Introduction

This volume addresses some of the new and developing approaches to phonological theory with a view toward comparing and differentiating them. The impact of generative phonology (‘standard theory’) as articulated most notably by Chomsky and Halle (1968) in their monumental work The Sound Pattern of English has been dominant and immeasurable in terms of directing phonological research and defining issues. Since the advent of generative phonology, considerable interest and activity have been centered on elaborating or constraining the ‘standard theory’ in a variety of ways. This activity has been so extensive in some instances that quite a number of apparently distinct theoretical approaches have emerged. On superficial grounds, it is clear that there are, at least, intended differences among these approaches. The terminology and descriptive devices are certainly different in some sense, and positions on certain issues also vary. However, it has not been especially clear what any of these differences may mean in the larger contexts of developing correct models of phonological systems and explaining why these systems are the way they are. That is, it is not always clear which assumptions are held constant and are shared, what different empirical predictions are embodied in the various proposals, or whether the newly devised formalism actually excludes any language-types. In short, there have been no serious systematic, coherent comparison and differentiation of these various approaches. Moreover, it has become virtually impossible to evaluate these approaches. It is accordingly most difficult to discern real progress in the field.

In response to this situation, a project was undertaken that would result in this volume. As the first step, on September 30-0ctober 1, 1977, the Conference on the Differentiation of Current Phonological Theories (held at Indiana University, Bloomington) convened some of the major figures in current phonological theory and the leading proponents of some of the more popular and/or provocative theoretical approaches. The conference was to address the following questions:

1) What specific issues or problems have given rise to each new theoretical approach to force a departure from ‘standard theory’?

2) How do the new approaches differ from one another?

3) What aspects of these differences are formal/empirical?

4) Are there any bases for judging one theory or approach to be superior to another?

Nine papers were presented, each of which sketched a particular theoretical approach in terms of the conference charge. Discussion followed each paper including remarks from the invited discussants and other conferees. As part of the final session, Professor Fred Householder was called upon to review the positions represented at the conference by criticizing them where appropriate and by defining the areas of common ground so that we might gain some perspective on the field currently.

The conference, then, represented only the initial phase of the project, i.e., a preliminary forum for the statement of positions, an occasion to discern areas of overlap, conflict, and divergence. I think it is fair to say that there was some disappointment on the part of many conferees concerning the general absence of confrontation during the conference. In fact, it was observed that an unusual level of politeness was evident throughout the proceedings. The absence of more intense confrontation is, however, explainable on several counts. For many, unfortunately, this was the first convenient occasion to hear a more or less coherent presentation of others’ research. Also, one of the significant conclusions that surely surfaces from this project is that most of us are working on specific but distinct problems, the solutions to which, for the most part, are mutually compatible. As for the politeness that seemed to prevail—well, in part it may be the beginning of a new social grace introducing itself to the field, but I doubt it. Whatever public display of politeness there may have been was not especially evident in the exchanges that took place in the weeks following the conference. This opened the second phase of the project, i.e., reflection, revision, and restatement for the purpose of publication. The authors of the nine presented papers were permitted to revise their papers, taking into account the discussions from the conference. The discussants were invited to submit short papers summarizing their remarks from the conference. It was at this point that confrontation was somewhat more feasible, intense, and productive. Much of the resultant confrontation is reflected in this volume; and, of course, some of it is not, for various reasons. This volume, thus, represents an introduction to current phonological theory in terms of a comparison and differentiation of the various approaches that constitute it and should serve as a general statement reflecting some of the significant research interests and problems in the field today.

The volume is organized into three sections. The first (and main) section includes articles on each of the theoretical approaches to be considered. Householder’s review article constitutes the second section of the volume. The third section comprises short articles prepared by the conference discussants which critique the various theoretical approaches or provide a general perspective on the issues and controversies at present.

Section I is opened by Anderson’s contribution which sets the stage by reviewing some of the recent developments within generative phonology leading to what might be termed ‘revised standard theory.’ The next three papers, mine on Atomic phonology, Houlihan and Iverson’s on Functionally-constrained phonology and Sanders’ on Equational phonology, have in common an interest in developing a theory of phonology more highly constrained than standard theory (possibly more than any other theory discussed here). All three proposals severely constrain what a rule of grammar can be. Equational phonology and Functionally-constrained phonology are closely linked at least in terms of some of the claims made. Kaye in his paper in Section III argues against the correctness of Houlihan and Iverson’s (and by implication against Sanders’) claims. Hooper develops in her article a particular aspect of Natural generative phonology by advancing a principle of analysis for morphologically-motivated alternation, i.e., a characterization of a ‘natural morphological process.’ Harris counters in his paper with a detailed critique of Hooper’s proposal. The Donegan and Stampe article presents, in my judgment, the most impressive statement to date of Natural phonology and further refines their position on rule ordering. Leben, in his contribution, reviews and extends ‘upside-down’ phonology. Goldsmith’s article sketches an ‘autosegmental’ approach to phonology which extends standard theory in the characterization of phonological representation somewhat along the lines of Firthian ‘prosodies.’ The final article in this section by Joshi and Kiparsky elucidates some of the principles of Pāninian phonology, particularly as regards rule ordering, and relates these principles to proposals in the current literature.

Stepping back from any individual contribution in this volume, a few general points emerge. First, and perhaps most comforting, is the reaffirmation of the enormous and transcendent contributions to phonological theory of such giants in the field as Jakobson, Trubetzkoy and Halle. Their influence is undeniably profound in all contemporary work. The second point would be that fundamentally the various approaches are not that different (with the possible exception of Natural phonology). While specifics may differ, many of the essential bases of generative phonology remain. Thus it should not be surprising that the diversity of generally non-overlapping problems would be met by proposals that are generally compatible and presumably could be integrated into a unified theory. Some less isolationism and more interchange might obtain in the field if we could recognize our common ground and build together; and at the same time, we appear to be in need of some radical rethinking for the sake of fresh insights.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of those who have participated in this project in its various phases. The entire project was supported by funds from the National Science Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Indiana University Linguistics Club, and both the Department of Linguistics and Office of Research and Graduate Development here. This project never would have gotten off the ground had it not been for the I.U. Linguistics Club. The Club provided the initial underwrite, its facilities and people-power. As it was, the total budget approached $12,000 and would have been considerably higher without the Club’s help. Our success in securing the needed funding owes to the guidance provided by the local organizing committee including T. A. Sebeok, David Pisoni, Linda Schwartz, and Fred Householder. We also benefited in this regard from the comments and suggestions provided by W. P. Lehmann, Paul Chapin, and Robert Woodley.

I am indebted to all the contributors to the volume for their participation in and support of the conference and for their cooperation and goodwill throughout.

On a personal level, I want to note that my greatest debt is to the conference staff, Lucia Hammar, Carmen Lozano, and Edith Maxwell, who saw this project through its entirety in a highly competent, versatile and successful fashion. They involved themselves in all aspects of the project including the initial organizing, proposal writing, correspondence, conference arrangements, editing, etc. They anticipated needs and problems and executed the appropriate tasks while insulating me as much as possible from the burdensome details. The extent to which I have retained any sanity, I owe to them; any apparent diminished capacity on my part is inherently mine.

I would like to add a special note of acknowledgment for the contributions made by two particular individuals. Charles Ferguson wrote to each of the volume’s contributors in advance of the conference, inviting us to make use of the Phonology Archive at Stanford University. I speak not only for myself when I say that the capabilities and the contribution of the Archive as a research tool are immeasurably helpful. The other person I want to thank is Robert Stockwell, who was the only senior scholar in attendance at the conference who came at his own expense. This is particularly noteworthy because Bob found it so (on several occasions) in his remarks at the conference. I am indebted to him, as we all should be, for having the courage and spirit to inject the pessimistic view that we may not be doing what we are supposed to be doing. His remarks reaffirmed the charge of the conference and ultimately contributed to a more vigorous volume.

Daniel A. Dinnsen
February, 1978