Formally–grounded phonology: From constraint–based theories to theory–based constraints

Abstract

It is argued here that most phonological theory is not theoretical, but based on primitives and axioms (the so-called`constraints') which derive directly from the data they are supposed to explain. This article attempts to show what a non-circular conception of phonological theory may look like. The number of segmental primes, their markedness value, phonological content, and combinatory properties, as well as currently assumed constraints on syllable structure are shown to follow from a Boolean algebra, and, thus, to be independently motivated theory-grounded theorems. Hence, for example, neither the onset nor the no-coda constraints posited by OT are required. Another issue of the present theory is that segmental content and syllable structure and interdependent aspects, which emerge from the determination of skeletal units.* I wish to thank Marc Klein, Jean-Elie Boltanski, Tobias Scheer, Philippe Se Âge Âral and an anonymous reviewer for Studia linguistica for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also indebted to Helen Dochney-Le Âpine for crucial help in the preparation of the present version. 228 Joaquim Branda Äo de Carvalho # The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2002.

3 x Phonology

“…Other implementations of the idea that sonority is a structural property include GP2.0 (Pöchtrager 2006: 55ff, Pöchtrager andKaye 2013); Rice (1992); Schwartz' (2013Schwartz' ( , 2017 Onset Prominence model; Hulst's (1994Hulst's ( , 1995aHulst's ( , 1999 Radical CV Phonology; and de Carvalho's (2002aCarvalho's ( , 2008Carvalho's ( , 2017 perspective. These approaches are reviewed in greater detail in Hermans and Oostendorp (2005) and in Scheer (2019b).…”

“… 6 As far as I can see, this holds for all versions of SFP or approaches that are akin to SFP (see the overview in Scheer 2019a), including Hale and Reiss (2000, 2008), Volenec and Reiss (2018), Boersma and Hamann (2008), Hamann (2011, 2014), Mielke (2008), de Carvalho (2002b), Odden (2006, 2022), Blaho (2008), Samuels (2012), Scheer (2014b), Iosad (2017), Dresher (2014, 2018), Chabot (2019). …”

What OT is, and what it is not

“…3 I hasten to add that the OT-only perspective eclipses relevant work in all areas, but may be more or less harmful according to the particular topic considered : some areas are less well covered by non-OT work than others. OT-based work is predominant when it comes to issues such as contrast (but see Charette & Gö ksel 1994Dresher 2003Dresher , 2008Kaye 2001), markedness (but see Carvalho 2002Carvalho , 2006Calabrese 2005 ; Rice's chapter on markedness is entirely theory-neutral), (phonetic) functionalism (but see Hurch & Rhodes 1996, Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2002, serial vs. parallel computation (but see Idsardi 2000, Baković 2007, reduplication (but see Raimy 2000, Keane 2005, Halle 2008, stress (but see Szigetvári & Scheer 2005), learnability, sonority-driven stress and a few other issues. These are not typical areas of inquiry in rule-based approaches (Vaux 2003, Calabrese 2005, Halle & Matushansky 2006, Dependency Phonology (Hulst & Ritter 1999a, Hulst 2005, Government Phonology (Lowenstamm 1996(Lowenstamm , 2003Szigetvári 2001 ;Cyran 2003 ;Scheer 2004 ;Kaye 2005 ;Szigetvári & Scheer 2005 ;Pö chtrager 2006 ;Ritter 2006) or Substance-Free Phonology (Hale & Reiss 1998Blaho 2008).…”