Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Why underlying representations?

  • LARRY M. HYMAN (a1)
Abstract

Phonology is a rapidly changing and increasingly varied field, having traveled quite some distance from its original structuralist and generative underpinnings. In this overview I address the status of underlying representations (URs) in phonology, which have been rejected by a number of researchers working in different frameworks. After briefly discussing the current state of phonology, I survey the arguments in favor of vs. against URs, considering recent surface-oriented critiques and alternatives. I contrast three straightforward abstract tonal analyses against the potential arguments which accuse URs of being (i) wrong, (ii) redundant, (iii) indeterminate, (iv) insufficient, or (v) uninteresting. Identifying two distinct goals in linguistics which I refer to as determining ‘what’s in the head?’ vs. ‘what’s in the language?’, I suggest, responding to some rather strong opinions to the contrary, that URs are an indispensable and welcome tool offering important insights into the typology of phonological systems, if not beyond.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Why underlying representations?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Why underlying representations?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Why underlying representations?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-2650, USA hyman@berkeley.edu
Footnotes
Hide All
[1]

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the University of California, Berkeley and as the Henry Sweet Lecture at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, University College, London, 16 September 2015, as part of a workshop on the Current Status of Underlying Representations in Phonology (http://www.lagb.org.uk/lagb2015/phonology). I would like to thank participants at both events, as well as Jeffrey Heinz, Sharon Inkelas, Keith Johnson, and Mark Liberman for helpful discussions of the issues raised in this paper. I would especially like to thank the editors of JL and three anonymous referees who put in an enormous effort and thought into their helpful comments on the original manuscript. While I have followed as much of their advice as I could, I hope they will not hold against me that I wasn’t able to address all of the important issues they raised.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 125143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Albright, Adam. 2012. Probing underlying representations. In Cohn, Abigail C. & Fougeron, Cécile (eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, 134146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Language 84, 795814.
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2015a. Allomorphs in a connected world. Presented at Colloquium, University of California, Berkeley, 16 March 2015.
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2015b. Tonal allomorphy in Kinande. In Hee Wee, Lian & Hsiao, Yuchau (eds.), Capturing phonological shades, 76100. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2014. The role of underlying representations in split-base formations: The case of French adjectival liaison. Presented at Allomorphy: Its Logic and Limitations, Jerusalem, 8 July 2014.
Buckley, Eugene. 2011. Metathesis. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3, 13801470. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Burzio, Luigi. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representations. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models, and methods, 118136. Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cassimjee, Farida & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1992. On the tonology of depressor consonants: Evidence from Mijikenda and Nguni. Berkeley Linguistic Society 18 (BLS 18): Special Session on Tone System Typology, 26–40.
Celata, Chiara, Calamai, Silvia, Ricci, Irene & Bertini, Chiara. 2013. Nasal place assimilation between phonetics and phonology: An EPG study of Italian nasal-to-velar clusters. Journal of Phonetics 41, 88100.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, José Ignacio. 2011. Underlying representations. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Blackwell Reference Online. doi:10.1111/b.9781405184236.2011.x (31 July 2012).
Cutler, Anne, Eisner, Frank, McQueen, James M. & Norris, Dennis. 2010. How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D’Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory Phonology, vol. 10, 91111. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
Eddington, David. 1996. The psychological status of phonological analyses. Linguistica 36, 1737.
Eliasson, Stig. 2014. Review of Silverman (2012). Linguistics 52.5, 13051319.
Ellis, Lucy & Hardcastle, William J.. 2002. Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: Evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics 30, 373396.
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Reponses to comments on ‘The myth of language universals’. Lingua 120, 27332758.
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Thyme and time are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84, 474496.
Gouskova, Maria. 2013. Review of Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). Phonology 30, 173–179.
Green, Anthony. 2007. Phonology limited (Linguistics in Potsdam 27), Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, John. 2007. Representation. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 119138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. On what to teach the undergraduates: Some changing orthodoxies in phonological theory. Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3, 5977. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Hornstein, Nobert. 2014. Faculty of language. http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2014/03/hornsteins-lament.html(1 September 2015).
Hurford, James R. 1977. The significance of linguistic generalizations. Language 53, 574620.
Hyman, Larry M. 1979. Phonology and noun structure. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7), 172. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Hyman, Larry M. 2003. African languages and phonological theory. GLOT International 7.6, 153163.
Hyman, Larry M. 2004. Why describe African languages? In Akinlabi, Akinbiyi & Adesola, Oluseye (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of African Linguistics, New Brunswick 2003, 2142. Cologne: Ruediger Köppe.
Hyman, Larry M. 2011. Tone: Is it different? In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 197239. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hyman, Larry M. & VanBik, Kenneth. 2004. Directional rule application and output problems in Hakha Lai tone. In Yen-Hwei Lin (ed.), Phonetics and phonology: Special issue of Language and Linguistics 5.4, 821–861. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Jones, Patrick. 2016. On the failure of non-abstract phonology: Evidence from Kinande. Ms., Harvard University.
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kochetov, Alexei & Poulier, Marianne. 2008. Phonetic variability and grammatical knowledge: An articulatory study of Korean place assimilation. Phonology 25, 399431.
Krämer, Martin. 2012. Underlying representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd, D. Robert. 2014. Simultaneous structure in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ladd, D. Robert & Scobbie, James M.. 2003. External sandhi as gestural overlap? Counter-evidence from Sardinian. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI, 164182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightner, Theodore M. 1971. Generative phonology. In Dingwall, William Orr (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 498574. College Park, MD: Linguistics Program, University of Maryland.
Lodge, Ken. 2009. Fundamental concepts in phonology: Sameness and difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Nevins, Andrew & Vaux, Bert. 2007. Underlying representations that do not minimize grammatical ‘violations’. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrick & Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of analysis?, 3662. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical theory: Its limits and possibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ohala, John J.1987. Experimental phonology. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13 (BLS 13), 207–202.
Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari. 1986. Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, 239252. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Port, Robert F. & Leary, Adam P.. 2005. Against formal phonology. Language 4, 927964.
Rubach, Jerzy. 2016. Polish yers: Representation and analysis. Journal of Linguistics 52, 421466.
Sapir, Edward. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Pyschologie Normale et Pathologique 30, 247265. [Reprinted in David Mandelbaum (ed.), Edward Sapir Selected writings in language, culture and personality, 46–60 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1949) and in Valerie Becker Makkai (ed.), Phonological theory: Evolution and current practice, 22–31 (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972).]
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology, vol. 1: What is CVCV and why should it be?Boston, MA & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2012. A lateral theory of phonology, vol. 2: Direct interface and one-channel translation. Boston, MA & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2014. «The Corpus: A Tool among Others», Corela [En ligne], HS-13 | 2013, mis en ligne le 19 février. 2014, consulté le 09 juillet 2015. http://corela.revues.org/3006(1 September 2015).
Scheer, Tobias. 2015. How diachronic is synchronic grammar? Crazy rules, regularity, and naturalness. In Honeybone, Patrick & Salmons, Joseph (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 313336. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scobbie, James M., Coleman, John S. & Bird, Steven. 1996. Key aspects of declarative phonology. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models & methods, vol. 2, 685709. Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.
Silverman, Daniel. 2006. A critical introduction to phonology. London: Continuum.
Silverman, Daniel. 2012. Neutralization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweet, Henry. 1877. A handbook of phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Twaddell, William Freeman. 1935. On defining the phoneme (Language Monograph No. 16).
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Words and syllables in natural generative phonology. In Anthony Bruck, Robert A. Fox & Michael W. La Galy (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 1974: Parasession on Natural Phonology, 346–374. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Volk, Erez. 2007. High, low and in between: Giryama tonology. Masters thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
Volk, Erez. 2011. Mijikenda tonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. In and out of phonology. Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 3445. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed