Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T19:55:09.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Natural Phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Wolfgang U. Dressler
Wolfgang U. Dressler
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Natural Phonology (henceforth NP), founded by Stampe (1969, cf. 1980), and not to be confused with Natural Generative Phonology (henceforth NGP, as in Vennemann 1972 and Hooper 1976) and other ‘natural’ and ‘concrete’ trends in process phonologies (as in Bruck et al. 1974, cf. §3·3), has been well expounded in Donegan & Stampe (1979b) and, in terms of its application to language acquisition, in Edwards & Shriberg (1983). Important differences from Generative Phonology (henceforth GP) have been enumerated by Wojcik (1981). It is not my intention to repeat these expositions, but rather to answer those criticisms that have so far been answered only partially, such as the objections to NP discussed in Anderson (1981), Dinnsen (1978), Dinnsen & Eckmann (1977, 1978), Drachman (1978, 1981), Dressler (1974a), Hellberg (1980), Kodzasov & Krivnova (1981: 145ff), Lass (1980, 1981).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 1 , May 1984 , pp. 29 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Lg 49. 756–793.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. (1974). The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. (1981). Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. LI 12. 493–540.Google Scholar
Angenot, J.-P. et al. (eds.) (1981). Studies in Pure Natural Phonology and related topics. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Working Papers in Linguistics I.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1975). The indexical element in morphology. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Back, M. (1979). Sonorität und Lautwandel. In Brogyanyi, B. (ed.) Festschrift für O. Szemerényi. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 53–69.Google Scholar
Back, M. (1981). Die mittelpersische Lautverschiebung: em Stilwandel. Die Sprache 27. 178–186.Google Scholar
Baudouin de Courtenay, J. (1895). Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen. Strasbourg Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarkman, P. (1975). Towards a proper conception of processes in Natural Phonology. PCLS II. 60–72Google Scholar
Bruck, A. et al. (eds.)(1974). Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Campbell, L & Ringen, J. (1981). Teleology and the explanation of sound change. In Dressler et al. (1981). 57–68.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1968). Sincronía, diacronía y tipología. In Actas del XI. Congresso Intern. de lingüística y filología románicas. Madrid: CSIC. 269–283.Google Scholar
Darden, B. (1997). On the nature of morphophonemic rules. PCLS 15. 79–89.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1978). Phonological rules and phonetic explanation. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Eckmann, F. R. (1977). The atomic character of phonological processes. In Dressler & Pfeiffer (1977). 133–137.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Eckmann, F. R. (1978). Some substantial universals in Atomic Phonology. Lingua 45. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobó, A. (1980). Zwei phonoiogische Prozesse in syrjänischen Diaiekten. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 22–23. 25–30.Google Scholar
Dogil, G. (1981). Elementary accent systems. In Dressler et al. (1981).89–99.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. J. (1978). On the natural phonology of vowels. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 23.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. J. & Stampe, D. (1977). On the description of phonological hierarchies. In Fox, S. E. et al. (eds.) CLS Book of Squibs. 35–38.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. J. & D., Stampe (1979a). The syllable in phonological and prosodic structure. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds.) Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 25–34.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. J. & D., Stampe (1979b). The study of Natural Phonology. In Dinnnsen, D. A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–173.Google Scholar
Drachman, G. (1973). Phonology and the basis of articulation. Die Sprache 19. 1–19.Google Scholar
Drachman, G. (1977). On the notion ‘phonological hierarchy’. In Dressler & Pfeiffer (1977). 85–102.Google Scholar
Drachman, G. (1978). Child language and language change. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Recent developments in historical phonology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drachman, G. (1981). Teleological explanation in phonology. In Dressler et al. (1981).101–111.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1973). Pour une styiistique phonologique du latin. BSLP 68. 129–145.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1974a). Diachronic puzzles for Natural Phonology. In Bruck et al. (1974). 95–102.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1974b). Aphasie und Theorie der Phonologie. Incontri Linguistici I. 9–20.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. Methodisches zu Allegroregeln. In Dressler & Mareš (1975). 219–234.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1977). Grundfragen der Morphonologie. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1979a). Arguments and non-arguments in phonology: on the use of external evidence. PICPhS 9. 93–100.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1979b). Reflections on phonological typology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 29. 259–273.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1980). A semiotic model of diachronic process phonology. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 22–23. 31–94. (Also in Lehmann, W. & Maikiel, Y. (eds.) (1983). Perspectives for historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 93–131.)Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1981). Outlines of a model of morphonology. In Dressler et at. (1981).113–122.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1982). Aclassification of phonological paraphasias. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 29. 3–16.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (forthcoming). The dynamics of derivation: morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & V., Acson (forthcoming). On the diachrony of subtractive operations. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & G., Drachman (1977). Externe Evidenz für eine Typoiogie der Vokaiprozesse. In Drachman, G. (ed.) Salzburger Beiträge für Linguistik 3. 285–297.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Hufgard, J. (1980). Etudes phonologiques sur le breton sud-bigouden. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Mareš, F. V. (eds.) (1975). Phonologica 1972. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. & Wurzel, W. U. (forthcoming). Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Moosmüller, S. & Stark, H. (1984). Sociophonology in aphasia. Discussion Papers of the 5th International Phonology Meeting. Vienna: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Pfeiffer, O. E. (eds.) (1977). Phonologica 1976. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Pfeiffer, O. E. & Rennison, J. R. (eds.) (1981). Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Wodak, R. (1982). Sociophonological methods in the study of sociolinguistic variation in Viennese German. Language in Society II. 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. L. & Shriberg, L. D. (1983). Phonology. San Diego: College Hill Press.Google Scholar
Goman, R. D. (1981). On the natural phonology of consonants. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 25. 107–173.Google Scholar
Hellberg, S. (1980). Apparent naturalness in Faroese phonoiogy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 3. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herok, T. & Tonelli, L. (1977). Natural process phonology and the description of phonological variation. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 16. 43–63.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hurch, B. (1983). H. Eine Studie zur kontrastiven Phonetik und Phonologie. In Dardano, M., Dressler, W. U. & Held, G. (eds.) Parallela. Tübingen: Narr. 271–280.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, J. W. A natural history of complete consonantal assimilations. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University. (Cf. its extract in PCLS 9 (1973) 215–222.)Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1941). Efficiency in linguistic change. Historisk-filologiske meddelelser 27. (Also in Selected Writings. Tokyo: Senyo. 381–466.)Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M. (1982). Processus phonologiques, processus morphologiques et lapsus dans un corpus aphasique. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht:Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Knudson, L. M. (1975). Natural Phonology and morphophonemics of Chimalapa Zoque. Working Papers, Summer Institute of Linguistics 19, University of North Dakota Session, Section II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodzasov, S. V. & Krivnova, O. V. (1981). Sovremennaja amerikanskaja fonologija. Moscow: Izd. Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Koj, L. (1979). The principle of transparency and semiotic antinomies. In Peic, J. (ed.) Semiotics in Poland. Dordrecht: Reidel. 376–406.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1981). Explaining language change: the future of an illusion. In Dressier et al. (1981). 257–273.Google Scholar
Lee, G. & I., Howard (1974) Another mouthful of divinity fudge. In Bruck et al. (1974). 220–232.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1983). On the teleological nature of speech processes. Speech Communication 2. 155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, G. (1975). Der Sprechbewegungsablauf. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, J. (1973). Loanwords and the phonological structure of Japanese. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Luschützky, C. (to appear). Zur natürlichen Phonologie der Affrikaten. Akten des 18. Linguistischen Kolloquiums. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Major, R. C. Phonological differentiation of a bilingual child. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 22. 88–122.Google Scholar
Manaster-Ramer, A. (1984). How abstruse is phonology? Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, E. (1982). Unbetonter Vokalismus und Silbenstruktur im Romanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1981). Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1982). Markiertheit in der Phonologie. In Vennemann, T. (ed.) Silben, Segmente, Akzente. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 205–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeld, R. L. (1973). Remarks on palatalization. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 14. 37–49.Google Scholar
Pateman, T. (1982). Realism and language change. Language and Communication 2.161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1965). Collected papers (edited by Hartshore, C. & Weiss, P.). 8 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, W. H. (ed.) (1983). Phonological-articulatory disorders. Stuttgart-New York: Thieme.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. (1972). Natural Phonology and MS conditions. PCLS 8. 544–557.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1980). Sprachverwendung - Sprachsystem: Ökonomie und Wandel. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, J. (1981). Cyclic Phonology and palatalization in Polish and English. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Scherfer, P. (1983). Natürliche Phonologie und Struktur des Französischen. Linguistische Berichte 86. 14–28.Google Scholar
Schnitzer, N. (1972). Generative Phonology - evidence from aphasia. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Semiloff-Zelasko, H. (1973). Syncope and pseudo-syncope. PCLS 9. 603–614.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. PCLS 5. 443–454.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1980). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tonelli, L. (1981). Uberlegungen zur Natürlichen Phonologie: eine kontrastive Analyse des Boznerischen und des Südtiroler Italienischen. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18.1–18.Google Scholar
Wojcik, R. (1981). Natural Phonology and Generative Phonology. In Goyvaerts, D. (ed.) Phonology in the 1980's. Gent: Story-Scientia. 635–647.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1982). Phonologie - Morphonologie - Morphologie. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. & R., Böttcher (1979). Konsonantenkluster, phonologische Komplexität und aphasische Störungen. In Bierwisch, M. (ed.) Psychologische Effekte sprachlicher Strukturkomponenten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 401–445.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1975). The strategy of generative phonology. In Dressler & Mareš (1975). 151–168.Google Scholar