Francis B.

Tatel
MA English Studies (Language)

Dr. Maria Corazon Castro

English 261

Jakobsonians versus Chomskyans Distinctive Feature Theory of Phonology

When the idea of the phoneme was new it was felt that phonemes were the ultimate
constituents of language, the smallest element that it could be broken down into. But at
roughly the same time as the atom was being split, phonologists pointed out that
phonemes could be broken down into smaller constituents (Roach, 2011, p.33). And these
phonetic constituents that distinguish between phonemes are referred to as distinctive
features. This notion gave rise to the Distinctive Feature Theories of Phonology, which are
an attempt to determine the specific properties of a sound that serve to signal meaning
differences in a language. The Distinctive Feature Theory of Phonology was originally
conceived by Jakobson, Fant, and Halle (Henderson, 2004, p. 1). The task is to determine
which features are decisive for the identification of the various phonemes within a given
language. Many modifications have been made over the years to the set of distinctive
features used to describe the worlds languages. Now there are thought to be about forty,
most of them articulatory rather than acoustic (Henderson, 2004, p. 1). However, there are
only two major approach concerning the distinctive feature theory that became most
influential: one by Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, or Jakobsonian, in Fundamentals of
Language (1956), the other by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, or Chomskyan, in The
Sound Pattern of English (1968) (Crystal, 2008). Although the Jakobsonian and the
Chomksyan Distinctive Theory of Phonology have some differences from each other, the
two have conspicuous similarities.
These two distinctive feature theories both adopt the binary system (Odden, 2005,
313). Jakobson and Halle (1956) have suggested a universal binary system (binary
opposition) of twelve distinctive features believed to be sufficient to describe all languages
of the world (Bussmann, 2006, pp. 329). Binary feature is a property which can be used to
classify linguistic units in terms of two mutually exclusive possibilities. So, an inventory of
distinctive sound features would demonstrate similarities and dissimilarities between

phonemes. These similarities and differences are marked by the presence of certain
properties in some phonemes and the absence of these properties in others using in
square brackets (De Lacy, 2007).
On the one hand hand, the Jakobsonian approach set up features in pairs, defined
primarily in acoustic terms, which could be detected on a spectrogram, but with some
reference to articulatory criteria. Examples of their features include vocalic v. non-vocalic,
compact v. diffuse, grave v. acute, strident v. mellow, and flat v. sharp/plain. These
terminologies are not employed in the Chomskyan. Moreover, the emphasis in this
approach is firmly on the nature of the oppositions between the underlying features
involved, rather than on the description of the range of phonetic realizations each feature
represents (Crystal, 2008, pp. 152-153). On the other hand, the features used by Chomsky
and Halle were defined primarily in articulatory terms and not in acoustic ones as they
were in the Jakobsonian model (Odden, 2005, p. 313). In other words, the Chomskyan
approach gives more attention to the phonetic realizations of the underlying features
recognized, and a different system of feature classification is set up. (Crystal, 2008, pp.
152-153). The features are more numerous than Jakobsons and are subdivided into five
groups. Yet, even though some new features are added, some of the earlier features from
the Jakobsonian are retained, and although many features are modified, many also overlap
with the earlier approach. So, within a fundamentally different theoretical framework many
of the distinctions proposed by Jakobson and Halle can be recognized in Noam Chomsky
and Morris Halles Sound Pattern of English (1968). This was not a return to the tradition,
but a reinterpretation of most of Jakobsons features (Mielke, 2004). However, Chomsky
and Halle themselves argue that the priority given to an articulatory description is a
circumstantial one rather than one pertaining to the essence of their theoretical approach
(Henderson, 2004, p. 1).
Although, the implications of there being more than one origin of phonological patterns
have not been apparent in classificatory systems. Neither Jakobsonian distinctive features
nor Chomsky and Halle (1968) phonological features took articulatory ease and auditory
distinctiveness into account. They had different aims (Macneilage & Davis, 2005).

Jakobson, Fant and Halle (1951) were interested in developing a minimal classificatory
system rather than one that helped explain the observed patterns. Chomsky and Halle
were interested in explaining observed sound patterns, but they considered their feature
set to have both articulatory and acoustic properties that speakers know about. They did
not consider sound patterns in terms of two distinct sets of features (Ladefoged, 2005,
p.11).
Most of Chomsky and Halles features are still widely used in phonological theory even
at present. However, phonologists have become increasingly aware of the inadequateness
of the binary principle especially in the situations when a more refined analysis of a
phonological reality was needed. Phonological features are great for describing the
patterns that occur in a language, but learning a language, and the acts of speaking and
listening all involve adjusting articulatory parameters not phonological features. In linear
theory, there was no way of representing this group behaviour other than by arbitrarily
combining the features in question in the structural descriptions of individual rules (Odden,
2005). What speakers and listeners do may be better described in terms of articulatory
phonology and direct perception as suggested by Goldstein and Fowler (2003), rather than
by the features that are needed to describe linguistic patterns (Ladefoged, 2005, P.13).
No linguist has proposed abandoning distinctive features since

the mid-60s

(Henderson, 2004, p. 1). Yet, though it seems to be the consensus that sounds are best
described as bundles of features instead of as monolithic wholes, and though phonological
processes are universally couched in terms of features, linguists have seen virtually no
influence of this on the study of interlanguage phonology or the teaching of pronunciation
(Henderson, 2004, p. 1).
References Cited:
Ayo, B. (2011). Classical versus generative phonology. Sunday British Journal of Arts and
Social Sciences, Vol.3, No.2. Retrieved on October 10, 2016, from World Wide Web:

http://www.bjournal.co.uk/BJASS.aspx
Caton, S. (1987). Contributions of Roman Jakobson. Annual Review of Anthropology.1987,
16. Retrieved on October 10, 2016, from World Wide Web: www.annualreviews.org/aronline.

Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Dantsuji et al. (1993). An experimental study of distinctive features using speech
recognition technology. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from the World Wide Web:

http://hdl.handle.net/2433/52456
De Lacy, P. (ed). (2007). The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP.
Dresher, E. (2004). Chomsky and Halles revolution in phonology. USA: Guggenheim Press.
Hadumod Bussmann, Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi Taylor (trans. and eds.) (2006). A
dictionary oflinguistics. New York: Routledge
Henderson (2011). Phonological theory and language transfer. Kansas: Kansas UP.
Ladefoged, P. (2005). Features and parameters for different purposes. Los Angeles: UCLA
UP.
Macneilage, P. & Davis, B. (2005). Functional organization of speech across the life span: A
critique of generative phonology. The Linguistic Review (22), 16
Mielke, J. (2004). The emergence of distinctive features. Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Odden, D. (ed). (2005). Introducing phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Phonological Theories Distinctive Features SPE and Feature Geometry. (PPT) (no authorpresenter cited)
Roach, P. (2011). Glossary A little encyclopaedia of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP