In:
Revue québécoise de linguistique, Consortium Erudit, Vol. 19, No. 1 ( 2009-05-06), p. 131-162
Abstract:
Although Postal's (1968) arguments against the statability and necessity of phonotactic constraints have been effectively answered by Shibatani (1972, 1973) and Sommerstein (1974, 1977), his redundancy argument is still valid, even if Morpheme Structure Conditions (MSC) are eliminated (cf. Kiparsky 1982). Despite Venneman's (1974) construal of phonological rules as WeIl-Formedness Conditions (WFC), Stampe's (1979) insistence that WFC's are merely the products of processes, and Stanley's (1967) and Kiparsky's penetrating studies of the duplication problem, all contemporary theories of phonology continue to use both rules and WFC's. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the appropriate response to Postal's redundancy objection is to eliminate phonological rules. I shall argue that all truly phonological alternations are governed by WFC's stated, say, à la Selkirk (1982), and that these WFC's trigger one of a universal set of repair strategies to fix or alleviatetheir violations as and when they arise.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1705-4591
,
0710-0167
Language:
French
Publisher:
Consortium Erudit
Publication Date:
2009
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2140856-7
SSG:
7,11
Bookmarklink