Why underlying representations

Datos Bibliográficos

ID10140780
AutoresLarry M Hyman (0000-0002-7676-6358, University of California, Berkeley, autor de correspondencia)
Año2018
Volumen54
Número3
Páginas591-610
Fecha de publicación2018-02-21
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0022226718000014
OpenAlexW2287330163
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas34

Phonology is a rapidly changing and increasingly varied field, having traveled quite some distance from its original structuralist and generative underpinnings. In this overview I address the status of underlying representations (URs) in phonology, which have been rejected by a number of researchers working in different frameworks. After briefly discussing the current state of phonology, I survey the arguments in favor of vs. against URs, considering recent surface-oriented critiques and alternatives. I contrast three straightforward abstract tonal analyses against the potential arguments which accuse URs of being (i) wrong, (ii) redundant, (iii) indeterminate, (iv) insufficient, or (v) uninteresting. Identifying two distinct goals in linguistics which I refer to as determining ‘what’s in the head?’ vs. ‘what’s in the language?’, I suggest, responding to some rather strong opinions to the contrary, that URs are an indispensable and welcome tool offering important insights into the typology of phonological systems, if not beyond

Conceptualization · Contrast (vision · Epistemology · Field (mathematics · Generative grammar · Linguistics · Phonology · Sociology · State (computer science · Theoretical linguistics · Typology · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Mathematics · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation