Unification Phonology: Another look at "synthesis-by-rule" John Coleman Experimental Phonetics Laboratory Department of Langm~ge and Linguistic Science University of York Heslington YORK YOI 5DD United Kingdom e-maih JANET%UK.AC.YORK.VAX::J SC 1 (1) p --, p-/s__ else p --, ph/__V Transformational grammars and "synthesis- (where V is any vowel symbol) by-rule" Most current text-to-speech systems else p --~ p' (e.g. Allen et al. 1987; Hertz 1981~ 1982, forthcoming; Hertz et aL 1985) are, at heart, unconstrained string- Often, of course, grammars made with rules of this based transformational grammars. Generally, text- type may be (contingently) quite restricted. For in.- to-speech programs are implemented as the compo- stance, if the rules apply in a fixed order without sition of three non-invertible mappings: cyclicity, they may be compiled into a finite-state transducer (Johnson 1972). But in general there is no guarantee that a program which implements 1. grapheme to phoneme mapping (inverse spelling such a grammar will halt. This would be pretty r ales + exceptions dictionary) disastrous in speech recognition, and is undesirable even in generation-based applications, such as text- 2. phoneme to allophone mapping (pronunciation to-speech. However, this has not prevented the at> rules) pearance of a number of "linguistic rule compilers" 3. allophone to parameter mapping (interpolation such as Van Leenwen's (1987, 1989) and Hertz's sys.- rules) gems. Tile basic operations of a transformational gram° ])'or example: mar -- deletion, insertion, permutation, and copying -- are apparently empirically instantiated by such ph] %, pit well-established phonological phenemona as elision, [p'] ~-- /p/ ~-- sip epenthesis, metathesis, assimilation and coarticula- [p-] e/ spit tion. Copying (i): Assimilation allophones ~ phonemes ,--- graphemes h denotes strong release of breath (aspiration) e.g. 1 ran [hi ran quickly [9 ] ' denotes slight/weak aspiration - denotes no aspiration Rule: n-~O/ {k,g} These mappings are usually defined using rules of the form A -+ B/U D e.g. (1), usually called [0] denotes back-of-tongue (velar) "context-sensitive", but which in fact define unre- nasal closure stricted rewriting systems, since B may be the empty string (Gazdar 1.987). It should be recalled that "if e.g. 2 sandwich [samwitJ'] all we can say about a grammar of a natural language is that it is an unrestricted rewriting system, we have said nothing of any interest" (Chomsky 1963:360). Rule: n -~ m/ {l),b,w etc.} 79 Copying (ii): Ooarticulation e.g. "chip" e.g. keep [~_] cool Syllable / \ c rt [k] Onset Rime ! ! \ V Affricate Nucleus Coda Rules: k-, +k /--i-back] / \ I I V Closure Friction Vowel Closure v t ... 8h ... i ... p denotes advanced articulation + Figure 1: Richer structure in phonological represen- denotes lip-rounding tations denotes retracted articulation Insertion: Epenthesis In partial recognition of some of these problems, pho- nologists have been attemptiug to reconstruct the e.g. mince [mints] transformational component as the epiphenomenal pence [pents] result of several interacting general "constraints". Numerous such "constraints" and ~principles" have been proposed, such as the Well-Formedness Con- Rule: ns --~ nts dition (Goldsmith 1976 and several subsequent for- Deletion: Elision nmlations), the Obligatory Contour Principle (Leben 1973), Cyclicity (Kaisse and Shaw 1985, Kiparsky 1985), Structure-Preservation (Kiparsky 1985), the e.g. sandwich [sanwitf] Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973) etc. While this line of research is in some respects conceptually Rule: nd --* n cleaner than primitive transformational grammars, there has been no demonstration that a "principle'- Permutation: Metathesis based phonology is indeed more restrictive than primitive transformational phonology in any compu- e.g. burnt [brunt] rationally relevant dimension. Rule: ur-+ ru A declarative model of speech For the last few The problems inherent in this approach are many: years, I have been developing a "synthesis-by-rule" program which does not employ such string-to-string 1. Deletion rules can make Context- transformations (Coleman and Local 1987 forthcom- Se,lsitive grammars undecidable. (Salomaa ing; Local 1989 forthcoming; Coleman 1989). 1973:83, Levelt 1976:243, Lapointe 1977:228, Berwick and Weinberg 1984:127) The basic hypothesis of this (and related) research is that there is a trade-off between the richness of the 2. Non-monotonicity m~kes for computational rule component and the richness of the representa- complexity. tions (Anderson 1985). According to this hypothesis, the reason why transformational phonology needs to 3. There is no principled 1 way of limiting the do- use transformations is because its data structure, main of rule application to specific linguistic do- strings, is too simple. Consequently, it ought to be mains, such as syllables. possible to considerably simplify or even completely 4. Using sequences as data-structures is really only eliminate the transformational rule component by plausible if all speech parameters change with using more elaborate data structures than just well- nlore-or-less equal regularity. ordered sequences of letters or feature-vectors. For instance if we use graphs {fig. 1) to represent phono- 1N.B. The use of labelled brackets to delimit domains is completely unrestricted mechanismfor partitioning strings. logical objects, then instead of copying, we can im- 80 Tongue-back: ANY Tongue-back: CLOSURE Tongue-back: CLOSURE I I I ~Ibngue-tip: CLOSURE Tongue-tip: ANY Tongue4ip: CLOSURE I I ¢~ / \ Nasality: + Nasality: - Nasality: + Nasality:- k ,) k Figure 2: Declarative characterisation of assimilation plement harmony phenomena using the structure- Closure Friction Closure Friction ,dlaring technique. I I ~ / \ / Na~ality Non-nasality Nasality Non-nas. :(ncorpora~ing richer data-structures allows many if not all rewriting rules to be abandoned, to the extent I] S n t S J~hat the transformational rewrite-rule mechanism can be ditched, along with the problems it brings. Figure 3: Declarative characterisation of epenthesis Consider how the "processes" discussed above can be given a declarative (or "configurational") analy- sis. Closure Non-clo. Closure Non-clo. Allophony can be regarded as the different interpre- / \ / *~ I I tation of t:he same element in different structural con- Nasality Non-nas. N,~sality Non-nas. ~exts, rather than as involving several slightly differ- ent phonological objects instantiating each phoneme. n d w n w Onset Coda Onset Figure 4: Declarative eharacterisation of elision i i / \ p p s p [ph] [p,] [p] minor variations in the temporal coordination of in- dependent parameters (Jespersen 1933:54, Anderson Aspirated Slightly Unaspirated 1976, Mohanan 1986, Browman and Goldstein 1986) aspirated (fig. 3). Assimilation can also be modelled non-destructively It has been demonstrated (Fourakis 1980, Kelly and by unification (fig. 2). Local 1989) that epenthetic elements are not phonet- ically identical to similar non-epenthetic elements. Coarticulation is simple to model if parametric pho- The transformational analysis, however, holds that netic representations may be glued together in par- the phonetic implementation of a segment is depen- allel, rather than simply concatenated. Consonants dendent on its features, not its derivatonal history may then overlaid over vowels, rather than simply ('% [t] is a It] is a It]'), and thus incorrectly predicts concatenated to them (Ohman ]966, Perkell 1969, that an epenthetic [t] should be phonetically identi- Gay 1977, Mattingly 1981, Fowler 1983). If required, ca.1 to any other It]. ~his analysis can also be implemented in the phono- logical component, using graphs of the 'overlap' re- Elision is the inverse of epenthesis, and is thus in lation (Griffen 1985, Bird and Klein 1990): e.g.: some sense "the same" phenomenon, taking the "un- elided': form as more primitive than the "elided" ii tiLl aa / \ / \ / \ form, a decision which is entirely meaningless in the declarative account (fig. 4) k p k I k t Metathesi3 is another instance of "the same" phe- E~] [~] [_k] nomenon i.e. different temporal synchronisation of an invariant set of elements. Epenthesis, Elision and It is now common to analyse epenthesis, not as the Metathesis may all be regarded as instances of the insertion of a segment into a string, but as due to more general phenomenon of non-significant variabil- ity ill the timing of parallel events. 81 Figure 5: Phrase structure grammar of English phoneme strings Word Word [+inflected] -~ [-inflected] Inflection Inflection e.g. cat+s Word Word Word Compounding e.g. black+bird [-in fleeted]-~ [-inflected] [-inflected] Word Prefix* Word Suffix* [-Latinate]-~ [-Latinate] [-inflected] [-Latinate] Word Stress Morphology o denotes complete constituent overlap [+Latinate]--* [+Latinate] o [+Latinate] Stress [+Latinate] --* Non_final_feet Foot Foot Non_final_feet -~ [+initial] Foot* Sylab, (i ll b e) +heavy -heavy Syllable Syllable Syllable -heavy, -heavy Morphology Pre fix* Stem Suffix* [+Latinate] -* [+Latinate] [+Latinate] [+ Latinate] Syllable Rime [~hea,~y] -' (Onset) [aheavy] Onset Affricate [avoi I -~ [avoi] Onset [-voi] -~ Aspirate Onset ( Obstruence ) (Glide) [~voi] -* [~voi] Obstruence [-~oi] -~ ([sl), Closure (Either order) Constraint: in onsets, [s] < Closure Rime Nucleus ( Coda ) [aheavy]--* [aheavy] [c~heavy] Nucleus -~ Peak Offglide etc. etc. 82 U U motion of the synthesis parameters for specified in- \ / telwals of time.