<html>
<font size=3>At 11:13 AM 2/11/2000 -0700, Catie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Hi all,<br>
<br>
In fact, Miller, Joanne. 1994. On the internal structure of
phonetic<br>
categories: a progress report. Cognition 50: 271-285 shows evidence
for<br>
graded phonetic category structure which supports both the prototype
and<br>
exemplar models.<br>
<br>
Also look for Joan Bybee's forthcoming Phonology and Language Use
(John<br>
Benjamins, in preparation) for critique of the classical phoneme
analysis.<br>
<br>
Does anyone else have recommended readings on this topic? I would
be<br>
particularly interested in anything on the association of what are<br>
traditionally "segments" and what are usually characterized as
independent<br>
prosodic features. For instance, if a particular construction tends
to<br>
take a particular kind of sentence stress (eg an element of a
predictable<br>
grammatical construction), how do we represent this in our grammar? Do
the<br>
vocalic "segments" remain as full vowels or does the vowel
representation<br>
change due to a very regular (reduced) prosodic environment?<br>
<br>
And, is this process quantitatively different from representation
of<br>
vowels in clearly lexical items? which also always occur in
constructions.<br>
<br>
Catie Berkenfield<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
University of New Mexico<br>
</font></blockquote><br>
<br>
<br>
In a number of papers I have argued that phonemes are prototype
categories, with phonological processes serving as the analog of image
schema transformations (a la Lakoff/Brugmann's analysis of 'over').
Such facts as phonemic overlap and phonemicization are easily understood
in these terms. Relevant references include:<br>
<br>
REFERENCES<br>
Hurch, Bernhard, and Geoffrey S. Nathan. 1996. "Naturalness in
Phonology." STUF (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung)
49(3):231-45.<br>
Nathan, Geoffrey S. 1986. "Phonemes as Mental Categories." Pp.
212-24 in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society., vol. 12.<br>
------. 1989. "Preliminaries to a Theory of Phonological
Substance: The Substance of Sonority." Pp. 55-68 in Linguistic
Categorization, edited by Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman, and Michael
Noonan. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science. Series IV - Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.
Vol. 61. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.<br>
------. 1995. "How the Phoneme Inventory Gets Its Shape--Cognitive
Grammar’s View of Phonological Systems." Rivista Di Linguistica
6(2):275-88.<br>
------. 1996. "Towards a Cognitive Phonology." Pp. 107-20 in
Natural Phonology: The State of the Art, eds Bernhard Hurch and
Richard Rhodes. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.<br>
------. 1999. "What Functionalists Can Learn from Formalists in
Phonology." Pp. 305-27 in Proceedings of the Symposium on Formalism
and Functionalism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br>
<br>
Much of my work supports the traditional phoneme analysis (specifically
the Baudouin/Sapir/Stampe view, not Bloomfieldian or Generative Phonology
versions), although some of it can be recast in the OT framework. <br>
<br>
<font size=3><div align="center">
Geoffrey S. Nathan <br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale <br>
Carbondale, IL, 62901-4517 <br>
Phone: (618) 453-3421 (Office) / FAX (618) 453-6527<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>(618)
549-0106 (Home) <br>
</div>
<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>geoffn@siu.edu</font></html>