In his reexamination of the glottalic theory proposed to revise Proto-Indo-European (PIE) consonant phonology, linguist Dr. Marcus Vance addresses the hypothesis that the traditional reconstruction of PIE voiced stops was phonetically improbable. Proponents of glottalic reconstruction argue that substituting ejectives for traditional voiced stops resolves the anomalous absence of the unvoiced labial stop *p while eliminating typological irregularities in root structure constraints. Vance concedes that the glottalic model provides an elegant structural explanation for root morpheme distribution asymmetries that classic Neogrammarian models struggled to rationalize. However, he maintains that the theory relies on unverified phonetic typological universals and underestimates the robust attestation of sound shifts in peripheral Anatolian dialects. While recognizing the glottalic hypothesis as a provocative challenge to traditional historical phonology, Vance contends that its proponents have declared a paradigm shift prematurely, mistaking internal structural symmetry for empirical historical proof.
Which of the following best characterizes Vance's attitude toward the glottalic theory of Proto-Indo-European consonant phonology?
- Measured appreciation of its conceptual elegance combined with skepticism regarding its empirical validationCevap
- BComplete dismissal of its theoretical foundations as entirely speculative and methodologically flawed
- CUnreserved advocacy for replacing classic Neogrammarian models with its phonetically superior framework
- DNeutral indifference toward its linguistic merits, focusing primary interest on Anatolian dialect sound shifts
- ETentative confidence that future Anatolian manuscript discoveries will definitively confirm its validity