Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:59:16.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lenition revisited1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2008

LAURIE BAUER
LAURIE BAUER*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
*
Author's address: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. laurie.bauer@vuw.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The definition of lenition remains problematic, with several competing and at times incompatible definitions being current. What is more, some of these definitions seem to lead to paradoxes. In this paper, some of these paradoxes are considered, and a revised definition of lenition is suggested which, while being compatible with the spirit of earlier definitions, arguably avoids the problems to which those other definitions give rise. The relationship of lenition to assimilation is considered, as is the relationship between lenition and position. An argument is made that position, while important in determining where lenition might occur in individual cases, is not in itself causally linked with the processes of lenition. The question of whether strength can be equated with resistance to change is also considered, and answered in the negative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 605 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

Some of the material in this paper was presented at the 22nd Scandinavian Linguistics Meeting in Aalborg in June 2006, and at the LAGB meeting in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in August–September 2006. I should like to thank the audiences at those meetings for their discussion of the issues canvassed here; Paul Warren who commented on earlier drafts; and the anonymous referees for Journal of Linguistics for their careful reading.

References

REFERENCES

Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. Consonant strength hierarchies and Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6, 115–128.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1988. What is lenition? Journal of Linguistics 24, 381–392.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1975. Two studies on nasalization. In Ferguson, (eds.), 27–48.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasington, R. W. P. 1982. Markedness, strength and position. In Crystal, David (ed.), Linguistic controversies, 81–94. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6, 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis. 1990. Tiers in articulatory phonology. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, 341–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. 1976. From Middle Chinese to Modern Pekin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 4, 113–275.Google Scholar
Clark, Ross. 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Deterding, David. 1997. The formants of monophthong vowels in Standard Southern British English pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27, 47–55.Google Scholar
Docherty, Genard J. & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.). 1992. Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia Jane. 1978. On the natural phonology of vowels. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia Jane & Stampe, David. 1979. The study of Natural Phonology. In Dinnesen, Daniel A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Elcock, W. D. 1960. The Romance languages. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Escure, Geneviève. 1977. Hierarchies and phonological weakening. Lingua 43, 55–64.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A., Hyman, Larry M. & Ohala, John J. (eds.). 1975. Nasálfest. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Foley, James. 1970. Phonological distinctive features. Folia Linguistica 4, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, James. 1977. Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1982. Scandinavian language structures. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich & Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Honikman, Beatrice. 1964. Articulatory settings. In Abercrombie, David, Fry, D. B., MacCarthy, P. A. D., Scott, N. C. & Trim, John L. M. (eds.), In honour of Daniel Jones, 73–84. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. Phonology: Theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 2006. Phonetic coding of prosodic structure. In Harrington, Jonathan & Tabain, Marija (eds.), Speech production, 167–186. New York & Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2001. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger & Anderson, John M.. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa M. 2001. Consonant strength. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Local, John. 1992. Modeling assimilation in non-segmental, rule-free synthesis. In Docherty, & Ladd, (eds.), 190–223.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. R. 1984. Studies in the phonology of colloquial English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William & Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15, 576–585.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 1992. The descriptive role of segments: Evidence from assimilation. In Docherty, & Ladd, (eds.), 261–280.Google Scholar
Nothofer, Berndt. 1975. The reconstruction of Proto-Malayo-Javanic. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1974. Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles (eds.), Historical linguistics, vol. II, 353–389. Amsterdam & Oxford: North Holland.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1975. Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, (eds.), 289–316.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2005. Phonetic explanations for sound patterns. In Hardcastle, William J. & Beck, Janet Mackenzie (eds.), A figure of speech, 23–38. Mahwah, NJ & London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perkell, Joseph S. 1997. Articulatory processes. In Hardcastle, William J. & Laver, John (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 333–370. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1978. On introducing parametric phonetics. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 8, 34–46.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin, TX & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar