1Abstract:No doubt, many present –day students of phonologyfind the seen of phonology or phonological work quiet confusing, there are endless brands of theories and sub theories: generative phonology, natural phonology , natural generative phonology,lexical phonology, tree geometry, particle phonology, autosegmetal phonology etc. how ever inspite of this appearant confusion , the discussion in much phonological theorizing centers upon the well relatively defined questionsuch as the following

What are the primitive unites of phonology, that is, which are the features that are needed to characterize phonological unites or entities?

What is the relation between segmental and prosody(auto segmental)?

These questions and further are answered within this paper giving the briefest idea about dependency phonology, its relations, models, types and its relation to other types of phonology.

1. Introduction:The idea of dependency comes from syntactic domain, referring to the head-modifier relation, expressing the asymmetry of constituent. 

2While david crystal (2006) defines dependency phonology (DP) as An approach to phonology which makes use of the principles of dependency grammarto set up a model of the internal relational structure of segments. The syllable is seen as a dependency structure, with a governor (or head) and dependents (or modifiers). A syllabic element(a vowel or a syllabic consonant) is the minimal obligatory component of the syllable, other elements being marginal, governed by theirsyllabic. Degree of dependency is represented vertically in a dependency graph,the governor being ‘degree zero’, with other levels ‘degree one’, etc., as in the graph for cat: Within the segment, all features are viewed as unary, and are generally referredto as ‘components’. The notion of dependency has also come to be used by some other non-linear phonological models to denote any kind of relation which may be represented asymmetrically,especially with reference to segment internal structure. For example, headedness may be seen inthe relative prominence of sequences of strong and weak segments in metrical phonology, or between sonorous and non-sonorous consonants, or between the elements of a consonant cluster. In feature geometry, the dependency relation holds between features on different tiers (‘feature dependency’ or ‘dependent tier ordering’).(ibid).whilst philp carr (2008) describes Dependency Phonology as A framework associated with the

3linguist John M. Anderson, in which the head-dependent relation is central. Dependency Phonology uses elements, rather than binary-valued features, in the characterization of segmental structure. Dependency relations are postulated to hold between elements within segments, between the constituents within a syllable, and between the syllables within a foot. In this framework, elements cluster together to form gestures.

2. Early in generative Dependency phonology" is a theory of the representation of phonological segments and sequences. Its original statement antedated much of the work in other branches of "nonlinear phonology." The theory takes its name from its utilization of the relation of dependency. In dependency phonology, an unstressed syllabic segment is said to be dependent on its stressed sister. The dependency relation has a wider application than the metrical strong-weak relation does. It is employed in the representation of the internal structure of the segment: the phonological features of which a segment is made up can also show dependency relations with each other. The extension of the dependency relation to the segmental domain distinguishes dependency phonology from other

4nonlinear approaches (Anderson, -John; Durand, -Jaxques. 1986)

The concept of dependency has been utilized in liguistic theory to characterize the claim that elements within a particular domain may be asymmetrically related. Within the syntactic domain, the introduction of dependency can be associated with the claim that the two constituents of a constitute display a head-modifier relation, rather than being simply sisters. The incorporation of the dependency relation into phonological representations, in particular those characterizing the internal structure of the segment, has been primarily associated with the theory of phonological structure referred to as dependency phonology (Anderson and Jones 1974, 1977; Durand 1986; Anderson and Ewen 1987; den Dikken and van der Hulst 1988; van der Hulst 1989). However, something closely approximating to the dependencyrelation of dependency phonology is utilized in various other approaches to phonological structure, although generally only in the suprasegmental domain, for example with respect to syllable structure. Furthermore, a number of writers have proposed introducing a segmental relation termed “dependency” into theories of representation other than that of dependency phonology. On closer inspection, though, we find that the term is typically used to denote

5different kinds of relation, especially with respect to segment-internal structure.

Dependency phonology (DP; Anderson and Jones 1974, Anderson and Durand 1986, Anderson and Ewen1987, van der Hulst 1988, 1989, in prep b) offersan approach to phonology that has been followed, with significant additions and modifications, in another approach called Government Phonology (GP;Kaye, Lowenstamm, and Vergnaud 1985, 1990, Kaye 1989, 1995, Brockhaus 1995, Ritter 1995, van der Hulst 2003). A further development of both approaches has lead to the framework of Head-driven Phonology (HDP) in which the head-dependence relation is seen as the ‘driving force’ behind most, if not all, phonological phenomena (van der Hulst and Ritter 1999, 2000a, 2002, to appear, in prep.; van der Hulst, in press e, Dresher and van der Hulst 1998). Phonological models of this sort have proposed important changes in the conception of phonology as initially set up in Chomsky and Halle (1968; SPE) and maintained in (Bromberger and Halle 1989). Both Dependency and Government Phonology, as well as Head-driven Phonology (the latter moreexplicitly than the former two).

3. Dependency modelsThe dependency/government based models discussed here embody an idea of segments that provides a beautiful illustration of the Structural Analogy Assumption. The SPE-traditions, following the

6tradition initiated by Roman Jakobson, views subphonemic units as binary features that combinein terms of simple addition. In Dependency Phonology (and later in Government phonology), this idea is replaced by an alternative in which the segmental primes are themselves monovalent units that can occur alone to form a segment or in a combination. For example, many languages have a vowel inventory

(5) /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /E/ /ç/ /a/

DP postulates three primitives |I|, |U|, and |A|.In isolation, these primitives constitute the three vowels /i/, /u/ and /a/, generally considered to be the most basic vowels, present in practically all languages and the only vowels in many. Mid vowels are represented as combinations of the primes. Thus mid front vowels/e/ and /E/ contain both |I| and |A|, whereas /o/and /ç/ contain both |U| and |A|. The differencesbetween the high mid vowels and the low mid vowels are represented by invoking the headednessrelation:

(6) /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /E/ /ç/ /a/

I U I U A A A

| | | |

A A I U

These (headed) combinations of element do not involve linear order, although they do involve an

7orderly arrangement, expressed in terms of the head-dependency relation. In /e/ and /o/, the elements |I| and |U| are heads because in these vowels these elements are more salient than the element |A|. In the low mid vowels, however, the element |A| is more salient. (Hulst, 2003)

The most fundamental principle of Dependency Phonology (henceforth DP) is the idea that units which are combined to form higher level units enter into a head -dependency relation. With specific reference to the level of segmental organization,we can formulate further leading ideas of DP as follows: the primes of phonology

('components' as AE call them) form constituents within phonological segments,which are called gestures.2 The components are privative (or 'unary', 'monovalent'( van der Hulst, Harry 1994).

Speech sounds are conceived of as ‘basic’ and ‘derived’ in certain theories ofsegmental composition, such as Dependency Phonology (cf. Anderson and Ewen,1987). The theory claims that human speech has three basic vowels — [a], [i], and [u], and the rest are derived from their combination.

In current Dependency Phonology, the direct descendant of Anderson & Jones’ (1974) proposal, the view is in fact abandoned in favour of one inwhich primes such as those in (1) (‘components’)

8define only the resonance characteristics of a segment and must be supplemented by primes of a different sort (‘gestures’) which specify manner and major-class properties (see Anderson & Durand1987). A similar line has been followed in van der Hulst’s ‘extended’ Dependency approach (1989,this volume).

4. Types of dependency:

a. ENDOCENTRIC DEPENDENCY

If the dependent is the same type as its head, such a dependency is called

endocentric.

b. EXOCENTRIC DEPENDENCY

If the dependent is a different type of its head,such a dependency is called Exocentric (Nasukawa & Backley, 2005).

A similar argument is developed in Takahashi (2004), where the mapping between dependency relations and their phonetic manifestation is defined in terms of linearisation.

(9) Takahashi (2004: 172)

a. Endocentric Dependency: if α⇉β, then α≪β

In endocentric dependency wherein α and β are thehead and the dependent position, respectively, α strictly and immediately precedes β in phonetic interpretation.

9 b. Exocentric Dependency: if α→β, then α>β

In exocentric dependency wherein α and β are the head and the dependent position, respectively, α strictly but not necessarily immediately follows β in phonetic interpretation.

According to this view, the representations in (10a) and (10b), which display endocentric dependency, have the same phonetic manifestation.On the other hand, since (10c) is formed by exocentric dependency, the structure phoneticallymanifests itself as ja rather than aɪ.

a. Endocentric dep b. Endocentric dep c. Exocentric dep

As Takahashi (2004: 175) argues, these two types of dependency can offer a redundancy-free mode ofrepresentation. Given the restrictive nature of the proposed model, the Directionality constraintis no longer necessary. Consider the ternary structures in (11), where a position with a dependent on each side is regarded as the head oftwo independent domains Xj→Xi and Xj⇉Xk.

105. Dependency Relations inPhonology

Dependency relations came to assume increasing importance in various prosodic theories, most obviously in Dependency Phonology itself and its direct off-shoots ,In a related development, prosodic relations are expressed in terms of government, defined as an asymmetric relation holding between two positions that are adjacent at some level of prosodic projection(Lassy 2007:147).

However, something closely approximating to the dependency relation of dependency phonology is utilized in various other approaches to phonological structure, although generally only in the suprasegmental domain, for example with respect to syllable structure. Furthermore, a number of writers have proposed introducing a segmental relation termed “dependency” into theories of representation other than that of dependency phonology. On closer inspection, though, we find that the term is typically used to denote different kinds of relation, especiallywith respect to segment-internal structure. Although this contribution is primarily concernedwith the role of dependency within the segment, the discussion of suprasegmental structure takes a great deal in the idea of dependency, in particular to the relationship between dependency

11in the sense of dependency phonology and other kinds of relations which have been proposed.

In Dependency Phonology, a pair of primes " A and B can enter intoone of three relations: (a) " A DEPENDENT on B, (b) B dependent onA ", and (c) mutual dependency (Anderson & Jones 1974, Anderson & Ewen 1987). InKaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud (1985) and van der Hulst (1989), on the other hand, only relations (a) and (b) are recognised This theory shows structural relationship by dependencythat is how a phoneme in a word is related to another phoneme inthe same word in term of dependence. For example,the word plant as shown in the tree diagram below.P L A N T The vowel in the word plant is the mostprominent and theconsonants are subordinates or dependent. This theory extendsfurther than this. As shown in the diagram above the vowel is thehead of the syllable and rhyme /ant/. /l / is shown to be the headof the initial consonant cluster. Conversely /p/ is depending on/l/, /t/ depends on /n/ and the initial and the last consonantclusters depend on nucleus vowel /a/ (Clark et al, 2007).

12

a. Dependency above the Segment

The dependency relation is a binary asymmetric relation in which one element in a construction is thegovernor or head, and the other the dependent or modifier. The head-modifier relationwas initially more familiar from syntactic work, and its interpretation as dependency is indeed first found in syntax (e.g., Hays 1964; Robinson 1970), in particular in the framework of Case andDependency Grammar (Anderson 1971, 1977). The application of the relation to phonological sequences incorporates the claim that such sequences are headed. Thus a syllable is a construction which is headed by a syllabic segment, a foot by a stressed syllabic segment, and so on.

it is generally accepted that sequences are headed, andfurthermore that this formal relation has a physical correlate, relative prominence.1 Stressed syllabic segments are inherently more prominent than unstressed syllabic segments, and syllabic segments are more prominent than nonsyllabic segments . In addition, within the syllable, sonorant consonants are inherently moreprominent than nonsonorant consonants (simply by virtue of their greater sonority), so that the dependency relation also holds between the elements of a consonant cluster. it is clear that

13dependency phonology, like metrical and autosegmental approaches, can properly be reckoned as belonging to the general theory of phonology and phonological representation now referred to as nonlinear phonology. Thus Andersonand Ewen(1987) adopt a view of sequential structure compatible with (1) and (2); however, the particular structures proposed there are independent of the more general question of whether dependency relations are appropriate to the representation of units such as syllable, foot, or coda. The content of the claim made by dependency phonology is that any such structure is headed, and that this

asymmetric relation is best represented in terms of dependency; (1) and (2) are particular interpretations of this claim.

b. Dependency within the Segment

What distinguishes dependencyphonology from othernonlinear approaches is the fact that segment-internal structure is also considered to involve headedness, and therefore that the dependency relation also plays a role within this domain. Asin the case of suprasegmental structure, it is important to realize that there various aspects of the proposals made within dependency phonologyconcerning the internal structure of the segment which are independent of this basic property of

14the theory, and which therefore can, and should, be assessed independently.

However, the nature of the features - in particular, the fact that they are all unary, i.e., single-valued - is determined by the fact that these features can interact in terms of relative prominence, as we shall see. Unary features, or components, as they are commonly referred to in dependency phonology, have been proposed elsewhere (Schane, 1984).

c. Vowel Representations

The motivation for incorporating dependency in vowel representations comes from vowels in which more than one single-valued feature is present. Thus, assuming a standard set of monovalent features [front], [round], and [sonorant] (or [open]), represented in dependency phonology as ∣i∣,∣u∣, and ∣a∣, respectively, there is clearly only a limited set of representations in which two or more of the features simply co-occur, viz.,∣i, u∣, ∣i, a∣, ∣u, a∣, and ∣i, u, a∣, the representations for the vowels /y/, /e/, /o/, and/o/, respectively (the order of the features in the representation of the vowels here is not significant). In common with other single-valued systems, such a system of representation incorporates an inherent evaluation metric: the more complex the vowel, the more features are required in its representation. This is argued tobe appropriate to the extent that it reflects

15notation-independent interpretations of the notion of phonological complexity and also in sofar it accords with the “quantal” theory of speech, in this case as applied to the vowel space (Stevens 1989).

5.1 Major Class and Manner Representations

One area more than any other has proved controversial within feature geometry, namely theorganization of features characterizing major class and manner,Which, if any, of these featuresshould be dominated by a single class node, and what the character of that node should be, are issues of great debate, as is illustrated by the different geometries proposed by Clements (1985),Sagey (1986, 1988) and McCarthy (1988), for example.This controversy is largely due to the fact that the set of major class and manner features does not seem to meet any of the criteria for membership of a group:

they do not spread as a group, they are not implicated as a group in delinking, and they are not subject to Obligatory Contour Principle effects (McCarthy, 1988).

6. Other Interpretations of the Dependency Relation

16What is meant by the dependency relation of dependency phonology, with respect to segment-internal structure It is a relation holding between two elements - features - which characterizes the relative contribution of each element to the segment. Thus, as we have seen, ina vowel in which the frontness feature governs the sonority feature, the frontness feature contributes more to the segment than on in which the reverse dependency relation holds. Although we have not here considered the characterization of place of articulation in dependency phonology,11 it is clear that dependency can be used to characterize the relationship between theprimary articulation and the secondary articulation. the motivation for the dependency relation is derived from the “content” of the segment. In what follows, then, the relation of dependency phonology as will be referred to as inherent dependency.

a. Structural Dependency

Other theories of phonological representation make use of the term “dependency,” in particular various recent versions of feature geometry. Given the title of McCarthy (1988), “Feature geometry and dependency,” we might expect the concept to play a central role in this theory. And this is indeed the case: the dependency relation of feature geometry is a relation holding between features on

17different tiers, and is thus referred to as feature dependency, or dependent tier ordering. Paradis and Prunet (1991, p. 5) observe that “a node or feature X immediately dominated by a nodeY is said to be a dependent of node Y.” Thus, as pointed out by van der Hulst (1989, p. 258),” immediately dominate” and “depend” are used as complementaries. McCarthy (1988, p. 98) notes that “by the logic of the dependency relation, the presence of a subordinate or dependent feature entails the presence of the superordinateor dominating feature”

Infeature geometry, we are not dealing with inherent dependency, but with what we might referto as “dependency of occurrence” or structural dependency. There is no claim that the content ofthe features involved is in any way affected by the dependency relation: the dependent feature isin no sense less prominent than the “dominating” feature. Rather, the interpretation of the dependency relations represents an attempt to formalize the constraints holding on the human articulators. To that extent, it leads to a universal feature geometry( van der Hulst 1990).

b. Parametric Dependency

The notion of dependent tier ordering is sometimes given a less rigorous interpretation than in McCarthy's account Mester (1988, p. 127),for example, notes that “dependent tier ordering means that a hierarchical organization is imposed

18on the set of features,” These features are binary in Mester's approach, so that the crucial notion here is that the behavior of a dependent feature may be determined by the feature immediately dominating it.

Mester's arguments are primarily concerned with Obligatory Contour Principle effects, “individualfeatures, while occupying separate tiers, are notentirely autonomous and are dependent on other tiers which have a more central location”(ibid).

Although the details of Mester's model differ from those of McCarthy, it is clear that we are dealing with largely the same kind of dependency here, which I have labeled structural. However, Mester goes further, by introducing the possibility of parametric tier ordering, or parametric dependency.

7. The Place of Dependency Phonology in Nonlinear Phonology

It will be clear from the above that this writer considers dependency phonology to fall squarely within the research program of nonlinear phonology. However, as noted above, the relationship between the formalisms of dependencyphonology and feature geometry is not straightforward: the two models propose fundamentally different types of structural relation. Nevertheless, various attempts have

19been made to incorporate inherent dependency representations into a feature geometry, and I conclude this contribution by briefly discussing a few of these.

One approach involves the organization of the ∣ iu a ∣ components on tiers or “lines,” reminiscentof those proposed in government phonology (Kaye, Lowenstamm, and Vergnaud et al. 1985).

In a similar vein, van der Hulst and Ewen (1991) suggest that the major class and manner features ∣V∣and ∣C∣ can be assigned a geometry incorporating structural relations other than simple dependency.

Conclusion:

This paper has described an approach to phonological representations, since dependency Phonology uses elements, rather than binary-valued features, in the characterization of segmental structure. arguing that precedence is merely the natural result of computing and interpreting the dependency relations that hold between units in hierarchical phonological structure. thus describing dependency within and above the segment and how dependency apply its rules to vowels and consonants, never the less itshows how it is closely related to other kind of dependency such as structural and parametric dependency. Dependency relation to nonlinear is

20that of geometry in terms of its rules application, after all dependency imposes its models on the set it encounters, it is after all the concept of dependency that has been utilizedin liguistic theory to characterize the claim that elements within a particular domain may be asymmetrically related within the syntactic domain,

REFERENCES

Andersen, Henning (1974). Towards a typologyof change: bifurcating changes and binaryrelations. In John M. Anderson & CharlesJones (eds.), Historical linguistics II:theory and description in phonology,

21proceedings of the First InternationalCongress on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh1973, 17-60. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Anderson, J. M. and Jacques Durand (1986).Dependency Phonology. In: Jacques Durand(ed.). Dependency and non-linear phonology.London: Croom Helm, 1-54.

Anderson, J.M. and C.J. Ewen (1987).Principles of Dependency Phonology. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Anderson, -John; Durand, -Jaxques. 1986.Dependency Phonology. In: Durand

Bromberger, S. and M. Halle. (1989). Whyphonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry20, 51-70

Carr,p (2008). A glossary of phonology.Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press.

Clark, J. Yallop, C. and Flecher, J. (2007)An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.U.K: Blackwell Publishing.

Ewen, C.J. (1995). Dependency Relations inPhonology. In J.A. Goldsmith (ed.) TheHandbook of Phonological Theory, 570-85.Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Ewen,j,Colin and Hulst.(2001). Thephonological structure of words:anintroduction. Cambridge:Cambridge universitypress.

Hays, B.(2009). Introductoryphonology.blackwell:Blackwell publishinghouse.

22 Hulst, H. van der (in press d). Molecular

structure of phonological segments. In: P.Carr, J. Durand and C. Ewen (eds.). Headhoodand Specification in Phonology [provisionaltitle; A festschrift for John Anderson].

Hulst, H.G. van der (2003). Cognitivephonology. In Germania at alia. A linguisticwebschrift for Hans den Besten on theoccasion of his 55th birthday. [ISBN: 90-9017951-8].

Hulst, Harry van der (1989). Atoms ofsegmental structure: components, gestures anddependency. Phonology 6. 253-84.

Kaye, J. (1989). Phonology: A Cognitive View.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1985). The internal structureof

lacy, P(2007). The Cambridge handbook ofphonology. Cambridge: Cambridge universitypress.

McCarthy, John (1988). Feature geometry anddependency: A review. Phonetica (43) : 84108.

Mester, R. Armin (1988). Dependent tierordering and the OCP. In H. van der Hulst andN. Smith (eds.), Features, SegmentalStructure and Harmony Processes , (vol. 2)(pp. 127 144). Dordrecht:Foris .

23 Nasukawa, Kuniya & Phillip Backley (2005).

Dependency relations in Element Theory.Proceeding of the Government PhonologyWorkshop, Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.4,77-93.

Pacton, S. and P. Perruchet (2008). Anattention-based associative account ofadjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, and Cognition 34(1), 80–96.h

phonological elements: A theory of charm andgovernment. Phonology (2) : 305 328.

Pramod Pandey. 2002 Phonology–orthographyinterface in Devanāgarī for Hindi*,Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Ritter, N.A. (1995). The Role of UniversalGrammar in Phonology: a Government PhonologyApproach to Hungarian. Doctoral dissertation,New York University.

Roca,I .( 1994) generativephonology:linguistic theoryguide .london:routledge

Schane, Sanford (1984a). The fundamentals ofparticle phonology. Phonology (1) : 129 155.

Stevens, Kenneth (1989). On the quantalnature of speech. JP (17) : 3 45.

Takahashi, Toyomi (2004) Syllable Theory withoutSyllables, Doctoral dissertation, UniversityCollege London.

van der Hulst, Harry (1990). The segmentalspine and the non-existence of [ATR]. In J.

24Mascaró and M. Nespor (eds.), Grammar inProgress (pp. 247 257). Dordrecht: Foris .

van der Hulst, Harry 1994. Radical CVphonology: The locational gesture. UCLWorking Papers in Linguistics 6: 439-77.

van der Hulst, Harry, and Colin Ewen (1991).Major class and manner features. In P. M.Bertinetto, M. Kenstowicz, and M. Loporcaro(eds.), Certamen Phonologicum 2: Papers fromthe 1990 Cortona phonology Meeting (pp. 1941). Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier .