Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Conclusion
References

Architecture and Representations in Phonology

Profile image of Charles CairnsCharles Cairns

2009, Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology

visibility

…

description

16 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This volume explores foundational questions in phonology, emphasizing the need to understand the modular architecture of phonological theory. Key themes include the interaction of phonological modules and their role in representation and computation. Through examples such as vowel length alternations in North American English and syllable structure in Sinhala, the essays demonstrate how a modular approach enhances clarity and efficacy in phonological analysis.

Figures (6)
To restate the hypothesis of the prosodic hierarchy theory in modular terms, it asserts that one module is responsible for producing representations like those in (1) on the prosodic plane. Stress, sequential constraints, deletion, and epenthesis—in fact, all foot-based and syllable-based generalizations—can be deduced from a single two-dimensional plane as in (1), the output of a single module of UG. Are syllables produced by a unique mechanism, or are they part of something larger? The theory of the prosodic hierarchy (e.g., Selkirk 1980, Selkirk and Shen 1990) claims that syllables are part of a larger hierarchical plane, the prosodic plane, (1), that contains prosodic feet, prosodic words, and higher-level constituents (Blevins 1995:210). “Prosodic foot” is a key prosodic hierarchy notion in accounting for word stress.
To restate the hypothesis of the prosodic hierarchy theory in modular terms, it asserts that one module is responsible for producing representations like those in (1) on the prosodic plane. Stress, sequential constraints, deletion, and epenthesis—in fact, all foot-based and syllable-based generalizations—can be deduced from a single two-dimensional plane as in (1), the output of a single module of UG. Are syllables produced by a unique mechanism, or are they part of something larger? The theory of the prosodic hierarchy (e.g., Selkirk 1980, Selkirk and Shen 1990) claims that syllables are part of a larger hierarchical plane, the prosodic plane, (1), that contains prosodic feet, prosodic words, and higher-level constituents (Blevins 1995:210). “Prosodic foot” is a key prosodic hierarchy notion in accounting for word stress.
- Recall that we are interested in whether stress and syllable structure must be repre- sented on one or two planes. The 3-D model of phonology accounts for the facts of Southern Paiute as in (3).
- Recall that we are interested in whether stress and syllable structure must be repre- sented on one or two planes. The 3-D model of phonology accounts for the facts of Southern Paiute as in (3).
(4) presents two possible representations for (3b) in a prosodic hierarchy—type model.
(4) presents two possible representations for (3b) in a prosodic hierarchy—type model.
Sinhala ana yzes an intervocalic nasal-stop sequence as a tautosyllabic onset; see the noncausative in (8c). Observe that Sinhala also allows nasals in coda position, as the causative of (8c) indicates; this will prove crucial in our analysis. Sinhala does not allow comp ex codas, nor may onsets consist of a /dw-/ sequence. Therefore, the /d/ in the causative of (8c) ends up being unsyllabified, which we indicate both by under- lining it and by representing it as unaffiliated with a syllabic node. These brief com- ments abou Sinhala syllabification suffice for present needs.
Sinhala ana yzes an intervocalic nasal-stop sequence as a tautosyllabic onset; see the noncausative in (8c). Observe that Sinhala also allows nasals in coda position, as the causative of (8c) indicates; this will prove crucial in our analysis. Sinhala does not allow comp ex codas, nor may onsets consist of a /dw-/ sequence. Therefore, the /d/ in the causative of (8c) ends up being unsyllabified, which we indicate both by under- lining it and by representing it as unaffiliated with a syllabic node. These brief com- ments abou Sinhala syllabification suffice for present needs.
The morphological and syllabification modules interact to produce the representa- tions in (8), which are in turn handed over to a module that contains phonological rules. One such rule reduces all occurrences of the vowel /a/ to [a] in open, non- stressed (= noninitial) syllables in Sinhala. Feinstein (1977) argues that long vowels in unstressed, word-final position in Sinhala are shortened and unreduced, so /waa/ always surfaces as [wa]. (Shortening and reduction are counterfeeding.) Note that the surface forms of the noncausative examples are all generated simply by the rules of Vowel Reduction and Vowel Shortening, applied in that order. Sinhala also has a productive rule of Glide Assimilation, which renders a glide identical to a consonant to its left (Feinstein 1977, 1979, Cairns and Feinstein 1982); it is unordered with re- spect to Vowel Reduction and Vowel Shortening. The three rules are shown in (9). The rules of Glide Assimilation, Vowel Reduction, and Vowel Shortening apply to the forms in (8) to produce the surface forms in (6). (10) shows the derivations of the causative forms of (8b) and (8c).
The morphological and syllabification modules interact to produce the representa- tions in (8), which are in turn handed over to a module that contains phonological rules. One such rule reduces all occurrences of the vowel /a/ to [a] in open, non- stressed (= noninitial) syllables in Sinhala. Feinstein (1977) argues that long vowels in unstressed, word-final position in Sinhala are shortened and unreduced, so /waa/ always surfaces as [wa]. (Shortening and reduction are counterfeeding.) Note that the surface forms of the noncausative examples are all generated simply by the rules of Vowel Reduction and Vowel Shortening, applied in that order. Sinhala also has a productive rule of Glide Assimilation, which renders a glide identical to a consonant to its left (Feinstein 1977, 1979, Cairns and Feinstein 1982); it is unordered with re- spect to Vowel Reduction and Vowel Shortening. The three rules are shown in (9). The rules of Glide Assimilation, Vowel Reduction, and Vowel Shortening apply to the forms in (8) to produce the surface forms in (6). (10) shows the derivations of the causative forms of (8b) and (8c).
Glide Assimilation assimilates the underlying /w/ to the consonant to its left, /p/ in the causative of (8b) and /d/ in the causative of (8c). The root-final /d/ then deletes because it is unsyllabified. (Note that the /p/ and /d/ become root-final as a result of the morphological rule adding the causative suffix.) Without making a firm theo- retical statement regarding how the unsyllabified segment is eliminated, it is com- monplace in phonology to invoke deletion as one of the strategies for handling unsyllabified segments. (The examples in (5) are treated in a way similar to those in (6): Cairns and Feinstein (1982) argue that ka"da and kanda (better, ka.nda and kan.da) are underlyingly /kand + a/ and /kand + wa/.)
Glide Assimilation assimilates the underlying /w/ to the consonant to its left, /p/ in the causative of (8b) and /d/ in the causative of (8c). The root-final /d/ then deletes because it is unsyllabified. (Note that the /p/ and /d/ become root-final as a result of the morphological rule adding the causative suffix.) Without making a firm theo- retical statement regarding how the unsyllabified segment is eliminated, it is com- monplace in phonology to invoke deletion as one of the strategies for handling unsyllabified segments. (The examples in (5) are treated in a way similar to those in (6): Cairns and Feinstein (1982) argue that ka"da and kanda (better, ka.nda and kan.da) are underlyingly /kand + a/ and /kand + wa/.)

Related papers

Nancy C. Kula, Bert Botma and Kuniya Nasukawa (eds.) (2011). Continuum companion to phonology. (Continuum Companions.) London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Pp. xv+524
Laura Downing

Phonology, 2012

Goldsmith's (1995) Handbook of phonological theory provided an influential overview of the field in the mid-90s, earning a well-deserved place on the shelf of practising phonologists. The volume under review is not the first to attempt to update this classic work. Two other recent handbooks of comparable length and scope are the second edition of Goldsmith (Goldsmith et al. 2011), and de Lacy's (2007) well-received Cambridge handbook of phonology. Besides evaluating how well the current work meets the general expectations that readers have for a handbook, this review must necessarily also address the inevitable questions : why yet another handbook of phonology just now ? ; how does this volume distinguish itself from its competitors ? ; does this work fill a gap that is not met by the other handbooks ? The names of the editors and authors provide the first clue to what makes this volume distinctive. Almost all contributors work and/or received their PhDs in Europe, whereas North American phonologists dominate the other handbooks. The European perspective is felt in several of the core chapters in the second and longest part of the volume, ' Research issues ', which discuss certain approaches-such as Element Theory, Government Phonology and CV theory-that tend to be less well known in North America. The chapter by Botma, Kula & Nasukawa on ' Features' has a comprehensive discussion of the phonetic motivation for different feature theories in early generative phonology, followed by a clear introduction to Element Theory. One of the distinctive properties of Element Theory is that the same feature can have different phonetic realisations, depending on the featural configuration (in particular, which other feature is the head of the configuration). The advantages of representing voicing and nasality with a single feature are exemplified with a detailed analysis of alternations involving nasal prefixes in Zoque. Péter Szigetvári's chapter on ' Syllables ' follows a critical historical survey of motivations for syllable structure with an exceptionally clear introduction to CV theory, a theory which essentially dispenses with the syllable as a constituent. As someone who was not trained in this approach, I read the chapter with scepticism. However, by the end of it I felt I had an appreciative understanding of how strict CV licensing can account for classic problems like restrictions on consonant and vowel clusters which are usually considered motivations for syllable structure. Both this chapter and the one on features will be read with interest by phonologists wishing to understand the highlighted theories better. They will surely be recommended to students as useful introductory chapters by phonologists working in the theories presented. However, as the focus in these chapters is on the particular theories under discussion, they are not intended to provide a useful guide to current research and issues in other frameworks.

View PDFchevron_right
Nova Gorica SinFonIJA 10/10/08 Why Phonology Is Not Different: A critique of Bromberger & Halle (1989) Deep Structure → Intermediate Structures → Surface Structure Phonology: Underlying Representations → Intermediate Structures → Phonetic Forms B
Jonathan D Kaye
View PDFchevron_right
A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective 1
HY Wu

While morphosyntax and semantics have been studied from afunctional and cognitive perspective, much less emphasis has been placed on phonological phenomena in these frameworks. This paper proposes a rethinking of phonology , arguing that (i) the lexical representation of words have phonetic substance that is gradually changed by phonetic processes; (ii) the spread of these phonetic changes is at least partly accounted for by the way particular items are used in discourse; (iii) the study of exceptions, marginal phenomena , and subphonemic detail are important to the understanding of how phonological information is stored and processed; (iv) generalizations at the morphological and lexical level have radically different properties than generalizations at the phonetic level, with the former having a cognitive or semantic motivation, while the latter have a motor or physical motivation; and (v) that the best way to model the interaction of generalizations with the lexicon is not by separating rules from lists of items, but rather by conceiving of generalizations as patterns or schemas that emerge from the organization of stored lexical units.

View PDFchevron_right
SPELL-OUT, POST-PHONOLOGICAL Approaches to Phonology and Phonetics APAP
Tobias Scheer

2013

1) purpose a. to conceive the phonology-phonetics interface as a regular instantiation of the modular architecture. b. to show that the application of modularity to this interface produces what is known as "phonetic interpretation" in Government Phonology ). c. to construe a consistent global picture where all interfaces respond to the same logic. That is, where linguistic-internal matters and competing theories are refereed by extra-linguistic constraints, in our case those imposed by cognitive science and modularity. d. this perspective is in line with minimalist and biolinguistic tenets: grammar-internal properties are shaped and explained by extra-grammatical, more generally cognitive constraints, typically relating to the interface(s) (third factor explanations, see Chomsky 2005).

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: The Division of Labor of Rules, Representations, and Constraints In Phonological Theory
Bert Vaux

Nevins & Vaux (2008b), 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Formalizing modulation and the emergence of phonological heads
Geoff Schwartz
View PDFchevron_right
On the Boundaries of Phonology and Phonetics
Maartje Schreuder, Dicky Gilbers
View PDFchevron_right
Lecture Notes: Phonology (The American English Sound System)
Joseph Galasso

One major consequence that has come out of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics has to do with the acknowledgement that sounds in a given language are essentially built-up out of a matrix of smaller phonological features, and that such features, much like how the chemist understands the periodic table of elements, can combine to create a phoneme. The very notion of breaking-up features and combining them to making speech sounds widely differs from a potential Skinnerian approach that would hold that speech is simply rote-learned by-products of environmental sounds and is essentially non-rule-based. Chapter on Phonology (Cognella 2013)

View PDFchevron_right
On the Relation between Phonetics and Phonology
Handan Yavuz

1992

This study examines the nature of the relationship between phonology and phonetics and advocates a modular view in which there is a principled mapping between phonological representations and phonetic expressions. In particular, this modular view is advocated by Laboratory Phonology that can be characterized by two beliefs. First, it is believed that there should be a division between phonetics and phonology. Second, there should be a considerable interconnection between them. Contrary to this modular view, other approaches are somewhat radical in that abstract phonological features are not associated with phonetic facts and that phonetics and phonology are integrated into a single module which is all phonetic. In favor of the modular theory, I propose a principle about phonology-phonetics interface: unmarked items display a wider range of phonetic realization but cannot be realized in a more marked way than their marked counterparts. One representative evidence would be that the higher pitch value of a tone compared with other tones has to be a phonological high tone rather than a low tone. Further discussions about phonology-phonetics interface are done with regard to speech perception and production. It is shown that perception and production data are valid when they are used as phonetic evidence to resolve phonological controversies. On the other hand, the P-map hypothesis seems invalid when dealing with some cases where speech production and perception do not match. (Dankook University)

View PDFchevron_right
A Lateral Theory of Phonology, by Tobias Scheer
Eugeniusz Cyran

The Linguistic Review, 2006

The aim of the Lateral Theory of Phonology (LTP) is to build a system of principled organization of speech sounds against the backdrop of the CVCV assumption stipulating that the phonological structure is based on a strict consecution of C and V positions. It would appear that the phonological machinery that would have to operate on this abstract backdrop to derive the required concrete effects can be all but simple. Scheer's unquestionable contribution to the theory of representations is that he achieves a complete lateralisation of structure and causality and reduces all the devices responsible for segmental interaction and syllabic effects to just two: government and licensing. Notions such as coda, closed and open syllable, compensatory and tonic lengthening, extrasyllabicity, stress attraction, strong and weak position, vowel-zero alternation, Sonority Sequencing, Onset Maximisation and many others receive new definitions in LTP, as well as new interpretations, which more often than not combine a number of seemingly unrelated aspects.

View PDFchevron_right

References (22)

  1. Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 206-244. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
  2. Bloch, Bernard. 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16:278-284.
  3. Cairns, Charles. 2002. Foot and syllable in Southern Paiute. Ms., City University of New York. http://www.cunyphonologyforum.net/papers/20Sopai.pdf.
  4. Cairns, Charles, and Mark Feinstein. 1982. Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13:193-226.
  5. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
  6. Everett, Daniel. 1998. Syllable integrity. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth West Coast Confer- ence on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
  7. Feinstein, Mark. 1977. The linguistic nature of prenasalization. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
  8. Feinstein, Mark. 1979. Prenasalization and syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 10:245-278.
  9. Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2000. ''Substance abuse'' and ''dysfunctionalism'': Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31:157-169.
  10. Halle, Morris, and William J. Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical struc- ture. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 403-443. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
  11. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Lin- guistic Research 1:83-105.
  12. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  13. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Hayes, Bruce, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade. 2004. Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Idsardi, William J. 1992. The computation of prosody. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  16. Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Kenneth N. Stevens. 2001. Enhancement revisited. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 271-291. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  17. Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Kenneth N. Stevens. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82:33-63.
  18. McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43:84-108.
  19. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in genera- tive grammar. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
  20. Sapir, Edward. 1949. The psychological reality of phonemes. In Language, culture, and person- ality, ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, 46-72. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Califor- nia Press.
  21. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic In- quiry 11:563-605.
  22. Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Tong Shen. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 313-336. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press.

Related papers

Modestly Modular vs. Massively Modular Approaches to Phonology
Vanessa McIntosh

Newcastle University, 2020

This thesis considers the extent to which phonology (that is, the phonological processor) can be considered a module of the mind. It is divided into two parts. In the first, an approach of 'modest' modularity owing to Fodor (1983) is explored. In the second, the 'massive' modularity model, due to evolutionary psychologists in general, but Caruthers (2006a) in particular, is examined. Whilst for Fodor (1983, 2000) the mind is only modular around its periphery (i.e. only its input and output systems are modules), for massive modularists the mind is modular through and through, up to and including its central capacities. The two authors, therefore, by extension differ in their definitions of modularity: Fodor (1983, 2000) sees 'informational encapsulation' as being essential to modularity, whereas for Carruthers (2006) domain specificity is much more important. The thesis concludes that whether phonology is a module or not then depends on the definition of modularity, for although a substance-free phonology which has no phonetic grounding could count as strong evidence for the informational encapsulation (and therefore the modularity) of phonology by Fodor's (1983) standards, some aphasiology data has shown that semantic treatments can remediate phonological word finding difficulties in aphasia, which would be indicative that phonology is not domain-specific, and therefore amodular in the terms of massive modularists like Carruthers (2006a). 1 In order to answer whether phonology is modular, then, we must first define, once and for all, what modularity (and indeed phonology) means. Until then, the debate remains, and so does my resolve to settle it. 'back room' where most of my writing's took place (I know, I know-God help their heating and leccy bills!). My Mam is the best sounding board there ever did be, and my Dad the best cooker of tea that'll be ready in 20 minutes. Neither of them know what the hell I'm talking about half the time, but both of them hate me pacing while I do it (sorry). v Last, but by no means least, I'd like to thank John Richardson and the speech and language therapists at Walkergate Rehabilitation Centre where he was for a year after his brain injury. Not much good came of my partner ending up in a coma (to say the very least, lol), but I hope that this thesis is one of those things, and points us in the direction we need to go, to improve treatment for phonological anomia.

View PDFchevron_right
The elements of phonological representation
Geoff Lindsey

Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures, …, 1995

View PDFchevron_right
II Phonological Theory Edited by
amy sheets
View PDFchevron_right
Bridging the Phonology - Phonetics Gap - a Metatheory
Nicos C. Sifakis

2024

The world of linguistics has seen, over the years, a substantial number of changes, all of them obeying current philosophical, psychological and engineering principles. It has been common practice to distinguish between preand post-Chomskya n linguistics, not least because of the radical philosophical and methodological changes that were brought about by the so-called Chomskyan revolution. However, it is noted that Chomsky and his followers concentrated on a purely mentalistic account of language, working essentially on guring out certain universal principles underlying language competence and usage, under the general dogma of nativism. Apart from a number of production rules permeating production and perception (in the paradigm of analysis by synthesis', see Stevens & Halle 1967), there is little, if any, mention ofspeci c analytic ways in which human beings trauslate' thoughts into acoustic signals and vice versa. It is characteristic that Chomskyan linguistics has virtually excluded phonetics from its research, presenting phonology as the output of thought encoding (Chomsky 1972). If the exclusion of phonetics is characteristic of transformation al generative linguistics, the need to create a phonology which could be appropriately articulated has been very strong among more recent so-called non-linear attempts. As we will see below, however, all attempts to conjoin phonology and phonetics can be seen as side-effects of research aiming at resolving problems_ more central to speci c phonological or phonetic theories, rather than genuine effects of a more general, uni ed theory of phonetics and phonology. This has, as a result, brought about the theoretical estrangement of phonetic science from the rest of linguistia, one which, I would like to argue, is due to deeper differences between the phonetic science, on one hand, and the linguistic science , on the other, differences of a metatheoretical nature. After we have seen

View PDFchevron_right
Phonological Processes and Phonetic Rules
Patricia Donegan

2009

1. Relating phonological representations to phonetic output In both generative and natural phonology, phonological representations and alternations have been described in terms of categorical feature values, as in Jakobson, Fant, & Halle’s (1963) original conception. This categorical representation contrasts with instrumental phonetic data, which present the speech signal as temporally, qualitatively, and quantitatively non-categorical and continuous. The question that will be addressed here is how phonetic representation (‘surface’ phonological representation) and speech are related. Generativists and naturalists have taken two quite different views on this. The generativist view, and that of most recent writers on phonetics, has been that phonetic representation and speech are related by language-specific phonetic rules that associate binary phonological values with gradient phonetic values. The naturalist position has been that the relationship is universally determined in the ac...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved