phonological rules

[Wallace Chafe]

Fritz,

I don't know what literature there is on this, but isn't the question 
whether, in the course of history, a discrete boundary is crossed 
whereby (to use classic terms) something allophonic becomes phonemic, 
either falling together with nasalized vowels already there, or creating 
new nasalized vowels? At that point the language might begin to exhibit 
contrasts between nasalized and non-nasalized vowels, contrasts that 
weren't there before. I can provide Iroquoian examples on both sides of 
that boundary. But maybe I'm just restating what you had in mind.

Wally

On 11/5/2013 7:06 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:
> Dear Funknetters,
>
> I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent !
>   words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, and so on.
>
> Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, but I'm not sure which.
>
> Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest.
>
> Fritz
>
>
>
> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U
> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
>
>