Editor for this issue: <>
As one of the few surviving Natural Phonologists left on the North American continent let me say a few words in its defence. Unfortunately I'm off today to the Phonologie-/Morphologietagung in Krems, Austria, and consequently have little time to discuss issues in depth. I appreciate Joe Stemberger's comments about the child language data, but Stampe never argued (unless he wants to argue here himself) that WHICH processes a child would use to solve a particular articulatory or acoustic puzzle was predictable, since the vocal tract offers alternatives. If it didn't, all languages would end up the same, which they clearly don't. The difference between predictable choices and optional ones is considered at length under the heading `motivation' in the Cognitive Grammar literature, which I have argued in a forthcoming paper is compatible with NP. But the fact that children (and adult second language learners, and people talking at the same time they eat and...) come up with similar replacements that they have never been exposed to in the environment but are explicable articulatorily/acoustically (and that's all that NP means by `process') is not the only valuable insight that has been lost with the demise of NP as a viable theory. In his classic paper `Yes, Virginia..' Stampe showed that phonemes and morphophonemes were not just structurally defined points in an abstract pattern but represented facts about the nature of phonological perception and storage. It is a theory which makes specific predictions about abnormal language behavior (especially early second language acquisition stages), and is the only theorythat has any interest in any level of representation below the level of the surface phoneme (most discussions of post-lexical rules do not include ANY of the interesting (inneressin) things that happen in real speech production, even though they are rule governed and language specific. I could go on, but I realize that the interests of phonologists have moved on to other issues, some of which, such as the geometry of features and the parameters of stress theory are also directly useable by we embattled few. There will be a book coming out later this year on recent research in Natural Phonology, edited by Bernhard Hurch and Rich Rhodes. Contact either of them, or me for further information. (Incidentally, if someone could store any list answers to my ranting here over the next month, it would be greatly appreciated. Or is there some way to snoop in the archives?) Geoff Nathan <ga3662Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesiucvmb.siu.edu> Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Some time ago there was a discussion of English stress on LINGUIST. All those who took part seemed to agree about the following (this is with reference to Northern, white US usage only): Words with zero stress on their last three syllables are only possible in case we are dealing with inherently unstressed suffixes, e.g., admiralty. However, it would seem that some (many?) speakers also have such pronunciations in the case of words like in -ery, e.g., dysentery, stationery (as opposed to words in -ory or -ary, which always have a secondary stress on the penult). While it is obviously possible to come up with various excuses for such forms (e.g., treating the final vowel as "underlying" /y/), it still seems interesting that this apparently exceptionless generalization may have exceptions after all.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In response to Zev Bar-Lev's request for information on speech synthesis (LINGUIST 3.479.2), here's what I know: Macintalk is "not supported"; this means Apple doesn't care whether you can get it working or not. However, it does work with HyperCard, on System 6.x - but *not* with System 7, although I have heard rumors that a version now being supplied with Talking Moose (q.v.) has been hacked to work with Sys7. The way you get it working with HyperCard - and incidentally a nice tutorial on how to use it - is to use HyperMacInTalk, a stack with XCMDs and XFCNs by Dennis C. Demars. It's widely available on the network for anonymous ftp (for instance, try ftp'ing archive.umich.edu) and it's quite nicely done. You can install the relevant XCMDs in your stacks and thus run it any way you want. That's what I did in my "World of Words" stacks that I showed at the LSA Software Exhibit in January. It is possible, though not easy, and not altogether satisfactory, to force Macintalk to sound like it's speaking another language. Oddly, it's easier to make it speak Homeric Greek than Old English (it doesn't do front rounded vowels, though it does have a /x/). Now for the bad news. Apple has been busily developing a "text-to-speech" manager for Sys7. I expect to hear more about it in a little bit, but my initial guess is that it's what the name implies - i., useless for linguists because it's based on somebody's phonemic analysis of English (which always ends up with English having precisely 64 "phonemes" - t he term should be taken ironically, because they're exactly *not* what any linguist would mean by "phoneme"), without phonetic hooks to (e.g.) lengthen vowels, raise pitch, compress attack, partially devoice, etc. When I've heard more, I'll post it here. I response to Barbara Abbott's inquiry about "that Adj of NP" (ibid.4), I've been hearing this all my life. The construction derives from the more conventional count versio: How good (of) a doctor is he? I didn't know he was that good (of) a doctor. The problem is that with a mass noun, one can't use the indefinite article, and the "of" becomes obligatory, though still awkward. But the sense is clear enough, and it's useful. So it's used. Cheers, -jMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue