Editor for this issue: Anita Huang <anita
linguistlist.org>
I am wondering what linguists mean by the word "immanent" which is used to describe linguistic approaches. In their "Phonology and Phonetics," Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle call theirs to phonology as an "inner approach," and classify Hjelmslev's algebraic view as an outer approach. However, Hjelmslev seems to claim his approach to language is an immanent one. The following are their words. J&H: For the connection and delimination of phonology (especially phonemics) and phonetics., the crucial question is the nature of the relationship between phonological entities and sound.... This so-to-speak inner, IMMANENT approach, which locates the distinctive features and their bundles within the speech sounds, be it on their motor, acoustical or auditory level, is the most appropriate premise for phonetic operation, although it has been repeatedly contested by outer approaches which in different ways divorce phonemes from concrete sounds... Hjelmslev: The study of language, with its multifarious, essentially transcendent aims, has many cultivators; The theory of language, with its purely immanent aim, few. in this connection, the theory of language must not be confused with the philosophy of language. Avoiding the hitherto dominant transcendent point of view and seeking an immanent understanding of language as self-subsistent, specific structure, and seeking a constant within language itself, not outside it, linguistic theory begins by circumscribing the scope of its object... Thank you. Wang ZhenyuMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
From Clare Gallaway University of Manchester Earlier in the month I posted a request for references on the use of distinctive feature analysis to measure progress in children with phonological output problems. My colleagues pass on their thanks to all those who replied: Dr. Stefan Frisch Dr.Adele Miccio Prof Yishai Tobin For the sake of brevity, I just list here all the references that were given. Costello, J. & Onstein, J.(1976) The modification of multiple articulation errors based on distinctive feature theory. JSpHDis, 41, 199-215. Dinnsen, D.A., Chin, S.B., Elbert, M. and Powell, T.W. (1990) Some constraints on functionally disordered phonologies: phonetic inventories and phonotactics. JSpHRes, 33, 28-37. Gierut, J.A. (1992) The conditions and course of clinically-induced phonological change. JSpHRes., 35, 1049-1063. McReynolds, L.V. & Engmann, D. (1975) Distinctive feature analysis of misarticulations. (workbook) Baltimore, MD; University Park Press. McReynolds, L.V. & Bennett, S. (1972) Distinctive feature generalization in articulation training. JSpHDis, 37, 462-470. McReynolds, L.V.& Huston, K. (1981) A distinctive feature analysis of children's misarticulations. JSpHDis, 36, 155-166. Tobin, Y. 1997. Phonology as Human Behaviour: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Duke University Press. Centre for Audiology, Education of the Deaf and Speech Pathology School of Education University of Manchester Oxford Rd Manchester M13 9PL 0161-275-3383Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue