1887
Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Based on data from Romance historical phonology, Picard (1990) attempts to demonstrate that the preference theory for syllable structure developed in Vennemann (1988a), Murray (1988), and elsewhere is inadequate. In this response, I argue that Picard's criticisms are vitiated by a number of flaws including a) the fact that he misconstrues basic concepts of preference theory in a number of cases and accordingly develops false extensions which have little relevance to the original theory and b) that his criticism of consonantal strength does not take into consideration different theoretical frameworks. Although some substantive points remain including the status of sibilant plus plosive clusters, the internal structuring of syllables, and Proto-Romance syllabication, I argue that preference theory provides a suitable basis for the fruitful development of research along these lines.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.16.2.09mur
1992-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.16.2.09mur
Loading
  • Article Type: Discussion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error