Enlarging the Scope of Phonologization
Enlarging the Scope of Phonologization
复制标题
扩大音系化的范围
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Larry M. Hyman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Larry M. Hyman
加州大学伯克利分校音系学实验室年度报告（2008）扩大音系化的范围加州大学伯克利分校[提交给芝加哥大学音系化研讨会论文集，2008年4月25-26日]…所有替代音出现的最初原因总是纯粹的人声性”（博杜安·德·考特奈1895[1972:184]）导言很难记住，如果有的话，音系学家对共时性和历时性之间的关系不感兴趣。从这门学科建立之初，音系学是如何形成的问题就一直是一个核心问题。从上面引用的博杜安·德·考特尼的话中可以看出，这种策略通常是从语音实体推导语音结构。下面的运动列表可以追溯到早期的生成时期，为共时性和历时性之间的关系以及语音学和音韵学之间的广泛观点和兴趣提供了部分音韵学背景：a. b. c. d. e.f.古典生成音韵学（乔姆斯基和哈勒1968）历时生成音韵学(Kiparsky 1965, 1968；King 1969)自然音系学（Stampe 1972, Donegan & Stampe 1979）自然生成音系学(Vennemann 1972a,b, 1974；Hooper [Bybee] 1976)变化和声音变化的进展（Labov 1971, Labov et al . 1972）语音模式和声音变化的语音解释（Ohala 1974, 1981, Thurgood & Javkin 1975, Hombert, Ohala & Ewan 1979）语音的内在变化与外在变化(Wang & Fillmore 1961, Chen 1970；对于上述一些学者来说，发现重复音韵学结构的语音和/或历时动机意味着拒绝经典生成音韵学的部分或全部基本原则，如乔姆斯基和哈莱（1968）的《英语语音模式》（SPE）。作为一名生成音韵学家，我发现自己在布拉格学派（如Trubetzkoy 1939， Martinet 1960）和SPE与从音韵学和历史基础方面“解释”这种结构的愿望之间存在矛盾。我选择的解决方案是专注于语音化的过程，这不仅涉及这些基础，而且还涉及一旦语音属性变成语音属性会发生什么。因此，尽管类似于Jakobson（1931）的术语phonologization (Phonologisierung)，它更好的翻译是phonemicization（即一个已经存在的音位属性从音素变成音位），我想用这个术语来指一个语音属性变成音位属性的变化。这一时期的音系化定义包括：
UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2008) Enlarging the Scope of Phonologization Larry M. Hyman University of California, Berkeley [Submitted to the Proceedings of the Symposium on Phonologization, University of Chicago, April 25-26, 2008] “...the original cause for the emergence of all alternants is always purely anthropophonic” (Baudouin de Courtenay 1895 [1972:184]) Introduction It is hard to remember a time, if ever, when phonologists were not interested in the relation between synchrony and diachrony. From the very founding of the discipline, a constant, if not always central issue has been the question of how phonology comes into being. As can be seen in the above quote from Baudouin de Courtenay, the strategy has usually been to derive phonological structure from phonetic substance. The following list of movements dating from the early generative period provides a partial phonological backdrop of the wide-ranging views and interest in the relation between synchrony and diachrony, on the one hand, and phonetics and phonology, on the other: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. classical generative phonology (Chomsky & Halle 1968) diachronic generative phonology (Kiparsky 1965, 1968; King 1969) natural phonology (Stampe 1972, Donegan & Stampe 1979) natural generative phonology (Vennemann 1972a,b, 1974; Hooper [Bybee] 1976) variation and sound change in progress (Labov 1971, Labov et al 1972) phonetic explanations of phonological patterning and sound change (Ohala 1974, 1981, Thurgood & Javkin 1975, Hombert, Ohala & Ewan 1979) intrinsic vs. extrinsic variations in speech (Wang & Fillmore 1961, Chen 1970, Mohr For some of the above scholars the discovery of phonetic and/or diachronic motivations of recurrent phonological structures entailed the rejection of some or all of the basic tenets of classical generative phonology, as represented by Chomsky & Halle’s (1968) Sound Pattern of English (SPE). As a generative phonologist, I found myself conflicted betweeen a commitment to the structuralist approach to phonology, as reflected in the Prague School (e.g. Trubetzkoy 1939, Martinet 1960) and in SPE vs. a desire to “explain” this structure in terms of its phonetic and historical underpinnings. The resolution I opted for was to focus on the process of phonologization, which is concerned not only with these underpinnings, but also with what happens to phonetic properties once they become phonological. Thus, although resembling Jakobson’s (1931) term phonologisation (Phonologisierung), which is better translated as phonemicization (whereby an already phonological property changes from allophonic to phonemic), I intended the term to refer to the change of a phonetic property into a phonological one. Definitions of phonologization from this period include the following: