The phonological mind (original) (raw)

2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Humans weave phonological patterns instinctively. We form phonological patterns at birth, we spontaneously generate them de novo, and we impose phonological design on both our linguistic communication and cultural technologies-reading and writing. Why are humans compelled to generate phonological patterns? Why are phonological patterns intimately grounded in their sensorimotor channels (speech or gesture) while remaining partly amodal and fully productive? And why does phonology shape natural communication and cultural inventions alike? Here, I suggest these properties emanate from the architecture of the phonological mind, an algebraic system of core knowledge. I evaluate this hypothesis in light of linguistic evidence, behavioral studies, and comparative animal research that gauges the design of the phonological mind and its productivity. Some puzzles All languages construct words (meaningful symbols) from meaningless elements. English speakers contrast gods and dogs, they write blogs not lbogs, and they rhyme them with frogs. Such patterns are not merely reflexes of speech, because similar meaningless structures are found in sign languages [1]. And in both modalities, these patterns generalize to new forms [2,3]. The tacit knowledge of humans concerning the patterning of meaningless linguistic elements is called phonology (see Glossary). Why do humans weave phonological patterns? Viewed broadly, vocal patterns of meaningless elements are common in nature [4]. But while animal communication is typically attributed to specialized cognitive systems [5], human phonological patterns are viewed as products of domain-general sensorimotor pressures (e.g., blog is easier to perceive and articulate than lbog) and associative mechanisms of statistical learning [6,7]. Even those who endorse the specialization of the language faculty tend to rest their case on syntax [8,9]; phonological specialization is deemed unlikely [10]. But this conclusion is premature (Figure 1)-it fails to explain why distinct phonological systems (signed and spoken) converge on their design [11]; why this design relies on algebraic mechanisms [12,13] (rather than merely analog sensorimotor pressures); why phonology emerges early [14] and spontaneously [15,16]; and why it forms the basis for reading [17]. Here, I suggest that these properties emanate from the architecture of the phonological mind;the possibility that phonology is an algebraic system of core knowledge. I spell out these two hypotheses below and Opinion Glossary Algebraic optimization: the capacity to optimize functional pressures (e.g., phonetic restrictions) by relying on algebraic rules (e.g., algebraic phonological rules). Algebraic rules: mental operations that can extend regularities across the board, to any member of a class, actual or potential. These generalizations are supported by various representational capacities, including the capacity (i) to form equivalence classes; (ii) to operate on entire classes using variables; and (iii) to distinguish types (noun) from individual tokens (dog) [29]. Coarticulation: the overlap (partial or full) in the production of distinct sounds (e.g., consonants and vowels) during speech production. Core knowledge: knowledge of innate, universal principles that determine an individual's understanding of the world in early development and shapes the acquisition of mature knowledge systems later in development. Equivalence class: a class of elements whose members (actual or potential) are all treated alike with respect to a given generalization. For example, the CV syllable rule (a syllable is comprised of 'any consonant' followed by 'any vowel') treats 'all consonants' alike; it applies to either familiar English consonants (e.g., b) or novel ones that are nonnative to English (e.g., ch in Chanukah). Homology: a common trait that emerges in distinct species through descent from a common ancestor. Homoplasy: a common trait that independently emerged in distinct species (i.e., it is not a homology). Metrical phonology: humans' knowledge concerning the relative prominence of phonological units. Such knowledge, for example, allows humans to identify the prominence contrast between the two syllables in baby (where the initial syllable has greater prominence) and begin (with a prominent final syllable). Morphemes: linguistic units that convey the meaning or function of a word. For example, the word liked comprises two morphemes, the base like and the ending d, indicating a past tense. Phonetics: the system that implements algebraic phonological patterns as concrete, analog sensorimotor programs, either acoustic and oral (in spoken languages) or visual and gestural (in sign languages). Phonological patterns: a pattern of meaningless linguistic elements. Phonology: humans' knowledge concerning the patterning of meaningless linguistic elements in their language, either signed or spoken. Productivity: the capacity to extend linguistic regularities to novel instances. Onset: the consonant(s) that occur at the beginning of a syllable (e.g., bl in block). Ranking (of constraints): modern linguistic theory [38] asserts that all languages share the same universal set of grammatical constraints, but differ with respect to their relative weight (ranking). For example, the fact that syllables such as lba are allowed in Russian, but not English, is captured by the ranking of two constraints. One constraint bans sonority falls (for simplicity, No-lba), whereas another constraint favors faithfulness to such inputs (i.e., for simplicity, Faith-lba). English ranks the ban on lba above the faithfulness to the input and, consequently, such syllables are unattested; Russian exhibits the opposite ranking, so lba-type syllables are allowed in this language. This example illustrates how a theory of universal grammar can potentially capture both the similarity across languages and their variability. Sonority: an abstract phonological property of segments that correlates with their loudness. Louder segments (e.g., vowels) are generally more sonorous than softer ones (e.g., stop consonants, such as b,p). Note, however, that sonority is defined by the phonological structure of a segment (i.e., its feature composition), rather than by its loudness per se. Accordingly, vowels remain more sonorous than stops even if they are both presented in print. Stem: a word base, used in the formation of complex words. For example, dogs is a complex word, formed by adding the plural morpheme s to the stem dog. Syllable: a meaningless phonological unit that minimally includes a sonority peak (typically, a vowel, e.g., bee) and optionally, lower-sonority margins (typically, consonants, e.g., bar). Syntax: humans' knowledge regarding sentence structure.