DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Interface Theory 5.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to Interface Theory 5.1 - 2 - Tobias Scheer EGG Brno DAY 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 25 CNRS 6039, Université de Nice July-August 2015 [email protected] What does that buy us?.......................................................................................................... 25 this handout and some of the references quoted at 1. Arguments from Cognitive Science missed..................................................................... 25 www.unice.fr/dsl/tobias.htm 2. What translation is good for............................................................................................. 25 3. Modular PIC..................................................................................................................... 28 4. Minimalism & Biolinguistics........................................................................................... 29 5. What it does not buy us: no look-back devices................................................................ 29 Introduction to Interface Theory 5.1. SPE and Chomsky (1973) ......................................................................................... 29 5.2. Derived Environment Effects.................................................................................... 31 5.3. Bracket Erasure ......................................................................................................... 32 5.4. Modification-inhibiting no look-back ....................................................................... 34 Milestones in interface thinking.............................................................................................. 3 DAY 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 36 DAY 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Things that are settled............................................................................................................ 36 Zoom in with an example: affix classes .................................................................................. 3 1. Morpho-syntax and melody are incommunicado............................................................. 36 1. The phenomenon ................................................................................................................ 3 2. Boundary impact is process-specific................................................................................ 38 2. Four analyses...................................................................................................................... 4 3. Morpho-syntax has no bearing on the content of phonological computation.................. 38 2.1. SPE.............................................................................................................................. 4 4. There are no boundaries inside morphemes..................................................................... 38 2.2. Lexical Phonology....................................................................................................... 5 5. There is no phonetic correlate of morpho-syntactic information..................................... 40 2.3. Halle & Vergnaud (1987)............................................................................................ 6 2.4. Kaye (1995)................................................................................................................. 7 DAY 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 41 3. intermodular argumentation (syntax = phonology).......................................................... 9 Modular standards for the lower interface (with phonetics) ............................................. 41 1. Spell-Out, post-phonological ........................................................................................... 41 2. Workings .......................................................................................................................... 42 DAY 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3. Effects............................................................................................................................... 44 Introduction to Cognitive Science and its application to language ................................... 11 1. Modularity........................................................................................................................ 11 2. Modularity in language .................................................................................................... 13 3. Zoom on the communication between morpho-syntax and phonology ........................... 14 4. How translation has always worked: Two Channels ....................................................... 15 5. Core properties of translation........................................................................................... 16 6. History of translation and its violation in generative phonology..................................... 17 6.1. SPE............................................................................................................................ 18 6.2. Prosodic Phonology................................................................................................... 18 6.3. OT.............................................................................................................................. 20 7. Outlook: One-Channel Translation .................................................................................. 22 7.1. Computational translation violates domain specificity ............................................. 22 7.2. Translation always involves a lexical access ............................................................ 23 - 3 - - 4 - Milestones in interface thinking b. phonological 1. stress placement (1) milestones class 1: stress-shifting: párent - parént-al (válid-valíd-ity, átom, atóm-ic) a. Inverted T class 2: stress-neutral: párent - pãrent-hood (válid-ness, átom-ise) Chomsky (1965: 15) 2. trisyllabic shortening b. inside-out interpretation (cyclicity) class 1: sane - san-ity, Christ - Christ-ian Chomsky et al (1956: 75) class 2: maiden - maiden-hood, wild - wild-ness c. interactionism 3. nasal assimilation Lexical Phonology class 1: im1-possible d. selective spell-out class 2: un2-predictable Halle & Vergnaud (1987) e. no look-back devices (4) affix ordering Chomsky (1973), many incarnations, today the PIC is actually not true Aronoff (1976), Aronoff & Sridhar (1983, 1987) a. patent-abíl2-ity1 DAY 1 b. develop-mént2-al1 c. organ-iz2-at-ion1 Zoom in with an example: affix classes d. un-2grammatic-al1-ity1 1. The phenomenon (5) affix classes a. a general phenomenon or merely a peculiarity of English? (2) class membership of English affixes b. English class 1 class 2 different lexical strata in the historical development of the language in- un- class 1: Romance -ity -ness class 2: Germanic -ic -less c. affix classes have a cross-linguistic reality -ian -hood Dutch, German, Malayalam (Dravidian), Basque, Dakota (native American) -ory -like confirm the English pattern: typically, affix classes correspond to the import of -ary -dom various strata of vocabulary in different historical periods of the language. -ion -ful d. overview: -ate -ship Booij (2000 [1996]:297) -al (adjective- -ed (adjectival) -y forming) -ing (noun- (6) empirical challenge: underapplication (noun-forming) forming) Affix class-based phenomena require the underapplication of phonology: a subset of the active phonology of the language must be precluded from applying to strings that were (3) diagnostics for class membership created by the attachment of a certain affix class. a. morphological: 1. affix ordering 2. Four analyses Siegel (1974) 2.1. SPE class 1 affixes occur closer to the stem than class 2 affixes (this is where their name comes from). (7) SPE cl1-cl1: atom-ic1-ity1, univers-al1-ity1 representational cl2-cl2: atom-less2-ness2, beauty-ful2-ness2, guard-ed2-ness2 a. class 1 = + cl1-cl2: univers-al1-ness2 class 2 = # cl2-cl1: * *atom-less2-ity1, *piti-less2-ity1, *guard-ed2-ity1 b. parent 2. bound stems parent+al class 1 affixes + bound stem: in-ert, in-trepid) parent#hood class 1 affixes + independent word: in-tolerable c. main stress rule class 2 affixes + bound stem: * *un-ert, *un-trepid Shift mail stress one syllable right upon the concatenation of each suffix. class 2 affixes + independent word: un-aware This rule applies only to strings that do not contain any #. - 5 - - 6 - d. general pattern 2.3. Halle & Vergnaud (1987) # is a rule-blocking boundary: rules are made sensitive to #. E.g. N assimilates to the place of a following obstruent if not followed by #. (13) Halle & Vergnaud (1987a): analysis of affix classes (8) underapplication a. univérs-al-ness b. govern-mént-al achieved by the reference of rule to (rule-blocking) boundaries. T T phon 2.2. Lexical Phonology class 2 U phon class 1 U (9) Lexical Phonology analysis of stress shift parent parént-al párent-hood class 1 V class 2 V lexicon parent parent parent level 1 concatenation — parent-al — stress párent parént-al párent x root x root assignment level 2 concatenation — — párent-hood spell-out spell-out rule application — — — [root - class
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1. the Theory of Government in Phonology
    VOCALIC ELEMENTS IN PHONOLOGY A STUDY IN MUNSTER IRISH Eugeniusz Cyran (1995) Department of Celtic Catholic University of Lublin Supervisor: Prof. Edmund Gussmann Appeared as: Resonance Elements in Phonology. A Study in Munster Irish (1997), Folium: Lublin 2 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abbreviations and phonetic symbols..................................................................................... 0 Preface 0 1. ISSUES IN GOVERNMENT PHONOLOGY 1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 0 1.2. Conditions on phonological government............................................................................... 0 1.2.1 Formal conditions...................................................................................................... 0 1.2.2. Substantive conditions.............................................................................................. 0 1.3. Proper Government................................................................................................................ 0 1.4. Phonological licensing........................................................................................................... 0 1.4.1. Prosodic licensing..................................................................................................... 0 1.4.2. Autosegmental licensing........................................................................................... 0 1.5. Phonological elements ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Model Theoretic Approach to Phonology
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 16 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn Article 10 Linguistics Colloquium 2010 Comparing Incomparable Frameworks: A Model Theoretic Approach to Phonology Thomas Graf University of California, Los Angeles Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Graf, Thomas (2010) "Comparing Incomparable Frameworks: A Model Theoretic Approach to Phonology," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 16 : Iss. 1 , Article 10. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/10 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/10 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparing Incomparable Frameworks: A Model Theoretic Approach to Phonology Abstract In previous work, we used techniques from mathematical logic and model theory to study and compare two phonological theories, SPE and Government Phonology. The surprising result was that Government Phonology corresponds to a very weak fragment of SPE, yet it can attain the full expressivity of the latter through more powerful mechanisms of feature spreading. An issue that we didn't elaborate on, however, is the question of what this increase in expressivity buys us in terms of empirical coverage, which we pick up in this paper. Again making good use of our model theoretic techniques, we investigate two phonological phenomena --- Sanskrit n-retroflexion and primary stress assignment in Creek and Cairene Arabic --- and show how much power feature spreading has to be granted in any descriptively adequate account which does not invoke additional technical machinery. These technical results are accompanied by reflections on the elationr between empirically minded theory comparisons and the model theoretic approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditions on Nuclear Expressions in Phonology
    CONDITIONS ON NUCLEAR EXPRESSIONS IN PHONOLOGY by MARGARET COBB Submitted to the Department of Linguistics in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF LONDON March 1997 ProQuest Number: 10752726 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10752726 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT This thesis aims to provide a principled account of the distribution of ‘tense’/Tax’, and ‘high’/Tow’ vowels in vowel harmony systems. It is based on the principles and parameters of Government Phonology in which variation is accounted for by possible combinations of parameter settings. To explain variation in ‘tense’/lax’ and TiighV’low’ distribution, I exploit the interaction of the parametric aspects of three universal mechanisms: Licensing Constraints, Head-licensing (both Kaye (1993b)), and the Complexity Condition (Harris (1990a)). The type of language data this thesis seeks to account for has received some attention in the phonological literature, in terms of other frameworks as well as Government Phonology.
    [Show full text]
  • The SPE-Heritage of Optimality Theory
    The SPE-heritage of Optimality Theory HARRY VAN DER HÜLST AND NANCY A. RITTER Abstract In this article, we start out discussing the issue of how many phonological levels one might like to distinguish. In addition, we discuss how each level is charac- terized and how the mapping between levels is handled. Then, against the back- ground of a more general discussion of constraint-based approaches to phonol- ogy, we assess phonological Optimality Theory (OT), arguing that this theory is formulated within the conceptual framework of Standard Generative Phonology (SGP) and thus has not freed itself from its SPE-heritage. By implicitly adopting many aspects ofSPE (such as an intra-lavel input/output distinction and one holis- tic mechanism), OT compares unfavorably with other available constraint-based models in needing the notion of extrinsic ordering and failing to characterize the notion of what a possible language is. 1. Introduction The purpose of this article is to assess phonological Optimality Theory (OT) in the context of a broad discussion of both other constraint-based phonological theories as well as the preceding derivational theories that stem from the tradition of The Sound Pattern of English (SPE; Chomsky and Halle 1968). Our main conclusion will be that OT is closer in its basic design to SPE than to the other constraint-based models that are its contemporaries. In section 2 of this article, we first discuss different views of phonological lev- els of representation, converging on a view that acknowledges more than one level, while lacking the notion of an intra-level input/output distinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounds Difficult? Why Phonological Theory Needs 'Ease of Articulation'
    SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 14 (2006): 207-226 Sounds difficult? Why phonological theory needs ‘ease of articulation’ David Shariatmadari [email protected] Introduction In this paper I will try to show that theories of phonological structure must incorporate some measure of phonetic naturalness, specifically the idea that there exists a tendency to conserve energy in the use of the articulatory organs, with ‘easy’ sounds being those that require less physical effort to produce on the part of the speaker. I will call this the Ease of Articulation Hypothesis (EoA) 1. A strong form of EoA would state that articulatory phonetics is the sole motivating factor for sound patterns including the structure of phonemic inventories, phonotactics and morphophonemic variation. This is clearly false. If it were the case, phonology would be indistinguishable from phonetics. There would be no reason for a given phonological process not to apply in all languages, since all human beings have the same vocal apparatus and what is phonetically natural for a speaker of Turkish must also be phonetically natural for a speaker of Japanese. And yet, there are clearly many phonological differences between these two, and among all other languages. In contrast, a weak version of EoA might hold that articulation is one of a number of pressures competing for influence over the shape of the speech string. Some of the time it will win out. Whether or not it does depends, crucially, on the structure of the language concerned. Since every language has a different structure, the way in which phonetic influence is felt will be different for every language.
    [Show full text]
  • Feature Specifications for Consonants
    Feature Specifications for Consonants Obstruents P t t c k q b d <l J g G is dZ c j 41 f 9 s I g ~ x X p v Oz 3 Z i Y B cons ++++++++++++ + + ++++++++++++++++++++ syll voice -++++++-+ + +++++++++ w obs ++++++++++++ + + ++++++++++++++++++++ 5i cont - --++++++++++++++++++ del rei + + + + asp lat nas ant ++----++---- + + --++++-----++++----- cor - + + - - - - + + - - - + + + + - - + + + + - - - + + + + - high + + + + + + + - - - - + + + - low back --++----++ -- --- + + - - - + + round stri - + + ++-+-+++--+-+-+++--+ Sonorants m n Q P g N § w v ~ l j A r R r Y " I 1 1: cons + + + + + + + + + + syll voice +++++++++++++++++++++ VJ obs ~ cont + + + + + + + + + + + + + del rei asp lat + + + nas + + + + + + ant + + + + + + + + + + cor + + + + + + + + + high + + + + + + low back + + + + + round + + Sample Answers to Exercises Chapter 1 c. Polish The devoiced allophone occurs between voi~less sounds, and between a voiceless sound and a word boundary. G. Tamil (a) #_; m_; V_V. Pb] 1m} (b) Ipl - [{3] I V V (c) PeJ] I 0- } /kI _ {[g] I g_ } It! - [ts] I V_V [V] I V_V (d) Yes: #_; l'I....- (e) [£1; voiced retroflex fricative: [~]. (f) Yes. [s] is the intervocalic allophone of IC!. 3. Tamil The [w] allophone occurs word-finally when the preceding vowel is unrounded. Chapter 2 C. English Irl _ {0 -. {~} } [~] I vOlceless segment _ E. Japanese Verbs (a) [eba]; [ta] and [da]. (b) [mats] and [mat]; Imat!. (c) [tswkwc] and [tswkwt]; Itwkwcl and Itwkwt!. For Itwkwt!: It! _ [c] I V_V For Itwkwc/: Icl_ [t] I_t (or: a voiceless segment) Both involve assimilation: intervocalic voicing and devoicing before a voiceless segment. 307 308 Sample Answers to Exercises The stem and the provisional form of 'wait' show that Itl does not become [1"] between vowels.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lateral Theory of Phonology by Tobias Scheer
    Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation Studies in Generative Grammar 68.2 Editors Henk van Riemsdijk Harry van der Hulst Jan Koster De Gruyter Mouton Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation A Non-Diacritic Theory of the Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Volume 2 of A Lateral Theory of Phonology by Tobias Scheer De Gruyter Mouton The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland. ISBN 978-1-61451-108-3 e-ISBN 978-1-61451-111-3 ISSN 0167-4331 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. ” 2012 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Ra´ko odlı´ta´ by Mogdolı´na Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Țȍ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Table of contents overview §page Table of contents detail .............................................................. vii Abbreviations used ........................................................................ xxiv Table of graphic illustrations......................................................... xxvii 1 Editorial note ................................................................................. xxviii 2 Foreword What the book is about, and how to use it..................................... xxxi 3 Introduction 4 1. Scope of the book: the identity and management of objects that carry morpho-syntactic information in phonology........... 1 9 2. Deforestation: the lateral project, no trees in phonology and hence the issue with Prosodic Phonology ............................... 5 Part One Desiderata for a non-diacritic theory of the (representational side of) the interface 17 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Dresher, October 2, 2004 1 Chomsky and Halle's Revolution In
    Dresher, October 2, 2004 1 Chomsky and Halle’s Revolution in Phonology* B. Elan Dresher University of Toronto 0. Introduction Chomsky and Halle’s approach to phonological theory, as with other components of generative grammar, represented a sharp break with the main currents of American linguistics that immediately preceded them. The differences were conceptual as well as technical. Accounts of the development of phonology emphasize technical issues, such as arguments over the existence of a ‘taxonomic phonemic level’, or whether it is permissible to ‘mix levels’ in a phonological analysis. Lying behind discussion of these issues, however, were assumptions about psychology and the practice of science. Indeed, throughout the development of phonology, major changes came about not only through technical breakthroughs, but also by reinterpreting the significance of existing technical devices. This was also the case with Chomsky and Halle’s innovations. In this chapter I discuss Chomsky and Halle’s contributions to phonological theory by putting their views in the context of the theories that prevailed before them. I will also try to connect the technical issues to the larger conceptual ones concerning the nature of language acquisition and the mind.1 I will be treating Chomsky and Halle’s contributions together, without attempting to distinguish who contributed precisely which ideas. Their early work in generative phonology, culminating in the major work The Sound Pattern of English (Chomsky and Halle 1968, henceforth SPE), was done jointly. Dresher, October 2, 2004 2 Nevertheless, some indication of what each brought to the enterprise can be gleaned from Chomsky’s 1957b review of Jakobson and Halle’s Fundamentals of Language (Jakobson and Halle 1956).
    [Show full text]
  • Spell-Out, Post-Phonological
    Crossing Phonetics-Phonology Lines Crossing Phonetics-Phonology Lines Edited by Eugeniusz Cyran and Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska Crossing Phonetics-Phonology Lines, Edited by Eugeniusz Cyran and Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Eugeniusz Cyran, Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other- wise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5992-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5992-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................. xiii Part I: Analytic Approaches to the Phonetics-Phonology Relations Section One: Government Phonology-Based Studies Element Theory and the Magic of /s/ ........................................................ 3 ANTONIO BARONI The Phonology and Phonetics of Obstruentization ................................ 31 EUGENIUSZ CYRAN Consonant Alternations, Weight Constraint and Stress in Southern Saami ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Development and Current Status of Generative Grammar in France : a Personal Point of View” Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck
    ”On the development and current status of generative grammar in France : A personal point of view” Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck To cite this version: Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck. ”On the development and current status of generative grammar in France : A personal point of view”. Carlos Otero. Noam Chomsky : Critical Assessments, Routledge, 1994, Noam Chomsky ’s critical assessments. halshs-01509579 HAL Id: halshs-01509579 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01509579 Submitted on 18 Apr 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. to appear in: Noam Chomsky: critical assessments (4 vols), ed. by Carlos Otero, London: Routledge. 1 “The careful study of languages with special attention to the internal logic of their evolution teaches us that there exists such a logic and that one can establish a whole series of purely linguistic laws which are independent of such non-linguistic factors as ‘civilization’, etc. But of course, these laws will not refer to “progress” or “regress” - and therefore from the view point of general historians (and of evolutionists in general; i.e. ethnologists, zoologists, etc.) they will lack the main ‘ingredient’ of evolutionary laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonology Descriptive of Phonology
    Phonology Steven Bird University of Pennsylvania 2002 Abstract Phonology is the systematic study of the sounds used in language, their internal structure, and their composition into syllables, words and phrases. Computational phonology is the application of formal and computational techniques to the representation and processing of phonological information. This chapter will present the fundamentals of descriptive phonology along with a brief overview of computational phonology. 1 Phonological contrast, the phoneme, and distinctive features There is no limit to the number of distinct sounds that can be produced by the human vocal apparatus. However, this infinite variety is harnessed by human languages into sound systems consisting of a few dozen language-specific categories, or phonemes. An example of an English phoneme is t. English has a h Ê variety of t-like sounds, such as the aspirated t of ten the unreleased t^ of net, and the flapped of water (in some dialects). In English, these distinctions are not used to differentiate words, and so we do not h find pairs of English words which are identical but for their use of t versus t^. (By comparison, in some other languages, such as Icelandic and Bengali, aspiration is contrastive.) Nevertheless, since these sounds (or phones, or segments) are phonetically similar, and since they occur in complementary distribution (i.e. disjoint contexts) and cannot differentiate words in English, they are all said to be allophones of the English phoneme t. Of course, setting up a few allophonic variants for each of a finite set of phonemes does not account for the infinite variety of sounds mentioned above.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation-Based Models in the Current Landscape of Phonological Theory
    Acta Linguistica Academica / p. 3 / March 25, 2020 Acta Linguistica Academica Vol. 67 (2020) 1, 3–27 DOI: 10.1556/2062.2020.00002 Representation-based models in the current landscape of phonological theory Katalin Balogné Bérces Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest; Catholic University in Ružomberok [email protected] Patrick Honeybone University of Edinburgh [email protected] Abstract: We place the healthy diversity of current (i.e., early 21st-century) phonological theory un- der scrutiny, and identify the four fundamental approaches that make it up: Rule-Based Phonology, Representation-Based Phonology, Constraint-Based Phonology, and Usage-Based Phonology. We then focus on the key aspects of and recent developments in Representation-Based Phonology: we separate out hybrid models and purely representational ones, we identify Government Phonology (GP) as the most popular form of the latter (and show that it is even present in what we call ‘GP-friendly’ analyses), and finally, we discuss and illustrate recent innovations in both subsegmental and prosodic structure in the two strands that we identify as ‘hyperhierarchical’ (or ‘vertical’) and ‘flat’ (or ‘horizontal’). Keywords: phonological theory; representations; phonological structure; autosegmental phonology; Government Phonology 1. Introduction: the current landscape of phonological theory The current theoretical landscape in phonology (at the end of the second decade of the 21st century) is healthily diverse (cf. Hannahs & Bosch 2017, chapter 1). One way to show this is to consider the presentations given at ‘generalist’ academic conferences dedicated to phonology. The largest annual phonology conference is the Manchester Phonology Meeting (the ‘mfm’ – see www.lel.ed.ac.uk/mfm), which has occurred each year for a quarter of a century, with a steady number of around 80 presentations in recent years, and with participation from all around the world.
    [Show full text]