510 Section I : Phonetics - Phonology

Literatur
DaneS, F. (1957): Intonace a veta ve spisovne cestine, Academia, Praha.
t'Hart, J., Collier, R. (1975): Integrating Different Levels of Intonation Analysis. Journal of Phonetics 3:
235-255.
Janota, P. (1967): An Experiment Concerning the Perception of Stress by Czech Listeners, AVC, Phon. Prag.
I: 45-68. .
Janota, P., Palova, Z. (1974): The Auditory Evaluation of Stress under the Influence of Context, AVC, Phon.
Prag. IV: 29~59.
Kreckel, M. (1981): Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse, Academic Press,
London.
Palkova, Z. (1974): Rytmicka vystavfa prozaickeho textu, Academia, Praha.
Thorsen, N. (1983): Two Issues in the Prosody of Standard Danish, in Cutler, A., Ladd, D. R. (eds.): Prosody:
Models and Measurement, Springer, 27-38.

Optional Rules in Lexical Phonology

Pramod Kumar Pandey
Surat

1. Introduction
Somewhat at variance with the hypothesis recently put forward in Kaisse and Shaw
(1985: 6) that optionality is a distinct feature of post-lexical rules, an examination of
Dakota, English and Sanskrit (section 2), which differ in the extent to which they
allow optional application of phonological rules, reveals that the application of rules in
both modules can be optional, with, however, a proviso. The proviso is that in the lexical
module only 'subrules' (i.e., rules which extend or restrict other rules) can be optional,
but not rules which are 'independent'. No such distinction holds for the optional
application of rules in the post-lexical module. In 3, we suggest the implications of our
finding for one of the related problems, namely, the learnability of optional phonological
rules.

2. Analysis
2.1. Dakota, as described in Shaw (1980), has only three optional rules out of a
repertory of approximately twenty-five phonological rules, two of which are low-level
(post-lexical), namely, denasalization (pp. 96-97), and n-assimillation (p. 370), and one is
lexical, namely, t-palatalization (pp. 110-112). The latter rule as found to apply with
considerable irregularity in one of the dialects, Santee, optionally changes a {t} at
the edge of a derivational stem {y} to /c/. {t} may alternatively assimilate in voicing to the
following segment {y}, yielding /d/ or undergo lenition surfacing as an /n/: Thus,
([khat]ya) 'to be warm' - /khaca/ or jkhadya/ or /k!'anya/. Considering the infrequency
and unsystematic nature of this rule, it appears that the evidence from Dakota does not
contradict the hypothesis being examined in this paper.
2.2. The evidence from modern English (cf. Halle and Mohanan 1985, and Mohanan 1985),
however, disconfirms the claim.
Some of the optional post-lexical rules that have been discussed in the literature and that
\w shaII merely mention here are: nasal assimilation, intervocalic flapping, schwa
P. K. Pandey 511

deletion, aspiration, and glottalization. There are at least two lexical rules which have
been labelled as optional in the works referred to above.
a) y-vocalization (stratum 2, H.-M., p. 86). The underlying {y} in given circumstances
triggers the preceding consonant to be palatalized, and then vocalizes to i as in
presidentiality, artificiality; if not, it is deleted as in presidential, artificial. As H-M point
out, the rule "must be assumed to be optional at least in some words: for example, beneficiary
and auxiliary can be pronounced both with and without an i before the suffix
-ary."
b) Sonorant-resyllabification (stratum 4; Mohanan 1985,p. 145).Sonorants which become
syllabic word-finally when preceded by a consonant as in simple, prism, cylinder
become nonsyllabic when followed by a vowel initial derivational affix, as in simplify,
prismatic, cylindrical. When followed by the inflectional auffix -ing, however, the stem-
final I losesits syllabicityoptionally; e.g., doubling(V): /d /\ b!iT\/ /d /\ bliT\/ etc. The
~

optionality of the rule is restricted to I-ending stems (and sometimes to r-ending stems).
While there is no other instance of a lexical rule applying optionally as a whole in the
analyses being considered, certain rules are found to have partially optional applications,
e.g., variation in non-primary stress patterns (stratum 1) in polysyllabic simple words like
Ticonderoga, and other segmental rules.

2.3. The Astadhyayi has a large number of optional rules stated with a number of
devices as recently discussed in a philological work of considerable significance by
Kiparsky (1980). The major device involves the expressions 'va', 'vibha~a', and 'anyatara-
syam' included in the statement of rules, all of which have been traditionally inter-
preted to mean 'optionally'. Kiparsky shows that each of the terms should in fact be
translated (roughly) as 'preferably', 'preferably not', and 'either way', respectively. The
correspondence between the use of the terms and linguistic usage has led Kiparsky to
discover some general facts regarding a connection between the terms for optionality and
rule types in the grammar. Two relevant facts are:
a. 'Low-level' phonetic processes which apply with no exceptions or morphological
conditions and come under the heading 'samhitayam' show an exclusive preference for 'va'.
While a few have 'anyatarasyam', none of them includes 'vibha~a'.
b. 'vibha~a' rules (which are lexical) are found to function either to restrict or to
extend a general rule to new environments, but never to be independent. At least
low-level 'va' and 'anyatarasyam' rules are found to introduce new processes.
A question that arises at this point is: Are there instances of 'va' and 'anyatarasyam'
rules which are lexical and introduce independent processes? A careful investigation of the
va and anyatarasyam lexical rules shows that virtually all of them are subrules which, like
the vibha$a mles, either restrict or extend another rule.
A generalization regarding the organization of optional rules in Sanskrit that
emerges from the above discussion is that optional rules at the lexical level must be
minor or subrules, independent optional rules can occur only at the post-lexical level.
On a closer scrutiny this fact seems to hold good for the other languages examined
here as well. Thus, the English sonorant-resyllabification rule, as pointed out above,
applies optionally only in the case of one of the sonorants: I (and perhaps r), but
not in that of m or n. Even y-vocalization has been found (cf. Hayes 1981: 190) to be
optional only when following the VI-sequence; elsewhere it is generally obligatory. And the
only instance of an optional lexical rule in Dakota is in conformity with the facts in
512 Section 1: Phonetics - Phonology

Sanskrit and English. We pass up here both the formal statement and the explanation of
this condition.

3. Implications
We now turn to suggest in a speculative manner the implications of our finding for the
learnability of optional phonological rules. Without defining optional rules as occurring
within the grammar of an individual or within a language, I assume that our finding
pertains to both, although on a closer scrutiny lexical rules may show a weaker tendency for
optionality.
Optional rules are problematic for a theory of learn ability which must accept the
no-negative data hypothesis for language acquisition. In the absence of negative informa-
tion in the primary linguistic data optional rules must create overinclusive grammars
(see Dell 1981 for an early discussion of this problem in relation to phonological rules).
And yet the learner is able to acquire the least inclusive grammar compatible with his
model. The explanation that Dell puts forward for the learning of the least inclusive
subset, notwithstanding optional phonological rules, is that the language acquisition
device has in it the following learning strategy:
(I) unless encountering evidence to the contrary always assume that a rule is
obligatory.
It should be obvious that the data presented here partially contradict this hypothesis:
the post-lexical module allows the rules to apply optionally in a regular way.
A resolution of the puzzle is possible within the revised theory of Universal
Grammar (UG) from the perspective of language acquisition, namely, that by Wexler and
Manzini (1987). The theory posits a learning module in addition to the linguistic module
of the standard theory ofUG. The linguistic module, as is known, has two components - the
Core, derived by fixing the parameters of the theory, and the Periphery, consisting of
marked elements and constructions. The learning module is concerned with those
aspects of markedness which are not a part of the linguistic theory, but of the learning
theory. Within this theory, (1) would thus belong to the learning module.
As noted above, (1) correctly predicts the nature of optionality of the lexical rules but not
of the post-lexical rules. Perhaps the post-lexical module belongs to that level of
linguistic structure which permits violation of markedness conditions of learnability, or
which is a part of the Periphery shared by other modules like the semantics of focus and
scope.
Notes
I "We also suspect that only post-lexical rules can be optional and subject to variation due to rate of
speech, though this requires further investigation."
2 Excepting one - 7.3.70 'ghor lopo leti va' which too is Vedic and does not apply to the whole of
Sanskrit (sarvatram) (cf. Kiparsky 1980: 70).
3 Kirparsky (1986) argues that Chamorro reflects systematic optionality of lexical rules. However,
elsewhere I try to show that the rules in Chamorro observe the modular condition found to apply
in the languages examined here.
4 See also the literature reviewed in Wexler and Manzini (1987) and other papers in the same volume.

References
Dell, F. 1981. On the learnability of optional phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 31-37.
Halle, M. and Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16:
57-116.
E. Richter/D. Mehnert 513

Hayes, B. 1981. A Metrical Theory of Stress. MIT doctoral dissertation. Distributed by the Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Kaisse, E. M. and Shaw, P. A. 1985. On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook
2: 1-30.
Kiparsky, P. 1980. Paanini as a Variationist. Poona: University of Poona Press, and Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Kiparsky, P. 1986. Systematic optionality in the lexical phonology of Chamorro. Unpublished ms.
Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Syllable structure and lexical strata. Phonology Yearbook, 2: 139-155.
Shaw, P. A. 1980. Dakota Phonology and Morphology. New York: Garland.
Wexler, K. and Manzini, M. 1987. Parameters and learn ability in binding theory. In T. Roeper and E. Williams
(eds.), Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. 41-76.