"loss of generality"

Rob Freeman rjfreeman at email.com
Wed Jun 30 14:32:08 UTC 2004


On Wednesday 30 June 2004 00:29, Sydney Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Rob Freeman wrote:
> > ...
> > Yes, that could be where we are at cross-purposes. I'm talking about
> > subjectivity from utterance to utterance not just from language to
> > language, or even individual to individual. I believe that not only does
> > each individual form a slightly different representation of linguistic
> > structure, but that same individual forms a different representation of
> > linguistic structure (to an extent limited by the functional contrasts
> > required by the message only) from utterance to utterance.
>
> Why call this sujectivity?

The value of a phoneme is construed subjectively depending on its context.

> > That means you can explain non-linearity as a redefinition of each
> > phoneme (e.g. voiced or un-voiced) by the same individual from context to
> > context.
>
> No. That would be RETAINING linearity. The whole point of
> rejecting a linearity requirement is to make it unnecessary to
> do this.

It would be a linear combination of elements which were subjective on context.

As I've asked a couple of times, can you think of anything which might
distinguish the two?

> > > > ...
> > > > What was the subsequent theoretical and practical impact of your
> > > > observation that there was a need for "relaxing the linearity
> > > > requirement" over combinations of phonemes?
> > >
> > > What happened was weird. Chomsky responded to my published
> > > account (e.g. Prolegomena to a theory of phonology, Language
> > > 1966) by saying that (approx quote) "Lamb's attempt at
> > > refutation amounts to accepting my solution in toto with
> > > a change of notation". (!!)
> >
> > Well, I don't find it too surprising... I guess Chomsky found non-linear
> > rules to be quite as untenable as a rules which exhibited a "loss of
> > generality".
>
> ...these are two quite different things.

I kind of have to hold with Chomsky on this. I see non-linearity and "loss of
generality" of rules as much the same thing: a statement that structural
elements in language are not "consistent in combination".

I don't mind because your conclusions were the same as mine: that the
centrality of functional contrast should be retained, but that it should be
regarded as an unavoidable consequence of this that phonemes can no longer be
considered to be "consistent in combination".

-Rob



More information about the Funknet mailing list