Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 96. kötet (1998-1999)

Tanulmányok - Dezső László: Typological Comparison of Root Structuring in Uralic and Early Indo-European. [Az uráli és korai indoeurópai tőstruktúrák tipológiai összevetése] 3

36 LASZLO DEZSŐ both protolanguages as much as it was necessary for my main objective and for readers who are familiär only with PU or PIE and those who are interested only in areal linguistics. As Bakró-Nagy (1992) also analyzed PFU roots from the point of view of syllable theory, I have also found it useful to consider this aspect from the point of view of a comparison with early Indo-European. Given the différences between the two approaches: syllable theory and typological oriented areal linguistics, it is necessary to make somé comments on the relationship between syllable theory and typology. Both subsystem typologies and phonological théories must meet the requirements of interpreted theoretical Systems: „by (a) specifying a üst of characteristics with which the theory is to deal, (b) by formulating a set of hypothèses in terms of those characteristics, (c) giving those characteristics an empirical interprétation, which assigns to the theory a specific domain of application, and (d), as a long-range objective, incorporating the theoretical System, as a special case, intő a more comprehensive theory." (Hempel 1965: 171). These criteria, established for typology, are fundamental. The différence between typology and phonological theory lies in the focus. A subsystem typology must be based on a représentative sample of languages. This requirement cannot be satisfied by a single theory but phonological théories covering a large number of languages, whose study is relevant for the given subsystem. The coexistence of a number of approaches raises the problem of clarification of terms and the hypothèses based on them. In her state-of-art article, Blevins (1995: 234) is aware of the différences concerning the fundamental topics within syllable théories: „it should be clear that sonority scales, models of syllable internal structure, and syllabifícation algorithms are almost as numerous as the researchers working on thèse topics." However, she arrived at this concluding remark after having found the consensus on basic terms and on a number of generalizations concerning syllable structuring, including those of typological character. It is natural that „agreement is by no means universal concerning the précise nature of the syllable" (Blevins 1995: 205), the diversity in interprétation also exists in generál typology. This follows from the very nature of interprétative theoretical Systems. Blevins (1995: 212) differentiates syllable théories on the basis of fundamental terms and their combinations of syllable structuring: „Models of syllable-internal structure (a) Fiat structure (i.e. no subconstituents but segments themselves)... (b) Moraic approaches... (c) Binary branching with Body: G —> Body Coda; Body —> Onset Nucleus... (d) Ternary branching: c —> Onset Nucleus Coda... (e) Binary branching with Rime: G —> Onset Rime; Rime —» Nucleus Coda". I think that syllable exists and it can be segmented. This excludes models of (a). Bakró-Nagy (1992) found Venneman's approach in group (b) most