The theory of Lexical Phonology proposed in Kiparsky (1982a) is a major step forward in generative phonology with respect to the problem of the interaction of phonology and morphology. Its basic claim is that morphological rules and word level phonological rules are interspersed. A rule of word phonology (i.e. a lexical phonological rule, which exclusively applies within words) may apply as soon as the required environment for its application has been created by some morphological rule. That is: ‘morphology and phonology go hand in hand’.

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).

One of the most widespread – and widely studied – properties of speech fundamental frequency (Fo) is a tendency to decline gradually during the course of utterances. This tendency has been given a variety of names, of which the best known is probably DECLINATION. This is the term I shall use in this paper. The purpose of the paper is to review past work on declination as it affects the phonological and phonetic modelling of Fo contours, and to outline some ideas for the empirical resolution of the issues that emerge from the discussion.

Considering all the work done on vowel system typology and universals in the past half-century (Trubetzkoy 1929, 1939; Hockett Sedlak 1969; Crothers 1978), my title may seem rather arrogant. There are after all theories of vocalic organisation about, or at least models and taxonomies; there are even attempts to explain why certain implicational universals seem to hold (from Jakobson's [laws of solidarity] (1968) to the more sophisticated treatments in Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972; Kim 1973; etc.).

Our colleague Charles Fillmore invented the following parable (personal communication) to characterise the two dominant ways linguists attempt to solve problems of language structure and behaviour.

Particle phonology has evolved from a dissatisfaction that I experienced working within the current theoretical and notational framework of generative phonology. I had been looking at historical processes affecting vowels and diphthongs. In trying to describe the kinds of changes undergone by these entities, I was particularly frustrated by the inability of the standard notation to characterise in any enlightening way the internal structure of vowels, as well as relationships evident between particular vowels and diphthongs. The first difficulty – the nature of the internal structure of vowels – was not simply due to an inadequate set of distinctive features. Rather, the problem resided in the very notion of features as autonomous building blocks out of which segments are composed. This view contributed partially to the other difficulty – the expression of relationships between vowels and diphthongs. An additional factor to this problem came from restrictions of the notation in regard what could appear to the left and to the right of an arrow. The notation forced me to formulate rules whose statements often did not accord with my conception of the nature of the processes. It seems to me that a highly-valued notational system should have the property that I have come to call ‘mirroring’. If one believes that a process or change happens in a certain way, then the notation should not just describe that event but should reflect as closely as possible its manner of occurrence.