Substance Free Phonology
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003087
Imagine a theory of phonology that makes no reference to well-formedness, repair, contrast, typology, variation, language change, markedness, `child phonology’, faithfulness, constraints, phonotactics, articulatory or acoustic phonetics, or speech perception. What remains in such a phonological theory constitutes the components of the Substance Free Phonology (SFP) model I will sketch here. My task thus involves not only justifying the exclusion of all those domains, but also arguing that something remains that is worthy of the name `phonology’. In support of the latter task, I’ll provide some positive examples of recent research in SFP.
|Format:||[ pdf ]|
(please use that when you cite this article)
|Published in:||To appear in Routledge Handbook of Phonolofgical Theory|
|keywords:||phonology, substance free, innateness, features, optimality theory, rules, phonotactics, contrast, competence, performance, markedness, search, quantification, phonology|