Subject: disc : functionalism 8 . 798

this is in response to benji wald 's comments on ( 8 . 736 , disc ) functionalism : i fear that we may be talking a little at cross-purposes here . my main interest is in clarifying the position of natural phonology on the issue of so-called contradictory processes . benji seems a little more focused on the question of what it means to call something a " cluster " in phonetic terms . < deleted : elaboration on the nature of phonetic clusters , particularly [ pt ] > > > the question , if i remember correctly , > > was why speakers should be able to pronounce the reduced [ pt ] > > if they could n't pronounce the unreduced one . > > in view of what i have said above , i understand that the phonological > processes involved are not consciously controllable , and that reduction ( or > whatever ? ) of the first vowel in " potato " reflects a process which normally > occurs when speech is not deliberate or conscious , but when it is > relatively spontaneous . so we ' re dealing with unconscious stylistic > effects , in my view . i can agree with you here . this is yet another reason for believing that the fast speech reduction of [ p @ t ] to [ pt ] ( or whatever ) poses no problem at all for natural phonological theory . the fortition that breaks up a controlled attempt to pronounce initial [ pt ] would not necessarily have to apply to what is loosely described as " [ pt ] " ( i . e . reduced [ p @ t ] ) in fast speech . > > > > the fact that you can't pronounce the cluster in no way means that the > > > > cluster is banned as a side-effect in the pronunciation of some other > > > > phonetic target . > > that just goes along with what i just said , but sounds absurd because it > does not explicitly acknowledge the difference between consciously > controllable phonological processes , and unconscious , spontaneous , but > nevertheless learned / acquired , processes . am i missing that somehow the > theory at issue does indeed account for this distinction ? does it even > recognise it ? or , should it ? yes on all counts . thank you for clarifying that . natural phonology is a theory about pronounceability . that was part of baudouin 's original vision when he founded modern phonological theory . it is no longer necessarily part of the modern vision of what phonology is about . basically , baudouin observed that phonetic alternations all fell into just two types - - those that involved phonetic variants of a single " phoneme " and those that involved two distinct phonemes . as stampe has pointed out many times , the latter are consciously manipulable . the former are quite unconscious and difficult to control . by the way , it is interesting that later generations seem to have lost their way , thanks due in no small part to baudouin 's influential student shcherba . it was shcherba who seemed to have influenced the concept of the phoneme among british ( thence american ) linguists . shcherba limited the phoneme to be just a perceptual unit , which radically changed linguistic analyses of what was includable or excludable from the study of phonology ( i . e . phonemics at the time ) . trubetzkoy retained baudouin 's essential vision of the boundaries of phonology , but he preferred a more " scherbemic " conception of the phoneme . so he had to have " archiphonemes " in his phonology , which he still considered a separate branch of linguistic theory from morphophonology . sapir , who carried on a close correspondence with trubetzkoy , also retained this sharp distinction between phonology ( i . e . stampean processes ) and morphophonology ( i . e . stampean rules ) . what ties all of these approaches together is that pronounceability is fundamental to the concept of phonological theory ( although trubetzkoy might not have explicitly agreed with this claim ) . > ( self - conscious speech is indeed the suppression of some phonetic > realisation rules , but depending on how deep your phonology - - > morphophonemics ? - - is , it is never the elimination of everything short of > " deep " phonotactics , right ? in fact , i ask : is self-conscious speech ever > anything but the suppression of some realisation rules , i . e . , does it ever > * really * include the addition of a rule ? that might be an interesting > question for some theorists . ) there are some hidden assumptions in the above that make it difficult to comment on , so i ' ll just tackle the one red flag that you raised for me . a theory of phonology need not have any phonotactics , deep or otherwise . since generative theory is about well-formedness , it must address such phenomena as part of the theory . however , natural phonology just sees banned sequences of sounds as those which cannot be directly ( or intentionally ) pronounced during normal speech . unpronounceability need not necessarily be attributable to a single cause . since you do n't need to pronounce nonexistent phonetic structures , you do n't need to suppress any processes that affect them . hence , there can be multiple processes banning so-called phonotactically impermissible sequences . hence , no need for a single generalization in your theory to ban such sequences . < . . . > > > stampean theory predicts > > that very early language learners will have both devoicing of > > vowels between voiceless consonants and voicing of consonants between > > vowels . ( in fact , such processes do occur in l1 acquisition , but they > > are not observed - - may not even be manifested - - in all learners . having > > them does n't mean that they actually have to become dominant during > > phonological acquisition . they do in some learners , but not all . ) > > again , are these established facts ? or are we just going to hear somebody > say what they think they heard their little daughter say in the playpen or > in the highchair the other day ? this issue desrves serious study , and i > would like to know what actual observations have been made , and what > documentation exists for these " facts " admittedly crucial to this theory > ( and relevant to any other theory ) . the quote has so much hedging , i > wonder if its evidence is distinguishable from grasping at straws . i refer you to stampe 's writings on phonological acquisition , particularly the 1973 published version of his dissertation . much of his early work was based on an explanation of longitudinal studies of child speech . indeed , there are plenty of studies on the subject , the seminal one being jakobson 's " child language , aphasia , and phonological universals " monograph . what i ' m not sure about is what you will accept as " established fact " . if you want spectrograms , then i ' m not sure that this body of literature is going to impress you much . however , if you accept that body of literature as basically accurate in how it recorded child phonetics , then you won't find many linguists other than stampe who can explain the recorded evolutionary stages . > > i know that stampean theory is very different - - quite strange to some > > people . it requires one to treat acquisition as a kind of " loss " of > > pre-existing rules . > > it 's not strange to any theory based on a " universal grammar ( include > phonology ) " approach . but what does a universal phonology claim about > surface ( presumably observable ) phonetics ? oops ! red flag again . : ) universal grammar is about the construction of grammars , not behavioral systems . stampean derivations are not " grammatical " in the generative sense . for example , there are no restrictions on what you can plug into a phonological derivation in np ( no phonotactic conditions , remember ? ) . you can try to pronounce any phonetic target , so anything can be run through the " filter " that the process system represents . that includes surface phonetics . presumably , that is how both children and adults acquire new phonologies . they try to say things . generative theory just tells you what people think is legal . it does n't have anything to say about how people pronounce things . one can * speculate * about a connection between the grammar and pronounceability , but there is nothing inherent in generativism that makes you go there . < . . . > > > if markedness > > theory were really correct , then why did n't the human race converge on > > the same phonology ages ago ? what keeps phonologies different if there > > is some kind of gold standard that we all use to arrive at grammatical > > analyses with ? > > good question . what 's the answer ? i ' m glad you enjoyed the question . i leave it up to proponents of markedness theory to answer it . ; - ) natural phonology holds that no such standard exists . there is no " universal grammar " . just a lot of sometimes contradictory constraints on pronunceation that have to be put in order by the language learners . basically , phonology exists to coordinate articulatory gestures during speech . ( that explains a lot , by the way . it explains sapir 's famous conundrum about the difference between blowing out a candle and producing a speech sound . ) acquisition is the act of coordinating your mouth to pass just those phonetic structures that you need to get out . > natural phonology simply takes the view that we put > > naturally-occuring , but chaotic behavioral constraints , into some kind > > of order , depending on what challenges the target language poses for > > the articulators . what you do with contradictory processes depends on > > what you have to say . > > was that the answer ? what are examples of " naturally-occurring , but > chaotic behavioral constraints " ? can i get away with just referring you to examples in the donegan & stampe " the study of natural phonology " paper ? they do a pretty good job of talking about contradictory processes in that work . by " chaotic " , i mean that the way in which processes interact during l1 is not predictable . it depends on what they child attempts to pronounce . there need not be any single correct path to a properly coordinated speech tract . - rick wojcik bellevue , wa rickw @ eskimo . com http : / / www . eskimo . com / ~ rickw
