construction of markednessprosodia.upf.edu/home/arxiu/activitats/1003_payne.pdfmarkedness in grammar...
TRANSCRIPT
Theconstruc,onofmarkedness:narra,ves
ofphonologisa,on
ElinorPayneFacultyofLinguis,cs,PhilologyandPhone,cs
UniversityofOxford
Someques,ons…
• Whatis‘markedness’?
• Wheredoesitcomefrom?
• (Why)doweneedit?
• Someviews
• Analterna,veview
Prelude
Cau,on:workinprogress!
Unapologe,callyattheconceptualstage…
Partofawidersetofresearchques,ons:
• Whatisthenatureofphonologicalknowledge?
• Whatdeterminesphonologicalstructure?
• Isphonologytobeseeninanywayasautonomousfromphone,csubstance?
AliPlebackgroundon‘markedness’
• (Haspelmath,2006):despitebeingembracedbyvirtuallyeverydifferenttheory–andperhapsbecauseofthis–theconcepthasbecome“analmosttheory‐neutral,everydayterminlinguis4cs”
• Originalconcept(PragueSchool)• Abstractno,onofcomplexityandcontrast.Specifica,onforphonologicaldis,nc,on;opposi,ons,
rela,onsbetweenpairsofphonemes;
• Phonologicalfeaturescomeinpairs,whicharepolaropposites,andpaPerninanonequivalentway:mark‐bearing(voiced,nasalised,rounded)vsmarkless(voiceless,non‐nasalised,unrounded)
• Tellsusabouttheintrinsiccontentoffeaturesandtheirrepresenta,oninourminds.Influencesphonologicalac,vity(thus,outcomeofneutralisa,onistheunmarkedform)
• Universalistperspec4ve(Greenberg,LanguageUniversals1966)• Iden,fica,onofcross‐linguis,cpaPerns(universals)
• Morerecentandcontemporaryapproaches:
• 1)universalno,onsofmarkednessaspartof(universal)grammar(Chomsky&Halle1968,Cairns1969,Kean1980,Beckman1997,Lombardi2002,deLacy2006),cross‐linguis,cop,mality
• 2)notaconcepttobedevelopedinanyinteres,ngwayfromaphonologicalperspec,ve(Hale&Reiss2000,2001,Hume2003,Haspelmath,2006;Blevins,2004)
Somediagnos,csofmarkedness
• Frequencyofuse;abnormality/rarity(inalanguage/intheworld)
• “Complexity”(e.g.unaspiratedstop/aspiratedstop);“difficulty”(e.g.b<d<g<G)???
• Earlyvslatechildacquisi,on(relatedtodifficulty;cfJakobson)
• ‘Takenforgranted,ordinary,unusual’
• Appearanceinneutralisedcontext(e.g.voiceless/voiced)
• Restricteddistribu,on:e.g.inGermanvoicedobstruentscannotappearinsyllablecoda(Dixon’sfunc,onalmarkedness)
• Stability(inlanguagechange)
‘Localmarkedness’
• Observa,onthatmarkednessisnotanabsoluteproperty,butonenrela,vetoagivencontext(cfGreenberg)
• E.g.‘voicing’is‘marked’forobstruentsbutunmarkedforsonorants
Whatismarkedness?
• Doesnotmean‘impossibility’
• Canbeseenasaformof‘inhibi,on’,abiasagainst– Compareunmarkedforms,forwhichthereisapreference
• Whatistheoriginofthisbias?
Markednessingrammar
• Internalencodingofexternalproper,es(e.g.frequencyandphone,c‘naturalness’/‘simplicity’)
• In SPE (Chomsky & Halle, 1968) markedness values were a technical device to capture the rela,ve‘naturalness’ofphonologicalstructures(‘naturalness’synonymouswithcross‐linguis,cfrequency)
• InPrinciples&Parameters:posits thatparameter sepngsarenotequal.Chomsky (1981:8), thetheoryofmarkedness‘imposesapreferencestructureontheparametersofUG…Intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,unmarkedop,onsareselected’
• Drives acquisi,on: ‘the unmarked case of any parameter represents the ini,al hypothesis thatchildrenmakeaboutthelanguagetobeacquired’(Kean,1992)
• InOT,markedness constraints evaluate an output according to formal preferences,which in themaincorrespondtophone,cdifficulty(e.g.thatanasalstopmustnotbefollowedbyavoicelessobstruent)
• For Kager (1999: 11), markedness constraints in OT are ‘validated’ by cross‐linguis,c studies, incombina,onwith‘phone,cgrounding’
Howdoweexperiencemarkedness?• Partofmentalgrammar:
– Language‐specific.ImplicitinearlyPragueSchoolaccounts;(nolongerfashionable)
– Universal:partofinnatecogni,vecodeforlanguage(UG)(Chomsky&Halleonwards,includingmostaccountsofOT)
• Externally,aslinguists!Ameta‐gramma4calconcept:
– Greenbergmadenoexplicitclaimaboutmentalgrammars.(seealsoWurzel,1998)– Markednessasacross‐linguis,cobservableoutcome
• Generalhumanexperience:
– Moravcsik&Wirth(1986)claimthreemainmarkednessproper,es(familiarity,diversity,andsimplicity)foundthroughouthumanculture,e.g.infood:everydayfoodismorefrequent,comesinmoredifferentkinds,andissimplerthanholidayfood
– Markednessinlanguagejustaninstan,a,onofmarkednessinthismoregeneralsense
– TheideathatmarkednessisahighlygeneralpropertyofhumancultureisalreadyfoundinJakobson
• Alterna4veview
– Aspartofmental‘grammar’(anerafashion)butonethatisacquiredandrefinedthroughusageandislanguage‐specific,evenwhileshowingcross‐linguis,cpaPerns.Sta,s,calregulari,esoflanguageusein,matelyconnectedwithlanguagestructure
Whatdoweneedmarkednessfor?
• Asspeakers/listenersofalanguage– Partofarchitectureofgrammar/ourlinguis,cknowledge?– Biasesthewayweacquire,perceive,processandproduce
sounds– Aidsacquisi,on?– Universal?/Languagespecific?
• Aslinguists– Typology:toexplaincommon/uncommonpaPerns– Acquisi,on:tounderstanddevelopmentalpaPerns– Diachrony:toexplainsoundchange– Psycholinguis,cs:toexplainasymmetry
Someopposingviewsofphonologicalstructure
• Exogenous
– ‘Markedness’=certainpaPernsanddistribu,ons,whichariseonaccountofen,rely(oralmosten,rely)externalfactors(phone,cfacts;frequencyofuseetc.)
– Phone,cdeterminism
• Endogenous
– Phonologicallydetermined(completelyformalandabstract)
• Exogenousmaskedasendogenous(“wan7ngtohaveyourcakeandeatit”)– Encodesexternalfactorsintothegrammar– Revisedversionofphonologicaldeterminism(phone,callygrounded
phonology)
Phone,cdeterminism• Phone,c‘facts’(ar,culatory,aerodynamic,acous,c,auditory‐perceptual),
explain phonological structure and sound change (cf Ohala, various;Blevins,2004;Haspelmath,2006)
• Initsextremeform,thisapproachfindsperfectexplana,oninthewaywehearandspeak
• However, theremay be a post hoc phone,c ra,onale forwhy, e.g. finalobstruent devoicing is so common cross‐linguis,cally, but there is nonatural law against final voiced obstruents, and indeed they are to befound
• Within the boundaries of what is physically possible, there are manyviablepathways
• Phone,cdeterminismmaybenecessary,butitisfarfromsufficient
Anexogenousapproach:Evolu,onaryPhonology(Blevins,2004)
• Athesis,notagainstmarkednessperse,butagainstthecodifica,onofmarkednessingrammar
• “thereisnoclearroleformarkednesswithinsynchronicphonology.Absolute universals and universal tendencies in sound pa?ernsemerge fromgeneral pathways of language change, and have noindependent status in the grammar … there is a great deal ofempirical evidence against the direct incorpora7on ofmarkednessintosynchronicgrammars”(Blevins2004:20)
• “Markednessandnaturalnessinphonologyareemergentproper7esofsynchronicsystems”
Formalapproach(endogenous)
• Doesn’tgetveryfarwithoutreferencetophone,csubstance
“[M]anyoftheso‐calledphonologicaluniversals(onendiscussedundertherubricofmarkedness)areinfactepiphenomenaderivingfromtheintersec,onofextragramma,calfactorslikeacous,csalienceandthenatureoflanguagechange”.
(Hale&Reiss;2000:162)
RevisedphonologicaldeterminismPhone,callyGroundedPhonology:– “Markedness: the tendency for phone7c terms to be pronounced in a simple, natural
way(asdeterminedinpartbythenatureofspeechar7cula7on,acous7cs,andaudi7on,and in part perhaps by more abstract cogni7ve factors – all aspects of the humanlanguagefaculty).”(Anderson&Lighvoot2002:101)
• Phonologists have sought to encode phone,c ‘ease’ in various ways: as phone,callygroundeddis,nc,vefeatures(SPE);naturalness(NaturalPhonology,e.g.Stampe,1971;Hurch&Rhodes1996),‘(dis)preferred’(e.g.Vennemann,1988).
• InOT,phone,cop,malityemergesfromsa,sfyinghighestrankedconstraints
• More or less unmarked ‘really boils down to more or less easy for the humanbrain’(Mayerthaler1987:27)
• Recently,theencodingofsystem‐externalpressuresonphonologicalstructurehasbeenreferredtoas‘grounding’(e.g.Archangeli&Pulleyblank1994,Bermudez‐Otero&Borjars2006)
• Evenwhilemarkedness‘transparentlyreflects’,‘isbasedon’,or‘isrootedin’(speakers’knowledge of) phone,c difficulty, it is s,ll part of the phonological system (e.g. Hayes &Steriade,2004)
Phone,cdifficulty>grammarCase‐study:encodingofvoicingaerodynamics
• Voicedgeminateobstruentsare‘marked’(rare)
• No(known)languagebansjustvoicelessgeminates
• Presenceofavoicedobstruentgeminateinagivenlanguageimpliesthatofthecorrespondingvoicelessgeminate
• Phone,cfactors:– Dura,onoforalclosure– Sizeofcavitybehindoralconstric,on
• Bothleadtoascaleofdifficultyinmaintainingvoicing[g:<d:<b:<g<d<b]
• Becomeenshrinedasapropertyofgrammar
Language‐specificphone,cfactors• “Thereissomeevidencethatlanguagesindeeddeployphonologicalconstraints
basedonthecondi,onssetupbylanguage‐specificphone,cfactors”(HayesandSteriade,2004:20)
• StandardThai,CVRsyllableshaverichertone‐bearingpossibili,esthanCV:O.ThelaPercannothostLHorMtones.Navajoisalmosttheopposite:CV:Ocanhostanyphonemictone,butCVRcannothostHLorLH.
• Allotherthingsbeingequal,VisabePerhostfortonethatR.But,atequalsonoritylevels,thelongersonorousrhymeisthebePercarrier.Soitalldependsonphone,cdura,on.InNavajo,CVRandtheV:por,onofCV:Oareverycloseindura,on,andsinceV:ismoresonorousthanVR,CV:OisthebePerhost.InThai,longvowelsaredrama,callyshorterinclosedsyllables,resul,nginCV:OhavingaconsiderablylesssonorousrhymethanCVR.
• Language‐specificdifferenceofallophonicdetail–degreeofshorteninginclosedsyllables–isapparentlythesourceofamajorphonologicaldifference.
Extremephone,cdeterminismmaskingasphonological
• WestCoastOp,malityTheory(Kirchner1997;Flemming,1995):– Phonemes not viewed as underlying en,,es, but instead
emerge epiphenomenally from the interac,on of phone,callygroundedmarkingconstraints
– Kirchner (1997) proposes a par,cularly radical use of scales,with con,nuously valued phone,c func,ons (e.g. degree ofar,culatorylaziness)figuringdirectlyintheOTgrammar
Someproblems
• Youcanmakeendogenousaccountssufficient,ifyougofarenough…Butisitnecessary?
• Doesanindividualneedtohaveknowledgeofcross‐linguis,cpaPernsanddistribu,ons,evenwhentheyruncountertoherownlanguage?Isn’titmorelikelythatsheknowswhatis‘normal’forherlanguage,andwhatisn’t?
• Forexample:theexistenceoffinalvoicedobstruentsisaproblemforcogni,vedeterminismbecausetheyviolateabstractmarkedness.
• OTgetsroundthisbyrankingconstraintsandthenallowinglow‐rankingconstraintstobeviolated
Aneatfix?
• Maybe,butalow‐rankedconstraintisliPlemorethanawayofformalisingthethought:
– ‘thereissomethingthatI,inmycapacityaslinguist,donotlikeaboutPropertyXbecauseIknowthatitisuncommonandhistoricallyunstable,evenifIknowalsothatitoccursinLanguageYwithnoevidentcommunica4veimpairment’
• Forinna,stversionsofthetheory,thereisalsoanimplicitclaimthat:– “na4vespeakersofLanguageYknow,atsomeunspecifiedlevel,thatthereissomething‘notquite
right’ about Property X, though it does not in the least affect their speech behaviour (for themomentatleast)”
Whylookforphone,cexplana,on?
• Discover what linguis,c systems are not responsible for(Anderson, 1981) : “to isolate the core of featureswhosearbitrariness from other points of view makes them asecurebasisforassessingproper,esofthelanguagefacultyitself” (1981: 497). In other words, we get a bePerunderstanding of phonology by knowing what is not inphonology
• Butdowehavetoencodethisgramma,cally?
• HayesandSteriadearguethatourveryviewsofphonologychange. Cue‐based theory is non‐arbitrary (but alsoteleological)
Againstreifica,onofexplana,on• Haspelmath(2006)arguesthatwedonotneedmarkednessfor:
1. Descrip,onofpar,culargrammars• markednessdoesnotleadtogreatereleganceofdescrip,on
2. Descrip,onofUG• McCarthy(2002:2):“OneofthemostcompellingfeaturesofOT,isthewayitunites
descrip,onofindividuallanguageswithexplana,oninlanguagetypology…thegrammarofonelanguageinevitablyincorporatesclaimsaboutthegrammarsofalllanguages.”
• ‘markedness’phenomenaareul,matelyduetosubstan,vefactors
3. Asameta‐gramma,callabel• Heclaimsthisleadstoconfusion,sinceitisnotatransparentlabel
4. Asanexplanatoryconcept• Ul,mateexplana,onisintermsofsubstan,vefactorsoutsidethelanguagesystem.If
onepositsanabstractintermediate‘explanatory’levelbetweenthephenomenaandtherealexplanatoryfactors,onebearstheburdenofproofthatsuchalevelisneeded
Whyshouldwewanttoreify?
• Istheres,llacaseformarkedness,asanabstractno,on?
• Haspelmathsayswedonotneeditforthedescrip7onofindividualgrammars,butperhapsittellsussomethingabouttheirfunc7oning– Language‐specificbiasesagainstandtowardscertainphone7cstructures– Voicedgeminateobstruentsmaybemarkedformostlanguages,butinthoselanguageswhichhavethem,
theyare‘natural’
• Haspelmathalsoarguesthatexplana,oninphonologyistobefounden,relyinexternalfactors.However,phone,cdeterminismcanonlytellusaboutthelimitsandprobabili,esofsoundsystems.
• Manyfactorsmaymi,gateagainststructuresappearinginagiven‘sound’system
– ‘Physical’limits• Ar,culatory/motor/mechanismsforplanningexecu,onofuPerance• Acous,candaerodynamic• Auditory/perceptual• Neurologicalcapaci,esanddemands• Mechanismsforaccessinglexiconinproduc,onandpercep,on
– Pre‐exis4ngsoundstructure
– Principlesofformandself‐organisa4on
Pre‐exis,ngstructure:missingpieceinjigsaw?
• Phonologicalstructurealsodependentona)thematerialyoufeedinandb)theinternalmechanismsofself‐organisa,on
• Inatrivialsense:ifyouhavestopsinthesystemandyouhaveaprocessofleni,on,youarelikelytogetfrica,ves,approximantsetc.
• Inanon‐trivialsense(I):pre‐exis,ngstructurecanmakecertainpathways/strategiesmorelikely
• Inanon‐trivialsense(II):pre‐exis,ngstructuremaypresentcrea,vepossibili,es(cf‘spandrels’)
Phone,cmo,fs(Payne,2006;underrevision)• Low‐levelsystema,cpaPernsinspeechbehaviour:e.g.
– lip‐roundingofESHinEnglish;– greatercoar,culatoryvowelnasalisa,oninAmericanEnglishcomparedwithBri,shEnglish;– velarisedresonancethroughoutvowelparadigminBrazilianPortuguese;– language‐specificvaria,onincoar,cula,onstrategies…(overlapin/kl/clustermuchgreaterinCatalanthan
inSwedish)– Ar,culatorysepng(Honkiman,1964)
• Linguis,candnon‐universal:Thoughshapedtosomedegreebyphysicsorfunc,onofspeech,cri,callydetachedfrom‘natural’determinis,cfactors
• Sourceofphonologicalinnova,on–mo,fscanbecomestructurallyanchoredinalanguage,facilitatedbypre‐exis,ngpaPernsandgeneralstructuralbiases
• Re‐incorpora,on(phonologisa,on)ofphone,csubstance
• Nutsandboltsofphone,csubstanceareuniversal‘facts’ofspeechproduc,onandpercep,on,butthesearefilteredandharnessedindifferentwayscross‐linguis,cally
• Permeabilitybetweenphysical,phone,cworldandmoreabstract,gramma,calisedstructures
Casestudy:longconsonantsinItalian
• Mul,plesources:
– Pre‐exis,ngstructure:La,ngeminates
– Clusterassimila,on(lexicalandpost‐lexical)
– prosodiclengthening(lexicalandpost‐lexical)
• Dura,onincreaseisonenassociatedwithgreaterprominence(therearegoodperceptualreasonsforthis)
• Crea,onofpost‐lexicaldoubling,triggeredbyfinalstress,incertainvarie,esofItalian,notsosurprising
• Payne(2005)foundcompa,blephone,ceffectsoflengtheninginpost‐tonicposi,on
– Prosodicallycondi,onedconsonantlengtheningexistsasaphone,cmo,finPisanItalian
– Linguis,cphone,c.Notamechanicalinevitability:Payne&Enychiou(2006)founddifferentsystema,clengtheningeffectsinCypriotGreek(pre‐toniclengthening)
– Structureharmony–primingeffects?
Otherphone,cstrategies‘harnessed’tocuegemina,on
Differencesinresonance(reflec,nggesturaldifferences)
Laryngeal,mingmo,fs?
Pre‐aspira,on(SieneseItalian):Stevens,2009
Post‐apira,on(CypriotGreekvoicelessstops):Armos,,2010
‘Phonologisa,onnarra,ves’• TuscanItalian
– Evidenceofpre‐aspira,on(Sienese,cfStevens2009)– Post‐toniclengthening(Pisan,phone,candphonological,Payne,2005)– VCcompensatorylengtheningmechanism– Gemina,ononlypossibleword‐internally(ambisyllabic)
• CypriotGreek– Post‐aspira,oninvoicelessgeminatestops(Armos,s,2010)– Pre‐toniclengthening(phone,c;Payne&Enychiou,2006– CVcompensatorylengtheningmechanism(Armos,s,2010)– Gemina,onalsopossibleword‐ini,ally– Claimthatgeminatesaretautosyllabicandmoraic(i.e.onset
moraicity)
Direc,onalstabilityindrivingdiachronicchange
• Hayes&Steriade(2004)arguethatthe‘innocentmisapprehensions’(i.e.Blevins’CCCaccount)cannotaccountforapparentdirec,onalstabilityinsoundchange.Insteadwouldleadtorandomdrin.Butthisunderes,matesconstraininginfluenceofpre‐exis,ngstructure
• Alterna,veapproach:not,ghtlydeterminis,c,butallowsforamoreconstrainedmodelthanEvolu,onaryPhonology
• Varia,oninsubstancemaybeexogenoustolanguage,butthemechanismsbywhichnewformsareharnessedintothesystemareendogenouslydetermined.System‐conforming,butinanon‐trivialandcrea,veway.
• Ideathatlanguagesnotonlyavoidcertainthings(toomuchphone,ccomplexity),theyalsomakeuseofthings,theyexploitstructuralpossibili,es,reinforcepaPerns(mo,fs)
• Phonologicalstructuresareemergent.Thisisn’tanewidea,cfKiparskyondiachronicconspiracies:
• “System‐conformingvariantshaveaselec,veadvantagewhichcausesthemtobepreferen,allyadopted.Inthisway,thelanguage’sinternalstructurecanchannelitsownevolu,on,givingrisetolong‐termtendenciesofsoundchange.”(Kiparsky)
• Butinaddi,on,thereiscross‐referencingoverdifferentlevelsofabstrac,onandsignificance
• Themechanismsbywhichtheydosoremaintobeexplored,butcouldfitintoamodified,enrichedexemplarframework– Primingeffects
Sepngwithinanexemplarframework
• Moredevelopedforspeechpercep,onthanspeechproduc,on
• However,poten,allyveryusefulalsoforproduc,on(seePierrehumbert,2001)
• Weigh,ngofexemplars,greaterac,va,on
• Thinkaboutwhycertainexemplarswouldbecomemoreac,vated?
• Moreinstances(familiarity)
• Butalsomoreproduc,vethroughoutthesystem?Wouldleadtocontrastbeingusedthroughoutconsonantsystem
• Thisstretchestheexemplarmodelbeyondasimplemappingofphone,cdistribu,on.Associa,onsatdifferentlevelsofabstrac,onmayconspiretopromotecertainproduc,ons
Structureharmony=conserva,ve?
• Halecri,cisesKiparsky’saccountofstructuralpreserva,onpreciselyonthesegrouns:– “Changessuchas“phonologisa7on”arenotdependentuponexis7ngrepresenta7ons(whichthechildcannot
directlyaccess),butratherrepresentsolu7onstothatchallengewhichdifferfromthoseoptedforbypreviousgenera7ons.”
• ButinthemodelIproposetherecanbeamismatchbetweenphone4cformandthefunc4onwithwhichitisassociated
– Forexample,thephone,cformofalongconsonantmightbeincreasinglypervasiveinalanguage,butaPachedtodifferentfunc,ons(phonemic,prosodic…)
– Psycholinguis,cally,wemighttestthisthroughprimingeffects–isthepercep,onoflongconsonantsfacilitatedinthoselanguagesthatalreadyhavethem?
– Conversely,a‘func,on’mightbecomeaPachedtodifferentphone,cforms.InSieneseItalian,Stevens(2009)alsoreportsamoregeneral,breathylaryngealsepng.Possibleinterpreta,onisthat‘gloPalabduc,on’,asageneralisedphone,cmo,f,isgainingground,butisbeingharnessed,structurally,tocuegeminatecontrast
– Theuseofapre‐exis,ng‘form’maybeconserva,ve,buttheassocia,onwith‘func,on’iscrea,ve/innova,ve
Wheredoesthisleavemarkedness?
• Language‐specificstructuralbiasesreflectedinbehavior(produc,onandpercep,on)
• Setwithinuniversal‘natural’limits(phone,c,func,onal,etc.–trueuniversalsthatdonotneedtobecogni,velyencoded)
• Ismarkednessthewrongwayoflookingatthings?anega,veexpression
• Biasescreatestructuralpossibili,es,whichmaybe‘exapted’(cfLass)fordifferentfunc,ons
• The‘value’ofpar,cular(preferred)phone,cformsinapar,cularlanguagegoesbeyondjustitssta,s,calfrequency
• Inanon‐teleologicalway,contributetomechanismofphonologisa,on
• Markednessisanarra,veofnaturalhistory(cfEvolu,onaryPhonology),butonethatcon,nuesto‘resonate’in(language‐specific)grammar
Aninves,ga,veresearchchallenge
• Evidenceoflanguage‐specificlow‐levelphone,c/prosodicbiasesisprolifera,ng,andfeedingtheorydevelopmentone.g.percep,on(cfHawkins)
• Achallengefortheframeworkoutlinedhereistoinves,gatethesebiasesinawaywhichintegratespercep,onandproduc,on.Trytomatchasymmetriesinproduc,onwithasymmetriesinpercep,on.Inotherwords,dophone,cmo,fshaveapsycholinguis,creality?
• White,Payne&MaPys(2009)foundthatSouthernandNorthernItaliandifferedaccordingtomarkingofprosodicboundaries,withverystrongprosodic,mingeffectsinSicilianItalian(maycontributetoperceptofrhythm)
• Nextstepistoseewhetherna,vespeakersofthesevarie,eshavedifferentperceptualcapabili,eswithregardtojudgingdura,onaldifferences
Conclusions
• Markednessisadescrip,onofbiasesinstructurethatarereflectedinbehaviour(produc,onandpercep,on)–butarenotsimplyreducibletobehavior
• Biasesmaybepervasiveatdifferentstructurallevels(leadingtophonologisa,on)
• Avoidsbothphonologicalandphone,cdeterminism.Thereisnounitarytheory
• Non‐universal,naturalhistoriesofsoundsystems.VignePes,piecedtogetherposthoc
• Doesnotmeanthatsoundsystemsarerandomorunconstrained
• Constrainedby:physicalfactors,butalsopre‐exis,ngstructure,andlawsofform
• Phonologyasbothinternal(mental)andexternal(permabletophone,csubstance).Compare:
– ForOp,malitytheorists,phonologyis‘big’andsubstance‐full,andintriniscallypartofformallinguis,cs(andUG)INTERNAL
– Others,(e.g.Carr,Burton‐Roberts)considerphonologytobe‘big’andsubstance‐fullbutnotformal,notpartofformallinguis,csEXTERNAL?
– Blevinsconsidersphonologytobeminimal,andsubstance‐free;soundpaPernsarephone,callyanddiachronicallydeterminedEXTERNAL
Thankyou!
ParallelswithEvolu,onaryBiology• Mapping:lackofisomorphismbetweenphone,csandphonology/betweengenotypeandphenotype
• Phonologicaldeterminism/gene,cdeterminism.Phone,csubstanceinphonology/sociobiologists
• Phone,cdeterminism/extreme‘environmentalism’.Evolu,onaryPhonology/neo‐Darwinianultra‐selec,onists
• Genera,ve‘entrenchment’• WimsaP(1986,1991)• percola,onofstructuralproper,es• noabsolutelyorpurelyinnateorabsolutelyorpurelyacquiredtraits• Analoguetoinnatenessisgenera,veentrenchment• Differen4a4onproceedsfromthegeneraltothepar4cular."• Thegreaterconserva7smoffeaturesatearlierdevelopmentalstagesimpliesthat,ontheaverage,featureswhich
areexpressedearlierindevelopmentare,probabilis7callyspeakingolderandmostlikelytobemorewidelytaxonomicallydistributedthanfeatureswhichareexpressedlaterindevelopment.
• RSdependsontheiralsobeingphonemicgeminates,butnotviceversa.Dele,onofgeminatecontrastwouldbemore‘catastrophic’thandele,onofRS
• Differentdegreesofentrenchment–butalsoof‘produc,vity’• Robustness:Permitshiddengene,cvaria,ontoaccumulate,andpossiblytoserveasasourceofnewadapta,ons
andevolu,onaryinnova,ons(Kitano,2004)• Co‐extension
acquisi,on• earlyinputthroughsensorychannelshasanambiguousstatus• Itsdepriva,ononenappearsnotjusttodeprivetheorganismofsome
informa,onwhichithastolearnlater,butofacapacityforacquiringexperiencethroughthatsensorychannel
• Lossofcapacityratherthanlossofinforma,on• Earlyexperiencemayberequiredforthedevelopmentofthiscapacity,but
assuch,itperformsafunc,onmorelikefoodthanlikeinforma4on• itisquiteclearthatinforma,onacquiredfromtheenvironmentcanhave
aprofoundeffectifitisdeeplygenera,velyentrenchedrela,vetosubsequentbehavior,andonthisanalysis,ifitissogenera,velyentrenched,itis"innate".Thisexplainstheambiguousroleofearlyexperiencediscussedinitem(6)ofsec,on2above.Iftheearlyexperiencewhichiswithheldinadepriva7onexperimenthasagenera7verolewithrespecttoawiderangeofsubsequentexperienceinthatsensorymodality,itslosswillproducesuchfar‐reachingconsequencesthatitwouldreadilybedescribedasalossofcapacity.
Minimalrequirementsof‘innateness’
• (1)Theacquisi,onofthatkindofinforma,onatthatstageofdevelopmentisdeeplygenera4velyentrenchedwithrespecttosubsequentbehavior.
• (2)Thedevelopmentalprogramisdesignedtoreceiveinforma,onofthatsortatthatstageofdevelopment.
• (3)Theinforma,onmustbeofarela,velyspecificsort.
• (4)Theenvironmentofthedevelopingorganismisareliablesourceoftherequired informa,onatthatstageofdevelopment.
levelsofinternalconstraints
• Mul,ple• Evolvedphenotypes‘carryinforma,onabout’theecologiesinwhichtheyevolved(DenneP),butalsocarryinforma,onabouttheinternalorganisa,onofthecreaturesthathavethem(e.g.genotypicandontogene,cstructures)
• Endogenouseffects• Internalconstraintsanddynamicsfilterwhatselec,oncanactuponandtowhatextentitcandoso
Cascadeeffects
• Selec,onofonetraitmayentailtheselec,onofseveraltraits
• Ini,al‘selec,on’obscured• Sideeffects/spandrels
mapping
• Samephenotypemaybetheresultofquitedifferentgenesorgenecomplexes(convergence)
• Differentphenotypesmaybetheresultofthesamegenesorgenecomplexes(differen,algeneregula,on)
• Inlanguage,samephonologycanbeexpressedwithdifferentphone,cmeans,anddifferentphonologycanleadtosamephone,cmeans
• Differentsourcesofgemina,on(prosodiclengthening;assimila,on)
• Differentmanifesta,onsofgemina,on(pre‐aspira,on;post‐aspira,on;dura,on;differentresonance)
Structural“conflict”
• Whatdoesitmeantosaythataphonologicalsystemhasinherentconflict,andthatsuchconflicttriggerschange?
• Orthatsoundchangehasaninherentdirec,on?• Atanyone,me,theusersofalanguageareblissfullyunawareoftheseconflictsandofanydirec,on.Theydonotdirecttheirproduc,onstowardsaspecificphonologicalgoal.
• Andeveniftherewereagoaltowardswhichsoundchangeweredirected,thatwouldmeanthat,oncearrivedatthatgoal,therewouldbenomorechange.Thereisnoevidencethatthiswilleverhappen.