phonological rules (summary)

[Joan Bybee]

Dear Fritz,

Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way of
explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT
with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more
formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than
compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types of
models.

As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not
constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or
natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on each
point.

Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological
processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic
agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the
neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence
actual pronunciations.

Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus
what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to derive
from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another.
Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of non-linguistic
objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these
categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe
that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories
would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on
exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne
MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that
phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects.

In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic
categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus and
minus features are not compatible with gradual change.

Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact
that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon.

Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the
road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low
frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items?

Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding.

I hope you find these points useful.

best wishes, Joan



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer
<fjn at u.washington.edu>wrote:

> Dear Funknetters,
>
> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to
> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to
> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the
> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying
> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on.
> I received several responses with references that seem to support more
> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment:
>
> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends
> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic
> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological)
> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations
> provided by usage-based models.
>
> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir
> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the
> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual
> phonetic elements.
>
> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the
> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role.
>
> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls
> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not
> 'sound change' per se.
>
> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological
> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be
> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree*
> of nasalisation.
>
> Thank you all for your replies.
>
> Fritz
>
> REFERENCES
>
> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological
> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook
> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley.
>
> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and
> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford
> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford.
>
> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John
> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell,
> 640-70.
>
> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal
> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell.
>
>
>
>
>
> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U
> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
>
>
>


-- 
Joan Bybee
HC 66 Box 118
Mountainair, NM 87036
505-847-0137