Abstract
This paper is basically concerned with the relationship between phonetic data and phonological analyses. I) It will be shown that phonological analyses based on unverified phonetic data tend to accommodate ad hoc, unmotivated, and even phonetically implausible phonological rules. On the other hand, it will be demonstrated that a phonological analysis (of the same phenomenon), based on verified phonetic data, accounts for these data in an acceptable, natural and credible manner. Examples will be taken from the phenomenon of labialization in Sesotho2) to illustrate the point that it is absolutely necessary to make a clearcut distinction between "data" and "facts" in generative phonological descriptions.
Highlights
This paper is basically concerned with the relationship between phonetic data and phonological analyses
Attention will first be given to different types of phonetic data: impressionistic phonetic data of Tucker (1929) and of Kunene (i961) will be discussed, after which some experimental phonetic data on the phenomenon of labialization in Sesotho will be presented
Eighteen years ago Ladefoged (1960 : 387), in referring to the value of phonetic statements, basically made the same point in stating "It is odd that linguists, who pride themselves on the rigour and scientific nature of many of their'concepts should be so tolerant of vague unverified statements in their field."
Summary
On two occasions Sara Garnes (1973 : 273; 1974: 144) makes the following statement: "In abstract" phonology phonetic facts are frequently taken for granted and verification of the phonetic facts is largely ignored." This seems to be quite true of many. if not of most of contemporary phonological descriptions. Very seldom are scientific methods adopted to check the correctness of phonetic data on which phonological analyses are eventually based. A fact represents what, in all probability, is the case It is a tested and probably correct datum about reality." (ibid.). As it is not the function of linguistic theory to, provide "criteria of correctness" in order to distinguish between "non-facts'" and "facts", these criteria obviously may be sought in other disciplines. The views of Tucker and of Kunene are very much the same on various points, they seem to differ on at least one crucial point, i.e. on the segmental status of a labialized articulation.
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.
