Phonological Space—The Torus Model Corroborated by

Distinctive Features

Mary Ritchie Key

University o f California, Irvine

“ The whole cycle impenitently evolves, and all the past is future.”
Robinson Jeffers

Distinctive features have been both a pleasure and a puzzle to

linguists for the past thirty years or so. The following illustrations
from historical linguistics show how the concept of distinctive
features is useful, at least in some capacity. The usefulness is
graphically illustrated by the torus model, used as an aid in under­
standing phonological space.
In architecture, a torus is defined as “ a large convex molding,”
and in geometry, it is defined as “a surface generated by the revolu­
tion of a conic (especially a circle) about an axis lying in its plane”
(The American College Dictionary). Stewart (1976) has used this
model to explain the “ closeness” of such sounds as p and k, b and
g, and m and 17.
 These pairs of strange bed-fellows have also been brought
together in distinctive feature analysis in the opposition of grave
versus acute. Jakobson and colleagues explain: “ In the articulation
of the grave member of the opposition, . . . the front cavity . . .
is larger while the pharynx and lips are more contracted than in
the corresponding acute . . . ” (Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, 1951:
49). “ Acoustically this feature means the predominance o f one side
of the significant part of the spectrum over the other. When the
lower side of the spectrum predominates, the phoneme is labeled
grave; when the upper side predominates, we term the phoneme
acute. . . . The position of the second formant in relation to that
of the other formants in the spectrum is the most characteristic
index of this feature; when it is closer to the first formant the
phoneme is grave; when it is closer to the third and higher formant
it is acute” (Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, 1951:29-30).

p t c k

compact
(diffuse)

grave
(acute)

Compact and diffuse features, on the other hand, classify sounds

in different groupings. “Compact phonemes are characterized by
the relative predominance of one centrally located formant region
(or formant). They are opposed to diffuse phonemes in which one
or more non-central formants or formant regions predominate”
(Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, 1951:27). “The difference lies in the
relation between the shape and volume of the resonance chamber
in front of the narrowest stricture and behind this stricture”
(Jakobson and Halle 1957:233).
 Comparative linguistic studies offer some examples where the
above mentioned pairs are found in reflexes or correspondences in
related languages. The following examples are from American Indian
and Indo-European languages.

p - k
Proto-Tupi-Guaranf (data from Lemle)
*p > k in Asurini, Urubu, Guarani, Guarayo, and Siriono
‘command’ *pway > kway (Guarayo), kwa (Siriono)
‘tie’ *pwar > pukwar (Urubu), kwa (Siriono)
‘heal’ *pwerab > kwera (Guarayo), kera (Siriono)
‘finger’ *pwa > ikwakirp (Asurini)
 ‘fingernail* *pwa-pe > kwa-pe (Asurini), po-kwa (Guarayo)
‘pass’ *pwan > kwa (Guarayo), kwa (Siriono)
‘past tense’ *pwer > -ke (Siriono)

kw - b
Proto-Chatino (data from Upson and Longacre)
*kw > b in Papabuco (corresponds to kw in Zenzontepec)
‘bee’ kweto9 (Zenzontepec), be:se (Papabuco)
‘alligator’ kwe9 n | (Z), bana (P)
‘fish’ kwela (Z), bal^a (P)
‘sweep’ lukwa (Z), l^iobia (P)

Proto-Romance
Latin k > Roumanian p
‘chest’ pektus (Latin/Proto-Romance), pidpt (Roumanian)
‘eight’ okto (Latin), opt (Roumanian)

b - g
Proto-Romance
b in Sardinian corresponds to g in Spanish
‘mare’ 6bba (Sardinian), yegua (Spanish)

NASALS
m- q
Proto-Romance
Latin /t}/ > Roumanian /m/
‘wood’ lignum /lirjnum/ (Latin) > limn (Roumanian)

Proto-Tupi-Guaram
*m > f] in Guarani and Guarayo
‘accident’ *memwa > merjwa (Guarani and Guarayo)
‘basket’ *karamemwa > karamerjwa (Guarani and Guarayo)

Mapuche and Tacanan-Panoan

Mapuche /r)/ corresponds to Tacanan and Panoan /m/
‘arm’ lipar] (Map), *poyami (Proto-Panoan)
‘cane’ korjilwe (Map), mori (T-Cavinefia)
 _ ‘die’ J^f] (Map), mano- (T-Chama), *mawa- (Proto-Panoan)
‘owner’ r)e n (Map), *-me£i (*Tacanan)
‘pull out’ nedun (Map), motso- (T-Tacana), rresa- (P-Amahuaca)

REFERENCES
Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle.
1951 Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press [1967].
Jakobson, Roman and Morris Halle.
1957 “Phonology in Relation to Phonetics,” in Manual o f
Phonetics, pp.215-51, L. Kaiser (ed.), Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Co.
Key, Mary Ritchie
1968 Comparative Tacanan Phonology: with Cavineha
Phonology and Notes on Pano-Tacanan Relationship,
The Hague: Mouton.
1978 “ Araucanian genetic relationships,” International Journal
o f American Linguistics 44.4. 280-93.
Lemle, Miriam
1971 “Internal classification of the Tupi-Guarani Linguistic
Family,” in David Bendor-Samuel, (ed.), Tupi Studies I,
pp. 107-129 University of Oklahoma: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Stewart, Ann Harleman
1976 Graphic Representation o f Models in Linguistic Theory,
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Upson, B. W., and Robert E. Longacre
1965 “Proto-Chatino phonology,” International Journal o f
American Linguistics 31.4.312-22.