Editor for this issue: <>
What with messages to linguist and others to me directly, there has been a fair amount of discussion of the infinity or otherwise of Goldsmith's model of phonology. Bugs computational and biological have prevented me from responding earlier: I hope it isn't too late to do so now! here goes: As various people have explained, there is a difference between infinite dimensions and infinite points: Goldsmith's model has the latter but not the former. My original point (?) was that an infinity of points was bad enough, even though the dimensionality is limited. There are of course infinite numbers of points in linguistic phenomena, such as fundamental frequency, and these points can be split up into small numbers of linguistically distinct areas (e.g. n-tone systems where n is generally less than ten) in fairly arbitrary ways. this sort of thing happens all the time in languages. What bothers me about Goldsmith's approach (and others) is roughly the following:- a) one physical dimension, say f-zero, is represented by many dimensions (i.e. many weights) in these models. if one dimension gives you just as many points to play with, why not stick with one? b) the values attributed to weights in such models are often completely arbitrary, and different values could produce the same results. indeed, an infinite number of different values could produce indistinguishable results in principle. what, then, is the status of these values? c) if we found, say, that natural language stress systems could be modelled by a 12-dimensional space, and in fact that they tended to cluster around the point (2,4,6,3.5,10,4.5,9,6.5,3,2,1) in that space, what would that actually teach us about such systems? d) people do have intuitions about things linguistic, and although these intuitions may be wrong they rarely (if ever) involve more than four dimensions: maybe four is enough. This through a stinking head-cold at 1am here, but i hope it clarifies my position and sparks some more discussion of what is a fascinating topic. good night, alex.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue