Preamble / Opening RemarksThis is a featured page

WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THE SYLLABLE IN PHONOLOGICAL THEORY?

Chuck Cairns and Eric Raimy

THIS WIKI IS AN OUTGROWTH OF THE FRIDAY DISCUSSION AT THE CUNY CONFERENCE ON THE SYLLABLE, JANUARY 17 - 19, 2008. THE PURPOSE IS TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONSENSUS AMONG PHONOLOGISTS ABOUT THE GENERALIZATIONS AND PHENOMENA THAT ARE THOUGHT TO BE WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SYLLABLE THEORY. IT IS NOT TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF THE SYLLABLE NOR TO DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT THE SYLLABLE IS A VIABLE CONSTRUCT IN PHONOLOGICAL THEORY.

THIS OPERATES JUST LIKE ANY OTHER WIKI: ALL REGISTERED USERS MAY EDIT THIS DOCUMENT, AND EACH ACT OF EDITING LEAVES A THREAD THAT OTHERS MAY VIEW. YOU MAY BECOME A REGISTERED USER BY GETTING AN INVITATION TO JOIN. IF YOU DO NOT ALREADY HAVE AN INVITATION AND WISH TO RECEIVE ONE, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO syllable [at] cunyphonologyforum [dot] net, WITH THE WORD “INVITATION TO WIKI” IN THE SUBJECT LINE. AS SOON AS ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATORS LOGS ON, YOU WILL BE SENT AN INVITATION (subject only to certain reasonable conditions, of course).

Introduction. Participants at the Friday Discussion at the recent CUNY Conference on the Syllable proposed that we post a document about the reasons for the syllable in phonological theory; this is to serve as a basis for discussion, which we will conduct via this “Wiki” that Edmund O’Neill has created for us. This part of the Friday Discussion was triggered by Paul Kiparsky’s challenge:

I’m wondering if we could agree on some core phenomena or generalizations that would be important to address that have been, at least on some syllabic theories, understood to be explained by syllable structure. So, anyone who proposes a theory of the syllable or … a theory of the nonsyllable, should provide an account of those things. Those might include, for example, the well established typological generalizations, … generalizations about phonotactics, about compensatory lengthening, and maybe some core facts about English, or other well known languages… let’s say Kahn’s stuff. People who introduce new ideas should take care to have a story about those. Otherwise we end up talking past each other…

This brief essay is an attempt to outline the phenomena and generalizations that most contemporary theories of the syllable have traditionally been proposed to account for. It is based in part on comments drawn from the Friday Discussion, emails that colleagues have sent us since the conference, and an extremely cursory glance at the phonological literature.

First, an important caveat is in order. Facts do not come prelabeled for the theories that should explain them. It might very well be that the facts referred to below as originally motivating syllable theory are better accounted for with entirely different theoretical proposals; as progress is made in our disciplines, perhaps we will witness a chipping away at the mound of evidence once thought of as solidly supporting the syllable so that we are left with essentially nothing.

Another caveat, most forcefully expounded by Bill Idsardi, is that the enterprise embodied in the writing of this essay is essentially conservatizing. It is important to take this essay not as a prescriptive list of explananda. Rather, this essay is more in the spirit of taking stock of syllable theory in 2008. Syllables have been proposed as the explanans associated with a number of explananda. What are these explanans and explananda, and is the association between them valid?

Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, in a recent email, suggested that we divide the discussion into three parts, as paraphrased below:

1. What is the range of grammatical/linguistic phenomena we have traditionally thought of as requiring the syllable for an adequate description?

2. What other theoretical structures might be able to account for these grammatical phenomena?

3. To what extent are the grammatical notions of the syllable also able to account for behavioral phenomena that have also traditionally been described in terms of the syllable? e.g. apparently-syllable-manipulating language games, apparent syllable frequency effects, constraints on co-articulatory overlap, etc.

We will in fact give scant reference in this essay to question 2, as our purpose is to provoke colleagues to suggest and debate new theoretical entities. We will, therefore, simply list some key topics from (1) and (3); we will refer to the latter as “paraphonological phenomena.”

PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT THE PAGES HERE (GRAMMATICAL PHENOMENA AND PARAPHONOLOGICAL PHENOMENA) ARE LISTS OF STATEMENTS DESIGNED TO PROVOKE DISCUSSION. IT IS IN NO WAY A LIST OF DEFINITIVE CLAIMS! WE HAVE SIMPLY LISTED ONE OR TWO KEY PHENOMENA THAT AUTHORS HAVE SUGGESTED RELY CRUCIALLY ON THE SYLLABLE. CONTRIBUTERS TO THIS DISCUSSION MAY SUGGEST BETTER EXAMPLES AND/OR ANTI-SYLLABIC ANALYSES OF THESE EXAMPLES.




cecairns
cecairns 		Latest page update: made by cecairns , Feb 4 2008, 7:51 AM EST (about this update About This Update cecairns Edited by cecairns

4 words added
2 words deleted

view changes
- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.