Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:01:12.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Orthometric patterns and pre-phonetic interfacing: a reply to Manaster Ramer*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Joseph L. Malone
Affiliation:
Barnard College, Columbia University

Extract

In a recent squib Manaster Ramer attempts to show ‘that rules of versification may not be sensitive to representations deeper than phonemic (or the similar lexical and syntactico-phonological levels of Lexical Phonology)’ (1994: 321–322). Manaster Ramer includes some of my work on Early Irish alliteration (1988c), challenging my claim that explication of such alliteration requires orthometric (versificational) interfacing at an underlying level of phonological representation and claiming that my explication ‘involve[s] rules which were clearly invented by native grammarians and metricians and often violated in natural, as opposed to formal, verse, and which, even more to the point, make crucial reference, not to deep levels of phonology, but rather to the orthography’ (1994: 321). I will attempt to counter this statement in §2, though I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that Manaster Ramer does not actually give any evidence for his position. However, since his claim goes beyond Irish to challenge deep-level orthometric interfacing in any and all languages, in the rest of this reply I will appeal to non-Irish evidence in attempting to show the weakness of his position. In particular, I will briefly review some of my work in Hebrew metre (§ 3) and Turkish rhyme (§4) – work cited by Manaster Ramer in his references but not addressed in the body of his paper (Malone 1982, 1983, 1988b).

Type
Squibs and replies
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous (n.d.). Bektaşi hikâyeleri. Istanbul: Ahmet Sait.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1962). Phonology in a generative grammar. Word 18. 54—72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1972). Metrics and morphophonemics in the Rigveda. In Michael, Brame (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press. 171200.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1982). Generative phonology and Turkish rhyme. LI 13. 550553.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1983). Generative phonology and the metrical behavior of u- ‘and’ in the Hebrew poetry of medieval Spain. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103. 369381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1984). Generative phonology and Early Irish alliteration. 3rd draft. Ms, Department of Linguistics, Barnard College.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1987). Muted euphony and consonant matching in Irish verse. General Linguistics 27. 133144.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1988a). The science of linguistics in the art of translation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1988b). Underspecification theory and Turkish rhyme. Phonology 5. 293297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1988c). On the global-phonologic nature of Classical Irish alliteration. General Linguistics 28. 91103.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph L. (1993. Tiberian Hebrew phonology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Manaster Ramer, Alexis (1994). Stefan George and phonological theory. Phonology 11. 317323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich (1966). Linguistic atlas and survey of Irish dialects. Vol. 3. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Zeps, Valdis J. (1963). The meter of the so-called trochaic Latvian folksongs. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 7. 123128.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1976). Well, the rock and roll has got to stop. Junior's head is hard as a rock. CLS 12. 676697.Google Scholar