1 / 21

Tobias Scheer Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS

Two ways of being minimalist( ic ). Government Phonology Round Table Budapest 17-18 November 2017. Tobias Scheer Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS. how to reduce the purview of phonology. two ways to do that small is beautiful

tannehill
Télécharger la présentation

Tobias Scheer Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Two ways of being minimalist(ic) GovernmentPhonology Round Table Budapest 17-18 November 2017 Tobias Scheer Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS

  2. how to reduce the purview of phonology • twoways to do that • smallisbeautiful • only 5% or so of all alternations aroundinvolvephonological computation. • or maybe, there are no alternations that are phonological in kind at all: phonologyboils down to staticdistributional patterns thatoccur in monomorphemic strings. • melody (i.e. items below the skeleton) is not under grammatical control • only items at and above the skeleton are • because the relationship between phonological and phonetic items is arbitrary • phonological computation manages phonological primes below the skeleton, but there are no melodic restrictions on this computation: • ==> anything can be turned into any other thing in any context and its reverse.

  3. how to reduce the purview of phonology • a differentway to state the issue: • in the face of irregular alternations, • youdon't care for alternations • they do not tell youanything about phonology. • phonological computation is clean and 100% regular. • youdon't care for irregularity (i.e. melody) • phonological computation isdirty and unconstrained(as far as melodyisconcerned) • in factitis not, or rather: itdoes not makesense to talk about pure vs. dirtymelodic computation becausethese are phonetic notions relating to what the analystexpects (kʧ /__i,eisphonetically clean, but p  r / __i,eis not). • phonologyisblind for phonetics and hencedoes not know about how the melodicprrimeswilleventuallybepronounced. • phonologyknows about phonology, i.e. items of itsownvocabulary: onset, foot, stress etc. There is no irregularityhere.

  4. smallisbeautiful • GovernmentPhonology • wasalways on the far end of "smallisbeautiful" • considering that only a small subset of those alternations which can be observed are phonological in kind. • 5% or so of what SPE manages in the phonology is really phonology. • hence exit infamous alternations such as • trisyllabicshortening • velar softening • these do not involve any phonological computation according to GP.

  5. smallisbeautiful • outsourcing • if these alternations are not phonological, what are they? • what happens upon production when a speaker pronounces these words? • non-phonologicalmechanisms of production • distinct lexical items (no computation at all) • morpho-phonology (distinct computational system in the structuralist and earlygenerative tradition, Gussmann 2007) • allomorphy • analogy • phonetics

  6. smallisbeautiful • Kaye (2014) goes one stepfurther • alternations which involve level 2 (analytic) morphology are not phonological in kind • background: morphology does not have any bearing on phonology. • hence an alternation which has conditioning factors that are morphological cannot be phonological. • the only true phonology is the one that can be observed in monomorphemic strings. • the defining property of level 2 morphology is that the phonology of the morphologically complex form is different from the one observed in monomorphemes: • párent – párent-hood. • ...as opposed to level 1 morphology where the morphologically complex string has the same phonology as monomorphemes: • párent – prént-al.

  7. smallisbeautiful • look at monomorphemic strings and you are done • hence this takes phonology down to static distributional patterns observed in monomorphemic strings: the study of these is enough to produce exhaustive insight into the workings of the phonology of a language. • this was also the take of the two Natural Phonologies: no morphology in phonology. • and before these it was the take of American Structuralism: the discovery procedure was only bottom-up (you build phonlogical from phonetic structure) and hence prohibited the use any morphological information in phonological analysis. • sidenote: not sure what a monomorphemic string is in languages of the Semitic kind that have non-concatenative morphology.

  8. smallisbeautiful • going down the phonetic road • if you are onlyinterested in surface-truephenomena (100% regular, no morphology), youlikelystudyphonetic variation: thisiswhatmeetsyourcriteria. • direction taken by Natural Phonology in the 70s • direction taken by GP2.0 • [for the samereasons]

  9. bigisbeautifulbecause of Saussure'salgebra • Another way of reducing the purview of phonology • also has roots in GP: phoneticinterpretation • Harris & Lindsey (1995: 46ff), Harris (1996), Gussmann (2007: 25ff) • the relationship between phonological and phonetic categories is arbitrary. • hence phonological computation does not know or care for the phonetic properties of the items it manipulates. • Saussure's algebra (algèbrecombinatoire): phonology manipulates (phonetically) meaningless items. • incarnations • Anderson (1981): Why phonology isn't natural • Hyman (2001), Bermúdez-Otero (2006: 498) • Hamann (2011, 2014) • Scheer (2014), modular spell-out • substance-free phonology: Hale & Reiss (2000, 2008), Blaho(2008), Iosad(2017) • Dresher (2009), Hall (2011)

  10. no phonetics in phonology: workings • workings of substance-free phonology • phonologicalunits do have a phoneticcorrelate • but not in the phonology • the ONLY locus wherephonologicalobjectsreceive a phoneticidentityis post-phonologicalspell-out • U ↔ rump • I ↔ dip • A ↔ mass • justlikepasttense ↔ -ed • spell-out is a modularnecessity: youcannotbelievethatgrammarismodularwithoutbelieveingthatdifferent modules communicatethrough a spell-out • spell-out operates a lexical access: like in a dictionaryyou match one item recorded in long term memory withanother item thatbelongs to a differentlanguage. • the list of matches islanguage-specific and needs to belearned.

  11. no phonetics in phonology: workings

  12. no phonetics in phonology: workings

  13. no phonetics in phonology: consequences consequence #1 no phonetics of anykind in phonology are shorthand for α ↔ mass δ ↔ noise β↔ dip ε ↔ edge γ↔ rump

  14. no phonetics in phonology: consequences consequence #2 melodyisphonologicallymeaningless • melody • has no phoneticidentity (in the phonology) • the onlyfunction of α,β,γ etc. is to makephonological expressions distinct • phonology has no idea of whatα,β,γ etc. eventually come out as in pronunciation • ==> phonologyisunable to tell a naturalfrom an unnatural computation or structure. henceconsequence #2a phonological computation canturnany item intoanyother item in anycontext and its reverse. p  r / __u is a perfectlywell-formedphonological computation. Its non-occurrence in naturallanguage has extra-phonologicalreasons.

  15. excursus: what are these extra-phon. reasons? • sources of regularity • grammar [produced by a rule system] • the real world [result of physicalregularities] • properties • real world regularities: no exception, no compromise • grammar-basedregularities: "exceptions" are typical: lexical marking, morphological restrictions, ... • twokinds of universals • produced by grammar ex.: sonoritysequencing in br.onsets • produced by the real world • stressedvowels are longer • vowels before voiced consonants are longer than before voiceless consonants • k is more front before front vowels than before back vowels

  16. excursus: what are these extra-phon. reasons?

  17. excursus: what are these extra-phon. reasons?

  18. no phonetics in phonology: consequences consequence #2b items below the skeleton are not underphonological (grammatical) control, but items above the skeleton are • melodyisphonologicallymeaningless • α,β,γ etc. have no phonologicalidentity • phonologycannotdistinguishtheirproperties (itonlyknowsthatthey are distinct) • onset, nucleus, foot, association lines, government etc. do have a phonologicalidentity • hence • thereis no melodicill-formedness • but thereissyllabic, stress-based etc. ill-formedness • seecrazyrules, which are onlyevermelodicallycrazy. • thereis no suchthing as closedsyllablelengthening, compensatoryshortening, stress the middle syllable etc.

  19. no phonetics in phonology: consequences consequence #3 melodyis not given at birth • the childisgeneticallyendowedwith • the ability to categorize [domain-general (colours etc.)] • the ability to distinguishsound [domain-general: audition] • the childneeds to figure out • how many distinctive unitsthere are in the languageacquired • which basic building blocks they are made of • how these are pronounced (spell-out)

  20. phonologyshrunk • #1 • reduce the set of alternations that are phonological in kind • maybe to no alternations at all • onlystaticdistributional patterns are in • computation (turning X into Y) onlyexists in level 1 morphology and (external) sandhi. • #2 • reduce the items that are phonological in kind • underphononlogical control: • items at and above the skeleton • computation of these items • not underphonological control • items below the skeleton as well as their computation • naturalness or plausibility: these have other sources.

  21. that's all

More Related