Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Phonetics and Phonology
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
Dialect differentiation in Lexical Phonology: the unwelcome effects of underspecification Introduction
المؤلف: APRIL McMAHON
المصدر: LEXICAL PHONOLOGY AND THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH
الجزء والصفحة: P205-C5
2024-12-21
59
Dialect differentiation in Lexical
Phonology: the unwelcome effects of underspecification
Introduction
The investigation of the Scottish Vowel Length Rule raises important issues for the modelling of sound change in Lexical Phonology, a topic to which we shall return. However, it also relates very directly to a synchronic question we have touched on several times already, namely the degree to which different dialects of the same language can vary. Of course, SVLR is a process specific to Scottish varieties; this kind of variation in the form, order and inventory of phonological rules is already familiar from Standard Generative Phonology. But we have departed from the SGP line in also allowing dialectal divergence in the underlying representations: for instance, various vowel oppositions (such as the RP and GenAm Sam ~ psalm and pull ~ pool pairs) are simply neutralized in toto in Scots and SSE; and we saw that the father vowel should be analyzed as underlyingly front in some varieties of English, and back in others.
We might regard these minor, scattered examples as still compatible with a generally panlectal approach to phonology, however, I shall propose a far more general and more radical underlying dialectal difference, involving the dichotomizing feature(s) which establish the structure of the whole vowel system. I shall argue that in some varieties of English only [± tense] is underlyingly relevant; in others, only length; and in still others, both. This approach is clearly incompatible with a panlectal analysis; but as we shall see, rejecting panlectal phonology is no great loss. Less obviously, this analysis is relevant to underspecification theory, which I ruled out, though essentially without argument, I shall show that arguments against underspecification are accumulating in many phonological models, and that its effects are particularly serious and unwelcome in Lexical Phonology. Most notably, whereas a constrained LP will enforce an analysis of each variety in its own terms, implying quite far-reaching underlying divergence, the use of underspecification means that abstract ness can be readily reintroduced, and that shared underliers can be permitted in cases where they are not warranted.