Re: Notation Question
From: | R.M. Whelton <rmwhelton@...> |
Date: | Sunday, March 27, 2005, 12:39 |
Bingo! Once I had an idea what I was looking for, it didn't take long at
all.
Thanks for the help, Roger!
In case anyone else is interested, here's probably the most useful
document I've found so far:
https://intranet.utsc.utoronto.ca/docroot/files/section.13206/Jan.31.Formulating.rules.pdf
Robin
Roger Mills wrote:
>Robin Whelton wrote:
>
>
>>I'm reading about sound changes in languages, and I keep seeing
>>what I can tell is a formal notation system. It's obviously set up
>>as A > B / C where A is the original sound, B is the sound it
>>changes into, and C is the environment in which the change occurs.
>>So far, so good.
>>
>>My problem is that I can't seem to find a list of how to read all
>>the symbols used in the notation. Does the darned thing have
>>a proper name that I could feed to Google? Is there a site out
>>there somewhere with a guide for reading this stuff, that some
>>kind soul could pass on to me?
>>
>>
>I'm not sure about whatever notation may be used in computer programs, if
>that's what you're after; but in terms of rule-writing, abbreviatory
>conventions, features, etc. you might try to search "generative phonology",
>or locate one of the old textbooks (e.g. Robert Harms, "Intro. to
>Phonological Theory", Prentice-Hall 1968; ppbk. ed. 1970). Modern
>"optimality theory" uses some of the same rule forms and conventions too. (I
>don't think Gen.Phon. is still in vogue, though lots of the conventions are
>still in use.) Even a skim through Chomsky and Halle's "Sound Pattern of
>English" might provide a crash-course (though their application of the
>theory to Engl. phonology is almost a reductio ad absurdum IMO!!!)
>
>In fact, I suspect Gen.PHon. came about in the 60s-70s once scholars,
>inspired by Chomsky's view of lang. as "rule-governed behavior", got
>acquainted with their universities' computers-- certainly the need for
>careful attention to rule order, careful rule-writing, the idea that there
>was an input ("underlying form") and an output ("surface form"), etc. seem
>to derive I think from computerese.
>
>
>
>