Discussion Details
| Title: | underlying representations in phonology |
| Submitter: | Leontine Kremers |
| Description: | Dear members of the Linguist List,
My name is Leontine Kremers and I am a student enrolled in the Researchmaster Linguistics at the University of Groningen, Holland. I am currently investigating the role of underlying representations in phonological theory and acquisition and I want to ask your opinion about my findings so far. In literature on the subject I have read that underlying representations as they are standardly assumed to be, create a large redundancy in current phonological theories, such as Optimality Theory. This is because the current formulation of Lexicon Optimization has as a result that the input equals the output (Krämer, 2004). Furthermore, I have read articles from several authors on the insufficiency of underlying representations in explaining the rich paradigms that exist in many languages (Burzio, 1996, Hayes, 1998). Those authors advocate Output-Output Correspondence (or similar) constraints to base output regularities on rather than on one underlying representation. Golston (1996) even tries to base the entire lexicon on constraints, by assuming that mental representations are lists of constraint violations. It seems reasonable to me to try to get rid of redundancies in a theory, but only if this does not make the theory less explanatory adequate. Thus, O-O Correspondence constraints or similar devices will also have to be able to explain errors in children's phonological acquisition, for example when a Dutch child utters the plural 'potloten' [pOtlot@n] instead of 'potloden' [pOtlod@n] ('pencils', singular is 'potlood', with final devoicing: [pOtlot]) or 'rurkje' instead of 'jurkje' ('dress'). Thus, my questions for you are: -Do we have to get rid of underlying representations and can we do so without losing any explanatory power? -If we can, how would a theory based on O-O Correspondence constraints or similar devices explain the child data presented above? E-mail: j.l.kremers@student.rug.nl Bibliography Burzio, L. (1996). Surface constraints versus underlying representation. In: Durand, J. & Laks, B. Current trends in phonology and models and methods. Vol.1. Salford: University of Salford, European Studies Research Institute (ESRI), p.125-144. Golston, Chris. (1996a). Direct Optimality Theory: representation as pure markedness. Language 72.4. 713-748. (see also Rutgers Optimality Archive, roa.rutgers.edu, nr. 71-0000) Hayes, B. (1998). On the Richness of Paradigms, and the Insufficiency of Underlying Representations in Accounting for them. Talk handout. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/ Krämer, M. (2004). Lexical economy, optimization and the indeterminacy of underlying representations. Talk presented at the ULCL workshop 'The Lexicon in Optimality Theory', 11 June 2004, Leiden. |
| Date Posted: | 31-Oct-2004 |
| Linguistic Field(s): |
Linguistic Theories
Phonology Language Acquisition |
| LL Issue: | 15.3080 |
| Posted: | 31-Oct-2004 |
