Abstract
Theoretical phonology centrally focuses on representing the implicit knowledge that speakers have of the sound patterns in their language, as Blevins (this volume) points out on the first page of her synopsis. Equally important, according to Blevins, is it to provide explanations for the dis- tribution of sound patterns across attested spoken languages. While this has been aimed at in numerous studies in dierent frameworks, Blevins mentions Generative Phonology and Optimality Theory in this context, the alternatively proposed Evolutionary Phonology (henceforth: EP) is claimed to dier from previous work in maintaining a principled distinc- tion between phonological and extra-phonological explanations for sound patterns. For this purpose, EP focuses on diachronic processes and tests the hypothesis that ''regular phonetically based sound change is the com- mon source of recurrent sound patterns'' (p. 2). In the following I argue that EP is only of limited use for phonological theory. I focus on Blevins' criticism of alternative accounts (§2), EP's sup- posed simplification of phonological theory by ascribing the occurrence of typological patterns to sound change (§3), and a short description of the grammar model by Boersma (§4), which follows restrictions similar to those posed in EP.
Paper version not known (
Free)
Published Version
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.
