Re: THEORY: no more URs! [was: Re: Optimum number of symbols]

Dirk:
> At 2:43 AM -0400 05/24/02, Roger Mills wrote:
> >I realize that, but hope you agree that some sort of underlying level is an
> >improvement...  Of course, Chomsky/Halle and Classical Phonemics are extreme
> >and opposite viewpoints,  and the answer, if there is one, probably lies
> >somewhere between the two....:-)
>
> Well, I'm not convinced anymore that a distinction between underlying
> and surface representations is necessary (or desireable). Recent work
> in phonology and morphology being done by Luigi Burzio (yes, that
> Luigi Burzio) and others claims that anything that URs do can be done
> by balancing phonotactic requirements with compulsory identity
> relations within networks of similar forms. That is, 'parent' and
> 'parental' show segmental consistency not because they both have
> /parent/ in UR, but because identity constraints hold between the
> surface forms. The substring {parent} fails to show metrical
> consistency across the forms (i.e., stress on pá in 'parent', stress
> on rént in 'parental') since the regular phonotactic pattern of
> penultimate stress takes precedence over metrical consistency.
I don't know this work by Burzio, and nor, I confess, do I understand
from your explanation exactly what the two sides of the debate are.

However, in debating the issue of URs, we need to make a distinction
between:

A. How to get from (I) representations of word forms that encode (only)
what is lexically contrastive to (II) representations of grammatically
determinate pronunciation (including allegro processes, etc.)

B. How to capture alternations between the type (I) forms a putative
single morpheme takes when it occurs in different word forms.

You seem to be talking about (B), but I had the sense that the battle
against handling these alternations by pure phonology had long ago
been won. OTOH, I also had the sense that (A) has been more of a
live issue.

Maybe you could explain a bit more what the debate is about?

> I am very sympathetic to this idea (no URs); I tried doing something
> like this in grad school, but I was basically "laughed off the stage"
> and didn't have the courage to pursue it then.
I wonder if that indicates a cultural difference between US and
British academia: I can't imagine you getting laughed off the stage
in Britain in such a circumstance.

--And.

Replies