Chuck and I have been discussing the meaning of 'para' in the title of this area and want to make sure that our choice of this term does not negatively influence any thoughts about these sources of data. To speak for both of us (Chuck can correct me if I'm wrong here), we're both very open to the 'methodological anarchism' suggested by Bill Idsardi and consider the sample of diverse sources of observations about syllables represented above as starting points. Thus, our use of 'paraphonological' is more expansive than how the term is used by François Dell in his talk (yes, this site appears to be unicode compliant, ü, ʔ þ ∂ ə, ɠ, etc.). François' use of 'paraphonological' is also more expansive than Bruce Hayes use of the term in his 2002 paper "Faithfulness and Componentiality in Metrics" which references Paul Kiparsky's 1977 LI article "The rhythmic structure of English verse". Both Hayes and Kiparksy use the term 'paraphonological' more narrowly in reference to setting text and meter.

Nomenclature should be helpful in clarifying ideas and not obscuring them. In spirit of this and for better or worse, Chuck and I chose 'paraphonological' as a term to encourage thought about additional sources of data about the syllable. Hopefully, this choice will have the desired effect even though there is overlap in the use of this term.

Eric

2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?