phonological rules

[Geoffrey Steven Nathan]

While I can't promise 'balance', I can point out a forthcoming paper by Patricia Donegan and myself arguing that at least some phonological behavior is not 'just' statistical but closer to Neogrammarian in flavor. We have a paper forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Sound Change on Natural Phonology's view of such things. I've got another, very rough draft of a more synchronic paper on storage and the extent to which phonological processes (however construed) are real-time psychological events, primarily from a Cognitive Grammar point of view. Within CG my views are not 'mainstream', FWIW, since CG has to some extent taken a 'usage-based' turn, with which I do not wholeheartedly agree. 

Geoff 

Geoffrey S. Nathan 
Faculty Liaison, C&IT 
and Professor, Linguistics Program 
http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ 
+1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) 

Nobody at Wayne State will EVER ask you for your password. Never send it to anyone in an email, no matter how authentic the email looks. 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> To: "Funknet" <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:06:55 PM
> Subject: [FUNKNET] phonological rules

> 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]