From: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Subject: Re: phonological constraints
Originator: alderson@leland.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson)
Organization: Stanford University Academic Information Resources
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:36:17 GMT

In article <9209051457.AA00897@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, lucas@WATSON ("Bruce Lucas") writes:
>How is one meant to interpret statements of the form "there is a constraint in
>English phonology that ...": is this meant to imply 1) an ongoing process in
>each speaker's (subconscious) mind as he is (sorry, they are :-) speaking, or
>2) the result of a historical change in sound patterns that is now simply
>learned without analysis, or 3) something else.  I would have originally
>thought the former, but the second explanation or something like it would seem
>to be required to explain the exceptions allowed for foreign borrowings, which
>by now are hardly noted as foreign by the average speaker.

A phonological constraint is the result of the actions of a phonological
process, or the interactions of two or more such processes, in the mind of a
native speaker of a language.

In Natural Phonology, processes are conceived as being all fully operative in
an infant, and selectively suppressed in part or wholly as the child learns one
or more languages.  What is left permissible as a result of the NON-suppression
of certain processes qualifies as a set of constraints, which make it difficult
for the user of the language to hear or produce certain sounds or sequences of
sounds without conscious effort.

In addition, each language has phonological rules that must be learned over and
above the suppression of processes.  These rules may create further constraints
in the system, although they will be occurrence restrictions rather than making
a sound or sequence of sounds difficult for the language user to produce or
hear.

To return to the example of the moment, */bnIk/ does not occur in English as a
result of *rules*, not *processes*.  The occurrence of [bnAn@] as a perfectly
understandable and reproducible pronunciation of /b^nAn^/ assures us of this.
The discussion of co-occurrence of certain phonemes as a result of borrowings
is likewise an issue of rules.

As for *processes* and borrowings of foreign words:  Very rarely is a set of
borrowings so large, or so prestigious, as to influence the phonological system
of the borrowing language.  (Thus, although speakers of English may learn to
pronounce a uvular or velar fricative, in "croissant" or "Tijuana", these *are*
learned as conscious pronunciations and will very likely disappear in casual
speech.)  Even when such a level of borrowing takes place, it will introduce as
small a change in the system as it can, and will be unlikely to result in a
pronunciation considered as "native" by a speaker of the language from which
the borrowing took place.

So your first understanding is closer to the usual meaning of "phonological
constraint."
-- 
Rich Alderson   'I wish life was not so short,' he thought.  'Languages take
                such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
                                                        --J. R. R. Tolkien,
alderson@leland.stanford.edu                              _The Lost Road_
Newsgroups: sci.lang