Re: CHAT: (no subject)

Tal:
> * Fredrik Ekman (ekman@lysator.liu.se) [000222 14:17]:
> > David Bell wrote:
> >
> > > While the "patterns" seem to make sense to me, I, unfortunately, have
> > > no understanding of the theory behind them.  I guess I'll have to
> > > study more phonology.
>
> I assume the framework And was using sorts under Autosegmental Theory,
> and any Phonology 101 class or book worth its name should at least
> describe that briefly and give pointers to more... we were treated to
> it already in the preliminary introduction to language and linguistics
> which everyone wanting to study any variant of linguistics -and/or- any
> language have to survive :)
>
> Hmm.. And? Maybe we should work together on a brief tutorial or
> something? Or maybe I can convince my phonology-prof to scribble
> something down...
>
> > I will have to sympathize with David here. While the subject matter is
> > extremely interesting, I feel at a loss to grasp the underlying concepts.
> > Could anyone recommend a good text (which would not require a doctorate in
> > linguistics to understand) on the subject of stress and syllable
> > construction from a general point of view? Preferably one available on the
> > Net or that could be found in most university libraries.
>
> I've spent quite a lot of time looking for such an online resource, no
> luck yet. If you are willing to have a look at texts heavily colored by
> the theoretic framework[*] they are based on, there's the Optimality
> archive at http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.
>
> If you're hunting for introductory books, I'd recommend those by Francis
> Katamba or Iggy Roca (Peter Ladefoged for the phonetic side of things,
> of course). Katamba's is more general, Roca's describe the various
> contemporary and competing theories better, IMHO.
>
> [*] Well I guess using trees everywhere seem natural once you're used to
> it but optimality-theory is just plain weird :) unless written by Marc
> van Oostendorp (great guy tho' he's something of an Esperanto-fanatic).
It's six years since I last taught more than phonemes-of-English phonology,
so I'm not up to date with recent textbooks. I can't remember what textbooks
I used, but I do remember that I was planning to use John Harris's _English
sound structure_, which was published just as the course was finishing,
the next time I taught it. But then I changed jobs. In my current department
we don't do proper phonology, because it's in a jurisdictional no-man's-land
(between me, the Formal Person, and someone else (a prosodist/phonetician),
the Sounds Person). I might be biased in favour of the John Harris book,
because he taught me (very enjoyably) as an undergrad, but the stuff in the book
was all developed after my undergrad years.

I'm not all that keen on the universalism that is even more dominant in
phonology than it is in, say, syntax. I would prefer that theories of
individual languages take priority over theories of language in general,
but am a pretty lone voice. Anyway, it means that most good cutting-edge
work in phonology (and syntax) is addressed to issues that to me are of
secondary importance.

I don't feel particularly competent to essay a tutorial. I think we're
better off learning from practice in our discussions on this list. I will
endeavour to clarify my previous message on Amman-Iar. It was incredibly
stupid of me, but it simply did not occur to me than anyone would not understand
it! (I seem to have some kind of quasiautistic disability whose
effect is to make me unreflectingly and irrationally assume that if I
understand something then all other people of equal or greater intelligence
do too.) At least it shows that the 'professionals' on this list respect their
'amateur' colleagues as peers!

--And.