Introduction to the government phonology-natural
phonology workshop |
|
Edmund Gussmann (Gdańsk) |
In my introductory talk I will try
to place in the historical context what I regard as the pervasive issues in
phonology. The objective is not to search for predecessors or forerunners but
to point out that in one guise or another practically each of the so-called new
developments has been present somewhere in past research. In most cases it is
just a different combination of old ingredients that is responsible for a new
concoction. I will claim that by general consensus there is enough data which
is phonological and for which phonological interpretations should be
provided; it is this data that should
allow us to evaluate different theories and theoretical issues..
The issues I wish to single out are
the following:
1. the relevance or irrelevance of
contrast. This is a different way of assessing the role of syntagmatic and
paradigmatic considerations in phonology; will the paradigmatic bias continue
to dominate the discipline?
2. phonetics in phonology. How much
of the phonetic substance should be accounted for by phonological regularities
or how seriously should phonetic facts be taken? Are there grounds for claiming
that the linguistically interpreted phonetic representation is different from
the phonological representation?
3. the statement of phonological
regularities. What is allowed or admitted in such statements? What is
categorically disallowed? Is
grammatical information valid or permissible in such statements? Are arbitrary
diacritics to be admitted? How far – if at all – can we rely on empty
categories?
4. morpho(po)nology. Is it just a
dumping grounds for whatever cannot be fitted into phonological statements? Is
morphophonology the same as phonology but in a crooked mirror? Is it legitimate
to describe one without the other?