functional phonology at GLOW

[Scott Delancey]

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Martin Haspelmath wrote:

> Since I am not a phonologist, I find it difficult to judge whether we
> are really witnessing a gradual paradigm shift here. And if so, why
> should phonology be so different from syntax?

Yes, I think there's definitely a lot about contemporary phonology
that could properly be called "functionalist".  (I'd date the
beginnings of it to the introduction of Autosegmental Phonology
in the '70's, though people didn't start seriously seeing the
implications of AS for a while after that).  One reason, I think,
is that generative phonology has always been much more
cross-linguistically, typologically oriented than syntax.  While
_Aspects of *the Theory of Syntax*_ deals exclusively with
English data, _The Sound Pattern of *English*_ uses data from
over 70 languages in building and justifying the theoretical
framework for the analysis of English.  As we all know, the more
willing you are to look closely at data from a range of languages,
the easier it is to avoid some of the intellectual pitfalls that
generative syntax has spent a generation lost in.

Scott DeLancey