1994. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Provides a description of the phonological module of an idealized Kashaya speaker set within a particular theory (in this case, rule-based lexical phonology and morphology).

  Find this resource:

• Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Studies in Language. New York: Harper and Row.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Often called SPE. Perhaps the most well-known phonological book to focus on a particular language (English) and to use it as a theme in presenting and illustrating a theory of phonology. SPE also presents analyses of phonological phenomena in many other languages.

  Find this resource:

• Descriptive Grammars. 1989–. London and New York: Routledge.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A book series devoted to entire grammars of languages. All the grammars contain a phonological description. This series is important because it uses a common descriptive framework with the aim of allowing easier cross-linguistic comparison. As of the early 21st century, twenty-five books are in the series.

  Find this resource:

• Halle, Morris, and K. P. Mohanan. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16:57–116.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  An article that focuses on a specific area of English as a means to develop a specific phonological theory (i.e., lexical phonology and morphology).

  Find this resource:

• Kaye, Alan S., ed. 1997. Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus). 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  Two volumes of articles, each a phonological description of a particular language or language family.

  Find this resource:

• Phonology of the World’s Languages. 1993–. Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation »

  A book series devoted to detailed descriptions of the phonology (and occasionally the morphology) of a particular language or related languages. As of the early 21st century, twenty books are in the series.

  Find this resource: