{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02197802197802198, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009721048182586645, 'mean_word_length': 5.022900763358779, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A guide to Radical CV Phonology, with special reference to tongue root and tongue body harmony

My goal in this article is contribute to the discussion about different perspectives on element theory. To this end, I provide an outline of my perspective, which is captured in a model that I have been developing over many years, called Radical CV Phonology (RCVP). This model covers segmental structure as well as syllabic structure. A book-length exposition of this model is offered in van der Hulst (2020), to which I must refer readers for more details, and empirical support from typological studies on phonemic contrast, as well as insights that the model provides about affinities between traditional features that are usually captured in terms of stipulative redundancy rules.1 Such affinities are ‘built in’ into the model, which uses only two elements that, given their structural position in an intrasegmental dependency structure, express all ‘features’ that are necessary to capture all phonemic contrasts that have been attested. While this chapter contains a brief comparison between RCVP and two other models (Contrastive Hierarchy Theory and versions of Government Phonology), the book devotes a chapter to comparison to many other theories of segmental structure. I also show in this book how the principles of RCVP can be applied in the domain of sign phonology. An extensive application of how the model can deal with vowel harmony systems can be found in van der Hulst (2018), which combines the RCVP perspective on vowel structure with a notion of licensing of ‘variable elements’ to account for vowel harmony patterns in both relatively simple and more complex cases that involve transparent and opaque vowels. Inevitably, the model has gone through different versions. This article is faithful to the 2020 version, with the exception of how I here propose to deal with distinctions that are traditionally captured by features such as [ATR], [RTR], [low and high]. Section 2 briefly states my background assumptions about some central issues in phonology. Section 3 then provides an outline of the RCVP model. Sections 4 and 5 discuss comparisons with Contrastive Hierarchy Theory and Government Phonology. In section 6 I consider some alternatives to the 2020 model with regard to tongue root distinctions. I offer some conclusions in section 7.