The argument is characterized by the usual extremist positions exemplified in this case by almost everything and almost nothing . Although I myself have long tried to contribute something toward the development of the theory s current position, I among many others have also pointed out a feeling of unease at the way phonetics is just tacked onto phonology. I think, as phoneticians, we have made a mistake, and, as linguists, we have failed to understand the implications of our own theory. The mistake we have made as phoneticians was not to move our theory into the formal abstract cognitive realm along with the rest of linguistics. The mistake we have made as linguists was not to realize that we do not know how to properly conjoin theories of the abstract with theories of the non-abstract.
Lighter type indicates potential or less comprehensively studied areas.
The double vertical line separating the two halves of the diagram represents the great divide between abstract and concrete which cannot yet be crossed with safety. The arrows indicate that in some way what is below follows on from what is above. This is of course an extremely stated dualist view, which is arguable. But because it is arguable we have no recourse to convenient established metatheory to produce a better diagram. The mistake I referred to earlier is to take an arrow from cognitive phonology and direct it toward neuromotor phonetics.