Declarative Lexical Phonology
¢¹. Representative-- John Coleman's homepage , John Coleman's publications
¢º. The Theory
of all, John Coleman talks about the theory of declarative phonology. Importantly,
in declarative approaches, the well-formedness constraints which constitute
the definition of the predicate grammatical
the surface structure £r
directly, not via transformations of
a deep structure distinct from the surface structure. These well-formedness
constraints are of several kinds:
(constituent structure) rules of the surface grammar. These are usually context
free, or no more than mildly context sensitive, and the nodes are usually
labelled with feature-structures, rather than atomic symbols.
feature-structures, such as logical constraints on what features may or may not
cooccur, and which features are predictable on the basis of which others.
Feature propagation constraints (a form of feature cooccurrence constraint
holding between different nodes of the syntactic structure) may be regarded in
Feature-structure defaults. This is a challenging area in declarative
grammatical research, since defaults may introduce nonmonotonicity into the
semantics of the grammar formalism, which gives rise to some technical
difficulties, though they do not necessarily make the grammar itself (i.e. the
Constraints on the linear order of sister constituents.
The lexical entries of words, containing information about their category,
and the categories of the phrases they subcategorize for. Lexical entries may be
regarded as highly informative and specific feature-structures which contribute
information to the surface representation. Such information is complementary to
the more general information contributed by the other grammatical constraints.
Rules for productively generating new lexical descriptions from lexical
entries, such as productive active-passive morphosyntactic relations. Since
these are implications of the form ¡¥if X is well -formed, then Y is
well-formed¡¦, these too are simply logical constraints on well-formed surface
Principles for the semantic interpretation of well-formed syntactic
structures: usually, some form of function for combining the semantic
interpretation of the parts of a well-formed syntactic structure to form the
semantic interpretation of the larger structure (compositional semantics).
the preceding Sections John Coleman has presented a detailed critique of derivational
phonology that is matched only programmatically by the declarative
alternative. To give real substance to the declarative approach, he shall make a
conclusion by examining several of the rules in Halle and Mohanan¡¦s
(henceforth H&M¡¦s) Lexical Phonology of English in some detail, proposing
specific declarative alternatives.
H&M¡¦s rules can
be roughly divided into two main groups: morphophonologically motivated rules
(i.e. those which accompany a morphological affixation or other
category-changing operation), from the stress rules to the Centering Diphthong
Rule, and allophonic ¡¥detail¡¦ rules from Diphthongization
to the end. All of
the rules convert relatively more abstract representations corresponding more
closely to lexical forms to relatively more concrete representations
corresponding more closely to systematic phonetic forms. Nasal Assimilation, yInsertion
and y-Deletion are somewhat out of place among the morphophonological rules, in
that they simply adjust the output of one set of rules in order to match the
input to another set of rules without any particular morphophonological
consequence. Nevertheless, the approximate divisibility of the rule sequence in
this fashion surely cannot be
accidental, yet the theory in which H&M¡¦s analysis is cast does not
predict or account for this partition. Indeed, given the difficulty of
determining the particular rule ordering with maximal exploitation of the
potential for feeding, bleeding and parsimony, it is not obvious how it comes
about that such a rule ordering can be naturally partitioned in this way. The
twofold division is natural in a non-derivational model, however, in which there
are two levels: a morphophonological (¡¥syntactic¡¦) level, at which
morphophonological alternations are represented, and a phonetic (¡¥semantic¡¦)
level, at which non-functional, phonetic details are described.
the division into lexical strata and the morphophonological/allophonic
partition, the rules can be grouped into functionally related blocks on the
basis of their effects and structural conditions:
Parsing of metrical
structure, including syllable structure, e.g. the stress rules and the rules of
Prenasal, g-Deletion, n-Deletion, Non-coronal Deletion, and 1-Resyllabification.
interpretation of metrical structure, e.g. the rules of CiV lengthening,
s-Voicing, Shortening rules, Vowel Reduction, Vowel Tensing, and Stem-final
Vowel shift, e.g. the rules of Vowel Shift, i-Lowering, Centering Diphthong
Rule and Diphthongization.
Palatal assimilation, e.g. the rules of Velar Softening, i-Lengthening,
Spirantization, y-Insertion, Palatalization, y-Vocalization and y-Deletion.
5. Phonetic interpretation of syllable structure, e.g. Nasal Assimilation,
æ-Tensing and 1-Velarization.
H&M¡¦s derivational analysis can be recast non-derivationally, while
retaining an analysis which is no less parsimonious and elegant than
theirs, a justified failing of the ¡¥straw man¡¦ non-derivational
analyses which Halle and Bromberger put forward. Furthermore, in my
non-derivational alternative, the functional relations between what are
disparate rules in H&M¡¦s analysis will be more transparent by virtue of
the fact that they are cooperative constraints. The strategy of my reanalysis
can be summarized as follows:
group of rules which he has labelled ¡¥parsing of metrical structure, including
syllable structure¡¦, can be replaced by context-free Metrical Structure Rules.
Being context free, these yield the same result however they are applied.
The group of
rules which he has labelled ¡¥phonetic interpretation of metrical
structure¡¦ are akin to redundancy rules, in which the presence of (a)
particular feature(s) not present in the lexical representation is predictable
on the basis of the metrical structure. These rules can be recast as
implicational constraints on feature specification, or in some cases as prosodic
features supplied by the metrical structure rules.
The group of rules which he has listed under the common label as
¡¥Palatal Assimilation¡¦ rules will be replaced by a metrical version of the
autosegmental analysis of the spread of a ¡¥high, front¡¦ feature
specification from the syllable nucleus to the onset. The variety of phenomena
expressed in H&M¡¦s various rules will be shown to be the consequences of
palatal assimilation in conjunction with implicational constraints on feature
specification and the application of Feature Specification Defaults.
The group of rules which he has labelled ¡¥phonetic interpretation
of syllable structure¡¦, are like ¡¥phonetic interpretation of metrical
structure¡¦ (of which syllable structure is a part), those in which the
presence of (a) particular feature(s) not present in the lexical representation
is predictable on the basis of the syllable structure. These rules will be
recast as implicational constraints on feature specification, or in same cases
as prosodic features supplied by the syllable structure rules.