Re: Textbook choices

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, dirk elzinga wrote:

> > > 4)  The phonetic transcription scheme presented for English is
> > > extremely useful for discussion of tense/lax oppositions--especially
> > > when I turn the discussion to syllable structure and stress patterns.
> > > Having tense vowels presented as branching nuclei allows the
> > > generalization that syllables with branching rhymes attract stress in
> > > English. This point is difficult to make with other transcription
> > > systems. It is a relatively simple matter to remind students that not
> > > all languages have a tense/lax opposition like that found in English,
> > > and that using the tense/lax transcription conventions may not be
> > > appropriate elsewhere.
> >
> > We haven't gotten to the syllable structure parts yet, and I'm looking
> > forward to it, since it's one of the few areas I don't already know.  I
> > don't really mind the tense/lax distinction in English as a *phonological*
> > feature, but it makes for very bad *phonetics*.  Plus, the book goes with
> > Chomsky's SPE in suggesting that [tense] should be a feature for *all*
> > languages, which is nonsense.
>
> I agree that [tense] needn't be invoked in all languages, but in
> English it is absolutely crucial. And it can't be reduced to some
> other phonetic contrast, such as retraction of the tongue root;
> Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) demonstrate this fairly convincingly.
> So if it's good phonology to invoke [tense], it's also equally good
> phonetics, if only because we haven't been able to explain it away as
> something else.
Well, that begs the question of *what* is the distinction between
phonetics and phonology.  I would like to think of phonetics as purely
articulatory and only concerned with the actual facts of speech
production.  Phonology, on the other hand, deals with the relationships
between sounds in a given language.  Thus, I see the English tense/lax
distinction as a valid phonological alternation without any phonetic
motivation.  Many theorists like every natural class to have phonetic
basis, but based on the data I know from English and Romanian, that just
ain't so.

> > All transcriptions may be arbitrary, but at least some systems are
> > universal.  IPA is recognized by pretty much every linguist on the globe,
> > while the North American system is only used in this continent and only
> > used for English.  For the limited purposes of this book, I guess it
> > suffices, but that doesn't make me like it.
>
> Nah, don't worry about it. I'm not making you learn it :-). The
> differences between the Americanist system and the alphabet of the IPA
> are small enough to make the arguments about them kinda silly.
> However, it isn't true that the Americanist system is only used by
> North American linguists and only for English; most researchers
> looking at Native American languages use this system, or some version
> of it--I used it in my dissertation on Shoshoni phonology--hence
> "Americanist". I believe it (or something like it) is also in common
> use among Semiticists.
I didn't know that--thanks for correcting me.  I still don't *like* the
scheme, but I guess it has its merits.

> > > As for Jesse's "retaliation," all I can say is that if I had a student
> > > who was that motivated and ambitious, I would weep for joy.
> >
> > Heh.  My teacher (really just a bewildered grad student) told me to "stop
> > showing off."  I think he was joking though--he wrote a little smiley on
> > the side.  BTW, where do you teach, Dirk?
>
> I'm at the University of Utah, in beautiful Salt Lake City.
I hear that's a nice place.  I've only drive through it once, so I can't
say much myself.

> > > 1)  The phonology and syntax chapters present way too much formalism
> > > for an introductory course. I have my students skip that material.
> >
> > What do you mean?  I've enjoyed learning the phonological feature marking
> > (even if it *is* the flawed SPE) more than
> > anything else, since I never really mastered it before.
>
> I don't argue with the fact that learning about distinctive features
> is Good For You; I just don't think that freshmen taking the course
> for a General Education requirement should have to; it goes way beyond
> the scope of the course.
Ahh--see, my course is Ling 400: Intro to Linguistic Method and Theory
and it's the gateway course for Linguistics majors.  The
non-linguistics-major course is Ling 101 or Ling 200.  So I rather
expect the course to be rigorous and technically accurate.

>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Dirk Elzinga
> dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu
>
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
"It is of the new things that men tire--of fashions and proposals and
improvements and change.  It is the old things that startle and
intoxicate.  It is the old things that are young."
-G.K. Chesterton _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_