英語音韻論序說(Ⅲ)

Abstract

In this last sequel of my paper, various proposals made by Chomsky and Halle in SPE have been reviewed critically. In the first section of this paper, it is shown that some of their underlying representations are too abstract, the only justification being to comply with the already postulated rules. It is also shown that some examples of bracketing or use of morpheme boundary lacks extrinsic evidence other than to derive the desired surface forms using the rules formulated beforehand. In the second section of this paper, three of cyclic rules (Main Stress Rule, Alternating Stress Rule, Compound Rule) are /reviewed and their modification is proposed. In the third section of this paper, the notational conventions used in SPE are examined. Among those notations examined are brace notation, alpha notation, parenthesis notation, star notation, super and sub-script notation. The non-sufficiency and non-necessity of these notations are pointed out. In the last section of this paper, the lay-by principle, which is used freely in SEP, is criticized. It is also attested that Chomsky and Halles argument for showing the necessity of cycle is rather weak.