Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Can we use rendaku for phonological argumentation?

Shigeto Kawahara
Published Online: 2015-04-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0001

Abstract

This paper addresses the general issue of the quality of phonological data, using rendaku as a case study. Rendaku is a widely-discussed voicing process that accompanies compound formation in Japanese. The issue of the quality of phonological data has been discussed from time to time from various perspectives throughout the history of phonological research, and we are recently witnessing renewed interest in this topic. This paper takes up rendaku as a case study to address this issue. Rendaku has been used to argue for many theoretical devices, but it is rarely acknowledged in the theoretical literature that rendaku involves extensive lexical irregularity. The specific question addressed in this study is whether it is appropriate to use rendaku for phonological argumentation. The answer that this paper proposes is yes, but the more crucial lesson is that theoretical phonology should evaluate the quality of phonological data more explicitly. The current discussion offers a first step toward establishing general guidelines about what kind of evidence can be used to decide whether a pattern under question is phonological or not.

Keywords: rendaku; phonological argumentation; experimental phonology; OCP; orthography

References

  • Alderete, John & Alexei Kochetov 2009. Japanese mimetic palatalization revisited: Implications for conflicting directionality. Phonology 26(3). 369–388.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bach, Emmon & Robert Harms 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? In R. Stockwell & R. Macaulay (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Batchelder, Eleanor Olds 1999. Rule or rote? Native-speaker knowledge of Japanese verb inflection. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Cognitive Science.Google Scholar

  • Berent, Iris, Donca Steriade, Tracy Lennertz, & Vered Vaknin 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cohn, Abigail. 1993. Nasalisation in English: Phonology or phonetics. Phonology 10. 43–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daland, Robert, Bruce Hayes, James White, Marc Garellek, Andrea Davis, & Ingrid Norrmann. 2011. Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28(2). 197–234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davis, Stuart & Natsuko Tsujimura. 1991. An autosegmental account of Japanese verbal conjugation. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13. 117–44.Google Scholar

  • de Lacy, Paul. 2009. Phonological evidence. In Steve Parker (ed.), Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, 43–77. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • de Lacy, Paul. 2014. Evaluating evidence for stress system. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, 149–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Lucy & William Hardcastle. 2002. Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: Evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics 30. 373–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frisch, Stefan, Nathan Large, & David Pisoni. 2004. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 481–496.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fukuda, Suzy & Shinji Fukuda. 1994. To voice or not to voice: The operation of rendaku in the Japanese developmentally language-impaired. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 178–193.Google Scholar

  • Griner, Barry. 2005. Productivity of Japanese verb tense inflection: A case study. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos & Haike Jacobs. 2011. Understanding phonology, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hamano, Shoko. 1986. The Sound-Symbolic System of Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, [Published by CSLI in 1998].Google Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer, Janet Pierrehumbert, & Mary Beckman. 2003. Speech perception, well-formedness, and the statistics of the lexicon. In Papers in laboratory phonology VI: Phonetic interpretation, 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce. 1992. Comments on the paper by Nolan. In John Local, Richard Ogden, & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 280–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce. 1995. On what to teach the undergraduates: Some changing orthodoxies in phonological theory. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. 59–77.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce & Donca Steriade. 2004. Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology, 1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ihara, Mutsuko, Katsuo Tamaoka, & Hyunjung Lim. 2011. Rendaku and markedness: Phonetic and phonological effects. Talk presented at Tokyo Circle of Phonologists (TCP), July 24th.Google Scholar

  • Irwin, Mark & Mizuki Miyashita. 2013. The Rendaku Database v.2.0. http://www-h.yamagata-u.ac.jp/~irwin/site/Rendaku_Database.html.

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 49–73.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1995. Japanese phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 817–838. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1996. Rendaku I: Constraint conjunction and the OCP. Ms. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1997. Featural sympathy: Feeding and counterfeeding interactions in Japanese. Phonology at Santa Cruz 5. 29–36.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2003a. Japanese morphophonemics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2003b. Lexical and postlexical phonology in Optimality Theory: Evidence from Japanese. Linguistische Berichte 11. 183–207.Google Scholar

  • Kager, René & Joe, Pater. 2012. Phonotactics as phonology: Knowledge of a complex restriction in Dutch. Phonology 29(1). 81–111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto. 2011a. Experimental approaches in theoretical phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2283–2303. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto. 2011b. Japanese loanword devoicing revisited: A rating study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3). 705–723.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto. 2012. Lyman’s Law is active in loanwords and nonce words: Evidence from naturalness judgment experiments. Lingua 122(11). 1193–1206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto (to appear) Psycholinguistic studies of rendaku. In Timothy Vance & Mark Irwin (eds.), Perspectives on rendaku: Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto, Hajime Ono, & Kiyoshi Sudo. 2006. Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. In Timothy Vance & Kimberly Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, vol. 14, 27–38. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto & Shin-ichiro Sano. 2014a. Granularity of Identity Avoidance: Consonantal Identity, moraic Identity, and rendaku. Ms. Keio University.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto & Shin-ichiro Sano. 2014b. Identity avoidance and Lyman’s law. Lingua 150. 71–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto & Shin-ichiro Sano. 2014c. Identity avoidance and rendaku. Proceedings of Phonology 2013.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, Shigeto & Hideki Zamma. to appear. Generative treatments of rendaku. In Timothy Vance & Mark Irwin (eds.), Perspectives on rendaku: Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 291–306.Google Scholar

  • Kobayashi, Yuki, Yoko Sugioka, & Takane Ito. 2014. Rendaku (Japanese sequential voicing) as rule application: An ERP study. NeuroReport 25(16). 1296–1301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kubozono, Haruo. 2005. Rendaku: Its domain and linguistic conditions. In Jeroen van de Weijer, Kensuke Nanjo, & Tetsuo Nishihara (eds.), Voicing in Japanese, 5–24. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Lombardi, Linda. 2002. Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19(2). 219–251.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, John J. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, published by Garland Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar

  • McCawley, James D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Mester, Armin & Junko Ito. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65. 258–293.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morris, J & P. Holcomb. 2005. Event-related potentials to violations of inflectional verbal morphonology in English. Cognitive Brain Research 25. 963–981.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nishimura, Kohei. 2006. Lyman’s Law in loanwords. On’in Kenkyu [Phonological Studies] 9. 83–90.Google Scholar

  • Nolan, Francis. 1992. The descriptive role of segments: Evidence from assimilation. In Gerard R. Docherty & Robert Ladd (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 261–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John J. 1974. Experimental historical phonology. In J.M. Naderson & Charles Jones, Historical linguistics II: Theory and description in phonology. Proceedings of the First International Linguistic Conference on Historical Linguistics, 353–389. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In Peter MacNeilage (ed.), The production of speech, 189–216. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John J. 1986. Consumer’s guide to evidence in phonology. Phonology 3. 3–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ohala, John J. & Carol J. Riordan. 1979. Passive vocal tract enlargement during voiced stops. In Jared J. Wolf & Dennis H. Klatt (eds.), Speech communication papers, 89–92. New York: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar

  • Ohno, Kazutoshi. 2000. The lexical nature of rendaku in Japanese. In Mineharu Nakayama & Carles Quinn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 9, 151–164. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Okumura, Mitsuo. 1955. Rendaku. In Kokugogakkai, (ed.), Kokugogaku jiten, 961–962. Tokyo: TookyooDoo.Google Scholar

  • Otsu, Yukio. 1980. Some aspects of rendaku in Japanese and related problems. In Ann Farmer & Yukio Otsu (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics, vol. 2, 207–228. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar

  • Paradis, M. & M. Gopnik. 1997. Compensatory strategies in genetic dysphasia: Declarative memory. Journal of Neurolinguistics 10. 173–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2006. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Louis Goldstein, Douglas H. Whalen, & Catherine Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology VIII, 81–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Rice, Keren. 1993. A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]: The status of sonorant obstruents. Language 69. 308–344.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roca, Iggy. 1994. Generative phonology. Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, Carlson. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology: Theory and description. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sproat, Robert & Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21. 291–311.Google Scholar

  • Sugimoto, Takayo. 2013. Yooji-no rendaku-no kakutoku-ni kansuru oudanteki kenkyuu–goshu-to raiman-no hoosoku-wo chuushin-ni. Talk delivered at Nihon Gengogakkai, 2013.Google Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy. 1980. The psychological status of a constraint on Japanese consonant alternation. Linguistics 18. 245–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy. 1991. A new experimental study of Japanese verb morphology. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13. 145–156.Google Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy. 2014. If rendaku isn’t a rule, what in the world is it? In Kaori Kabata & Tsuyoshi Ono, (eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar: Towards the understanding of human language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–152.Google Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy. 2015. Rendaku. In Haruo Kubozono (ed.), The handbook of Japanese language and linguistics: Phonetics and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Vance, Timothy (to appear) Introduction. In Timothy Vance & Mark Irwin (eds.), Perspectives on rendaku: Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Timothy & Mark Irwin, eds. (to appear) Perspectives on rendaku: Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Walter, Mary-Ann. 2007. Repetition avoidance in human language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

  • Weyerts, H., M. Penke, U. Dohrn, H. Clahsen, & T. F. Münte. 1997. Brain potentials indicate differences between regular and irregular German plurals. NeuroReport 8. 957–962.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216–246. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14. 263–286.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zsiga, Elizabeth. 1997. Features, gestures, and Igbo vowels: An approach to the phonology-phonetics interface. Language 73. 227–274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-01-16

Accepted: 2015-02-27

Published Online: 2015-04-21

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Funding: This paper is supported by JSPS Kakenhi grants #26770147 and #26284059.


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0001.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Shigeto Kawahara
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2015, Volume 9, Number 4, Page 181

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in