1732-8160 Sonority Is Different Scheer Tobias author Department of Linguistics Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis CNRS 7320 Bases, Corpus, Langage Correspondence to: Tobias Scheer [tobias.SCHEER@unice.fr 21 03 2019 Special Volume 1 (2019) Special Volume 127 151 Copyright © 2019 2019 <p style="text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: justify;">The paper argues that sonority on the one hand and other segmental properties such as place of articulation (labiality etc.) and laryngeal properties (voicing etc.) on the other hand are different in kind and must therefore not be represented alike: implementations on a par e.g. as features ([±voc], [±son], [±lab], [±voice] etc.) are misled. Arguments come from a number of broad, cross-linguistically stable facts concerning visibility of items below and above the skeleton in phonological and morphological processing: sonority, but no other segmental property, is taken into account when syllable structure is built (upward visibility); processes located above the skeleton (infixation, phonologically conditioned allomorphy, stress, tone, positional strength) do make reference to sonority, but never to labiality, voicing etc. (downward visibility). Approaches are discussed where sonority is encoded as structure, rather than as primes (features or Elements). In some cases not only sonority but also other segmental properties are structuralized, a solution that does not do justice to the insight that sonority and melody are different in kind. Also, the approaches that structuralize sonority are not concerned with the question how the representations they entertain come into being: representations are not contained in the phonetic signal that is the input to the linguistic system, nor do they fall from heaven  – they are built by some computation. It is therefore concluded that what really segregates sonority and melody is their belonging to two distinct computational systems (modules in the Fodorian sense) which operate over distinct vocabularies and produce distinct structure: sonority primes are used to build syllable structure, while other computations take other types of primes as an input. The computation carrying out a palatalization for example works with melodic primes. The segment, then, is a lexical recording that has different compartments containing domain-specific primes [</span></p> 1 Anderson Stephen (1985). Phonology in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2 Backley Phillip (2011). An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 3 Beckman Jill (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14(1), 1–46. 4 Beckman Jill (1998). Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ph.D. dissertation. Published by Garland Press, New York 1999. 5 Blevins Juliette (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith (1995) (ed.), 206–244. 6 Bourciez Edouard, Bourciez Jean (1967). Phonétique française. 9e édition Paris: Klincksieck. 7 Caha, Pavel (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D dissertation, Universtiy of Tromsø. 8 Campbell Lyle (1981). Generative phonology vs. Finnish phonology: Retrospect and prospect. In Phonology in the 80s, Didier Goyvaerts (ed.), 147–182. Ghent: StoryScientia. 9 Carvalho Joaquim Brandão de (2002). De la syllabation en termes de contours CV. Habilitation Thesis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris. 10 Carvalho Joaquim Brandão de (2008). From positions to transitions: A contour-based account of lenition. In Carvalho et al. (eds.) (2008), 415–445. 11 Carvalho Joaquim Brandão de (2017). Deriving sonority from the structure, not the other way round: A Strict CV approach to consonant clusters. The Linguistic Review 34(4), 589–614. 12 Carvalho Joaquim Brandão de, Scheer Tobias, Ségéral Philippe (eds.) (2008). Lenition and Fortition. Berlin: de Gruyter. 13 Chomsky Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 14 Clements George (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2(1), 225–252. 15 Clements George, Hume Elizabeth (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith (1995) (ed.), 245–306. 16 Coltheart Max (1999). Modularity and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(3), 115–120. 17 de Lacy Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts. 18 de Lacy Paul (2007). Themes in phonology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Paul de Lacy (ed.), 5–30. Cambridge: CUP. 19 Faust Noam, Jatteau Adèle, Scheer Tobias (2018). Two phonologies. Paper presented at the 26th Manchester Phonology Meeting, Manchester, 24–26 May. 20 Fodor Jerry (1983). The Modularity of the Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Bradford. 21 Gerrans Philip (2002). Modularity reconsidered. Language and Communication 22(3), 259–268. 22 Goldsmith John (ed.) (1995). The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 23 Gordon Matthew (2002). A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78(1), 51–80. 24 Gordon Matthew (2006). Syllable Weight. Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York: Routledge. 25 Harris John (1990). Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7(2), 255–300. 26 Harris John (1994). English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell. 27 Harris John, Kaye Jonathan (1990). A tale of two cities: London glottaling and New York City tapping. The Linguistic Review 7(3), 251–274. 28 Hayes Bruce (1989). The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter. In Rhythm and Meter, Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans (eds.), 201–260. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. 29 Hayes Bruce (2009). Introductory Phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 30 Hulst Harry van der (1994). Radical CV Phonology: The locational gesture. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 439–478. 31 Hulst Harry van der (1995). Radical CV Phonology: the categorial gesture. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds.), 80–116. London &amp; New York: Longman. 32 Hulst Harry van der (1999). Features, segments and syllables in Radical CV Phonology. In Phonologica 1996, John Rennison and Klaus Kühnhammer (eds.). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 33 Kang Ongmi (1993). Prosodic Word-Level Rules in Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Volume 2, Patricia Clancy (ed.), 147–163. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association. 34 Keyser Samuel, Kiparsky Paul (1984). Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. In Language Sound Structure, Mark Aronoff and Richard Oehrle (eds.), 7–31. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 35 Kirchner Robert (1998). An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. 36 Marantz Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 201–225. 37 Mielke Jeff (2008). The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford: OUP. 38 Moravcsik Edith (2000). Infixation. In Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol. 1, Geert Booij (ed.), 545–552. Berlin: de Gruyter. 39 Parker Steve (2001). Non-optimal onsets in Chamicuro: An inventory maximised in coda position. Phonology 18(3), 361–386. 40 Parker Steve (2008). Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36(1), 55–90. 41 Parker Steve (2011). Sonority. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice (eds.), 1160–1184. Oxford: Blackwell. 42 Parker Steve (ed.) (2012). The Sonority Controversy. Berlin: de Gruyter. 43 Parker Steve (2017). Sounding out sonority. Language and Linguistics Compass 11(9), e12248. 44 Paster Mary (2006). Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. 45 Pöchtrager Markus (2006). The structure of length. Ph.D dissertation, University of Vienna. 46 Pöchtrager Markus (2008). Finnish Consonant Gradation. In Carvalho et al. (eds.) (2008), 357–385. 47 Pöchtrager Markus Alexander, Kaye Jonathan (2013). GP2.0. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 16, 51–64. 48 Prince Alan, Smolensky Paul (1993 [2004]). Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms, Rutgers University, University of Colorado (ROA version August 2002). Revised version published by Blackwell in 2004. 49 Samuels Bridget (2009). The structure of phonological theory. Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University. 50 Scheer Tobias (2010). What OT is, and what it is not. Review of The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, ed. by Paul de Lacy. Journal of Linguistics 46(1), 193–218. 51 Scheer Tobias (2011a). A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. How Extra-Phonological Information is Treated in Phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 52 Scheer Tobias (2011b). Issues in the development of generative phonology. In The Continuum Companion to Phonology, Bert Botma, Nancy Kula and Kuniya Nasukawa (eds.), 397–446. New York: Continuum. 53 Scheer Tobias (2012a). Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. A Non-Diacritic Theory of the Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface. Vol. 2 of A Lateral Theory of phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter. 54 Scheer Tobias (2012b). Melody-free syntax and two Phonologies. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Réseau Français de Phonologie (RFP), Paris, 25–27 June. 55 Scheer Tobias (2016). Melody-free syntax and phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 26(3–4), 341–378. 56 Schwartz Geoff (2012). Glides and initial vowels within the onset prominence representational environment. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48(4), 661–685. 57 Schwartz Geoff (2013). A representational parameter for onsetless syllables. Journal of Linguistics 49(3), 613–646. 58 Schwartz Geoff (2017). Formalizing modulation and the emergence of phonological heads. Glossa 2(1), article 81. 59 Segal Gabriel (1996). The modularity of theory of mind. In Theories of Theories of Mind, Peter Carruthers and Peter K. Smith (eds.), 141–157. Cambridge: CUP. 60 Ségéral Philippe, Scheer Tobias (2001). La Coda-Miroir. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 96, 107–152. 61 Ségéral Philippe, Scheer Tobias (2008a). Positional factors in lenition and fortition. In Carvalho et al. (eds.) (2008), 131–172. 62 Ségéral Philippe, Scheer Tobias (2008b). The Coda Mirror, stress and positional parameters. In Carvalho et al. (eds.) (2008), 483–518. 63 Silva David (1993). A phonetically based analysis of [voice] and [fortis] in Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Volume 2, Patricia Clancy (ed.), 164–174. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association. 64 Smith Jennifer L., Moreton Elliott (2012). Sonority variation in Stochastic Optimality Theory: Implications for markedness hierarchies. In Parker (ed.) (2012), 167–194. 65 Starke, Michal (2009). Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1), 1-6. 66 Starke, Michal (2013). Cleaning up the lexicon. Linguistic Analysis 39(1–2), 245–256. 67 Steriade Donca (1982). Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. 68 Streitberg Wilhelm (1895). Urgermanische Grammatik. 4. Aufl. Heidelberg 1974: Winter. 69 Szigetvári Péter (2008). What and where? In Carvalho et al. (eds.) (2008), 93–129. 70 Szigetvári Péter, Scheer Tobias (2005). Unified representations for the syllable and stress. Phonology 22(1), 37–75. 71 Wilson Stephen (1986). Metrical Structure in Wakashan Phonology. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj and Deborah Feder (eds.), 283–291. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 72 Yu Alan C. L (2007). A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: OUP. 73 Zec Draga (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12(1), 85–129. 74 Zuraw Kie (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Language 83(2), 277–316. 75 Zwicky Arnold, Pullum Geoffrey (1986). The Principle of Phonology-free Syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91.