[Lingtyp] What's the point of the phonological phrase?
djross3 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 31 11:02:40 EST 2019
My first reaction to your message was to agree with what you wrote at the
end, that “the phonological phrase” is simply “some morphophonological ...
domain ... higher than ... phonological word”].
Phonology is often usefully described with different tiers of structure,
from the phone to the syllable to the word to the phrase to the utterance.
(I wouldn't rule out having multiple levels within some of those, e.g.
successively larger "phonological phrases".) The only problem seems to be
operating from the assumption that syntactic and phonological phrases
should line up. If we do not assume that, both are useful in their own
ways, and then a secondary but very interesting question is whether and how
we can relate those two structural types.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:27 AM Haspelmath, Martin <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
> On 30.12.19 01:41, TALLMAN Adam wrote:
> So, what’s the point of the mapping rules if they can do anything? A
> conclusion I would draw from this is that positing phonological words and
> phrases are basically theoretically vacuous terminological conventions.
> I think one needs to distinguish between general theories and
> language-particular theories. G-theories are theories of Human Language,
> and p-theories are theories of particular languages.
> A grammatical description has often been seen as a theory of a particular
> language (since the 1960s), and in this perspective, language-particular
> categories are not "vacuous". In fact, they are often crucial (and in other
> cases convenient) for formulating language-particular rules.
> But it's true that the distinction between p-linguistics and g-linguistics
> is not always made in practice:
> I think descriptivists have the impression that using terms like
> phonological word and phonological phrase makes their descriptions
> “typologically informed” in some sense. I think the opposite is true if
> there are no accepted mapping rules and no accepted understanding of what
> the morphosyntactic structure from which the mapping rules are defined is
> supposed to be. In the end a typology of morphosyntactic/phonological
> domains etc. that tries to capture the relevant phenomena with “mapping”
> will have to relate phonological domain back to how it maps from/onto
> morphosyntactic structure based on typologically comparable wordhood /
> constituent domains. Positing mapping rules apriori in descriptions does
> not achieve this goal and makes such a typology more difficult.
> Languages often have similar rules, similar categories, and similar
> domains, so it's important to be aware of what other languages do – often
> one does not need to invent everything from scratch but can be inspired by
> other researchers (both by other p-linguists and other g-linguists).
> But in order to know that two things are similar, one needs to have
> uniform yardsticks for comparison – and one cannot assume that the category
> of one language can serve as a general yardstick for comparison for all. I
> don't know enough about phonology to judge what might be a good yardstick
> for phonological phrasing phenomena...
> It seems that Scheer (2008) does not make the distinction between
> p-linguistics and g-linguistics, because his impression of "anarchy" seems
> to be a statement about languages in general (i.e. he has not found any
> universals). Particular language systems are law-governed by definition.
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10
> D-07745 Jena
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lingtyp