A radically emergentist approach to phonological features

implications for grammars

Aleksei Nazarov

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Phonological features are often assumed to be innate (Chomsky & Halle 1968) or learned as a prerequisite for learning grammar (Dresher 2013). In this paper, I show an alternative approach: features are learned in parallel with grammar. This allows for addressing an interesting question: is it really optimal that the phonological grammar only use phonological features to refer to segmental material (Chomsky & Halle 1968), or could it be more advantageous for the grammar to refer to segmental material on more than one level of representation? The learner considered here finds that it is only optimal for the grammar to use phonological features to refer to multiple segments in the same pattern (e.g., the class of nasals), but when a pattern refers to a single segment, it may be at least equally good for the grammar to refer to this single segment as a bare segment label (for instance, [m] instead of [labial, nasal]). In this way, the grammar uses different kinds of representational units (features and non-features) for the same sound – which mimics models with multiple layers of representation (such as Goldrick 2001, Boersma 2007).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)20-57
Number of pages38
JournalNordlyd
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

grammar
learning

Cite this

@article{653a69101257427dbd41734469da69b8,
title = "A radically emergentist approach to phonological features: implications for grammars",
abstract = "Phonological features are often assumed to be innate (Chomsky & Halle 1968) or learned as a prerequisite for learning grammar (Dresher 2013). In this paper, I show an alternative approach: features are learned in parallel with grammar. This allows for addressing an interesting question: is it really optimal that the phonological grammar only use phonological features to refer to segmental material (Chomsky & Halle 1968), or could it be more advantageous for the grammar to refer to segmental material on more than one level of representation? The learner considered here finds that it is only optimal for the grammar to use phonological features to refer to multiple segments in the same pattern (e.g., the class of nasals), but when a pattern refers to a single segment, it may be at least equally good for the grammar to refer to this single segment as a bare segment label (for instance, [m] instead of [labial, nasal]). In this way, the grammar uses different kinds of representational units (features and non-features) for the same sound – which mimics models with multiple layers of representation (such as Goldrick 2001, Boersma 2007).",
keywords = "features, learning, phonology",
author = "Aleksei Nazarov",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.7557/12.3253",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "20--57",
journal = "Nordlyd",
issn = "1503-8599",
number = "1",

}

A radically emergentist approach to phonological features : implications for grammars. / Nazarov, Aleksei.

In: Nordlyd, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2014, p. 20-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A radically emergentist approach to phonological features

T2 - implications for grammars

AU - Nazarov, Aleksei

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Phonological features are often assumed to be innate (Chomsky & Halle 1968) or learned as a prerequisite for learning grammar (Dresher 2013). In this paper, I show an alternative approach: features are learned in parallel with grammar. This allows for addressing an interesting question: is it really optimal that the phonological grammar only use phonological features to refer to segmental material (Chomsky & Halle 1968), or could it be more advantageous for the grammar to refer to segmental material on more than one level of representation? The learner considered here finds that it is only optimal for the grammar to use phonological features to refer to multiple segments in the same pattern (e.g., the class of nasals), but when a pattern refers to a single segment, it may be at least equally good for the grammar to refer to this single segment as a bare segment label (for instance, [m] instead of [labial, nasal]). In this way, the grammar uses different kinds of representational units (features and non-features) for the same sound – which mimics models with multiple layers of representation (such as Goldrick 2001, Boersma 2007).

AB - Phonological features are often assumed to be innate (Chomsky & Halle 1968) or learned as a prerequisite for learning grammar (Dresher 2013). In this paper, I show an alternative approach: features are learned in parallel with grammar. This allows for addressing an interesting question: is it really optimal that the phonological grammar only use phonological features to refer to segmental material (Chomsky & Halle 1968), or could it be more advantageous for the grammar to refer to segmental material on more than one level of representation? The learner considered here finds that it is only optimal for the grammar to use phonological features to refer to multiple segments in the same pattern (e.g., the class of nasals), but when a pattern refers to a single segment, it may be at least equally good for the grammar to refer to this single segment as a bare segment label (for instance, [m] instead of [labial, nasal]). In this way, the grammar uses different kinds of representational units (features and non-features) for the same sound – which mimics models with multiple layers of representation (such as Goldrick 2001, Boersma 2007).

KW - features

KW - learning

KW - phonology

U2 - 10.7557/12.3253

DO - 10.7557/12.3253

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 20

EP - 57

JO - Nordlyd

JF - Nordlyd

SN - 1503-8599

IS - 1

ER -