Phonology in the 1980’s

655 Pages·1980·57.217 MB·Studies in the Sciences of Language

by  Didier L. Goyvaerts

PHONOLOGY IN THE 1980's
ARCHIEF-
EXEMPLAAR
John Benjamins B.V.
SSLS
STORY-SCIENTIA LINGUISTICS SERIES
series editor
Didier L. GOYVAERTS
also available :
Vol. 1. D. L. GOYVAERTS and G. Κ. PULLUM (eds.), Essays on the Sound
Pattern of English, 1975 , X + 580 pp.
Vol. 2. I . F. HANCOCK, E. POLOME, M. GOODMA N and B. HEINE (eds.),
Readings in Creole Studies, 1979 , XIV+ 352 pp.
Vol. 3. G . D. PRIDEAUX, B. L. DERWING and Wm. J. BAKER (eds.), Experi-
mental Linguistics, 1980 , VI+ 322 pp.
in preparation :
Vol. 5. K. DEPREZ (ed.), Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries.
PHONOLOGY
IN THE
1980's
Edited by
D.L. GOYVAERTS
1981
E. STORY-SCIENTIA
Scientific Publishers
GHENT/BELGIUM
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Phonology in the 1980’s / Edited by Didier L. Goyvaerts.
p. cm. (Studies in the Sciences of Language Series ; v. 4)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Grammar, Comparative and general --Phonology. I. Goyvaerts, D. L., 1946-
P217 .P56 1981
412--dc22 82109472
isbn 978 90 6439 150 7 (Pb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 7085 6 (Eb)
© 2013 – John Benjamins B.V.
Published 1981 by E. Story-Scientia, Ghent
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
For Roger van de Velde,
with respect and gratitude

CONTENTS
Introduction, by D.L. Goyvaerts 1
Verbal paradigms in Dutch, by W. Zonneveld 2 7
In favour of the archiphoneme, by T. Pettersson 3 9
Analogical sources of abstractness, by R. Skousen 5 5
New explorations into derivational morphology, by T.M. Lightner . . . 9 3
Metathesis in Kasem, by W.J. Greenberg 10 1
Non-evidence for the segmental cycle in Klamath, by M.H. Feinstein
and R.M. Vago 11 9
Generative phonology vs. Finnish phonology : retrospect and
prospect, by L. Campbell 14 7
Η-aspirée et la syllabation, Expressions disjonctives, by
B. de Cornulier 18 3
The shape of Kunjen Syllables , by B.A. Sommer 23 1
On the function o f boundaries in phonological rules, by H. Basbøll . . 24 5
Representation and derivation of tone, by C.-W. Kim 27 1
English as a tone language, by J. Goldsmith 28 7
On the phonological status of downstep in Kikuyu, by G.N. Clements
and K.C. Ford 30 9
A phonological theory for intonation models of English and French ,
by P. Martin 35 9
Experimental phonology and English stress, by L. Nessly . . . . . 37 7
Theoretical phonology and child phonology : argumentation an d
implication, by R. Bring Wilbur 40 3
Functional explanations in generative phonology, by M. Kenstowicz . . 43 1
External evidence for an abstract analysis of the German velar nasal,
by W.U. Dressier 44 5
Recoverability, abstractness and phonotactic constraints, by J. Kaye . . 46 9
Analytic vs. synthetic aspects of phonological structure, by S. Eliasson . 48 3
Undigested history and synchronic 'structure' , by R. Lass . . . . . 52 5
On the directionality o f paradigm regularization, by G.K Iverso n . . 54 5
Rule ordering in a parsing model of phonology, by O.W. Robinson . . 55 5
Upside-down rules, via-rules, and derivational phonology, by D. Michaels 57 7
Foley's scales of relative phonological strength, by N.S.H. Smith . . . 58 7
VIII CONTENTS
Reply to Smith, by J. Foley 59 7
Some formal and empirical issues in atomic phonology, by
D.A. Dinnsen . . 60 3
A nonsegmental model for description and analysis, by T.D. Griffen . . 61 7
Natural phonology and generative phonology, by R. Wojcik 63 5
Rather than a return to the smooth
day-to-day business of normal science,
there is the increasing chaos character
istic of a new upheaval
(KATZ & BEVER, The Fall and Rise of
Empiricism) ,
INTRODUCTION
Before introducing the articles that appear in the present volume* it may be of
general interest to first characterise in a fairly general way the most essential
aspects of the phonological research that has been carried out since the late
1960's, roughly the period when most phonologists were becoming familiar
with the content of Chomsky and Halle's monumental Sound Pattern of
English.
It would seem that since the early 1970's linguists in general and phonologists
in particular have been preoccupied (i) with finding a suitable rationale for
doing linguistic research by focusing attention on the status of linguistics as a
scientific discipline and (ii) with critically investigating the claims, proposals *
and analyses put forward by Chomsky and Halle in SPE. Especially the latter
approach has resulted in much heated debate with some scholars hailing
Chomsky and Halle's achievement as "a milestone in the history of phonology"
(Hoard 1971: 222; see also Klausenburger 1977 :158) whereas others have stated
flatly that "nothing is correct in SPE" (Lightner 1976: 80) or even that SPE
is "an example of how not to do linguistics" (Wang, 1975 : 394).
The two approaches to linguistic investigation ((i) and (ii) above) have together
given shape to the overall research paradigm (research program) of many
linguists during the past 10 years. A short analysis of both approaches may be in
order here. Let us first look at the controversy that exists in connection with
the very nature of linguistics as a science.
The position of some linguists (e.g. Chapin 1972) is that the philosophical and
methodological aspects of their science are totally irrelevant. Most of these
linguists merely accept at face value the dictum that linguistics is basically to
be viewed on the same level as any of the other empirical sciences such as
physics and chemistry. From the beginning of the 1970 's onwards this view has
come to be challenged by a large number of scholars1 (cf. Botha 1971, 1973,
1976, Ringen 1974, Itkonen 1974, Derwing 1973) all of whom are very much
convinced that Transformational Generative linguistics cannot be considered a
true empirical science but instead seems to have the typical properties of
axiomatic theories in the non-empirical sciences such as logic, mathematics or
formal analytic philosophy.
The point is that (i) given the deductive-nomological model of explanation in
2 D.L. GOYVAERT S
the natural sciences, transformational generative 'explanations' differ fundamental -
ly from such positivist explanations in that there is no logical independence
between theory and data but rather, there happens to be a conceptual bond
between them which makes it impossible to talk about causal connections;
(ii) it has still to be firmly established that linguistic facts are empirical facts
in order to be able to say that (transformational generative) claims about
linguistic facts are empirical claims2 ; (iii) the majority of theoretical proposals
in transformational generative linguistics are unfalsifiable because they make
claims for which no reasonable testing procedure can be devised.
Statements (i) - (iii) above are clear indications of the non-empirical nature of
transformational generative linguistics. Accordingly, the abundant use of the
term 'empirical' on the part of Chomsky and his associates can only be
accounted for by assuming that they believe that each time they say something
that they do not know for sure, they are making an empirical hypothesis !
The feelings among linguists nowadays concerning their personal position vis
à vis the field of linguistics varies considerably. Itkonen, for example, argues
that linguistics cannot be empirical and therefore favours a clearcut distinction
between natural sciences and human sciences3 , whereas Derwing on the other
hand thinks that linguistics must try to become empirical. Others, however, feel
that basically there is nothing wrong with non-empirical 'metaphysical'
theories4 ; according to them linguistic theory is a metaphysical theory "open
to rational discussion in the light of its application to particular problem-
situations (Lass 1976a : 219). Finally, Linell (1976) maintains that linguistics
(grammar construction) is not just hermeneutic explication (Itkonen's position)
but a combination of hermeneutic explication (immanent reflection, under-
standing, teleology) and positivist explication (observation, hypothesis-testing,
causality). This is the case, especially when we hold the view that linguistics
cannot be separated from psycholinguistics i.e. the processes underlying actual
linguistic behaviour5.
Although I happen to agree with Linell, I should nevertheless wish to point
out that over the past 10 years or so transformational generative linguists have
totally neglected the integration of the linguistic and psycholinguistic dimensions;
to a large extent they have only paid lip service to cerebral capacities and
neural systems. To illustrate this consider Alan Bell's discussion of linguistic
universals (Bell 1971). Bell draws the (classic) distinction between acquisition-
significant universals and transmission-significant universals. The former concern
underlying structure6 whereas the latter concern surface features of language.
A typical example of an acquisition-significant universal is the cyclic application
or rules. This cyclic principle should be looked upon as 'one part of the
schematism that the child brings to language learning' (Chomsky 1967:416).
Bell correctly observes that 'the constraints imposed upon language by
acquisition-significant universals tend to be less evident and less explicit than