1987Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Preface

John M. Anderson, Colin J. Ewen

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Books which, like the present one, set out to provide a detailed account of a particular current approach to some general area of study, in this case phonological representation, can, in a sense, never be ‘timely’ overall. The framework under discussion is in a continuous state of development, both in terms of its own internal evolution as it interacts which an expanding range of phenomena for which it has to provide descriptions, and with respect to how it is defined in relation to rival and complementary approaches to what can be taken, pre-theoretically, to be the same (or a similar) domain, themselves also subject to constant revision. In addition, despite authorial attempts at consistency, the time which is required for the development of an extended presentation of this sort almost inevitably leaves marks of the work's history, in the form, for instance, of sections associated with different stages in its evolution. These remarks are not intended as any sort of apologia for the present work specifically; as we have indicated, it seems to us that the ‘timing’ problem faces any such undertaking. However, they may throw some light on the form taken by the following discussion. In particular, we have concentrated on the explication of notions which have remained central to the framework of dependency phonology since its inception in the work of Anderson & Jones in the early 1970s, such as the single-valued feature, or component, hypothesis, and of course the relevance of the dependency relations to different domains, both segmental and suprasegmental.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Books which, like the present one, set out to provide a detailed account of a particular current approach to some general area of study, in this case phonological representation, can, in a sense, never be ‘timely’ overall. The framework under discussion is in a continuous state of development, both in terms of its own internal evolution as it interacts which an expanding range of phenomena for which it has to provide descriptions, and with respect to how it is defined in relation to rival and complementary approaches to what can be taken, pre-theoretically, to be the same (or a similar) domain, themselves also subject to constant revision. In addition, despite authorial attempts at consistency, the time which is required for the development of an extended presentation of this sort almost inevitably leaves marks of the work's history, in the form, for instance, of sections associated with different stages in its evolution. These remarks are not intended as any sort of apologia for the present work specifically; as we have indicated, it seems to us that the ‘timing’ problem faces any such undertaking. However, they may throw some light on the form taken by the following discussion. In particular, we have concentrated on the explication of notions which have remained central to the framework of dependency phonology since its inception in the work of Anderson & Jones in the early 1970s, such as the single-valued feature, or component, hypothesis, and of course the relevance of the dependency relations to different domains, both segmental and suprasegmental.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Books which, like the present one, set out to provide a detailed account of a particular current approach to some general area of study, in this case phonological representation, can, in a sense, never be ‘timely’ overall. The framework under discussion is in a continuous state of development, both in terms of its own internal evolution as it interacts which an expanding range of phenomena for which it has to provide descriptions, and with respect to how it is defined in relation to rival and complementary approaches to what can be taken, pre-theoretically, to be the same (or a similar) domain, themselves also subject to constant revision. In addition, despite authorial attempts at consistency, the time which is required for the development of an extended presentation of this sort almost inevitably leaves marks of the work's history, in the form, for instance, of sections associated with different stages in its evolution. These remarks are not intended as any sort of apologia for the present work specifically; as we have indicated, it seems to us that the ‘timing’ problem faces any such undertaking. However, they may throw some light on the form taken by the following discussion. In particular, we have concentrated on the explication of notions which have remained central to the framework of dependency phonology since its inception in the work of Anderson & Jones in the early 1970s, such as the single-valued feature, or component, hypothesis, and of course the relevance of the dependency relations to different domains, both segmental and suprasegmental.

Key concepts: Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Preface — Research Paper | ScholarLens