LINGUIST List 3.537

Fri 26 Jun 1992

Disc: Phonology

Editor for this issue: <>


  1. John S. Coleman, 3.522 Things Phonological
  2. , Re: stress

Message 1: 3.522 Things Phonological

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 92 11:46:33 ED3.522 Things Phonological
From: John S. Coleman <>
Subject: 3.522 Things Phonological

In response to Rick Wojcik's comment that
>> the generative world, ... theory is grounded in intuitions about
>>well-formed linguistic structure. Natural Phonology grounds itself
>>in actual speech production.
Joe Stemberger writes
>It is a reasonable observation about most syntactic theories that they are
>based on intuitions. I don't think that this has ever been true about
>phonology. Phonological theory has OFTEN dealt with low-level phonological
>processes about which naive speakers (and even many trained ones) don't
>have clear intuitions, such as the leftward spread of nasality to vowels
>and approximants in a word like LAWRENCE.

Hear, hear. Rick and I have privately debated this matter, and I have come
to form the opinion that Natural Phonology's claim to being the only
phonological theory that is grounded in phonetic facts of various kinds
is a "territorial" claim without firm support. Some time ago I
invited Natural Phonologists to substantiate the claim by giving
an example of some phonological phenomenon which has not also been
addressed within some other un-Natural phonological theory. So far
I have not been informed of such a case. Maybe there is such a case,
if so, let's all hear about it.

--- John Coleman
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Re: stress

Date: 23 Jun 92 13:20 -0300
From: <>
Subject: Re: stress

Does anyone truly say 'conservAtry'? My native Californian pronun-
cation is 'dIctionary' with a secondary stress on penult. My franco-
phone students say 'dictionAry' and I correct them.

Bob Thiel
Universite de Moncton
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue