The Linguistic Review
Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry
IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.463
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.789
CiteScore 2018: 0.69
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.643
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.679
In this paper I raise the following questions: (i) How appropriate/effective are traditional autosegmental representations? (ii) What insights do autosegmental representations help us express? (iii) Where do autosegmental representations fall short? (iv) What does this all mean for phonology? Although there is still general acceptance of the “basic autosegmental insight”, i.e. that certain features are semi-autonomous from each other and their anchors (e.g. tones vs. tonebearing units), there has been decreasing interest in representational issues in some current approaches to phonology, as well as proposed frameworks which abandon some of the key properties of autosegmental phonology. In this paper I will be particularly interested in the intersection of the following properties assumed in traditional autosegmental phonology: (i) assimilation = spreading; (ii) no line-crossing; (iii) branching elements ≠ successive linking of identical elements. I will first review these three autosegmental assumptions – and the good things they do for us – and then present some unexpected tonal data which are potentially problematic for one or another of these assumptions. After identifying what makes the cited cases problematic and the choices we have in accounting for them, I will conclude with a discussion of the implications such facts have concerning phonology in general.
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.