Palatalization effects as results of articulatory- and perceptually-driven mechanisms
	
Within the framework of feature geometry, accounts of palatalization
have been proposed that interpret palatalization processes as entirely
articulatory-driven (e.g. Hume, 1992; Lahiri and Evers, 1991, etc.)
Yet, this approach has left some questions unanswered. Different
surface results of palatalization have either been claimed to be
lexicalized, which should not be accounted for in feature-geometric
terms (Clements, 1985), or they have been treated as a reason to
rethink some assumptions about feature geometry, for instance about
the featural make-up of front vowels (Rubach, 1993). Another approach
to palatalization takes it to be an auditory-driven phenomenon (Guion,
1998; Flemming, 1995). I want to advance the thesis that
palatalization effects in Polish result from the interaction of
articulatory and auditory processes.

In my talk, I will propose an analysis of palatalization processes in
Polish in terms of articulatory and auditory features which express
the interaction of auditory and articulatory grounded constraints.
Phonetic functionalism of this sort originates from the claim that the
explanation for all recurring sound patterns lies outside the grammar,
in the domains of vocal tract physiology, auditory perception, and
memory organization. The recent work done by, among others,
Boersma(1998), Flemming(1995), Myers (1997) is a continuation of a
long tradition (Passy, 1891; Martinet, 1955; Lindblom, 1986, etc.).
Simplifying, phonological behaviour might be seen as a result of
conflicting driving forces, namely of: (1) the drive to minimize the
articulatory effort, and (2) the drive to minimize the potential
confusion.

I argue that the principles of minimization of auditory confusion are
formally to be expressed by two families of constraints: -
faithfulness constraints, evaluating the similarity of the surface
candidates to the input, and thus, militating against the loss of the
underlying contrast (Boersma, 1998), and - no-confusion constraints,
promoting maximal auditory contrast between different surface forms
(compare: Flemming, 1995, who proposes constraints evaluating segment
inventories of a language).

References:

Boersma, Paul. (1998) Functional Phonology :Formalizing the
interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague:
Holland Academic Graphics

Clements, George N. (1985) ``The geometry of Phonological Features创.
Phonology Yearbook 2, 225-252

Flemming, Edward. (1995) Auditory Representations in Phonology. PhD
Dissertation. UCLA. Guion, Susan Guignard. (1998) ``The Role of
Perception in the Sound Change of Velar Palatalization.创 Phonetica
55: 18-52.

Hume, Elisabeth V. (1992) Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and their
Interaction in Nonlinear Phonology. PhD Dissertation. Cornell
University.

Lahiri, Aditi and Vincent Evers. (1991) ``Palatalization and
Coronality.创 In: C. Paradis and J. Prunet (eds), The special status
of coronals: Internal and external evidence. (Phonology and Phonetics
2.), San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Martinet, Andre. (1952) ``Function, structure, and sound change.创
Word: 8:1.

Myers, Scott. (1997) ``Expressing Phonetic Naturalness in Phonology.创
In : Iggy Roca (ed.), Derivations and Constraint in Phonology, Oxford,
Clarendon Press.

Passy, Paul. (1891) Etude sur les changements phon閠iques et leurs
caract鑢es g閚閞eaux. Paris: Librairie Firmin - Didot.

Myers, Scott. (1997) ``Expressing Phonetic Naturalness in Phonology.创
In: Iggy Roca (ed.), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.