Why underlying representations

Dados Bibliográficos

ID10140780
AutoresLarry M Hyman (0000-0002-7676-6358, University of California, Berkeley, autor correspondente)
Ano2018
Volume54
Fascículo3
Páginas591-610
Data de publicação2018-02-21
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoJournal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0022226718000014
OpenAlexW2287330163
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas4
Referências 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