- Ilse Lehiste, An Acoustic-Phonetic Study of Internal Open Juncture. The University of Michigan: Speech Research Laboratory, Report No. 2, August, 1959.
- Op. cit., page 61.
- Language (1933), p. 113. Miss Lehiste quotes (apparently with approval) part of this statement by Bloomfield. I was led to it by Knud Togeby, Structure immanente de la langue française (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 1951), p. 52:… La reconnaissance d'un tel phoneme [of “open juncture“] me semble une complication inutile. Toutes les oppositions qu'on cite s'expliquent par l'accent et son domaine. Il peut s'agir d'un changement de la position de la frontière syllabique: an aim—a name, analyse proposée déjà par Bloomfield…”
- The examples and transcription are Bloomfield's.
- I divide filly thus /fi-li/ and fully thus /fúl-í/. Examples of these junctural allophones are of course extremely various and require careful description. It should, however, be particularly noted that, no matter how great the difficulty of description, it is now reasonably certain that no one phonetic feature is both positionally regular and assignable to all classes of sounds. This is as true of “drawling” as of any other allophonic realization of any phoneme. See Ilse Lehiste, op. cit., page 55; and other evidence in that work.
- Cf. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, by Lous Hjelsmlev, translated by Francis J. Whitfield, Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics XIX, 1 (1953). 29, where it is argued that content and expression must be analyzed separately, “with each of the two analyses eventually yielding a restricted number of entities, which are not necessarily susceptible of one-to-one matching with entities in the opposite plane.” Cf. also Einar Haugen, “The Syllable in Linguistic Description”, For Roman Jakobson (1956), p. 215; Charles Hockett, A Manual of Phonology (1955), p. 172.
- Zellig Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics, p. 82, cited by Einar Haugen, loc. cit., implies that there is no juncture in analysis. I agree with Haugen's criticism: there is no phonetic distinction between the /n/'s in a name and analysis. This lack of distinction invalidates part of Harris's argument; but the whole paragraph in which the statement occurs (8.211) probably now requires reconsideration: there is not only the one set of elements exemplified; we do not need “various syllabification rules;” and the question which has always been at issue is how to know where to place some boundary marker, not to know what to do after it has been set up.
- The syllable, as Haugen (op. cit. p. 216) justly observes, is not a phoneme, since it is not a contrastive unit; we should not therefore speak of a phonemic syllable. Haugen proposes that it be defined as the smallest unit of recurrent phonemic sequences and wishes to include “not only the segmental phonemes, but also the prosodic ones like stress, tone, length, and juncture.” The definition will serve; but the introduction of juncture (by implication a phoneme?) beclouds the issue again. In any event, one element, such as stress, must be separated by a different procedure from all these others if a fixed point for the statement of their distribution is to be established.
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research