Phonology, Naturalness and Universals (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hypotheses of Natural Phonology
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2009
Natural Phonology characterizes production and perception of speech in terms of a set of universal phonetically motivated phonological processes. Before their first words, infants identify some processes as inapplicable in their language, which narrows their perceptual universe to
Natural Phonology as a Functional Theory
Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2000
This paper presents Natural Phonology as a functional theory. Natural Phonology is shown to be functional in two senses: as focusing on explanation and thus increasing our understanding of how language works, and as having practical applications, especially to second language acquisition and speech therapy. The contribution argues that crucial as formalism is in computational linguistics and speech technology, Natural Phonology, with less rigid and less formalized claims, has important applications in the areas where language and not totally predictable human factors are involved. The paper discusses approaches to autonomy in language, explanation and hypothesis in Natural Phonology, and applications of Natural Phonology.
On the natural phonology of vowels
1979
Thus; whereas the .American .child everttually overcomes her substi-_tut.ion of Co.:! for C'PJ, the Nupe chiid confronts no foJ in his mother tongue, and the (Q.J-substitution manifests, itself wheen, in the inf'lex:.;. ibility of ~dulthood, be enc_ounters (:,J in :a foreign vord. ') If one could collect all the_sound-subst;ituticins of children, the dfacbr_onist Grammont (1965} _said, one would hf.I.Ye a. sort of grammar of all the possible sound-changes. The synchronist Baudouin de Courtenay {1895} would have added, also all the possible phonological alt_erna.-tic>ns. And, as the panchronist Jakobson argued in his monumental Child Lan@ase, Aphasia 1 and Phonological Universals (1968}, _also all the• • possible phoneme systems. Such systems are determined, a.s Greenberg (1966) concluded in his study of phonological universals, by the collective effect of phonological processes (particularly the 'unconditioned' processes vhich, since they affect a. sound)n all its oc,currences, thereby affect the inventory as well a.s the distribution of phonemes). But, pace Greenberg, such processes are not mere historical events: they are the living expression of the phonetic capacity of the individual. This dissertation presents my explorations in the world of vowels. Although I have occasion to mention aesimilatory processes, my focus is on those processes traditionall.y labeled 'unconditioned I or 1 sponta.-' neous 1-the ones pessimistically cWed unexplainable because they apply to segments regardless of their contexts (or worse, in dissimila:.;. tion, despite their contexts), and because, as is implied by their classification as 'strengthening' processes, they seem to defy the law of least effort. These are processes which, in the earliest speech of a child, ca.n scramble all his vowels into one, and yet can, in a language like Faroese, Juggle two dozen vowels with hardly a merger. A full account of the nature, operation, and causality of these processes is not in sight, Thorough and useful descriptions are unavailable for many languages: the brief phonemic sketches of vowel systems that appear in many surveys and in some monographs often fail to provide sufficient phonetic information on vowel quality; and conversely, some descriptions vhich do provide such phonetic information lack the phonological data that is crucial to the sort of analysis that the study of processes requires. For many little-know languages, historical studies, which provide much usef'ul data, are unavailable-and indeed impossible, given linguists' current knowledge of such languages. ' (Corresponding to this difference in the nature of processes and rules is a difference in the order of application in speech proce~sing: processes apply after the applications of secret-1anguage rules, and after unintentional slips of the tongue (Stampe 1973a:45; Donegan and Stampe 1978a, Sec. 2. 5). • (1,7) For example, the process that palatalizes [kJ to [cJ before a palatal vowel applies after the secret-language 9 Another way :irt ~hich children: •sometimes limit the surface effects of a process is by constrairting its natural iterative application (Stampe 1973,: 59-68). The fUnction of each process is to Efubstitute •. a'iess difficult class of sounds or sound-sequences for a ~ore difficult cla.ss~ But once a process has applied~ sveeping away~. as it vere, a.• certain class 'or difficulties, another process may (subsequently or simultaneously), in removing some entirely different difficulty, create new me~ rs of the very class the fir~t process got rid of. /' (1.14) For example, for a child who substitutes zero for CJJ, this CJJ-deletion eliminates a difficult segment. But suppose another process-delateralization, as in (1,10)-simultaneously substitutes CJJ !or CIJ. Unless the first process is alloved to apply again, the child vill have to produce CJJ's-for ti l's. If each process is to accomplish its function on the surface forms (the forms that are actually pronounced), then the (JJ-to-¢ process should apply again, after the CIJ-to-[JJ process, and again after any other process that creates [JJ's. Such absence of ordering restrictions-unconstrained iteration-is the natural state of process application. But there is a catch to this free-handed elimination of difficulties: the processes thus applied merge, in actual pronunciation, the distinction between between /1/ and /j/ in the child's underlying representations (corresponding to adult tlJ and CjJ); both become zero, so that e.g. less and yes would both be pronounced [€SJ. One way for the child to maintain a distinction without having to suppress either process is to restrict the iteration of [JJ-to-¢,.so that it may not apply again after [IJ-to-(JJ. Thus the child says [€SJ for~ but [JESJ for less-not the underlying or adult distinction, to be sure, but a distinction nevertheless. This seems to be the situation which holds vith children who initially substitute zero for both (jJ and ti] but who later produce zero for [JJ and (JJ for.ti] (cf, Jakobson 1968:15, and Donegan and Stampe 1978a, Sec. 3.3), Such apparently paradoxical sets of substitutions, described by Jakobson as 'sound shifts', may persist into adulthood. Thus, such constraints may account for some of the peculiar situations in language in which a speaker cannot pronounce a segm~nt or sequence when he tries to produce it, but produces that very segment or sequence when he is trying to pronounce something else. (1.15) For exe.mple, many speakers of English find it difficult or impos'sible to produce the seq'l,lence ta.9J in phrases like How now, brown cow? or in bo!rowed or foreign words like He.usfrau or Laut (cf, (1.6)). Instead they substitute Cais!J quite automatically. But many or the same speakers in whom the ta.2J-to-(6!12J process is active also make a substitution which produces the phonetic sequence Ca2J: de.rk, syllable-final C:lJ optionally becomes tyJ"'[S?J so that doll, Sol, etc. a.re pronounced (dC1.2J, Isa.2J, etc.
Distinctive features and natural classes in phonological theory
Journal of Linguistics, 1972
1. I want in this paper to draw attention again to the theoretical basis of the use of distinctive features in generative phonology, and with that in mind, to consider what improvements can be made. One function of distinctive features is to provide a formal means of expressing the notion of a NATURAL CLASS (cf. Harms, 1968: 26), such that a phonological rule which applies to a natural class of segments may be expressed in a simpler way than a rule applying to some other class of segments. Distinctive features, and notational devices and conventions, are intended to capture this notion of simplicity so that by examining a formalized rule one may discover, counting the symbols in it according to a set of values provided, at least whether the rule is simpler than a comparable rule, if not its simplicity in any absolute sense. It is also intended that the set of features should be a substantive universal of language, though, as Harms' examples (1968: 23–38), drawn from various peop...
Natural Phonology as Part of Natural Linguistics
Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 2009
In the history of phonology, no model of phonology (e.g. Trubetzkoy's model or Optimality Theory) has stayed for any considerable time alone on its own, i.e. without parallel models of syntax and morphology. Thus, Stampean Natural Phonology has been complemented in Europe by Natural Morphology, Natural Syntax and Natural Text Linguistics. In this way, Natural Phonology can be integrated into an overall model of Natural Linguistics. This model has been further unified by giving it the status of a preference theory and by providing functionalist epistemology and a semiotic metatheory for all of its parts, including Natural Phonology. This unity of Natural Linguistics is demonstrated with the universal preference parameters of figure vs. ground sharpening, binarity, iconicity, indexicality and the naturalness scale biuniqueness > uniqueness > ambiguity. The final argumentation focuses on the "weak claim" of universality of preferences (against the "strong claim" of innate phonological processes) by understanding universal preferences (including phonological processes) as plausible constructivist "software" strategies which are constructed in language acquisition for overcoming universal innate "hardware" problems.
This article is an analysis of the claim that a universal ban on certain (‘anti-markedness’) gram- mars is necessary in order to explain their nonoccurrence in the languages of the world. Such a claim is based on the following assumptions: that phonological typology shows a highly asym- metric distribution, and that such a distribution cannot possibly arise ‘naturally’—that is, without a universal grammar-based restriction of the learner’s hypothesis space. Attempting to test this claim reveals a number of open issues in linguistic theory. In the first place, there exist critical as- pects of synchronic theory that are not specified explicitly enough to implement computationally. Second, there remain many aspects of linguistic competence, language acquisition, sound change, and even typology that are still unknown. It is not currently possible, therefore, to reach a definitive conclusion about the necessity, or lack thereof, of an innate substantive grammar module. This article thus serves two main functions: acting both as a pointer to the areas of phonological theory that require further development, especially at the overlap between traditionally separate subdomains, and as a template for the type of argumentation required to defend or attack claims about phonological universals.