Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Nik Taylor wrote:

> dirk elzinga wrote:
> > When I say that either [p] or [b] could be selected as the phoneme,
> > what I mean is that the choice of [p] or [b] isn't forced by the
> > theory; the theory can allow either. It's up to you whether you
> > consider this to be a failure or fortunate result. One the one hand,
> > it offers a potential explanation for sound change: some speakers
> > "phonemicize" [p], others [b]. Whichever group gains linguistic
> > dominance gets to "determine" the next generation's grammar. Under a
> > strict phonemicist position, this explanation for sound change is not
> > available, since one or the other *must* must be chosen.
>
> I don't understand the significance of this.  How is this different from
> phonemes?  You're still considering [p] and [b] to represent the same
> underlying form, whether it's called /p/ or /b/ (or even /F/ or /B/) is
> more or less arbitrary.  Isn't the underlying form exactly what a
> phoneme *is*?
The significance lies in what the theory forces you to posit as the
phoneme. Ideally, there should be *one* possible phonemic solution. In
a structuralist framework, that solution for Shoshoni is probably /p/.
My point is that OT doesn't force a single solution in this case
since given the phonotactic regularities observable in the speech
stream, more than one solution exists. If more than one solution is
possible, which one is "true"? You can't tell, and therefore the idea
of the phoneme -- the *one* possible solution -- is severly weakened.

In OT, constraints only hold on the surface forms; constraints are not
allowed to operate on the underlying forms. If nothing may be excluded
from underlying forms, then it is possible to have underlying forms
which are fully specified, radically underspecified, or anything in
between. When I posit /b/ in underlying form (or /p/ or /B/ or /F/),
it is not "code" for the underspecified representation [+labial,
-nasal]; it really is /b/ (or /p/ or /B/ or /F/) in all of its fully
specified glory. This principle (the freedom of underlying
representation) is referred to in the OT literature as "Richness of
the Base". However, it has received surprisingly little attention,
partly because it is radical break from traditional phonemic analysis.
It *is* a tough pill to swallow, but if you take the OT idea seriously
that phonotactic constraints should only hold on the surface, Richness
of the Base is the inevitable outcome.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu