Читать книгу A Companion to Chomsky - Группа авторов - Страница 69

1 1 Crucially, when linguists discuss small scale variation, they make a more fine grained generalization and talk about dialects, even regiolects, with the exact same logic, just a different “zoom factor.”

2 2 The term substantive here means “having substantive (phonetic, speech‐related) correlates,” not “being substance”—an important distinction often misinterpreted in the phonological literature.

3 3 Passages like this understandably lead Rey (2003) to the contention that linguists, including Chomsky, actually are intentionalist when they are not being philosophical.

4 4 We discuss many of the themes covered here in greater detail elsewhere (Hale and Reiss 2008; Bale and Reiss 2018; Volenec and Reiss 2018, 2020; Reiss 2017).

5 5 In our view, this field of “child phonology” has nothing to do with competence grammars, and everything to do with children's immature performance systems (Chomsky 1964a; Smith 2010; Hale and Reiss 1998, 2008).

6 6 McCarthy and Prince (1995, p. 88) “claim that the operative constraint here is a requirement that posterior stops (i.e., velars) be voiceless—to be referred to as POSTVCLS. This constraint phonologizes the familiar articulatory effect of Boyle's law: it is difficult to maintain voicing when the supraglottal cavity is small.”