Home Abstractness and Motivation in Phonological Theory
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Abstractness and Motivation in Phonological Theory

  • Eric Baković
Published/Copyright: March 20, 2015

Abstract

In this piece I adopt the standard textbook definition of abstractness in generative phonological theory, “the degree to which a UR [= underlying representation] of a morpheme may deviate from its associated PRs [= phonetic representations]” (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979, p.179). I also adopt the perspective that a phonological analysis, independently of its degree of abstractness, is (only) as adequate as the motivation and evidence that can be produced in favor of it and against substantive alternatives. This is the focus of my remarks in this piece, featuring a thorough critique of the motivation and evidence for the abstract geminate rhotic representation of the intervocalic trill in Spanish (Harris 1969, 1983, 2001, 2002).

Published Online: 2015-3-20
Published in Print: 2009-3-1

© 2015 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/shll-2009-1041/html
Scroll to top button