Feature geometry

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (September 2013)

This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Linguistics
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating and interpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internationalism Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

Feature geometry is a phonological theory which represents distinctive features as a structured hierarchy rather than a matrix or a set. Feature geometry grew out of autosegmental phonology, which emphasizes the autonomous nature of distinctive features and the non-uniform relationships among them. Feature geometry recognizes that some sets of features often pattern together in phonological and phonotactic generalizations, while others rarely interact. Feature geometry thus formally encodes groups of features under nodes in a tree: features that commonly pattern together are said to share a parent node, and operations on this set can be encoded as operation on the parent node.

One node in feature geometries is the Laryngeal node. The Laryngeal node is an organizing node that dominates the features of the larynx, usually taken to be [voice], [constricted glottis], and [spread glottis]. It is common for these three features to pattern together in the phonology of the world's languages to the exclusion of every other feature, and in feature geometry, this follows from the tree representation. Similarly, feature geometries generally include a Place node that is the dominant node of the place features, which also often pattern together. Feature geometry is easily compatible with theories of underspecification and can represent incomplete segments by missing nodes.^{[citation needed]}

The Root node is the topmost node of the feature tree and works as the formal organizing unit of the segment, and in some frameworks encodes the major class features such as [consonantal], [sonorant], and [approximant]. Some features such as [nasal] and [lateral] are sometimes dependent of the root node, or sometimes of a Supralaryngeal node along with Place. Other features such as [anterior] and [distributed] are usually dependent from the Coronal place feature.

The first formal model of feature geometry was introduced in print by George N. Clements in 1985, drawing on unpublished work by K.P. Mohanan and Joan Mascaró. Another precursor to feature geometry was proposed by Roger Lass in 1976, in which he proposed a laryngeal feature submatrix within a distinctive feature matrix. Other important models have been proposed by Elizabeth Sagey (1986), John J. McCarthy (1988), and Clements & Hume (1995). Models vary widely in the number of the hierarchical nodes and in how consonant and vowel features are treated.

Feature geometry has attracted formal and conceptual criticism. In 2003, Charles Reiss argued that feature geometry is insufficiently powerful to account for a class of phonological rules that involve dependencies between segments, such as partial and total identity and nonidentity. Feature geometry is unable to encode these properties. In 2008, Jeff Mielke argued that feature geometry merely recapitulated physiological organization, and that since the influence of articulation on sound change will independently create patterns in the behavior of features, feature geometry recapitulates diachrony and is redundant as a theory of the mental organisation of phonology.