Syllabification and allophony.

Authors Avatar
GCSE Maths

Syllabification and allophony

Introduction

In his complete revision of Daniel Jones’s English Pronouncing Dictionary (1977), Gimson did away with the hyphen symbol which Jones had considered ‘necessary ... [as] a means of showing “syllable separation” ... in all circumstances where the absence of suitable marking might lead to ambiguity in the interpetation of a phonetically transcribed word’ (Jones 1963: xxvi). Thus in the twelfth edition, his last, Jones transcribed toe-strap as /ˈtəʊ-stræp/ but toast-rack as /ˈtəʊst-ræk/. In Gimson’s revision these words appear simply as /ˈtəʊstræp, ˈtəʊstræk/. While recognising that ‘the situation of the syllable division (juncture) has implications for the duration and quality of the sounds involved’, Gimson justifies his decision on the grounds that ‘such divisions and their implications for pronunciation are generally evident from the orthography and from the meaningful segmentation (morpheme boundaries) of the word’ (Jones 1977: xiv).

I think this decision was unfortunate. Not only did it mean the removal of information which is undoubtedly part of the specification of a word’s pronunciation, but it also made it impossible to show competing pronunciations that differ only in syllabification. Jones was able to indicate that the word teaspoon is commonly pronounced in RP as if it were monomorphemic: he gave /ˈtiːspuːn/ as the first pronunciation, /ˈtiː-spuːn/ only as a less common variant. Under Gimson’s revision this information disappeared from the dictionary. Another of Jones’s examples is shellfish /ˈʃel-fiʃ/, where the /l/ ‘is treated as if it were final and is consequently pronounced long’, while the absence of any hyphen in selfish /ˈselfiʃ/ implies that the /l/ ‘is not so treated, but is short’ on account of the presence of the following /f/ (1963: xxvii). In Gimson’s revision these two words are transcribed as if they were perfect rhymes (which they are not): /ˈʃelfɪʃ, ˈselfɪʃ/.

Both shellfish and selfish contain internal morpheme boundaries. Yet, as Jones implicitly recognised, it is not necessary to give any explicit notational recognition to the boundary between self- and -ish in selfish. If we compare selfish with the monomorphemic dolphin /ˈdɒlfɪn/, we find that they are rhythmically identical. In both cases it is clear that the /f/ exerts its duration-reducing influence on the preceding sonorant sequence /ɒl/, an influence which is blocked in the case of shellfish. Thus the only morpheme boundaries that for Jones need to be reflected in the phonetic transcription are those that upset the implicitly expected syllabification.

Many analysts would claim that the syllable boundary in dolphin lies between the /l/ and the /f/. I believe this to be wrong. Rather, the correct syllabification is /ˈdɒlf.ɪn/, as an adequate account of English syllabification ought to predict. And this syllabic division is not ‘evident from the orthography and from the [morphology]’. (Here and henceforth I symbolise all word-internal syllable boundaries explicitly, using a dot /./ for the purpose.)

In his Introduction, in the discussion justifying the taking of the word as the basis for phonemic analysis, Gimson (1980: 55) refers to the two phrases plum pie and plump eye. If we were to ignore the word boundaries they contain, he argues, we should be faced with the necessity to recognise ‘two /p/ phonemes, one with, one without aspiration’. As long as we recognise word boundaries in our phonemic analysis, this absurdity is avoided. In his section on juncture (1980: 255-6) he rightly modifies the argument to allow for the possible influence of morpheme boundaries, too,as highness vs. high-ness, nitrate vs. night-rate.

For Gimson the syllable is relevant mainly as a possible phonotactic category (1980: 56) or as a category to which phonotactic constraints may be referred (1980: 57-8). He is sceptical of the first, and for the second prefers the word (1980: 237-53). Yet English has a fair number of important allophonic rules which can best be described by specifying ‘syllable boundary’ as part of the conditioning environment. It is this fact which makes syllabification phonologically relevant.

Phonetic rules conditioned by syllable boundary

Prime among such rules are the one which conditions presence or absence of aspiration, and the one which determines the duration of vowels and sonorant consonants before a fortis consonant. Others include those specifying allophones of /t/ and of /r/, those determining possible epenthesis and elision, and those governing many minor duration details. Most were pointed out by Jones (1931, 1956).

Aspiration

English /p t k/ are aspirated when initial in a full-vowelled syllable. Elsewhere they have less aspiration or none. Hence the aspiration of the /p/ after the /m/ in plum pie, but its absence in plump eye. The /t/ of a tease is aspirated, as is that of attack /ə.ˈtæk/, but not that of at ease.

Pre-fortis clipping

This is the name which some of us have come to adopt for the rule making the /el/ of shelf durationally different from the /el/ of shelve, and the /iː/ of feet different from that of feed. (Gimson referes sometimes to ‘shortness’ of the sounds involved, sometimes to ‘reduction’. Calling such sounds ‘short’ leads to confusion when pairs of phonemically distinct vowels such as /iː/ and /ɪ/ are also categorised as ‘long’ and ‘short’ respectively; calling them ‘reduced’ is to be avoided since this term for most phoneticians denotes change of quality, a ‘reduced’ vowel being of the [ə] type. The term ‘clipping’ avoids these difficulties.)

Join now!

English vowels are subject to pre-fortis clipping, then, when they are followed by a fortis consonant within the same syllable. The /f/’s in self, selfish /ˈself.ɪʃ/, and dolphin /ˈdɒlf.ɪn/ trigger clipping, but not those in shellfish /ˈʃel.fɪʃ/ or funfair /ˈfʌn.feə/. So do the /t/ in feet and the /ʧ/ in feature, but not the /p/ in fee-paying or the /k/ in tea-kettle. The vowel /æ/ undergoes pre-fortis clipping in lap, lamp, happy /ˈhæp.ɪ/, and hamper /ˈhæmp.ə/, but not in slab or clamber.

/t/ tapping

‘For some speakers [of RP], and generally in American English, /t/ is realized in weakly accented intervocalic positions as a lenis, rapid tap resembling a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Syllabification and allophony.
Document Details
  • Word Count
    4379
  • Page Count
    6
  • Level
    GCSE
  • Subject
    Maths
Related Essays
Signifier / Signified, Denotation and Connontation, Binary Oppositions and Polysemy
Signifier / Signified, Denotation and Connontation, Binary Oppositions and...
'Blessing' and 'Vultures'
'Blessing' and 'Vultures'
broadsheets and tabloids
broadsheets and tabloids
belts and chains
belts and chains