Re: Your first "linguistic" memory

In article <43C856ED.3434@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > In article <43C6A6EC.462D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > There is no such thing as "modern phonemic theory";
> >
> > Granted, modern phonologists (especially in Optimality Theory) are
> > typically more concerned with explaining the surface patterns of
> > allophones than with cataloguing abstract representations for groups
> > of allophones. However, phonemic analysis still exists: minimal pairs
> > and contrastive distribution are not only taught, but also actively
> > used (when needed, of course; why re-derive the phonemes for languages
> > whose phonemes have already been determined?).
> >
> > > "phonemes" are not
> > > discussed in modern phonological theory.
> >
> > This is true only if you take "modern" to mean "1960s". With natural
> > phonology in the 1970s (Stampe, Hooper/Bybee), lexical phonology in
> > the 1980s (Kiparsky), and the phonetic, contrast-based phonologies of
> > the 1990s and 2000s (Flemming, Steriade), numerous elements of the
> > structuralist conception of phonemes have been brought back (though
> > most notably, not biuniqueness, for very good reason).
>
> Not mentioned in either of the most recent Cambridge Textbooks in
> Linguistics in the area.

I take no responsibility for what passes for phonology in Europe.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
.