al vowel is not always
unique; the grammar therefore requires in such cases
overdetermined lexical representations. On the other hand,
in the same framework, the grammar tolerates under
determined underlying representations when the same
canonical underlying form /XVN#VY/ is supposed to yield
different phonetic outputs, one with a nasal vowel
([XVNVY]), the other with an oral vowel ([XVNVY]) (cf.
/mon#ami/ >[monami] versus /bon#ami/ >[bonami]). (36)
The difficulty with this approach is that, in a speaking context, it is indeterminate on one hand, and on the other hand when it is indeterminate one must accept that vowels are not underlyingly nasal. That is, the analyst sets out to prove something that admits of proof only by virtue of a null hypothesis. This essentially refutes a contention that the internal structure of French requires nasality of vowels in specific sequences. Moreover, in an analytical zeal to show the variations, exceptions, and various contexts in which nasalized vowels may appea
...