Stratificational Phonology

definitions form David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics:
Stratificational grammar
A linguistic theory devised y the American linguist Sydney M. Lamb (b. 1929), as expounded initially in Outline of Stratificational Grammar (1962), which models language as a system of several related layers (or strata) of structure. Six strata are recognized for English and many other languages: the component of phonology comprises the hypophonemic (or phonetic) and phonemic strata; and semology comprises the sememic and hypersememic (or semantic) strata. Each stratum is organized in terms of a set of stratal systems, and each system deals with an aspect of linguistic structure which has to be stated independently of the structures operating at other strata. Two types of patterning are recognized: tactic analysis (the patternss of sequential arrangement within each stratum) and realizational analysis (the relationship between units operating at higher and lower levels between strata). A parallel terminology is used sememic/hypersememic’ system consisting of various structural patterns (e.g. ‘hypophonotactic/phonotactic’, etc.), defined in terms of ‘hypophonemes/phonemes’, etc., and realized as ‘hypophons/phons/morphos/lexons’,etc.

Stratificational Linguistics is a view of linguistics advocated by Sydney Lamb. His theories advocate that language usage and production is stratificational in nature.
Specifically, that there are separate 'strata' or levels in the brain used for language. Each level provides actualization or 'realization' for the next higher level, and the elements on its level are similar to each other. Several strata are involved in the production of a sound from an initial idea.
Some strata include:
Phoneme as the unit on the Phonemic strata.
Lexeme as a unit on the Lexical strata.
Morpheme as the unit on the Morphemic strata
Sememe as the unit on the Semantic strata.

(go to the page of FJU)

stratificational phonology in An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology

作者：John Clark, Colin Yallop, Janet Fletcher

stratificational phonology in A dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology

作者：Robert Lawrence Trask

harmonic phonology

definitions form David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics:
harmonic phonology
In phonology, an approach which recognizes three levels of representation working in parallel: morphophonemic (‘M-level’), word/ syllabic tactics (‘W-level’), and phonetic (‘P-level’). Each level is characterized by a set of well-formedness statements (‘tactics’) and a set of unordered ‘intra-level’ rules which collectively define the paths an input representation has to follow I order to achieve maximum conformity to the tactics. This maximal well-formedness is called ‘harmony’. The levels are related by ‘inter-level’ rules. The approach avoids the traditional conception of the organization of a generative grammar in which each level of representation is seen to precede or follow another (as would be founding the ordered steps within a derivation).

harmony
(1) A term used in phonology to refer to the way the articulation of one phonological unit is influenced by (is ‘in harmony’ with) another unit in the same word or phrase. An analogous notion is that of assimilation. The two main processes are consonant harmony and vowel harmony. In the typical case of vowel harmony, for example, such as is found in Turkish or Hungarian, all the vowels in a word share certain features – for instance, they are all articulated with the front of the tongue, or all are rounded. The subsets of vowels which are affected differently by harmonic processes are harmonic sets. Disharmony (or disharmonicity) occurs when a vowel from set A is used (e.g. by suffixation) in words which otherwise have set B, thus forming a harmonic island (if transparent) or a new harmonic span (if opaque). The span within which harmony operates (usually the word) is the harmonic domain
(2) in optimality theory, the measurement of the overall goodness of a form given a constrain ranking.

Vowel Harmony
Vowel harmony is a type of long-distance assimilatory phonological process involving vowels in some languages. In languages with vowel harmony, there are constraints on what vowels may be found near each other.
Harmony processes are "long-distance" in the sense that the assimilation involves sounds that are separated by intervening segments (usually consonant segments). In other words, harmony refers to the assimilation of sounds that are not adjacent to each other. For example, a vowel at the beginning of a word can trigger assimilation in a vowel at the end of a word. The assimilation sometimes occurs across the entire word. This is represented schematically in the following diagram:
beforeassimilation

afterassimilation

VaCVbCVbC
→
VaCVaCVaC
(Va = type-a vowel, Vb = type-b vowel, C = consonant)
In the diagram above, the Va (type-a vowel) causes the following Vb (type-b vowel) to assimilate and become the same type of vowel (and thus they become, metaphorically, "in harmony").
The vowel that causes the vowel assimilation is frequently termed the trigger while the vowels that assimilate (or harmonize) are termed targets. In most languages, the vowel triggers lie within the root of a word while the affixes added to the roots contain the targets. This may be seen in the Hungarian dative suffix:
Root
Dative
Gloss
város
város-nak
"city"
öröm
öröm-nek
"joy"
The dative suffix has two different forms -nak/-nek. The -nak form appears after the root with back vowels (a and o are both back vowels). The -nek form appears after the root with front vowels (ö and e are front vowels).
Another example: Turkish ev-ler-imiz "our houses" (house-{PL}-{1PL POSS}) vs. dam-lar-ımız "our roofs" (roof-{PL}-{1PL POSS}).
Harmony assimilation may spread either from the beginning of the word to the end or from the end to the beginning. Progressive harmony (a.k.a. left-to-right harmony) proceeds from beginning to end; regressive harmony (a.k.a. right-to-left harmony) proceeds from end to beginning. Languages that have both prefixes and suffixes often have both progressive and regressive harmony. Languages that primarily have prefixes (and no suffixes) usually have only regressive harmony — and vice versa for primarily suffixing languages.
Vowel harmony often involves dimensions such as
Vowel height (i.e. high, mid, or low vowels)
Vowel backness (i.e. front, central, or back vowels)
Vowel roundedness (i.e. rounded or unrounded)
tongue root position (i.e. advanced or retracted tongue root, abbrev.: ±ATR)
Nasalization (i.e. oral or nasal) (in this case, a nasal consonant is usually the trigger)
In many languages, vowels can be said to belong to particular classes, such as back vowels or rounded vowels, etc. Some languages have more than one system of harmony. For instance, Altaic languages have a rounding harmony superimposed over a backness harmony.
In some languages, not all vowels participate in the vowel conversions — these vowels are termed either neutral or transparent. Intervening consonants are also often transparent. In addition to these transparent segments, many languages have opaque vowels that block vowel harmony processes.
Finally, languages that do have vowel harmony sometimes have words that fail to harmonize. This is known as disharmony. Many loanwords exhibit disharmony, either within a root (e.g., Turkish/Turkic vakit/waqit, "time" [from Arabic waqt], where °vakıt/°waqıt would have been expected) or in suffixes (e.g., Turkish saat-ler "(the) hours" [hour-PL, from Arabic sâ`a], where saat-lar would have been expected). In Turkish, disharmony tends to disappear through analogy, especially within loanwords. Suffixes drop disharmony to a lesser extent, e.g. Hüsnü (a man's name) <>

(go to the page of FJU)

papers about harmonic phonology

jers or floaters in the phonology of bulgarian

ghost vowels and syllibification

Syllabification and Rule Application in Harmonic Phonology

Harmonic Phonology

Harmonic Grammar with Harmonic Serialism

declarative phonology

DECLARATIVE PHONOLOGY
Steven Bird, John Coleman, Janet Pierrehumbert and James Scobbie
University of Edinburgh, AT&T Bell Laboratories,
Northwestern University, Stanford University

1 INTRODUCTION

Declarative phonology is a program of research that was motivated in part by the need for theories of phonology that can be implemented on a computer. While it is clear that such a development would be beneficial for both theoretical and field phonology, it is not immediately obvious how one should go about implementing phonological models. The so-called ‘declarative’ approach draws on a key insight from theoretical computer science, where there has been a long tradition of distinguishing between the declaration of a problem and a procedure which computes the solution to that problem. Paradoxically, the kind of problem specifications that are frequently the most useful for computational implementation are those which make the fewest procedural commitments.
The declarative phonology programme is, at its heart, an attempt to do away with the ordered derivations and the concomitant feature-changing rules of traditional generative phonology. In this respect, declarative phonology ties in with some recent developments in theoretical phonology where feature-changing rules have been criticized or explicitly avoided (Rice, 1989; McCarthy, 1991). However, it is also possible to find precedents in the literature on American Structuralist phonemic phonology (Hockett, 1954), Firthian Prosodic Phonology, Natural Generative Phonology (Hooper, 1976; Hudson, 1980) and Montague Phonology (Wheeler, 1981; Bach, 1983). More recently, ‘harmonic’ approaches to phonology arising from work in connectionism (Smolensky, 1986) have also questioned the procedural paradigm but from a perspective which does not clearly differentiate the declaration of grammar from the means of its implementation (Goldsmith, ta; Prince & Smolensky, 1992). Despite this difference, the declarative and connectionist approaches are alike as regards their incorporation of various kinds of constraint satisfaction.
With increasing interest in the interaction between phonology and syntax being expressed in the literature, declarative phonology has something to contribute here too. Constraint-based grammar frameworks such as HPSG (Pollard & Sag, 1987) (manifesting good linguistic coverage and attractive computational properties) have the same metatheoretical commitments as declarative phonology. The prospect for having a computational theory of phonology that is fully integrated with a computational theory of syntax and semantics is now imminent.
A final area of concern is the phonology-phonetics interface. In the declarative framework it makes sense to view the relationship between phonology and phonetics as being one of denotation. Under this view, phonological representations are descriptions of phonetic reality and a particular phonological construct is said to denote a phonetic event (Bird & Klein, 1990; Pierrehumbert, 1990; Scobbie, 1991a; Coleman, 1992).
This article consists of four sections, where each section has been contributed by a different author. The first three sections present reanalyses of phenomena that have previously been thought to require the ability to destructively modify phonological structures. In 2, James Scobbie discusses syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber and presents a declarative analysis couched in a feature-structure based framework. In 3, Steven Bird investigates vowel harmony in Monta˜nes Spanish and consonant harmony in Chumash and proposes a non-feature-changing account using a finite-state model. In 4, John Coleman presents a brief overview of his reconstruction of Lexical Phonology in a declarative framework. The final section contains a commentary by Janet Pierrehumbert, discussing the achievements and prospects of declarative phonology in relation to generative phonology, Lexical Phonology and laboratory phonology.

2 CONSTRAINT CONFLICT (James M. Scobbie)
2.1 The Phonotactic: General Tendency or Hard Constraint?
It is well-known that rewrite rules fail to capture some generalisations about the level of representation they derive (Kisseberth, 1970; Shibatani, 1973). Defining the well-formed structures of that level using phonotactics enables those patterns to be addressed. Moreover, insofar as the patterns that exist in a language trigger its alternations, the alternations are explained.
If well-formedness constraints are used, it is necessary to decide whether or not to use rewrite rules also. When a grammar employs both formal techniques, their interaction is necessarily an area of concern (Scobbie, 1991b). Some work (e.g. (Singh, 1987; Paradis, 1988)) replaces structural descriptions with phonotactics and structural changes with repair-strategies. Whenever a structure known to be ill-formed at the surface level of representation can be generated during the derivation, it is indeed generated, only to be destructively modified. Therefore one can state general tendencies of distribution directly in the grammar and ‘repair’ those forms generated by the tendency which happen to be in conflict with empirical considerations. Though in these theories phonological representations are intended to be models of aspects of competence, the derivation and the intermediate forms are uninterpreted aspects of the theory. Such hidden elements imbue the theory with greater abstractness, and they decrease the modularity of the theory with respect to the procedures that can be employed to implement it.
Another line of research is to use only constraints acting in consort to describe a level of
representation. If the constraints are broad-stroke general tendencies (such as a syllable’s
disdain for a coda or love of an onset) they will of course sometimes clash in their demands.
Some means must be found of resolving such inconsistencies.
We can avoid an inconsistent grammar by using formal statements of distribution which
fail to clash by virtue of their precision, and by using familiar conventions such as the
Elsewhere Condition. Formalising the universal tendencies with an appropriate amount
of detail dispels constraint conflict. The interaction of these hard constraints is therefore
declarative and compositional. This is the approach advocated here.
Other approaches adopt optimisation techniques which provide a metric capable of
determining the best-formed structures possible in the contradictory circumstances. The
optimal solution the one in which the fewest important constraints are violated. Tendencies
are in fact soft constraints in these theories and are carefully prioritised in a derivational
architecture familiar from connectionism.
In the next section I examine data which has been argued to be ideally suited to
optimisation. I will show that once the tendencies are formalised, they include enough
detail to allow them to be implemented as hard constraints in a derivationally neutral,
declarative way.


(to read to whole paper, please click on the title as Declarative Phonology)

Go to FJU-Lin. and see the page

papers about declarative phonology

key aspects of declarative phonology

declarative phonology



recommanded books:
declarative phonology in Phonology
作者：Charles W. Kreidler
declarative phonology in Asymmetry in Grammar
作者：Anne-Marie Di Sciullo
declarative phonology in Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge
作者：Piet Van Sterkenburg, International Congress of Linguists
declarative phonology in Phonetics, Phonology, and Cognition
作者：Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks