Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

Marcus:
> And Rosta wrote:
>
> >The essential idea behind my proposal is that E and O are more complex than
> >A, I, U. Only strong syllables can support this additional complexity.
> >(That, btw, is a familiar finding in languages -- that extra complexity
> >(such as double moras) is supported more strongly in strong than in weak
> >syllables.) Paradigmatic complexity is reanalysed as a kind of simultaneitous
> >syntagmatic complexity.
>
> I would not explain that as "extra complexity". I would explain that as
> perceptual saliency. The perceptual distinction between A and I, U is
> greater than the distinction between A and E,O and E,I; O,U. Strong
> syllables allow for enhanced perceptability when compared to weak
> syllables; therefore, strong syllables can support less acoustically
> distinct forms than weak syllables can.
That's certainly food for thought. It is a very good functional explanation,
but I can't decide whether it works as a formal explanation and whether at
a formal level the two analyses wouldn't come down to the same thing.
For example, you could formalize your observation along the lines of mine,
and then explain the 'complexity' of complex segments as the complexity
of introducing additional perceptual contrasts.

> (You can probably tell I'm coming out of the Donca Steriade/Bruce Hayes
> School of Phonology. :))
No I can't, because due to lack of time and lack of access to a library
stocked with a wide-enough range of journals, I have hardly read any new
work in phonology for nigh on a decade.

--And.