Firth's early phonological views and prosodic analysis
A reply to Coleman (2004)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11565274 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Elena Battaner Moro (0000-0002-5521-6445, Universidad de la Comunicación, corresponding author), Elena Battaner-Moro |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 97-102 |
| Publication date | 2006-05-18 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of the International Phonetic Association (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-1003 • E-ISSN: 1475-3502 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0025100306002404 |
| OpenAlex | W2092809148 |
| Language | EN |
In a previous issue of this journal, John Coleman (2004) reviewed the written-up version of a poster I presented at the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona (Battaner-Moro 2003, henceforth BM). The aim of the poster was to discuss the evolution of Firthian prosodic analysis. In his review, Coleman derives from it ‘an ignorance or a neglect of Firth's publications prior to 1948' on my part (p. 211). He focusses his criticisms on the following three statements: ‘Firth never did prosodic analysis.’ ‘There is a complete absence of programmatic work in Firth's works.’ ‘Prosodic analysis was developed by the members of the London School and not at all by John Firth.’
Epistemology · Firth · Ignorance · Linguistics · Neglect · Geology · Historical Linguistics and Language Studies · Linguistic Studies and Language Acquisition · Philosophy · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|