Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

dirk elzinga sikayal:

> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> > dirk elzinga wrote:
> > > The significance lies in what the theory forces you to posit as the
> > > phoneme. Ideally, there should be *one* possible phonemic solution.
> >
> > But isn't the phoneme simply the category that contains various phones,
> > rather than the label given to said category?
>
> Well, this is one view of the phoneme. It isn't the only one, though.
> See an earlier posting from me on different definitions of 'phoneme.'
This seems like a workable definition to me.  Although we might ask: are
there languages in which allophones of a single phoneme aren't
characterizable by some non-rediculous properties (features)?  E.g. would
[d] and [w] ever be allophones?

> [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.


> The Prague School, Jakobson in particular, showed that it is possible
> and profitable to decompose segments into features, where the true
> contrasts of the phonological system were expressed. Firthian prosodic
> analysis showed that these "features" (Firth never used that term--he
> always spoke of prosodies) could span several segments (an idea which
> Z. Harris later took up as "long components"). So property (1) does
> not characterize the phoneme.
>
> 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.

>
> I've already talked about how Generative Phonology in general, and
> Optimality Theory in particular has kicked the legs out from under the
> Biuniqueness Condition. So this principle also does not characterize
> the phoneme.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> Dirk
>
> --
> Dirk Elzinga
> dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu
>
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
"It is of the new things that men tire--of fashions and proposals and
improvements and change.  It is the old things that startle and
intoxicate.  It is the old things that are young."
-G.K. Chesterton _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_