A psychomechanical approach to the verb do. In De Vriendt, S., Dierickx, J., and. Wilmet, M. (eds.), Generative Grammar and Psychomechanics. Brussels and ...
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory with the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior1 YISHAI TOBIN
Abstract In this article, Optimality Theory is first compared and contrasted with the theory of Phonology as Human Behavior of the Columbia School of linguistics from the point of view of the interaction between the opposing forces ofmarkedness (the human factor) and faithfulness (the communication factor) integral to both theories. The theories are contrasted based on their differing theoretical and methodological (sentence-oriented versus sign-oriented) research paradigms. Despite these basic differences, similarities are found in their shared functional basis which are discussed in the context of the phonotactic functional processes of Natural Phonology with which they are both compared. The theories' syntactic (grammatical) analyses are then further compared and contrasted based on the alternative ways they analyze the phenomenon of do-support (the auxiliary do) as being either semantically empty or not. 1.
Comparing and contrasting linguistic theories
In this article I will compare and contrast Optimality Theory (OT), as presented in Kager (1999), with the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior (PHB) of the Columbia School (CS) as presented in Tobin (1997a). The comparing and contrasting of these two theories are based on the following principles originally presented in Tobin (1990a: 68-69): One of the most fundamental questions which must be addressed when discussing various linguistic approaches is: according to what theoretical and methodological principles can different linguistic theories be compared and contrasted? 1. I would like to thank Bob Kirsner of the Columbia School, my colleagues at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, particularly Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Ariel Cohen, and Nancy Ritter and Harry van der Hülst from The Linguistic Review for their helpful comments while I was preparing this article. I, alone, am responsible for its contents. The Linguistic Review 17 (2000), 303-322
0167-6318/00/017-0303 ©Walter de Gruyter Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
304
Υ. Tobin
And, even more fundamentally: What is the basis for determining what these theoretical and methodological principles may be? Every linguistic analysis is the direct result of a specific set of theoretical assumptions. Such assumptions are related to how the linguist: (1) defines language; (2) defines a linguistic problem; (3) determines the source, kind and amount of data to be selected and analyzed; (4) chooses a methodology to select and analyze the data; (5) evaluates, compares and contrasts analyses in light of all of the above. These five criteria basically serve to describe how and what the particular linguist views as the goals of linguistic research.
7.7.
Placing OT within the generative paradigm
If one accepts Kuhn's (1962) thesis that scientific revolutions change the paradigms within which research is done within disciplines, then it is no surprise to any of the readers of this journal that there was a significant paradigm change in linguistics as a result of the Chomskyan revolution (from Chomsky 1957 onwards). OT represents one of the most interesting and innovative frameworks within the development of Generative Grammar which: (1) recognizes "deep" versus "surface" forms; (2) focuses on formal description; (3) searches for universal principles based on typology and language acquisition; and (4) aims to achieve economy in its analyses, among other paradigm specific principles. Much of Kager's and others' work in OT stresses the differences between OT and other generative approaches to phonology and syntax. It should be remembered, however, that these differences are paradigm internal, and are, therefore, more important to other scholars working within the mainstream generative paradigm, (as may be seen in the other articles in this special issue), but are much less significant to others, (such as the author of this article), who do not choose to work within the well-established paradigm of generative grammar. Kager (1999: 4) defines language or grammar as a system of conflicting forces that are embodied by constraints which are universal but are ranked in a hierarchy which is not universal. Kager (1999: 1) further states that: "The central goal of linguistic theory is to shed light on the core of grammatical principles that is common to all languages." The conflicting forces acting in OT are the constraints of markedness versus the constraints of faithfulness which are ranked differently and therefore may interact in a language specific manner across languages in the generation of surface forms. Markedness represents the force of grammatical factors that exerts pressure towards the prevalence of unmarked (more natural, less complex, less difficult?) types of structure. Faithfulness, on the other hand, represents the force of combined grammatical factors that preserve lexical contrastive-
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
305
ness (clearer communicative distinctions and oppositions?).2 In the specific constraints they select, and in the particular hierarchical ranking of these constraints they adopt, OT phonologists generate surface phonological forms in a way that is unique among generative phonologists. Indeed, OT seems to have created a marriage combining functionalism and formalism in what appears to be an efficient and possibly even a well-motivated manner, making OT appear to be, in my opinion at least, close in spirit to other non-generative functional theories of phonology, both formal and non-formal, such as Natural Phonology (NP) (Stampe 1972/1979; Dressler et al. 1987); Functional Phonology (FP) (Boersma 1998); and PHB. In OT's extension to syntax (as illustrated in Kager's chapter 8), OT attempts to maintain its special approach, outlined above for phonology, in a similar way for syntax, by establishing universal principles within the larger, formal sentenceoriented framework of generative grammar. One of the examples of an OT syntactic analysis is that of "Jo-support" (Grimshaw 1997) (which Kager likens to the OT analysis of epenthesis earlier in the book), which I will compare and contrast to alternative non-generative, sign-oriented analyses of the so-called auxiliary do (Reid 1991: 10-22) or process do (Tobin 1993: 249-258). 7.2.
Placing PHB in its non-generative paradigm
PHB was developed by William Diver (1979) in an analysis of the non-random distribution of certain classes of initial consonant clusters in English, which he later expanded to explain the non-random combinations of vowels and consonants in English and in language in general (Diver 1993,1995). PHB has been extended further to explain the combinatory phonology of consonant and vowel phonemes in other languages such as Italian (Davis 1987); Hebrew (Tobin 1990b, c); Urdu (Azim 1989, 1993, 1995, 1997; Hameed 1999; Jabeen 1993); Mewati (Fatihi 1987); and Spanish (Flores 1997). PHB also has been applied to explain the nonrandom distribution of initial consonant clusters in forty-two different languages representing nine diverse language families as well as in artificial languages such as Esperanto and Klingon (Tobin 1997a (reviewed by Liberman 1999), in press). PHB has been further applied to the areas of developmental and clinical phonology, dialectology, and to a wide range of historical, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic issues.3 I am adding here my own interpretation of faithfulness in OT as "a means to preserve clearer communication distinctions and oppositions" to facilitate my comparing and contrasting of OT and PHB. According to Kager (1999:10): "Faithfulness constraints require that outputs preserve the properties of their basic (lexical) forms, requiring some kind of similarity between the output and its input." Additional theoretical and applied linguistic analyses employing PHB have been concerned with synchronic and diachronic Hebrew phonology (phonological rules of biblical Hebrew versus Israeli Hebrew and a phonological analysis of Israeli slang); dialectology (the Brazilian Portuguese
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
306
Υ. Tobin
PHB may be viewed as part of the historical development of a larger twentiethcentury structural, functional and cognitive approach to linguistics. This tradition in linguistics and phonology begins with Ferdinand de Saussure's (1916/1959: 3468) concept of system and the dichotomies of langue and parole and phonetics and phonology, the latter dichotomy based on a classification of sounds according to their articulatory and acoustic features. This fundamental dichotomy between the abstract code and its realization based on distinctive articulatory and acoustic features was further developed by the functional, communication-oriented, Prague school of phonology developed by Nikolai Trubetskoy (1939/1969) and Roman Jakobson (1941/1968,1971). The communication factor adhered to by the Prague school was then supplemented by the introduction of the human factor to phonology through the concepts of "asymmetry" and "economy of effort in phonological change" by Andre Martinet (1955). Martinet maintained that phonological systems are arranged asymmetrically and change in such a way that the non-random diachronic distribution of sounds reflects the search for equilibrium and harmony within the system as it is affected by the principle of least effort in human behavior. The principle of minimal effort postulated by Martinet implies that speakers strive for a minimal number of phonemes which requires the least amount of effort to be produced and combined together in what Sampson (1980: 112) (reviewed in Tobin 1986) referred to as a "therapeutic view of sound change". It was Diver (1979), however, who has shown that a more complete theory of phonology has to take both the communication factor and the human factor into account together. Diver maintains that there is a constant struggle between our need for maximum communication and our desire for minimum effort, referred to as "language synergy" in Tobin (1990a: chap. 3, 1994: 21-30). The communication factor (requiring a large number of maximally distinct linguistic units demanding dialect of Rio de Janeiro, a contrastive analysis of two Palestinian Arabic dialects, and an analysis of the American Southern dialect as found in Huckleberry Finn)', the language of identical and fraternal twins; second language acquisition; slips of the tongue; a secret or invented language; applying the theory to literary texts (e.g., "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carrol and its translation into French (two versions) and Russian); and a phonological analysis of geographical names. Psycholinguistic applications of PHB have included an analysis of the development of memory systems from an evolutionary point of view and an analysis of phonemes as patterns of neural activation from a connectionist perspective. Studies applying PHB to developmental phonology analyzed the first language acquisition of monolingual Hebrew- and Russian-speaking children and bilingual Hebrew/English-, Hebrew/Spanish-, and Hebrew/Dutch-speaking children. Clinical applications of PHB have covered a wide range of functional, idiosyncratic and organic disorders including: delayed language development; stuttering; child and adult apraxia and dyspraxia; Down's Syndrome; mental retardation; autism; pervasive developmental disorders (PDD); agnosia; learning disability; naming; child and adult aphasia; dysphasia; esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech; the hearing impaired, cochlear implants, and analyses of audiological tests. Specific bibliographical references for these theoretical, developmental and clinical studies appear in Tobin (1995, 1997a,b, 1999). PHB also has been applied to developmental and clinical prosody in Finnish (Moore 1991, 1992; Moore and Korpijaakko-Haiku 1996; Moore and Rosenberg-Wolf 1998) and is currently being extended to Israeli sign language.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
307
a great deal of effort) will be in conflict with the human factor (striving for minimal effort) resulting in a synergetic trade-off or compromise between the two. Therefore Diver extended Martinet's more limited diachronic view of the human factor to that of a means of explaining the non-random distribution of phonemes in language in coordination with the needs of communication as originally established by Saussure and the Prague school (discussed in Liberman 1991; Tobin 1988, 1997a: chap. 1). PHB is part of a larger functionalist, Saussurean sign-based theory of language formerly called Form Content Analysis (FCA) and now referred to as the Columbia School (CS) which, according to Tobin (1990a: 47,1994: 7), has defined language as "a system of systems composed of various sub-systems (revolving around the notion of the linguistic sign) which are organized internally and systematically related to each other and used by human beings to communicate." This definition has serious theoretical and methodological implications which clearly highlight the differences between the CS and the generative paradigms such as in CS theory: (1) the holistic Saussurean linguistic sign (signe linguistique) combining form (signifiant) and meaning (signifie) is the main unit of analysis rather than the sentence, therefore the theory does not recognize autonomous or separate levels of syntax and semantics (which are both included in the term "grammar"); (2) the theory does not distinguish between "deep" and "surface" forms concentrating on "surface" forms only; therefore, the theory does not employ derivations composed of formal rules or constraints; (3) the theory does not recognize a dichotic distinction between grammar and lexicon but rather views them as a continuum; (4) the theory concentrates on language specific analyses rather than universal grammar, among other paradigm specific principles.4 L3. Comparing OT and CS: Where the twain meet Despite the fundamental theoretical and methodological differences between OT and CS briefly outlined above, they seem to share certain similarities in their outlooks as well. As we have previously stated, the conflicting forces acting in OT are the constraints of markedness versus the constraints of faithfulness. Markedness for OT represents the pressure for the prevalence of unmarked (more natural, less complex, less difficult?) types of structure. Faithfulness represents the preservation of lexical contrastiveness (more distinct and clear communicative distinctions and oppositions?). If we further analyze the sign-oriented definition of language underlying CS provided above, we find a conflict between the human factor (represented by: (1) intelligence; (2) economy of effort; (3) having large, but limited 4. These basic (as well as other) differences between these alternative paradigms in linguistics have been discussed at greater length in Contini-Morava (1995); Contini-Morava and Tobin (2000a); Garcia et al. 1987; Reid (1991: 27^2); Tobin (1990a, 1994) among others.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
308
. Tobin
memories) and the communication factor (represented by the search for maximally distinct and clear cut oppositions in linguistic units). This struggle between the human factor and the communication factor was summed up above in the following axiom which can now be adapted and compared to OT: Language reflects a constant struggle to achieve maximum communication (faithfulness constraints?) with minimal effort (markedness constraints?). This possible shared outlook combining these interacting forces or factors may explain why both OT and PHB show a particular interest in phonotactics and syllable/word/utterance structure regarding the non-random distribution of different phonemes, or the distribution of allophones, or phonological processes like neutralization, epenthesis, nasalization, etc. In other words, both theories seem to be interested in similar distributional phenomena, albeit from diverse perspectives. OT concentrates on deriving "surface" forms from "deep" forms using a variable set of hierarchical constraints of universal principles while PHB focuses on explaining the non-random distribution of phonemes found in various languages from the point of view of its specific principles and distinctive features linked to human behavior.5 As a matter of fact, both theories probably can be criticized in a similar manner by critics in search of hard and fast, or inviolate, universal phonological rules, for "juggling" the opposed forces of the human factor/markedness(?) with the communication factor/faithfulness(?) in an arbitrary or ad hoc way to achieve their language specific explanations of phonotactic distributions. 1.4.
OT, PHB, and NP: the shared functional base, or Funktionalismus über Alles!
Natural Phonology, one of the leading theories in developmental and clinical phonology, introduced the concept of natural phonological processes.6 The following 5. Some of the specific principles or features associated with PHB include: (1) the identification of active articulators and passive receptors whose musculature we have to learn to control, as opposed to the feature "place of articulation"; (2) the identification of relative degrees of stricture, aperture, and turbulence of airflow, as opposed to the feature of "manner of articulation", that require different articulatory control such as producing mobile (e.g., stops/trills) versus stable (e.g., fricatives/nasal) phonemes and producing different acoustic patterns for sounds and phonation processes such as labialization, apicalization, valorization, nasalization, glottalization; etc.; (3) the number of sets of articulators to be controlled as opposed to the categories of voicing, nasalization, ejective, the fortis-lenis distinction; and other phonetic or phonological processes, etc.; (4) the identification of phonemes of constriction versus phonemes of aperture (rather than consonants and vowels) in a single hierarchical continuum rather than dichotomous categories with hybrid sounds such as semi-vowels, syllabic consonants, etc. (Diver 1979, 1995; Davis 1987; Tobin 1997a). 6. Further background information on NP and a discussion of whether these processes are phonological and/or phonetic, and their implications to developmental and clinical phonology, as well as a comparison and contrast of NP and PHB, are found in Tobin (1997a: 184-190). One of the key questions which remains to be answered is: whether the work in NP and in OT phonotactic
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
309
include most of the major and minor natural phonological processes found in functional studies of first language acquisition (adapted from Grunwell 1987; Ingram 1990), accompanied by an explanation derived from the principles obtained from PHB: A. Functional processes influencing syllable structure (1) Final consonant deletion: CVC -> CV: out [au], bike [bai] Explanation: word-final position has less communicative force; consonants require more articulatory control (are harder to make) than vowels. (2) Deletion of unstressed syllable (usually in word-initial position): banana [naena] Explanation: stressed syllables give more communicative, perceptual and cognitive information than unstressed syllables; the more syllables in the word, the more effort it takes to pronounce it; in non-initially stressed words, there is less information in word-initial position which usually has the greatest communicative force. (3) Consonant cluster reduction: CC -> C: floor [for], step [tep] Explanation: a consonant cluster requires greater effort than a consonantvowel sequence and may be reduced or replaced at the expense of maximum communication; in addition, coarticulation by near articulators is disfavored; phonemes of constriction give clearer communicative distinctions than phonemes of aperture - that is why there are more consonants than vowels in language - but they require more articulatory control (hence the ideal CV syllable). (4) Reduplication: repetition of a syllable or part of a syllable: rabbit [waewae], noodle [nunu] Explanation: the reduplication often comes as a means to avoid more difficult sound combinations and/or to maintain the number of syllables in the word: sequences of phonemes with the same articulators are disfavored unless their juxtaposition is, by virtue of some other factor, mutually beneficial. We also found that newly acquired sounds were often reduplicated as a means of practice or of hypercorrection in the clinical situation. (5) Coalescence: characteristics of 2 consecutive sounds merging into 1 sound: swim [mm], slide [iaid] Explanation: fewer articulatory gestures resulting in fewer distinctive units at the expense of maximum communication. analyses is sufficiently interested in the "substance" underlying the non-random phonotactic distribution of the "forms": i.e., why do we get the "processes" (NP) and/or the "constraints" (OT) that we do? My feeling is that PHB and FP (Boersma 1998) relate to this issue in a more explicit and direct explanatory manner. An interesting topic for further research would be to present an OT, NP, FP, and PHB analysis of the same phenomena and see how they are the same and how they are different, particularly concerning the insights obtained by each theory. Such research comparing and contrasting CS and Cognitive Grammar for Dutch demonstratives can be found in Kirsner and van Heuven (1988) and Kirsner (1993).
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
310
K Tobin
(6) Epenthesis: addition of segments, usually an unstressed vowel: snow [sanou], drum [d9FAm] Explanation: the additional unstressed vowel often eases the transition to more difficult consonants or clusters. The clusters then may be reduced at the expense of communication. Examples A. (5) and (6) above, as well as the following assimilation processes B. (1) and (2) below, may also be explained by the factor: sequences of phonemes with the same or near articulators are disfavored unless their juxtaposition is, by virtue of some other factor, mutually beneficial. B. Assimilation processes (Consonant/Consonant-Vowel harmony) (1) Velar/Nasal/Labial, etc. assimilation: duck [g\k]\ friend [fre]; top [bap] Explanation: a non-velar/nasal/labial sound changes to a velar/nasal/labial because of the influence of, or the domination of, a velar/nasal/labial sound which entails fewer articulatory gestures at the expense of maximum communication. (2) Prevocalic voicing of consonants: pen [ben], tea [di] Explanation: an unvoiced consonant becomes voiced generally before a vowel: the speaker anticipates the control of two sets of articulators in what is usually a longer acoustic phonological segment. This is more important even though additional articulators are disfavored especially coarticulation by proximate articulators, in this case, adding voice to the preceding consonant in initial position with the higher communicative force. (3) Devoicing of final consonants: bed [bet], big [blk] Explanation: additional articulators are disfavored; voiced consonants become unvoiced in word-final position: where the communicative force is least important or crucial, the speaker opts to activate one set of articulators rather than two. This may also be related to the phonetic fact that vowels are shorter before voiceless rather than voiced consonants. C. Substitution processes (1) Processes reflecting the substitution of active articulators: (a) Fronting: back (non-apical) consonants are substituted by apical consonants usually preserving the same manner and voicing values: k -» t book [bUt], g ->· d dug [dAd], J —)> s shoe [su], 3 -> z beige [beiz], rj -> n sing [sin] Explanation: the apex is the most flexible and easy to control of all the active articulators: the earliest and most frequent examples of the substitution of active articulators are fronting or apicalization which sharply reduces the number of communicative distinctions of the speaker. (b) Backing: the back pronunciation of front sounds (usually consonants): t/d -> k/g: dog [gDg], tiger [kaiga] Explanation: a (possibly idiosyncratic) later, less frequent process where the dorsum (or other back articulators) replaces the apex (or other front articulators); often found in children who have difficulty controlling the musculature
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
311
of the apex (for organic or other reasons) and/or try to reduce the number of communicative distinctions made by the apex (or other front articulators) especially as a result of earlier fronting or other processes. (2) Processes reflecting the substitution of turbulence and airflow: (a) Stopping: fricatives/affricates are replaced by stops: s/ts —l· t: seat [tit], soup [dup] Explanation: maximum constriction is favored particularly when mobile (stop) phonemes of constriction are easier to control than stable phonemes of less constriction which require greater control of the musculature to create and maintain a small aperture for a stronger turbulent airflow: the most frequent manner of substitution for children. (b) Affrication: stops/fricatives are replaced by affricates: t —>· tj: tree [tji] Explanation: maximum constriction precedes and leads into partial constriction and turbulent airflow since mobile (stop) phonemes of constriction require less articulatory control than stable phonemes of constriction which produce greater turbulence: a less frequent manner substitution for children (possibly to avoid more difficult consonant clusters or combinations). (c) Gliding of liquids: 1/r -> j/w: rock [wak], lap [yaep] Explanation: substitution of a lower to a higher degree of aperture (from consonants to semi-vowels) which may also require less articulatory control. (d) Vocalization: nasals and liquids (syllabic consonants) are replaced by vowels: apple [aepo], flower [fawo] Explanation: the favoring of maximal aperture particularly when phonemes of aperture (vowels) require less articulatory control than phonemes of constriction (consonants). (e) Denasalization: m -»· b, n ->· d, rj ->> g: no [do], home [hob], sung [sAg] Explanations: additional articulators are disfavored; nasal stops become their equivalent oral stops: two sets of articulators are exploited rather than three. (f) Deaffrication: tj -> J, d3 -» 3: chips \Jips], juice fous] Explanation: transitions from one distinct constriction to another within a single phoneme are disfavored; a more complex sound requiring greater effort or control is reduced to a less complex sound after the speaker has acquired the ability to produce the more difficult stable sounds. (g) Glottal replacement: butter [bA?9r] Explanation: additional articulators are disfavored; a glottal stop replaces an intervocalic consonant or a consonant in syllable-final position: articulatory control of one set of articulators rather than two in an appropriate phonetic environment. (h) Gliding of fricatives: /f/ ->· [w], /s/ —» [Ij] Explanation: a more extreme substitution of a lower to a higher degree of aperture (cf. (c) the gliding of liquids above) requiring less articulatory control: an idiosyncratic process. Most of the processes reflecting the substitution of turbulence and airflow (manner of articulation) listed above confirm the following factors obtained from PHB:
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
312
Υ. Tobin
among constrictions, maximal constriction is favored and among apertures, maximal aperture is favored. To further illustrate the possible similarity of OT and PHB, I will list some of the major principles derived from the language specific analyses of PHB (annotated with examples of the functional processes coined by NP discussed above) that probably can be directly associated with the markedness and faithfulness constraints of OT: (i) additional articulators are disfavored [devoicing, denasalization, glottal replacement] [human factor/markedness?]; (ii) coarticulation by near articulators is disfavored [consonant cluster reduction, deletions and substitutions] [human factor/markedness?]; (iii) coarticulation by the same articulators/phoneme is even more highly disfavored [unless their juxtaposition is, by virtue of some other factor, mutually beneficial (cf. xiii): reduplication, coalescence, assirnilatory processes, deletions, substitutions] [human factor/markedness?]; (iv) different word, stem, or root positions have different communicative force (higher communicative force in initial position, lower communicative force in final position) and thus affect the favoring and disfavoring of different articulatory gestures, the number of articulators, the number and type of acoustic features and the distribution of phonemes [prevocalic voicing of initial consonants, devoicing of final consonants, deletion of final consonants, deletion of unstressed or reduced syllables, initial epenthesis] [human factor/markedness + communication factor/faithfulness?]; (v) apical articulations are favored in general and in final position (lower communicative force) in particular [fronting, apicalization] [human factor/ markedness?]; (vi) visual articulations are favored particularly in word/stem/root-initial position (higher communicative force) [labialization] [communication factor/ faithfulness?]; (vii) explosive (stop) phonemes are favored in initial position [stopping, affrication] [human factor/markedness?]; (viii) turbulent (fricative) phonemes are favored in final position [deletions, substitutions]; [human factor/markedness?]; (ix) transitions from one distinct constriction to another within a single phoneme are disfavored [deaffrication] [human factor/markedness?]; (x) consonant clusters are restricted concerning different articulatory and acoustic features [human factor/markedness?]; (xi) among constrictions, maximal constriction is favored [stopping] [human factor markedness?]; (xii) among apertures, maximal aperture is favored [vocalization, gliding] [human factor/markedness?]; (xiii) sequences of phonemes with the same articulators are disfavored unless their juxtaposition is, by virtue of some other factor, mutually beneficial (cf. iii)
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
313
[reduplication, coalescence, assimilation processes: velarization, nasalization, labialization, prevocalic voicing] [human factor/markedness?]. (Adapted from Tobin 1997a: 213-214) The following factors have been added to PHB (based on the application of the theory to the speech clinic) which are directly related to the synergetic interaction of the human (markedness?) and communication (faithfulness?) factors underlying the theory: (i) the preservation of as many distinctive features as possible (usually 2 out of 3) in substitution processes which require more effort than deletion processes [communication factor/faithfulness?]; (ii) the preservation of as many communicative oppositions as possible in the original word (e.g, the number of phonemes per word) in substitution processes which require more effort than deletion processes [communication factor/faithfulness?]; (iii) the use of a readily available phoneme already found in the speaker's repertoire in accordance with the immediate phonetic environment in substitution processes which require more effort than deletion processes [human factor/markedness?]; (iv) the preservation of the original phonetic structure of the word in deletion processes not involving syllable reduction and in reduplication [communication factor/faithfulness?]; (v) the preservation of the stressed syllable bearing the most communicative information, if the original structure of the word is reduced by the deletion of syllables [human factor/markedness + communication factor/faithfulness?]; (vi) the use of epenthesis, even when the original structure of the word is enlarged, if the epenthesis makes the transition to or between more difficult sounds easier [human factor/markedness?]. (Adapted from Tobin 1997a: 214) It may be assumed that the shared functional orientation of OT, PHB, and NP allows them to overlap in the specific phonotactic issues upon which they focus, albeit to achieve diverse theoretical goals through different methodological means. 2.
OT and CS: Extensions from phonology to syntax and from grammar to phonology
Kager (1999: 341) stresses the fact that OT is not merely a theory of phonology proper but one of grammar with extensions to syntax: "Therefore the basic idea underlying OT, that of hierarchically ranked constraints which are minimally violated, is, in principle, equally well applicable to non-phonological phenomena." CS theory, in a similar way to OT, applies isomorphic or holistic theoretical and methodological principles to both phonological and grammatical analyses in its search to explain the non-random distribution of linguistic signs. The paths of the
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
314
Y. Tobin
extensions were reversed, however, since OT began as a phonological theory extended to syntax while CS began as a sign-oriented theory of grammar that was then extended to phonology; or, as stated by Diver (1975: 13): "Phonology, then, is for us, an attempt to understand the non-random distribution within the [speech] signal, and grammar is the attempt to understand the non-random distribution of the sign[al]s themselves." Taking the sign with its invariant meaning as the basis of grammatical analysis, the basic working hypothesis of CS is that it is the invariant meanings of the signs themselves that motivate their distribution in language (Contini-Morava 1995; Reid 1991; Tobin 1990a, 1994). 2.7. Do-support in generative grammar and OT Grimshaw's (1997) analysis of do-support exemplifies the general assumptions of OT-based syntax, which are similar to those of OT phonology, and include: (1) universality; (2) violability; (3) strict domination (hierarchically ranked constraints); (4) freedom of analysis (any amount of structure can be postulated for the input); (5) harmony (the optimal output candidate involves the smallest violation of the higher-ranking constraints). The input in general, and for do-support in particular, consists of: (a) a lexical head plus its argument structure; (b) an assignment of lexical heads to its arguments; (c) a specification of the associated tense and semantically meaningful auxiliaries. Thus the input for the sentence: What did Mary say? appears as follows: (1)
say (lexical head) (a predicate taking 2 arguments (x, y) = Mary y = what tense = past
It should be noted that: "no semantically empty auxiliaries (italics mine) [Y.T.] (do/did) are present in the input." (Kager 1999: 345). The rest of Kager's presentation of Grimshaw's analysis for dö-support deals with the presence of semantically empty do in the output. The presence of semantically-empty do in the output is accomplished by various assumptions and syntactic operations associated with OT such as: Containment, Gen, X' schema, extended projections, the syntactic constraint inventory, and others that are defined and described in great detail by Kager. These and other assumptions and syntactic operations play an important role in Grimshaw's analysis of extended verbal projections that places semantically empty auxiliary do in the surface structure. In this analysis this is performed by the Full Interpretation (Full-In) constraint: "The key function of this constraint is to ban semantically empty auxiliary verbs, as in do-support in English. In a sentence such as What did Mary say? the verb do is semantically empty, functioning merely as an auxiliary for the lexical verb say!' (Kager 1999: 352) I will not summarize the rest of the analysis here, but I will concentrate on the question of whether auxiliaries are "semantically meaningful" or "semantically empty"? This is the most relevant and fundamental question for a sign-oriented
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
315
linguist, whose goal is not to derive forms from "deep" to "surface" structures, but rather to postulate the invariant meaning of a linguistic sign (such as do) that will account for all its uses (both lexical and grammatical) in a unified way. For a sign-oriented linguist there are no semantically empty signs. Every sign has an invariant meaning that always: (i) motivates its distribution no matter what its syntactic function in a particular utterance and (ii) always contributes either explicitly and directly, or implicitly and indirectly, to the extralinguistic message of that utterance. 2.2.
Auxiliary Do in English: Comparing sentence- and sign-oriented approaches
Like Kager, Reid (1991: 9) also chooses an analysis of the auxiliary do as a vehicle to illustrate his sign-oriented theory (in contrast with sentence-oriented theory): The English auxiliary do is an ideal vehicle for such preliminary illustration. It, too, is often cited as an instance of purely formal, syntactic determination in language; and ... it offers the opportunity to address the question of word order. Moreover, this morphological feature of English has a distinguished place in linguistic argumentation, having been chosen by Chomsky [and now Kager!] [Y.T.] to illustrate the explanatory potential of generative theory [and now OT!] [Y.T.] in its seminal form (Chomsky 1957). For the reader familiar with that earlier treatment, the present analysis offers a striking example of the differing analytical consequences of sentence-based and sign-based theory.
What Chomsky (1957: 62) and Kager's (1999: 345) presentation of Grimshaw (1997), as well as other generative, descriptive structuralist, and cognitive sentenceoriented theories' analyses of auxiliary do have in common, is that they view the auxiliary do as being: a "meaningless formative mechanically inserted ..." (Chomsky 1957); or a mere inflectional "INFL category" (Chomsky 1981: 140, fn. 2); or an "obligatory Modal category in underlying structure" (Culicover 1976: 108), or, alternatively, as "part of a do support analysis" or an "ad hoc rule of do replacement" (Culicover 1976: 71); or as being "semantically empty" (Kager/ Grimshaw); or as being "bleached of meaning", or a "meaningless" or "dummy" verb (Joos 1964; Langacker 1978): in other words, a purely syntactic category almost entirely devoid of semantic content (Falk 1984: 500; Brinton 1988: 97). On the other hand, what sign-oriented theories' analyses of auxiliary do have in common, is their postulation of a single invariant meaning of the sign do such as: "a mere potential of the realization of an event" (Hewson 1990: 41), or as "operators of incidence" (Joly 1975) of the Guillaumean school of psychomechanics; or as meaning ACTIVITY (Penhallurick 1984, 1985, 1987), or, alternatively, as meaning IMPLIED POSSIBILITY, AFFIRMED (Reid 1991: 13) in CS.7
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
316 2.3.
Y.Tobin Auxiliary Do in English: analyses based on markedness
Battistella (1990: 167-174) presents a formal, markedness-oriented diachronic analysis of the auxiliarization of do, combining aspects from both sentence- and sign-oriented analyses. Battistella (1990: 169-170) uses traditional sentence categories such as (S)ubject, V(erb), (O)bject and AUX and deep and surface structure. Battistella (1990: 170-171) then poses questions concerning the non-random development of periphrastic do in different sentence types. His answer is found in the greater alignment of markedness values that are motivated by the larger iconic sign structure of English. He takes each modality category of sentence declarative versus interrogative, negative versus positive, and emphatic versus nonemphatic - as a set of marked versus unmarked sentence categories where the first feature of each pair or set is the marked category for each sentence type in a way which I have compared to Fillmore's (1968) original case grammar (Tobin 1993: 253-254). Thus Battistella classifies auxiliaries as marked syntactic categories containing isomorphic semantic content in an iconic way, based on markedness diagrams rather than semantic bleaching, hypothesizing these markedness values as the cause of this grammaticalization process of the verb do. Tobin (1993: 249-258) utilizes a Jakobsonian view of markedness (similar to that of Andrews 1990 and Andrews and Tobin 1996) in his analyis of do. This Jakobsonian perception of markedness differs from the traditional polaric view of markedness in that there is an asymmetric, but non-polaric value to the markedness relationship. Traditionally, a marked feature has a positive plus (+) value that always makes a claim for the presence or the specification ofthat feature. The difference lies in the value traditionally assigned to the unmarked form. It was generally accepted that the unmarked form has a polaric, negative, or minus (—) value indicating the absence or the non-specification of that feature. In the Jakobsonian approach, the value of the unmarked form is neutral (+/—) indicating either the
7. The various versions of invariant meanings and the theoretical and methodological implications of the differences between these diverse concepts of invariant meaning in alternative sign-oriented linguistic theories such as the Guillaumean school of psychomechanics, the Jakobsonian school, and CS are presented in Contini-Morava (1995: 18-23). Tobin (1990a: chap. 4, 1991) postulates alternative invariant meanings for the dual number in Hebrew for each of the above three theories and later analyzes the dual number in Hebrew based on a single invariant meaning containing aspects of all of the above invariant meanings in Tobin (2000). Another primary methodological aspect of CS is its reliance on quantitative as well as qualitative validation in its analyses (summarized in Reid 1995) and exemplified in Reid (1991: 12-13, 17-18, 20-22) for auxiliary do and in Diver (1979, 1995: 68-72) for phonology.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
317
presence/specification or the absence/non-specification of that feature according to context.8 Tobin (1993: chap. 2) first analyzes the "troublesome" lexical verb pair do/make as part of a system classifying the semantic domain of the "performance of action, state, or event". The semantic distinction between do/make is then based on their markedness relationship for the semantic features Process versus Result where the latter, the more semantically specific and perceptually or cognitively complex feature, has the marked value. In this analysis, make is marked for the feature Result and, therefore, always makes a claim for a resultative reading or message whenever it is used. On the other hand, do is unmarked or neutral for the feature Result, and, therefore, is open for either or both a Process-oriented and/or a Resultoriented interpretation when it is used. These opposed markedness values may be illustrated in the following examples in the context of potential minimal-pair questions being asked of a carpenter by his wife at the end of his work day: (2)
a. b.
What did you do today? What did you make today?
(3)
a. b.
Did you do anything today? Did you make anything today?
Examples (2a) and (3a), containing the unmarked bare infinitive form do, indicate an 'activity' or process-like action with or without the result ofthat activity-process being necessarily implied. On the other hand, examples (2b) and (3b), containing the marked bare infinitive form make, can only be interpreted from the point of view of the 'completion' (the final product, the result) of the carpenter's activity. Tobin further claims that the neutral value of the unmarked form do (versus the marked value for make in the semantic domain of the performance of activities, states, or events) renders it the more likely candidate to extend its "lexical" use to more "grammatical" functions. For example, do functions as a "pro-verb" (similar to a pronoun) in sentences (4a, b) and as a "tag-question" verb in sentences (5a, b): (4)
a. b.
John likes to drink and so does Mary. Mary completed her essay and so did John.
(5)
a. b.
Mary drank a lot, didn 't she? John always finishes first, doesn 't he?
There are also many different versions of markedness and markedness value relations with diverse theoretical and methodological motivations and implications within and across linguistic theories. Battistella 1996 (reviewed in Tobin 1998) compares and contrasts various Jakobsonian and Chomsky an approaches to markedness which are related to the various phonological, syntactic, and semantic issues discussed in this article.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
318
Y.Tobin
It is the neutral value of the invariant meaning of the unmarked form do (as opposed to the marked result-only value invariant meaning of make) which allows do to replace all (both process- and/or result-oriented) verbs in utterances containing both process and resultative messages in both these pro-verb and tag-question functions. This asymmetric markedness relationship also implies that, of the two, only do can be used to indicate, or mean, a process per se. Tobin (1993: 255-258) then further postulates that it is this markedness value difference in the invariant meanings of do versus make which explains why it is the unmarked verb do that developed into the interrogative-negative-emphatic do auxiliary. Tobin's hypothesis is similar in spirit to Battistella's alluded to above: In Fillmore's (1968) original case grammar, a sentence was divided into a "modality" and a "proposition" node. The modality node served as an indicator of sentence-type while the proposition node included the "predicate" and the "arguments" of the predicate of the sentence. The verb do with its neutral unmarked meaning of either process or result again becomes the more suitable and appropriate candidate of the do/make pair, not only to be a pro-verb and a tag-question verb, but to develop into a true "modality" or "process" marker of sentence-type which transforms Simple, Active, Affirmative, Declarative (unmarked (SAAD) sentences) into marked "interrogative", "negative", or "emphatic" sentences. It is the invariant meaning of do (versus make) in this analysis which accounts for, and explains all the above grammatical functions as well as their various combinations: negative-interrogative; emphaticinterrogative-affirmative-negative (positive and negative tag-questions). By the same token, and for the same reasons, the neutral, unmarked invariant meaning of do can also explain why it serves as a test for "true imperatives" (another traditional sentence type) in the analyses of performative and other kinds of verbs discussed in Schreiber (1972). In the grammaticalized uses of do, the auxiliary verb do also provides tense information, which is also part of sentence modality. In all of its grammatical functions, do is clearly a modality or process marker par excellence precisely because of the unmarked or neutral process-result value in its invariant meaning as opposed to the marked member of the system make. In other words, do might be considered to be The (with a capital "T") metaprocess verb in English which has developed over time into The process-oriented or modality auxiliary verb indicating the most basic sentence types within the language. Tobin (1993: chaps. 10, 11) then performs a similar sign-oriented analysis based on the markedness values of the verbs be/have/get - as part of a semantic system of existentials - to explain their lexical uses as well as their auxiliary functions: (1) neutral unmarked be as an auxiliary marker for "progressive/continuous" (process) sentences in opposition to marked have as an auxiliary marker for (resultative) "perfect/perfective" sentences, as well as (2) neutral unmarked be as an auxiliary marker for (resultative) &e-passive sentences in opposition to the (even more highly) marked get that serves as an auxiliary marker for (even-more highly) resultative gef-passive sentences. In all cases, it is the invariant meanings of the
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
319
signs in question which motivate their total distribution in all lexical and grammatical functions; and there are no "semantically empty" auxiliaries. 3. Summary and conclusions In this article, the theories of OT and CS have been contrasted and compared both in their phonological and syntactic-grammatical analyses within the larger frameworks of sentence-oriented versus sign-oriented linguistic paradigms. At this point of linguistic research, it is impossible to know whether one's theory really reflects how language works in the human mind. Perhaps, when we know more about the human brain, we will then be able to see which (if any!) linguistic theory has come close to capturing the "psychological reality" behind language. In the meantime, we can only continue to create new theories and compare and contrast the different theories already available to us by testing them against language data within and across languages. Perhaps, in this way, we may begin to reach an understanding of the psychological reality of linguistic theory, if such a thing is possible. No theory has a patent on truth, and we all have a long way to go. Moreover, there is no single truth nor a solitary approach to language and linguistic analysis in the first place. The more we study language and languages, the more challenging it becomes because we realize how little we actually know, and how complex the object of our research is. It is not surprising, therefore, that linguistics is a terribly splintered and fragmented discipline. Many of us have placed ourselves, or have been placed by others, on what seems to be "theoretical bandwagons" waving a lot of theoretical and methodological banners to and fro at each other. One of the results of all this "flag-waving" is that we often seem to forget that there is more than one way "to skin a cat" - and to do linguistic analysis. It should be important for linguists to learn as much about the various alternative approaches of analyzing language as possible - if only to learn to discover and appreciate the similarities and understand and respect the differences. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev References Andrews, Edna (1990). Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Andrews, Edna and Yishai Tobin (eds.) (1996). Towards a Calculus of Meaning: Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features and Deixis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Azim, Abdul (1989). Some problems in the phonology of modern standard Urdu. Paper given at the First International Conference of the Columbia School of Linguistics. August 24, 1989. — (1993). Problems of aspiration in modern standard Urdu. Paper given at the Third International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. October 11, 1993. — (1995). The phonology of the vocalic systems of modern standard Urdu. Paper given at the Fourth International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. February 20, 1995.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
320
Υ. Tobin
—
(1997). Revisiting the phonology of the vocalic systems of modem standard Urdu. Paper given at the Fifth International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. February 16, 1997. Battistella, Edwin (1990). Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. — (1996). The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional Phonology. The Hague: LOT/Holland Academic Graphics. Brinton, Laurel (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. — (1981). Markedness and core grammar. In Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Core Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 123146. Contini-Morava, Ellen (1995). Introduction. In Contini-Morava and Sussman Goldberg, 1-39. Contini-Morava, Ellen and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.) (1995). Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Contini-Morava, Ellen and Yishai Tobin (2000a). Introduction. In Contini-Morava, E. and Tobin, Y. (eds.), ix-xxxii. Contini-Morava, Ellen and Yishai Tobin (eds.) (2000b). Between Grammar and Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Culicover, Peter (1976). Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Davis, Joseph (1987). A combinatory phonology of Italian. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 199. Diver, William (1975). Introduction. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 2 (2nd corrected edition 1980), 1-20. — (1979). Phonology as human behavior. In Aaronson, Dorothy and Reiber, Paul (eds.), Psycholinguistic Research: Implications and Applications. Hillside NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 161-186. — (1993). The phonology of extremes: The correlation of initials and finals. Paper given at the Third International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. October 11, 1993. — (1995). The theory. In Contini-Morava and Sussman Goldberg, 43-114. Dressier, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayertaler, Qswald Panagl, W. U. Wurzel (eds.) (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Falk, Yehuda (1984). The English auxiliary system. Language 60 (3): 483-509. Fatihi, A. R (1987). Economy of articulation in Mewati phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University, U.P., India. Fillmore, Charles (1968). The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88. Flores, Nydia (1997). The distribution of post-vocalic phonological units in Spanish. Paper given at the Fifth International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. February 15, 1997. Garcia, Erica, Florimon van Putte, and Yishai Tobin (1987). Cross linguistic equivalence, translatability, and contrastive analysis. Folia Linguistica 21, 373-405. Grimshaw, Jane (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373-422. Grunwell, Pamela (1987). Clinical Phonology. Kent: Croom-Helm. Hameed, Shahana (1999). Interaction of physiology and communication in the makeup and distribution of stops in Lucknow Urdu. Paper given at the Sixth International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics. October 11, 1999. Hewson, John (1990). The auxiliary DO in English. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 12, 39-52. Ingram, David (1990). Phonological Disability in Children. London: Whurr. Jabeen, Shazi Shah (1993). Economy of articulation in the phonology of Bihar Urdu (as spoken in and around Gaya). Ph.D. dissertation. Aligarh Muslim University, U.P., India. Jakobson, Roman 1941/1968 Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton. (Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, Uppsala Universiteits Arsskift, 1941: 1-83). — (1971). Selected Writings I, Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory
321
Joly, Andr6 (1975). A psychomechanical approach to the verb do. In De Vriendt, S., Dierickx, J., and Wilmet, M. (eds.), Generative Grammar and Psychomechanics. Brussels and Paris: AIMAV and Didier, 123-138. Joos, Martin (1964). The English Verb. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Kager, Reno (1999). Optimaliry Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirsner, Robert (1993). From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Dutch demonstratives. In Geiger, Richard and Rudzka-Ostyn< Brygida (eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 81-114. Kirsner, Robert and Vincent van Heuven (1988). The significance of demonstrative position in modem Dutch. Lingua 76: 209-248. Kühn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald (1978). The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language 54 (4): 853-882. — (1982). Space, grammar and analysability, and the English passive. Language 58 (1): 22-80. Liberman, Anatoly (1991). Postscript. In N. Trubetskoy, The Legacy ofGhengis Khan (ed., and with a postscript, by Anatoly Liberman), 295-375. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. — (1999). Review: Phonology as human behavior: Theoretical implications and clinical applications by YISHAI TOBIN. Language 75 (3): 603-605. Martinet, Andro (1955). fcconomie des Changements Phonetiques: Traite de Phonologic Diachronique. Berne: Editions A. Franke. Moore, Kate (1991). A taxonomy of pauses in Finnish. Studies in Logopedics and Phonetics 2 (Aulanko, R. and Leiwo, M. (eds.), Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics, and Speech Communication 3, 145-150. — (1992). Developmental disfluencies in preschool children. In Granstrom, B. and Nord, L. (eds.), Nordic Prosody VI. Stockhom: Almquist & Wiksell International, 173-181. Moore, Kate and Anna-Magi Korpijaakko-Haiku (1996). The clinical assessment of Finnish fluency. In Ball, Martin J. and Duckworth, Martin (eds.), Advances in Clinical Phonetics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171-196. Moore, Kate and Capita Rosenberg-Wolf (1998). Perceptions of hesitations in speech. In Werner, Stephen (ed.), Nordic Prosody VII. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 195-269. Penhallurick, John (1984). Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4: 33-56. — (1985). The semantics of the auxiliary do. Studies in Language 9: 311-332. — (1987). The semantics of auxiliary inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7: 97-128. Reid, Wallis (1991). English Verb and Noun Number: A Functional Explanation. London: Longman. — (1995). Quantitative analysis in Columbia School theory. In Contini-Morava, E. and Sussman Goldberg, B. (eds.), 115-152. Sampson, Geoffrey (1980). Schools of Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916/1959 Cours de linguistique ge^rale /A Course in General Linguistics. Paris: Payot, New York: Philosophical Library. Schreiber, Peter (1972). Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 321-347. Stampe, David (1972). How I spent my summer vacation (a dissertation on Natural Phonology), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, [Published 1979, New York: Garland.] Tobin, Yishai (1986). Review: GEOFFREY SAMPSON: Schools of Linguistics. Lingua 68: 99108. — (1988). Phonetics versus phonology: The Prague school and beyond. In Tobin, Y. (ed.), The Prague School and its Legacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49-70. — (1990a). Semiotics and Linguistics. London: Longman. — (1990b). A combinatory phonology of the Hebrew triconsonantal (CCC) root system. La Linguistique 26 (1): 99-114. — (1990c). Principles for a contrastive phonotactics: The Hebrew triconsonantal (CCC) root system a case in point. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 26: 137-153.
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
322
. Tobin
—
(1991). Invariant meaning: Alternative variations on an invariant theme. In Waugh, Linda ancd Rudy, Stephen (eds.). New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation. Amsterdam: Johm Benjamins, 61-82. — (1993). Aspect in the English Verb: Process and Result in Language. London: Longman. — (1994). Invariance, Markedness and Distinctive Feature Analysis: A Contrastive Study of Sigm Systems in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. — (ed.) (1995). Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Cognitive and Clinical applications, dibur u-shmiya (Speech and Hearing Disorders) 18 (Special Theme Issue om Phonology). Tel-Aviv: The Israel Speech and Hearing Association, (in Hebrew). — (1997a). Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications:. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. — (19975). Developmental and clinical phonology: Roman Jakobson and beyond. Acta Linguistics Haßiiensia: 127-166. — (1998). Review: The Logic of Markedness by EDWIN BATTISTELLA. Language 74 (4):: 832-834. — (1999). Developmental and clinical phonology: The Prague school and beyond. Travaux dm Cercle Linguistique de Prague, Nouvelle Serie/Prague Linguistic Circle Papers. Volume 3, 53— 68. — (2000). The dual number in Hebrew: Grammar or lexicon, or both? In Contini-Morava, E. andl Tobin, Y. (eds.), 87-119. — (in press). Phonology as human behavior: Initial consonant clusters across languages. In Reid,, Wallis and Otheguy, Ricardo (eds.), Issues in Neo-Saussurean Linguistics: Advances in SignBased Approaches to the Study of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai (1939/1969). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de? Prague 7/Principles of Phonology (trans, by C. Baltaxe). Berkeley: University of California Press..
Unauthenticated Download Date | 4/7/16 12:05 PM
