DOCSLIB.ORG

Phonetics in Phonology and Phonology in Phonetics*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phonetics in Phonology and Phonology in Phonetics* Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 2007, v.16, pp. 1-31 Phonetics in Phonology and Phonology in Phonetics* Abigail C. Cohn In this paper, I explore the relationships between phonology and phonetics and argue that there are two distinct ways that they interact. A distinction needs to be drawn between the way phonetics affects phonology–phonetics in phonology, and the way phonology affects or drives phonetics–phonology in phonetics. The former concerns the way that phonetic effects and constraints are reflected in the phonology, often referred to as naturalness. The latter is the mapping between the units of phonology and their physical realization. How is phonological knowledge realized in and extracted from the physical signal? In this case, the phonology emerges in the phonetics in the sense that phonological contrast is physically realized. These two facets of the relationship between phonology and phonetics are discussed in light of their implications for an understanding of phonology and phonetics and their relationship. 1. Introduction The aim of this paper is to consider the different ways in which phonology and phonetics interact. Let us start by considering a fairly standard post-Sound Pattern of English (SPE, Chomsky and Halle 1968) view of the relationship shown in (1). (1) The relationship between phonology and phonetics: phonology = discrete, categorical ≠ phonetics = continuous, gradient It is widely assumed that phonology and phonetics are distinct and that phonology is the domain of discrete and categorical entities, while phonetics is the domain of the continuous and gradient. (For recent discussion see e.g. Keating 1996; Cohn 1998; also * This discussion consists of parts of a paper presented at the 11th Manchester Phonology Meeting and the Greater NY Phonetics and Phonology Workshop, under the same title and one presented at the University of Buffalo and Cornell University Linguistics Colloquia entitled “Phonology vs. phonetics, revisited”. Thanks to members of those audiences for helpful questions and comments and to Ioana Chitoran, Amanda Miller, Michael Wagner, and a WPCPL reviewer for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. Those presentations also served as the jumping off point for Cohn (2006) “Is there gradient phonology?” for which this paper serves as a backdrop. 2 PHONETICS IN PHONOLOGY AND PHONOLOGY IN PHONETICS individual contributions in Burton-Roberts et al. 2000; and Hume and Johnson 2001). Yet much debate surrounds the relationship between phonology and phonetics. Questions such as the following continue to be asked: How strong is this correlation? How do phonetics and phonology interact? Are they in fact one in the same thing? I argue that there are actually two distinct ways in which phonology and phonetics interact. A distinction needs to be drawn between the way phonetics affects phonology– what I term phonetics in phonology–and the way phonology affects or drives phonetics– what I term phonology in phonetics. This is a basic point, but one that I believe has been largely overlooked. Both of these facets of the relationship need to be addressed in reaching an understanding of the nature of phonology and phonetics. In this brief discussion, I outline both facets of the relationship. In the first, the place of naturalness, as internal to the grammar, or outside of it, is central. In the second, the strength of the correlation suggested in (1)–that is, that phonology is discrete and categorical, while phonetics is continuous and gradient–is important. The evidence suggests that this correlation may not be as strong as often assumed. However, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that, therefore, phonology and phonetics are the same thing. Our discussion leads to a (re)consideration of certain fundamental assumptions, notably the role of modularity and the status of so-called duplication—cases where similar patterns are attributed to more than one domain of language, as well as a brief consideration of the nature of categories. The structure of the paper is as follows. In §2, I discuss phonetics in phonology and in §3, I turn to phonology in phonetics. In §4, I consider the implication of these two facets of the relationship for a better understanding of the nature of phonology and phonetics. Conclusions and implications for future research are presented in §5. 2. Phonetics in phonology As shown in the work of Ohala and others (e.g. Ohala 1990), a close parallel exists between phonetic patterns of coarticulation and phonological patterns of assimilation cross-linguistically. These widely observed parallels raise the question of why this should be the case. It is generally agreed that the phonetic patterns arise from ABIGAIL C. COHN 3 physical (articulatory, aerodynamic, acoustic and auditory) constraints. Patterns attributable to such factors are said to be natural. The close parallel between the phonetic effects and phonological patterns has led many to suppose that phonetic naturalness is a primary source of phonological patterns, that the phonology is grounded in the phonetics (e.g. Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994). Yet there is much debate about where naturalness resides, within or outside the grammar. Naturalness is sometimes framed in terms of markedness. One’s characterization of naturalness depends in large part on certain underlying assumptions about the nature of grammar and modularity as well as the nature of synchronic vs. diachronic systems. I briefly sketch out different approaches in §2.1 and then return to the parallels between coarticulation and assimilation and implications of these parallels in §2.2. 2.1 Why is phonology natural? Much attention has been given to the question: Why is phonology natural? Different ideas about where naturalness resides have been espoused, depending in part on one’s starting assumptions. I do not attempt here to resolve this complex question, but provide only a brief overview of the subject. (See Chitoran 2005; Chitoran and Cohn to appear; and Hayes and Steriade 2004, for recent discussion.) Many understand naturalness to be part of phonology. The status of naturalness in phonology relates back to early debates in generative phonology about natural phonology and natural generative phonology (Stampe 1979 among others). This view is also foundational to Optimality Theory (e.g. Prince and Smolensky 2004), where functional explanations characterized in scalar and gradient terms are central in the definition of the family of markedness constraints. Contra views “where the principles that the rules subserve (the “laws”) are placed entirely outside the grammar. A much stronger stance [, …, ] is available. When the scalar and the gradient are recognized and brought within the purview of theory, Universal Grammar can supply the very substance from which grammars are built.” (Prince and Smolensky 2004, p. 233-234.) Under such approaches the explanations of naturalness are connected to the notion of markedness. However, this does not offer an explanation without having an independently motivated theory of 4 PHONETICS IN PHONOLOGY AND PHONOLOGY IN PHONETICS markedness. (See Hume 2004 and Haspelmath 2006 for recent discussion of this issue.) It is sometimes argued that explicit phonological accounts of naturalness pose a duplication problem. Formal accounts in phonological terms (often attributed to Universal Grammar) parallel or mirror the phonetic roots of such developments, thus duplicating the phonetic source or historical development driven by the phonetic source. This leads to a duplication of the explanation (see Przezdziecki 2005 for recent discussion). As discussed below, it doesn’t necessarily follow that distinct representations and accounts of the patterns themselves (phonological assimilation and phonetic coarticulation) also result in duplication. If, as concluded below, assimilation and coarticulation are similar, but not identical, then treating them as the same thing is not empirically adequate. We need to draw a distinction between the duplication of the explanation and the source of the patterns themselves. This view of naturalness’ centrality in the synchronic grammar is the source of the form vs. substance debate as framed by Hale and Reiss (2000), where they argue for a complete separation of substance from form. They argue that phonology = grammar = formal and phonetics = substance = function. This approach is closely tied to assumptions about strict modularity, an issue to which we return below (§4.2). Others understand naturalness to be expressed through diachronic change. This is essentially the view of Hyman (1976, 2001). Hyman (1976) offers an insightful historical understanding of this relationship through the process of phonologization, whereby phonetic effects can be enhanced and over time come to play a systematic role in the phonology of a particular language. Under this view, phonological naturalness results from the grammaticalization of low-level phonetic effects. This provides a diachronic explanation of these types of effects. While a particular pattern might be motivated historically as a natural change, it might be un-natural in its synchronic realization (see Hyman 2001 for discussion). Phonetic motivation is also part of Blevins (2004) characterization of types of sound change. We are still left with the unresolved question: Is synchronic phonology independently constrained by principles of naturalness? This leads us to the still timely discussion by Anderson (1981)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Applying Phonology in Lexicography: Variant-Synonym Classification In
    Applying phonology in lexicography: variant-synonym classification in Czech Sign Language Hana Strachoňová, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, [email protected] Lucia Vlášková, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, [email protected] Sign language (SL) lexicography, as a young field of study within SL linguistics, faces a lot of challenges that have already been answered for the audio-oral language material. In this talk we present a method that is being applied in the ongoing process of data classification for the first Czech SL online dictionary (part of the platform Dictio). Problem: For audio-oral languages, a dictionary entry standardly contains the citation form of a lexeme and all the variants (Čermák 1995). See for example the gender variants in Czech: brambor (potato- masculine) / brambor-a (potato-feminine), hadr (cloth-masculine) / hadr-a (cloth-feminine). However, two (or more) expressions of a different word-forming nature are not considered variants but synonyms (Filipec 1995). See the example pairs in Czech - the first expression comes from the traditional Czech lexicon and the latter originates in English/Latin: jazykověda (linguistics; Czech origin) / lingvistika (linguistics; foreign origin), poradce (consultant; Czech origin) / konzultant (consultant; foreign origin). The common ground of the variant- and synonym-pairs is their shared meaning (brambor has the same meaning as brambora; jazykověda has the same meaning as lingvistika) and in the lexicographic work it is essential to assign each of them the right place in the dictionary entry. What seems as a simple task for spoken languages (basically - common root for variants, different roots for synonyms) becomes a challenge for SLs (still ongoing discussion about the definition of morphemes and lexical roots; see e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Development Language Development
    Language Development rom their very first cries, human beings communicate with the world around them. Infants communicate through sounds (crying and cooing) and through body lan- guage (pointing and other gestures). However, sometime between 8 and 18 months Fof age, a major developmental milestone occurs when infants begin to use words to speak. Words are symbolic representations; that is, when a child says “table,” we understand that the word represents the object. Language can be defined as a system of symbols that is used to communicate. Although language is used to communicate with others, we may also talk to ourselves and use words in our thinking. The words we use can influence the way we think about and understand our experiences. After defining some basic aspects of language that we use throughout the chapter, we describe some of the theories that are used to explain the amazing process by which we Language9 A system of understand and produce language. We then look at the brain’s role in processing and pro- symbols that is used to ducing language. After a description of the stages of language development—from a baby’s communicate with others or first cries through the slang used by teenagers—we look at the topic of bilingualism. We in our thinking. examine how learning to speak more than one language affects a child’s language develop- ment and how our educational system is trying to accommodate the increasing number of bilingual children in the classroom. Finally, we end the chapter with information about disorders that can interfere with children’s language development.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods
    The Kabod Volume 3 Issue 3 Summer Article 1 January 2017 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Cory C. Coogan Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod Part of the Modern Languages Commons, and the Reading and Language Commons Recommended Citations MLA: Coogan, Cory C. "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods," The Kabod 3. 3 (2017) Article 1. Liberty University Digital Commons. Web. [xx Month xxxx]. APA: Coogan, Cory C. (2017) "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods" The Kabod 3( 3 (2017)), Article 1. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod/vol3/iss3/1 Turabian: Coogan, Cory C. "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods" The Kabod 3 , no. 3 2017 (2017) Accessed [Month x, xxxx]. Liberty University Digital Commons. This Individual Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Kabod by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Coogan: Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Running Head: PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL RESEARCH SHARING METHODS 1 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Cory Coogan Liberty University Published by Scholars Crossing, 2017 1 The Kabod, Vol. 3, Iss. 3 [2017], Art. 1 PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL RESEARCH SHARING METHODS 2 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Most linguists affirm the observation that human language is innate; the human mind has a capacity for grammar that is inherent from birth. This notion implies that a singular grammar produces all human languages; therefore, to appropriately understand the scope of the human capacity for grammar, a single model must cohesively describe the various processes of all human languages.
    [Show full text]
  • 24.900 Intro to Linguistics Lecture Notes: Phonology Summary
    Fall 2012 Phonology Summary • Speakers of English learned something from the data they were presented with as (contains all examples from class slides, and more!) babies that caused them to internalize (learn) the rule exemplified in (1) — just as Tojolabal speakers learned from the data that they heard as babies, and ended up with 1. Phonology vs. phonetics the rule exemplified in (2). • The path from memory (lexical access) to speech is mediated by phonology. • The English rule is real and active "on-line", governing creative linguistic behavior. A • Phonology = system of rules that apply when speech sounds are put together to form native speaker of English will apply it to new words they have never heard. The /t/ in morphemes and words. tib will be aspirated, and the /t/ in stib (both nonsense words, I hope) will not be. Probably Tojolabal speakers will show similar behavior with respect to their rule. (1) stop consonant aspiration in English: initial within a stressed syllable ASPIRATED UNASPIRATED 2. What phonetic distinctions are made in lexical entries? initial within a stressed syllable after s or initial within an word-final (therefore syllable- Part 1: phonological rules that eliminate distinctions from the lexicon unstressed syllable final) pan span nap tone stone note • English: lexicon does not need to distinguish aspirated from unaspirated stops. kin skin nick There is no reason to suppose that information about aspiration forms part of the sound field of lexical entries of English words, since it is entirely predictable. Though pan is upon supping pronounced /pʰæn/ and span /spæn/, there is no reason to distinguish the aspirated and unaspirated bilabial stops in the lexical entries of the two words.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonological Typology, Rhythm Types and the Phonetics-Phonology Interface
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2012 Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects Schmid, Stephan Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-73782 Book Section Published Version Originally published at: Schmid, Stephan (2012). Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects. In: Ender, Andrea; Leemann, Adrian; Wälchli, Bernhard. Methods in contemporary linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 45-68. Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo- Romance dialects Stephan Schmid 1. Introduction Phonological typology has mainly concentrated on phoneme inventories and on implicational universals, whereas the notion of ‘language type’ ap- pears to be less appealing from a phonological perspective. An interesting candidate for establishing language types on the grounds of phonological or phonetic criteria would have come from the dichotomy of ‘stress-timing’ vs. ‘syllable-timing’, if instrumental research carried out by a number of phoneticians had not invalidated the fundamental claim of the so-called ‘isochrony hypothesis’. Nevertheless, the idea of classifying languages according to their rhythmic properties has continued to inspire linguists and phoneticians, giving rise to two diverging methodological perspectives. The focus of the first framework mainly lies on how phonological processes relate to prosodic domains, in particular to the syllable and to the phonolog- ical word.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Phonology École D’Automne De Linguistique, ENS
    Introduction to Phonology École d’automne de linguistique, ENS Class coordinates Time : 14:30-15:50 (Session 4), Sept. 24, 25, 26, 27 (Monday to Thursday) Place : Salle des Résistants (45 rue d’Ulm, 1er étage, couloir A-B) Instructor coordinates Name : Kie Zuraw [ ka z ] Affiliation : UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Department of Linguistics E-mail : [email protected] Web page : www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw Course description What do we know about our language’s sound pattern, and how do we know it? This course will begin with a quick overview of characteristics of sound patterns that linguists have noticed (alternations and phonotactics), and of the approach to explanatory adequacy that will be adopted here. We will then look at research that has sought to determine what phonological generalizations speakers extract from the learning data, and follow the consequences of these findings for achieving a descriptively adequate grammatical framework (that is, a framework that can express speakers’ implicit phonological knowledge): basic rule notation, features, and constraint interaction. Next we will consider why determining what speakers know is so difficult, and review a range of methods that have been tried. Finally, we will examine some recent work that moves towards explanatory adequacy—what kind of learner can, on exposure to typical learning data, choose a grammar similar to the one that human learners choose? Prerequisites : None! Course outline Day 1: 24 September sound patterns conceptual framework Day 2: 25 September descriptive adequacy: methods and consequences Day 3: 26 September explanatory adequacy: methods Day 4: 27 September explanatory adequacy: theoretical developments Suggestions for further reading are included at the ends of the first two handouts Language : In accordance with EALing policy, I’ll lecture in English, but feel free to make comments or pose questions in French, to ask me to try to express something into French if it’s not clear in English, to talk to me after class in French..
    [Show full text]
  • From Phonology to Syntax: Unsupervised Linguistic Typology at Different Levels with Language Embeddings
    From Phonology to Syntax: Unsupervised Linguistic Typology at Different Levels with Language Embeddings Johannes Bjerva Isabelle Augenstein Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen University of Copenhagen Denmark Denmark [email protected] [email protected] Abstract popularity (Dunn et al., 2011;W alchli¨ , 2014; ¨ A core part of linguistic typology is the clas- Ostling, 2015; Cotterell and Eisner, 2017; Asgari sification of languages according to linguistic and Schutze¨ , 2017; Malaviya et al., 2017; Bjerva properties, such as those detailed in the World and Augenstein, 2018). One part of traditional ty- Atlas of Language Structure (WALS). Doing pological research can be seen as assigning sparse this manually is prohibitively time-consuming, explicit feature vectors to languages, for instance which is in part evidenced by the fact that only manually encoded in databases such as the World 100 out of over 7,000 languages spoken in the Atlas of Language Structures (WALS, Dryer and world are fully covered in WALS. Haspelmath, 2013). A recent development which We learn distributed language representations, can be seen as analogous to this is the process which can be used to predict typological prop- erties on a massively multilingual scale. Ad- of learning distributed language representations in ditionally, quantitative and qualitative analy- the form of dense real-valued vectors, often re- ses of these language embeddings can tell us ferred to as language embeddings (Tsvetkov et al., how language
    [Show full text]
  • Fieldwork for Studies of Phonological Variation
    Fieldwork for studies of phonological variation Paul Foulkes University of York, UK E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT 3. SOCIAL PARAMETERS This session discusses fieldwork strategies developed It is not usually possible to collect data from all members mainly for dialectological and sociolinguistic research on of a community. A subset must therefore be drawn, and varieties of English. Issues in sampling the community must include representatives of those categories of speaker and the language are explored. Adaptations of traditional relevant to the research questions. In dialectology a main methods for work with children are also outlined. Finally, research goal has been the recording of conservative a brief assessment is made of the implications of these forms. Fieldwork has therefore sought to recruit subjects types of fieldwork for linguistic phonetics. who might be the best guardians of older variants. In the case of the SED, the majority of such subjects were 1. INTRODUCTION NORMs (non-mobile older rural males). Other speaker groups were underrepresented [18]. By contrast, Linguistic fieldwork is a means to an end. It is undertaken sociolinguists have primarily been interested in variation after prior definition of the aims of linguistic research. within urban communities. Fieldwork designs have thus These aims may be purely descriptive, as in the case of included speakers of both sexes, and a range of ages, recording endangered languages. More often, however, social backgrounds, and/or ethnic groups. descriptions of linguistic phenomena also serve a wider All social parameters require careful definition and purpose: they provide evidence for theoretical debate (e.g. interpretation, often with respect to the specific in phonology or sociolinguistics), and/or yield reference community of interest [17].
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetics in Phonology
    Phonetics in Phonology John J. Ohala University of California, Berkeley At least since Trubetzkoy (1933, 1939) many have thought of phonology and phonetics as separate, largely autonomous, disciplines with distinct goals and distinct methodologies. Some linguists even seem to doubt whether phonetics is properly part of linguistics at all (Sommerstein 1977:1). The commonly encountered expression ‘the interface between phonology and phonetics’ implies that the two domains are largely separate and interact only at specific, proscribed points (Ohala 1990a). In this paper I will attempt to make the case that phonetics is one of the essential areas of study for phonology. Without phonetics, I would maintain, (and allied empirical disciplines such as psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics) phonology runs the risk of being a sterile, purely descriptive and taxonomic, discipline; with phonetics it can achieve a high level of explanation and prediction as well as finding applications in areas such as language teaching, communication disorders, and speech technology (Ohala 1991). 1. Introduction The central task within phonology (as well as in speech technology, etc.) is to explain the variability and the patterning -- the “behavior” -- of speech sounds. What are regarded as functionally the ‘same’ units, whether word, syllable, or phoneme, show considerable physical variation depending on context and style of speaking, not to mention speaker-specific factors. Documenting and explaining this variation constitutes a major challenge. Variability is evident in several domains: in everyday speech where the same word shows different phonetic shapes in different contexts, e.g., the release of the /t/ in tea has more noise than that in toe when spoken in isolation.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Phonology in Lexicography: Variant-Synonym Classification in Czech Sign Language
    Applying phonology in lexicography: variant-synonym classification in Czech Sign Language Hana Strachoňová [email protected], Lucia Vlášková [email protected] Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic 1. Problem This poster focuses on the variant/synonym classification in the first online lexical database of Czech SL (Dictio), as part of the lemmatisation problem. Lemmatisation issuses for sign languages are more similar to those of spoken langauges that lack standard writing systems than that with standard orthographies (Fenlon et al. 2015). Researches have noted that a pair of signs is likely to be variants in case they differ in just one parameter (Fenlon et al. 2015). Parameters (in SL: hand configuration, place of articulation, movement) may act as phonemes and create minimal pairs (BAR and BRNO differ only in one parameter: hand configuration → orientation). Thus the starting point in the variant/synonym classification is to affirm that the lexemes share the same meaning. We are using the Hand-Tier (H-T) model (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006; S&LM) due to its fitting description of the data we are working with. Other phonological models such as Move-Hold model (Liddell & Johnson 1989) or Brentari’s (1998) Prosodic model cannot accurately capture the subtle contrasts important in this lexicographic task. Our research contributes the following: a) empirical level: phonological description of (deeply understudied) Czech SL – at the moment, we build on a study of 300 phonologically related pairs of variants/synonyms; b) practical level: classification of Czech SL lexemes in Dictio (resolving a part of lemmatisation issues in the dictionary); c) theoretical level: refinement of the requirement for minimal difference in SL variants.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonological Typology OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/3/2016, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/3/2016, SPi Phonological Typology OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/3/2016, SPi OXFORD SURVEYS IN PHONOLOGY AND PHONETICS GENERAL EDITOR: Bert Vaux, University of Cambridge This series aims to provide a balanced account of leading approaches to and debates in the most active and productive topics in phonology and phonetics. Each volume examines current and past treatments of a specific topic and offers a reasoned account of the theories and methods that lead to the best account for the facts. The books provide students and practitioners of phonology, phonetics, and related fields with a valuable source of instruction and reference, set within the context of wider developments in the field, and where relevant in linguistics and cognitive science more generally. PUBLISHED Phonological Typology Matthew K. Gordon IN PREPARATION The Syllable Juliette Blevins The Phonetics–Phonology Interface Abigail C. Cohn and Marie Huffman Intonation Sónia Frota and Carlos Gussenhoven OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 24/3/2016, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OXDP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Matthew K. Gordon The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in Impression: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11 What (Else) Depends on Phonology? Larry M
    Chapter 11 What (else) depends on phonology? Larry M. Hyman University of California, Berkeley To construct phonology so that it mimics syntax is to miss a major re- sult of the work of the last twenty years, namely, that syntax and phonology are essentially different. (Bromberger & Halle 1989: 69) 1 Is phonology different? In Hyman (2007) I asked, “Where’s phonology in typology?” While phonology turned out to be well represented at the Ardennes workshop and this volume of proceedings, it is typically underrepresented, even ignored by some typologists. I considered three reasons: (i) Phonology is different (cf. the above Bromberger & Halle quote). (ii) Phonological typology may seem uninteresting to typologists, particularly if defined as follows: “[. ] it is possible to classify languages according to the phonemes they contain…. Typology is the study of structural features across languages. Phonological typology involves comparing languages ac- cording to the number or type of sounds they contain.” (Vajda 2001) (iii) Phonology is disconnected from the rest (e.g. from morphosyntactic typol- ogy). As evidence that phonology is underrepresented, I noted that there is no cov- erage in Whaley’s (1997) textbook, Introduction to Typology. The more recent Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (Song 2011) provides confirmation of the above assessment: Larry M. Hyman. 2017. What (else) depends on phonology? In N. J. En- field (ed.), Dependencies in language, 141–158. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.573784 Larry M. Hyman (i)
    [Show full text]