Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

And Rosta sikayal:

> 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.
However, *every* theory that I've seen, ever has *something* to start
with, something on the lowest level.  Whether it's the underlying form for
transformations, or the phoneme, or whatever it is that is at the bottom
of OT (I *still* don't understand it), there's a basic sound unit that
everyone says exists somewhere.  And that's what I call the phoneme.

Now I realize that this is hedging my bets, and I'm admitting defeat,
somewhat.  The problem is that I've so far subscribed to the "Jesse
Bangs" school of linguistics, which means that I take whatever parts I
like out of the books I read and string them together.  So I wedded
transformational theory to classical phonology and got a new version which
I used, and then I added feature marking, and prosodies, and now some
optimality theory.  And I still have what I call "phonemes."  I suppose I
should be less sloppy with my terminology when working with people other
than myself, but essentially no matter what theory you throw at me I'm
still going to call something there a phoneme, just because I'm used to it
and that's the way I think.

As for the rest of everyone's comments, my head hurts and my eyes are
tired and so I'm done staring at this computer screen for now.  Talk to
you all later.

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_