Abstractness and motivation in phonological theory

Eric Baković, University of California, San Diego

Abstract

Even the most basic work of phonological description and analysis involves some amount of abstraction from what can be directly observed, recorded, and measured. Our theories are likely to differ in their specifics, but abstractness in some way, shape, or form will be necessary. 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: 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. Much like the notion 'degree of abstractness', the notions 'adequacy of motivation' and 'adequacy of evidence' are somewhat subjective and hence slippery matters, both influenced by and grounded in theoretical assumptions. 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).