🚀 go-pugleaf

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>Typically there is an early analysis by someone or other, done in a
>framework no longer current.  Someone does a re-analysis in a more
>current framework, which then gives rise to a whole slew of theory
>papers, all of them resting on the original analysis, which their
>authors may not even have read.  The work on theoretical implications
>of nasality in Guarani has gone like this, for example; 
>also current work on metrical analyses of Winnebago accent.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, Bruce Hayes's analysis in his widely-circulated 1991 ms
_Metrical Stress Theory_ is based on a thorough study of all available
material on the language.  You may be referring to Halle & Vergnaud
1987, which as interesting as it is has never garnered praise for
depth of scholarship -- but isn't current either.

>Discussions with other linguists suggests the pattern is quite
>general.

Widespread, maybe, but certainly very much tied to individuals, their
graduate students and associates, rather than to any principles of
`doing theory'. Theorists like Bruce Hayes and John McCarthy, to cite
only two, have a fullscale commitment to scholarship, which is visible
in everything they do.  As their work and work of people like them is
more and more taken to be the model, there will be changes in the
general expectations about what counts as respectable work.

>...I do
>tell my students: save yourself some time and check the data/initial
>analysis *first*...

Excellent advice, and I can assure you that you're not alone in giving
it.

- Alan Prince
Dept of Linguistics
Rutgers University