Presenting Unsupported Claims As A Survey: Contact & "Phonology"

Martin (1992: 532):

A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.

Table 7.12. Tenor — Aspects of the realisation of contact
Contact proliferation contraction [phonology foregrounded]	involved	uninvolved
phonology	Pre-tonic delicacy	basic tone
	marked tonality	unmarked tonality
	marked tonicity	unmarked tonicity
	varied rhythm	constant rhythm
	fluent	hesitant
	reduction processes	full syllables
	native accent	standard accent
	range of accents	single accent
	acronym	full form

Blogger Comments:

[1] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "native accent" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "standard accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside both the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, and the dubious categorisation of "accents" as 'standard' vs 'non-standard', the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a native accent by two students meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a "standard" accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[2] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "range of accents" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "single accent" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

Leaving aside the fact that this is sociolectal and dialectal variation, not phonology, the claim can be falsified by considering a concrete example:

• the use of a range of accents by students from different nations meeting for the first time in a foreign country is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of a single accent by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

[3] The claim here is that:

• the phonological feature of "acronym" construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the phonological feature of "full form" construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).

This claim can be falsified by a concrete example:

• the use of 'U.N.' by two delegates meeting for the first time is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
• the use of 'United Nations' by a married couple is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).