Abstract
For the Structuralists and early Generativists (e.g. Bloomfield 1933; Chomsky & Halle 1968), all grammatical knowledge was by definition discrete and categorical. Since phonetic patterns are gradient, early work argued that phonetics was extra-grammatical. However, a significant body of work has since shown that phonetic patterns are language-specific and must constitute part of a speaker’s knowledge about their language (e.g. Keating 1985). As a result, linguistic knowledge is not ontologically categorical. For other areas of the grammar, though, much work continues to assume that linguistic knowledge is categorical. In this paper, I investigate the categoricality of phonological patterns using acoustic vowel harmony data from Uyghur. By comparing subphonemic variation in Uyghur with attested patterns of phonetic reduction and interpolation, I demonstrate that gradience is not always derivable from phonetic forces. On these grounds I argue that vowel harmony, and by extension phonology, may be gradient. Furthermore, the claim that gradience plays a larger role in linguistic representations is also supported by a number of descriptive works, which suggest that gradient harmony may occur in a wide range of languages. Building on experimental, and typological evidence, I thus contend that gradience isn’t restricted to phonetics, but pervades both the phonological and phonetic modules of the grammar.
Highlights
In Structuralist and early Generative work, all grammatical knowledge was assumed to be categorical and discrete (e.g. (Bloomfield 1933; Chomsky & Halle 1968)
I have argued that backness harmony in Uyghur is gradient, but one might contend that the results reported above derive, not from the systematic operation of the phonology, but from the experimental methods employed during data collection
One might claim that the pattern is really a result of collecting words in isolation. This is the very prediction made by the phonetic interpolation account
Summary
In Structuralist and early Generative work, all grammatical knowledge was assumed to be categorical and discrete (e.g. (Bloomfield 1933; Chomsky & Halle 1968). Phonetics, being inherently gradient, was regarded as extra-grammatical (de Saussure 1993) While such a view of phonetics was still espoused by Chomsky & Halle (1968), a contemporary body of phonetic literature discovered that phonetic patterns are language-specific and must form part of a speaker’s knowledge of their language (Öhman 1966; Keating 1985). Such findings suggest that all grammatical knowledge is not, by definition, categorical. If all attested cases of subphonemic gradience are either post-lexical or phonetic, the question is may morphophonological patterns be gradient? If all attested cases of subphonemic gradience are either post-lexical or phonetic, the question is may morphophonological patterns be gradient? To-date, the answer is no. Cohn (2006:36) states the issue thusly: Morphophonemic alternations are at the very core of what most phonologists think of as phonology . . . If these sorts of cases are shown to involve gradience, this would strike at the core of our understanding of the phonology, since these are the least disputable candidates for ‘being phonology.’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
