Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

Jesse:
> dirk elzinga sikayal:
> > [snip]
> > My analysis directly violates the Biuniqueness Condition. As I see it,
> > the phoneme--whatever its definition--had the following properties:
> >
> > 1)      it was segment-sized; that is, it was not decomposible into
> > features, prosodies, or elements (though it was characterized by
> > having certain properties such as labiality, voicelessness, etc);
> >
> > 2)      it was the unit of speech which enabled the expression of
> > opposition and contrast, and it was embedded in a system organized by
> > such oppositions and contrasts;
> >
> > 3)      it was part of representations which uniquely determined
> > phonetic forms; likewise, phonetic forms were analyzable into
> > sequences of phonemes (this is the Biuniqueness Condition).
>
> These all describe the classical phoneme, which no one is defending.  To
> me, the failures of these descriptions isn't evidence for the death of the
> phoneme, but proof for a need of the redefinition of a phoneme.
Clearly the statement "The phoneme is dead" is truth-evaluable only
if "phoneme" is defined. In my view, you can dispense with (3) and get
something still resembling mainstream phonemics, you can dispense with
(2) and get something unmainstream but still phonemic, but once you
dispense with (1) there is no basis for calling what you're left with
a "phoneme". If *segments* are no longer the primitives of phonological
representation, and if they don't even enjoy any kind of privileged
status, then calling this "phonemic" is merely an abuse of terminology.

[...]
> > And already mentioned the distinction between different systems of
> > oppositions based on their syntagmatic properties (e.g., stressed and
> > unstressed syllables, which may have different sets of sounds in
> > opposition). If the phoneme is part of a system of oppositions and
> > contrasts, which system should be taken as definitional? So property
> > (2) does not characterize the phoneme, insofar as it is not possible
> > to find *the* system where opposition and contrast should be
> > expressed.
>
> I've always found this argument to be unconvincing.  *The* system is the
> only system there is--the whole language.  If certain contrasts don't
> occur in certain contexts it is a phonological property of the system, not
> evidence for the existence of another system.
My original argument was to the effect that, contrary to standard practise,
the phoneme inventory for the entire system should consist of separate
phoneme inventories for the syntagmatic environments that support different
sets of contrasts. That is, it is an argument against standard practise
rather than against the phoneme per se, but as soon as you see the humungous
phoneme inventories that would result you can see that they are deeply and
intolerably cumbersome.

> > That being said, if the phoneme does still exist, then there must be
> > some property which characterizes it which I have not mentioned. If
> > you're talking about underlying segments as phonemes (by which I'm
> > assuming that what is meant the level of representation where contrast
> > and opposition are reckoned) just remember that it was not the only
> > part of the definition; the 'phoneme' was always something more than
> > that.
>
> Always *was*.  My argument is simply that the phoneme should be
> redefined.  I consider the phoneme to be a
> collection of features which characterize its particular phones, the
> unit from which lexical and grammatical entries are made, and the starting
> point for phonological rules.  It is *not* atomic (i.e. indivisible), not
> unconditionally unique, and not the lowest level of information.  It is
> one of the many intermediate levels between thought and speech, and one
> which is particularly useful for study.
You don't mention what role Contrastiveness has in your defininition. None?

Setting aside that matter, the main problem with your idea is that you
require features to be located at the segmental level rather than that
a higher level (= firthian prosodies). You privilege the level of the
segment as that "from which lexical and grammatical entries are made, and
the starting point for phonological rules", but the weight of phonological
argument is against such a special status.

[BTW, in all this discussion I'm setting aside the fact that the phoneme
can be a sequence of phones. I haven't thought through the ramifications
of this.]

> > BTW, I'm ready to move this discussion off list if people are getting
> > tired of it.
>
> I haven't heard any complaints yet, and I think that a good discussion of
> theory is always useful for Conlanging.
If it does have to leave Conlang then we should find some other home for
it, because I find these discussions most instructive. The great abundance
of 'sagacious amateurs' here is very refreshing. (Of the not a few people
who over the years have said to me words to the effect that "theoretical
linguists talk total bollocks", the only one who knew whereof they spoke
was our own dear John Cowan.)

--And.