Content area
Full text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
In this handsomely produced volume, a number of renowned linguists analyze various issues relating to the choice between a rule- and a constraint-based approach to the description of sound structure. Rule-based phonology (RBP) has its modern roots above all in classical generative phonology (the SPE model of Chomsky & Halle 1968, etc.), whereas the major locus of constraint-based alternatives is currently Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky 1993, Kager 1999). The chief focus of attention in the collection is naturally the choice between processes and constraints themselves, which is inextricably linked to the issue of the nature of phonological representations. Furthermore, since, ordinarily, RBP involves serial derivation whereas classic OT computations take place in parallel, the question of seriality vs. parallelism is intertwined with the rule/constraint issue. In addition, the book touches upon an abundance of other topics, including issues of general theoretical concern and those related to specific details of analysis. Apart from the frontispiece and concluding matter, the book contains eight chapters. For reasons of space, I will discuss only selected points from each of the papers.
In chapter 1, 'Introduction: The division of labor between rules, representations, and constraints in phonological theory', Andrew Nevins & Bert Vaux outline the goals and central themes of the volume and briefly survey the contents of the contributions that follow. A key phrase in the description of the objective of the book is 'to conduct informed comparison' (2).
The essay in the book that yields the most broadly conceived comparison of the two competing frameworks is Bert Vaux's own, 'Why the phonological component must be serial and rule-based' (chapter 2). Vaux compiles a catalogue of arguments put forth by OT advocates in support of their model, identifies a set of fundamental problems with OT, and points to essential considerations favoring RBP. In his view, major shortcomings of classic OT include: (i) the failure to handle satisfactorily certain instances of opacity (such as the interaction of e-insertion and [LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP]-deletion in Tiberian Hebrew /de[LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH][LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP]/[arrow right][de[LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH]e] 'tender grass'; 32); (ii) problems in treating optionality (like iterative and variable French schwa deletion; 43); (iii) unnaturalness (OT presupposes that all phonology is natural,...