Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Generative phonology assumes:
 Units (phones) are discrete (not continuous, not
variable)
 Phonetic space contains static symbolic objects
 Objects are manipulated by rules
 Phonetic space is closed
 There is a fixed inventory of possible human
sounds
 (You can always minutely tweak one)
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Generative phonology assumes:
 Language is a kind of knowledge
 The knowledge is formal (like numbers,
variables and math formulas)
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Generative phonology assumes:
 Language is a kind of knowledge
 The knowledge is formal (like numbers,
variables and math formulas)
 Goal of phonology is to discover the
algebra/grammar used by speakers
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

What is formal linguistics?
 Uses discrete (invariable, unchanging, not
continuous) units
 In math whole numbers are discrete (2.34 isn't
whole and isn't discrete)
 Assumes linguistics knowledge is knowledge
of symbols and manipulation of symbols
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
Problem:
 Speech isn't discrete, but continuous
 Generative solution:
 Strip away details and match continuous
acoustic signal to abstract discrete symbolic
units

Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
Speech involves converting digital storage into
analog waves
 (Vocal apparatus isn't digital)
 Comprehension involves converting analog
speech signal into digital units

Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Paradox
 Speech involves converting digital storage into
analog waves
 (Vocal apparatus isn't digital)
 Comprehension involves converting analog
speech signal into digital units
 This means people process things in
continuous (real) time and discrete (not real)
time
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Example:
 In allow the tongue moves from the schwa
position to the [l] position in real time. It passes
through a gradual vowel to [l] transition
 Discrete time disregards this temporal aspect:
the [l] unit simply follows the schwa unit
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

You can believe in categories like phoneme
without assuming language processing involves
manipulation of discrete units
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Paradox
 If all languages use same static (universal) units
and processing then no language will be totally
unique in any way
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Paradox
 If all languages use same static (universal) units
and processing then no language will be totally
unique in any way
 Generativists say the uniqueness comes when
language is given to analog speech apparatus
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Competence versus Performance
 Competence involves discrete units and
processing in discrete (not real) time
 Just like math or formal logic formulas don't
happen in real time
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Competence versus Performance
 Competence involves discrete units and
processing in discrete (not real) time
 Just like math or formal logic formulas don't
happen in real time
 Performance involves physical bodies that
work in continuous real time
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
“If one believes that [formal discrete] cognitive and
linguistic events could not, in fact, exhibit
symptoms of existence either in space or time,
then, since real physical and physiological events
do, there is no way to make them fit together.”
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
Discrete, static units are unchangeable, can't
evolve.
 If that's true they can't be gradually learned or
evolving concepts
 So, they must exist beforehand
 So, they must be innate

Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Discrete, static units must be distinct from each
other
 How could math work if 2 were sometimes not
distinct from 3 or ¾ wasn't always .75?
 A computer program wouldn't work if the
operators (if then, and) sometimes were not
distinct
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Linguistic units vary
 The formants of a vowel vary from token to
token
 Sometimes what should be distinct sounds
aren't
 /b/ and /p/ both are often voiceless in Bob and
bop.
 Although /æ/ and /Ɛ/ contrast, they often
overlap
 Bet and bat are often indistiguisable
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence for discreteness
 We interpret different sounds and the same
thing (phonemes)
 But isn't that learned or influenced by literacy?
 If babies aren't born doing it it's not
discrete/innate
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 Aspirated versus unaspirated consonants
 VOT isn't universal, but language dependent
 The formants for a given vowel (e.g. [u]) vary
across languages, so [u] unit isn't universal
 If phonetic inventory is innate why do people
disagree about what units are in fire?
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 Difference between bad and bat is vowel
length
 The long [æ:] in bad in fast speech is just as
long as the short [æ] in bat in slow speech
 So the contrast is the difference between two
at the same speech rate
 How does discreteness handle variation?
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 Difference between rapid and rabid is VOT
 VOT varies at different speech rates
 A fast rapid can have same VOT as rabid
 A unit that varies isn't static and can't be
symbolic
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 In German word final /t/ and /d/ are [t]
 In German word final /p/ and /b/ are [p]
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 But they are actually slightly different
 German speakers can hear difference 60-75%
of the time
 So they aren't identical/discrete/static
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)

Evidence against discreteness
 /t/ and /d/ both flap in English
 Budding/butting and latter/ladder are
homophones
 But English speakers can guess which is
which 65-70% of the time
 So flap isn't a discrete/static unit
Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
Static/discrete units are either or
 Yes/no
 0/1
 Phonetic units are not static or discrete

Against formal phonology
(Port and Leary)
“The great hypothesis of 20th century structural linguistics, starting with de Saussure and
the Prague School, was that the speaker’s solution to the problem of remembering words would
have an unmistakable resemblance to the written language with hierarchical data structures
resembling those of various orthographic units: segments, words and sentences. But for that to be
true, there must be a basic-level alphabet of crisp letter-like tokens, suitable for discrete
combination in building larger structures. Since there apparently is no basic symbolic alphabet for
cognition (at least not a phonetic one), despite the obvious existence of higher (i.e., temporally
longer, more abstract) structures of the phonology and lexicon, we must keep our minds open and
employ whatever models work best to explain relevant phenomena.”