Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:08:03.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Andrew Wedel
Andrew Wedel*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0028. E-mail: wedel@email.arizona.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Variationist/evolutionary models of phonology assume a causal chain that links biases at the utterance level to the development and consolidation of abstract phonological patterns over time. Some of the properties of linguistic cognition that have been proposed to underlie this chain are (i) storage of experienced detail at multiple levels of description, (ii) feedback between perception and production, (iii) a similarity bias in the production and perception of variation, and (iv) enhancement of cues to potentially ambiguous lexical items in usage. I review evidence for these properties and argue that they interact to provide a pathway for individual usage events to influence the evolution of contrastive sublexcal category systems, i.e phoneme inventories. Specifically, the proposed Network-Feedback model predicts that the organization of sublexical category systems is shaped by a conflict between a general drive toward greater similarity among sublexical categories on the one hand, and a bias toward maintaining contrast between tokens of competing lexical categories on the other. The model provides testable hypotheses about the conditions favoring phoneme merger, chain-shifts, and phonemic splits, and more generally about the influence of lexical contrast on the packing of sublexical categories along gestural/perceptual dimensions. Finally, this pathway of change is consistent with proposals that sublexical categories such as features and segments are not primitives of language, but emerge through more general properties of performance, perception, categorization and learning.

Keywords

functional loadcontrastphonemeinventorysimulationphonologylanguage changeduality of patterningself-organization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Special Issue 4: New perspectives on duality of patterning , December 2012 , pp. 319 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aylett, M. & Turk, A.. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47. 31–56.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2007. Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. In Jarema, G. & Libben, G. (eds.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives, 81–104. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Baese, M. & Goldrick, M.. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and cognitive processes 24. 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J. 2004. Establishing a conventional communication system: Is common knowledge necessary? Cognitive Science 28. 937–62.Google Scholar
Baudoin de Courtenay, J. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen: ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik. Strassburg, Germany/Crakow, Poland: Trübner. [English translation (‘An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations’). Published in E. Stankiewicz (ed.) 1972, A Baudouin de Courtenay anthology: The beginnings of structural linguistics, 144-212. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T.. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning 59. 4S1.Google Scholar
Beddor, P. S. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85(4). 785–821.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2009. Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. In Adelaar, A. & Pawley, A. (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Bob Blust, 33–49. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. & Wedel, A.. 2009. Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26. 143–183.Google Scholar
Brighton, H., Kirby, S. & Smith, K.. 2005. Cultural selection for learnability: Three principles underlying the view that language adapts to be learnable. In Tallerman, M. (ed.), Language origins: Perspectives on evolution, 291–309. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2002a. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2002b. Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J. L.. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22. 381–410.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N.. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5). 489–509.Google Scholar
Cornish, H., Tamariz, M. & Kirby, S.. 2009. Complex adaptive systems and the origins of adaptive structure: What experiments can tell us. Language Learning 59(s1). 187–205.Google Scholar
Currie-Hall, K. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. The Ohio State University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. 2001. The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. 2006. Computer modelling as a tool for understanding language evolution. In Gontier, N., Bendegem, J. P. Van & Aerts, D. (eds.), Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture, 381–406. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93. 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, J. L. 1995. Language as a dynamical system. In Port, R. & van Gelder, T. (eds.), Mind as motion: Dynamical perspectives on behavior and cognition, 195–223. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In Oostendorp, M. Van, Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2115–2136. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, M. 2007. Shifting categories: An exemplar-based computational model of chain shiftsProceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 239–244. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Chicago: Northwestern University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6. 110–125.Google Scholar
Gessner, S. & Hansson, G.. 2004. Anti-homophony effects in Dakelh (Carrier) valence morphology. In Ettlinger, M., Fleischer, N. & Park-Doob, M. (eds.), BLS 30: Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society, 93–104. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J. 1918. Généalogie des mots qui désignent l'abeille d'après l'atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: E. Champion.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. 2000. The role of perceptual episodes in lexical processing. In Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M. & Zondervan, R. (eds.), Proceedings of SWAP (Spoken Word Access Processes), 155–158. Nijmegen: Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. J. 2002. Investigating chain shifts and mergers. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 244–266. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L. & Kalish, M. L.. 2007. Language evolution by iterated learning with Bayesian agents. Cognitive Science 31. 441–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guenther, F. H. & Gjaja, M. N.. 1996. The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100. 1111–1121.Google Scholar
Hare, M. & Elman, J. L.. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56. 61–98.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Palethorpe, S. & Watson, C. I.. 2000. Does the Queen speak the Queen's English? Nature 408. 927–928.Google Scholar
Hay, J. & Maclagan, M.. 2012. /r/-sandhi in early 20th Century New Zealand English. Linguistics 50. 745–763.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. 1986. “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93. 411–428.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 89–96.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. 1967. The quantification of functional load. Word 23. 320–339.Google Scholar
Hombert, J.-M., Ohala, J. J. & Ewan, W. G.. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55. 37–58.Google Scholar
Hume, E. & Johnson, K.. 2001. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In Hume, & Johnson, (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 3–26. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Joanisse, M. F. & Seidenberg, M. S.. 1997. [i e a u] and sometimes [o]: Perceptual and computational constraints on vowel inventories. In Shafto, M. & Langley, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 331–336. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–166. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ju, M. & Luce, P. A.. 2006. Representational specificity of within-category phonetic variation in the long-term mental lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32. 120–138.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. 2011. How much homophony is normal? Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 631–671.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
King, R. 1967. Functional load and sound change. Language 43. 831–852.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 1999. Function, selection and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A.. 2005a. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13. 262–268.Google Scholar
Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A.. 2005b. Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology 51(2). 141–178.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50. 93–107.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, Volume 1, Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, Volume 2, External Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Ash, S. & Boberg, C.. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Baranowski, M.. 2006. 50 milliseconds. Language Variation and Change 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In Hardcastle, W. & Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., MacNeilage, P. & Studdert-Kennedy, M.. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of language universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B. & Dahl, Ö. (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 181–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. & Pisoni, D. B.. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maclagan, M. & Hay, J.. 2007. Getting fed up with our feet: Contrast maintenance and the New Zealand English ‘short’ front vowel shift. Language Variation and Change 19(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8(1). 1–32.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. 1960. Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
McMillan, C. T. & Corley, M.. 2010. Cascading influences on the production of speech: Evidence from articulation. Cognition 117. 243–260.Google Scholar
McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. & Aslin, R.. 2002. Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition 86. B33–B42.Google Scholar
Mielke, J. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munson, B. 2007. Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. In Cole, J. S. & Hualde, J. I. (eds.), Laboratory phonology IX, 201–228. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Munson, B. & Solomon, N. P.. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47. 1048–1058.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K. 2007. The interaction between spontaneous imitation and linguistic knowledge. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 105. 125–137.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A.. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 47. 204–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. 1988. Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition 14. 54–65.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes. [Series: Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs No. 43], 173–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-I. 2002. Phonemic coding might be a result of sensory-motor coupling dynamics. In Hallam, B., Floreano, D., Hallam, J., Hayes, G. & Meyer, J.-A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on the simulation of adaptive behavior, 406–416. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pardo, J. S. 2006. On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119. 2382–2393.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Bastingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 2003. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46. 115–154.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 2006. The new toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34. 516–530.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. & Levi, S. V.. 2007. Some observations on representations and representational specificity in speech perception and spoken word recognition. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Purnell, T., Salmons, J. & Tepeli, D.. 2005. German substrate effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for final fortition. American Speech 80. 135–164.Google Scholar
Raphael, L. 1971. Preceding vowel duration as a cue to the voicing characteristic of word-final consonants in American English. Journal of the American Acoustical Society 51. 1296–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, B. H. 1982. Phonetic trading relations and context effects: New experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin 92. 81–110.Google Scholar
Sanchez, K. 2011. Do you hear what i see? The voice and face of a talker similarly influence the speech of multiple listeners. University of California at Riverside Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Sancier, M. L. & Fowler, C. A.. 1997. Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Phonetics 25. 421–436.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C.. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 503–543.Google Scholar
Scarborough, R. A. 2004. Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. University of California Los Angeles Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Scarborough, R. A. 2010. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 10. 557–586.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27. 379–423, 623–656.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Klatt, D. H.. 1979. The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, D. 2010. Neutralization and anti-homophony in Korean. Journal of Linguistics 46(2). 453–482.Google Scholar
Smith, K., Kirby, S. & Brighton, H.. 2003. Iterative learning: A framework for the emergence of language. Artificial Life 9. 371–386.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Goldstein, L.. 2003. Launching language: The gestural origin of discrete infinity. In Christiansen, M. H. & Kirby, S. (eds.), Language evolution: The state of the art, 235–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Surendran, D. & Niyogi, P.. 2006. Quantifying the functional load of phonemic oppositions, distinctive features, and suprasegmentals. In Thomsen, O. Nedergaard (ed.), Competing models of language change: Evolution and beyond, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
van Son, R. J. J. H. & Pols, L. C. W.. 2003. How efficient is speech? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Verhoef, T. & de Boer, B.. 2011. Cultural emergence of feature economy in an artificial whistled language. In Zee, E. & Lee, W. (eds.), The 17th international congress of phonetic sciences: Hong Kong, China, Augustus 17–21, 2011: Congress proceedings, 2066–2069. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Walker, A. & Hay, J.. 2011. Congruence between ‘word age’ and ‘voice age’ facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology 2(1). 219–237.Google Scholar
Walsh, M., Möbius, B., Wade, T. & Schütze, H.. 2010. Multilevel exemplar theory. Cognitive Science 34. 537–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, W. S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45. 9–25.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2004a. Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology. University of California Santa Cruz doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2004b. Category competition drives contrast maintenance within an exemplar-based production/perception loop. In Goldsmith, J. & Wicentowski, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology, 1–10. Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23. 247–274.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2007. Feedback and regularity in the lexicon. Phonology 24. 147–185.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2009. Variation, multi-level selection and conflicts between phonological and morphological regularities. In Blevins, J. & Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 83–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. 2011. Self-organization phonology. In Oostendorp, M. Van, Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 130–147. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wedel, A., Jackson, S. & Kaplan, A.. In press. Functional load and the lexicon: Evidence that syntactic category and frequency relationships in minimal lemma pairs predict the loss of phoneme contrasts. Language and Speech.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. 1981. Effects of vocalic formant transitions and vowel quality on the English [s]-[∫] boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69. 275–282.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H., Abramson, A. S., Lisker, L. & Mody, M.. 1993. F0 gives voicing information even with unambiguous voice onset times. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47. 36–49.Google Scholar
Wright, R. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In Local, J. J., Ogden, R. & Temple, R. (eds.), Laboratory phonology, Volume 6, 26–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, R. & Frisch, S.. 2002. The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30. 139–162.Google Scholar
Yao, Y. 2009. Effect of phonological neighborhood density on word duration in spontaneous speech. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar