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.