<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E91-1016">
  <Title>A LOGICAL APPROACH TO !ARABIC PHONOLOGY</Title>
  <Section position="9" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
CONCLUSION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this article we have presented an application of interval based tense logic to 'non-linear' phonology (specifically, 'autosegmental' phonology, Goldsmith 1990), and exemplified it using data from Arabic (McCarthy 1981). The chief difference between this view of phonology and its purely segmental predecessors is its use of overlapping intervals of time.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> As argued in (Bh'd 1990), the three primitives: dominance, precedence and overlap are sufficient to represent hierarchically and temporally organized phonological structure. Here we have taken a standard language of interval based tense logic, augmented it with an extra operator &lt;&gt; to express phonological dominance, and employed nominals to enable us to label nodes. A universal theory of syllable structure was expressed in L, to which further generalizations were added for Arabic. We then showed how so-called 'non-concatenative' morphology might be treated, and indicated how the phonological notions of extramela'icality and licensing were cashed out. The analysis of Arabic did not require recourse to separate consonant and vowel tiers (following Hudson 1986). Rather, consonantisms (and vocalisms) are simply partially specified phonological structures which may be combined using logical conjunction.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Even so, the exemplification given was for but a tiny fragment of Arabic phonology and much work is still to be done. For example, nothing was said about the vocalisms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The move from linear to non-linear phonology parallels the move from a purely Priorean tense logic in F and P to interval based systems in F, P and O. The view of phonology emerging from the present study is significantly more formal than many of its contemporaries (eL Bird &amp; Ladd 1991), and suggests that enhanced modal formalisms may provide a natural foundation for rigorous phonological theorizing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Finally, there would seem to be good reasons for being confident that complex phonological descriptions can now be fully incorporated into feature structure based grammar frameworks. Reape's (1991) logical foundation for these frameworks and the phonological arguments in favour of adopting feature structures (Hayes 1990, Bird 1991) are but two parts of the one story.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 10Note that the exhaustiveness condition L(a ~ i V j) and the sequencing constraints in the earlier version of (I1) must be expressed here also. They are omitted for the.sake of readability.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>