conférence de T. Scheer le 26 février à l'UMR 7023

[aroui at TISCALI.CO.UK]

L'UMR 7023 a le plaisir de vous convier, dans le cadre des séances de son
séminaire,

le lundi 26 février
10h00-12h00, Université Paris VIII, 2, rue de la liberté, 93200 Saint-Denis
(métro Saint-Denis Université, ligne 13), bâtiment D, salle D 143,

à une conférence de Tobias Scheer (Université de Nice, UMR 6039)
intitulée

« How syntax and morphology talk to phonology »

Résumé :
Since the 80s, the processing of non-phonological information in phonology
has been dominated by two interface theories, Lexical Phonology and Prosodic
Phonology. While the former is closely associated with stratal effects that
rely on the existence of different affix classes, the latter translates phonologically
relevant morpho-syntactic structure into a phonological arborescence that
is known as the Prosodic Hierarchy. The Prosodic Hierarchy to date stands
unchallenged and is the theory-resident default when phonologists make reference
to extra-phonological information. This has not changed in constraint-based
environments where prosodic constituency has been taken over with minor adaptations
(e.g. Selkirk, 2000, Kiparsky, 2000, Bermúdez-Otero, forth).
I show that the Prosodic Hierarchy is as much a diacritic as classical SPE-type
boundaries (#, +), if an autosegmental one. Everybody today agrees that diacritics
are non-linguistic objects and hence cannot be part of linguistic theory.
This line of argumentation has actually contributed to outlaw # and the like;
I argue that the Prosodic Hierarchy must be abandoned for the same reason.
A crucial advance made by Prosodic Phonology is the principle known as Indirect
Reference according to which phonology cannot directly access morpho-syntactic
structure and hence may not mention morpho-syntactic categories in the structural
description of rules (or in constraints). The critical argument for Indirect
Reference which is repeated over and over in the literature is so-called
non-isomorphism: the domain of the string which is phonologically relevant
does not necessarily coincide with any morpho-syntactic constituent. Therefore,
Prosodic Phonology argues, there must be a translating process whereby a
Translator's Office ? which is neither part of morpho-syntax nor of phonology,
hence stands in modular no-man's land ? maps morpho-syntactic onto prosodic
structure. While the Translator's Office takes morpho-syntactic structure
as an input, it modifies it according to its own standards ? thereby making
it non-isomorphic ? before handing it over to phonology in the coat of the
Prosodic Hierarchy.
I argue that Prosodic Phonology has reached exactly the right conclusion
? but for the wrong reason: non-isomorphism is a mirage that is created by
analysis, not by linguistic fact; it appears when one looks at the data through
the prism imposed by domains, rather than boundaries. Non-isomorphism evaporates
as soon as the same data are interpreted in terms of the latter. On the other
hand, a good reason for the existence of the Translator's Office is modularity:
different modules do not speak the same language (of the brain, e.g. Jackendoff,
1992 et passim), and hence can only communicate through a no-man's land-based
translation.
If the Prosodic Hierarchy thus is a domain-created mirage and boundaries
turn out to be the correct interface currency, we seem to be requesting a
self-contradicting theory, i.e. one where extra-phonological information
is represented as non-diacritic boundaries. I show that this term does not
need to be self-contradictory: its paradoxical flavour stems from the fact
that the two essential properties of what is commonly called a "boundary"
have never been disentangled. That is, boundaries are 1) local and 2) diacritic.
The former seems to imply the latter ? and this is exactly what I show to
be wrong: there may well be non-diacritic boundaries. In other words, when
boundaries were eliminated from phonological theory, the local baby was thrown
out with the diacritic bath.
Hence I propose a theory where interface information is handed down locally
? in the sense of what is traditionally called sandhi; yet the output of
the Translator's Office are only truly phonological objects. A truly phonological
object is one that exists in domestic phonology anyway and in absence of
any interface-related issue. The result is Direct Interface, i.e. a theory
where higher level information does not transit through a diacritic. A welcome
effect of this is that different phonological theories, which of course have
different domestic vocabulary, make different predictions as to what can
be the output of the Translator's Office: only their domestic vocabulary
is eligible. Therefore, Direct Interface allows for evaluating phonological
theories according to their behaviour at the interface ? a new perspective.


___________________________________________________________

Tiscali Broadband only 9.99 a month for your first 3 months!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/




Pour se desinscire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
Pour s'inscrire, envoyer un mel à parislinguists-subscribe at yahoogroups.com 
Liens Yahoo! Groupes

<*> Pour consulter votre groupe en ligne, accédez à :
    http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/

<*> Vos options mail :
    Mail individuel | Traditionnel

<*> Pour modifier vos options avec le Web, allez sur :
    http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/parislinguists/join
    ((Compte Yahoo! requis) 

<*> Pour modifier vos options par mail :
    mailto:parislinguists-digest at yahoogroupes.fr 
    mailto:parislinguists-fullfeatured at yahoogroupes.fr

<*> Pour vous désincrire de ce groupe, envoyez un mail à :
    parislinguists-desabonnement at yahoogroupes.fr

<*> L'utilisation de Yahoo! Groupes est soumise à l'acceptation des :
    http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html