Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:25:50.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonotactic knowledge and phonetically unnatural classes: the plain uvular in Cochabamba Quechua

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

Gillian Gallagher
Gillian Gallagher*
Affiliation:
New York University
*
E-mail: ggillian@nyu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While many phonological patterns target classes of sounds that can be defined phonetically, a large number of patterns in descriptive grammars involve sounds that cannot be easily characterised in phonetic terms. This finding suggests that phonological patterns themselves must be taken into account when learning phonological representations, and that phonological classes may emerge in learning from both phonetic factors (bottom-up) and phonological patterns (top-down). The current work presents a case of a phonetically unnatural class in South Bolivian Quechua that is active in the phonology of the language, and provides experimental support that this class is referred to by speakers’ grammars. While many cases of phonetically unnatural classes have been documented in descriptions of language patterns, in most cases there is little or no evidence that these patterns or classes are represented by speakers as they are described by linguists.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 37 - 60
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Ryan Bennett and Colin Wilson for discussion of this work, as well as audiences at Johns Hopkins University, New York University and the 2018 Réseau Français de Phonologie. I am also indebted to three anonymous reviewers and two associate editors at Phonology for their comments. This work would not have been possible without the consistent assistance of Gladys Camacho Rios, who facilitated all aspects of data collection in Bolivia. The materials and results for both experiments are available as online supplementary materials at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675719000034.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1981). Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. LI 12. 493–539.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter & Idsardi, William J. (2001). Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement. In Alan Hall, T. (ed.) Distinctive feature theory. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–70.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (1972). How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1–21.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M. & Walker, Steven C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Tang, Kevin & Sian, Juan Ajsivinac (2016). Against phonetic realism as the source of root co-occurrence restrictions. Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology, University of California, Los Angeles. Slides available (November 2018) at https://www.kevintang.org/projects/kaqchikel_phonotactics/Files/Slides/Bennett_Tang_AMP2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Bills, Garland D., Vallejo C., Bernardo & Troike, Rudolph C. (1969). An introduction to spoken Bolivian Quechua. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.21). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Calamaro, Shira & Jarosz, Gaja (2015). Learning general phonological rules from distributional information: a computational model. Cognitive Science 39. 647–666.Google Scholar
Chambers, Kyle E., Onishi, Kristine H. & Fisher, Cynthia (2003). Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience. Cognition 87. B69–B77.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (2003). Feature economy in sound systems. Phonology 20. 287–333.Google Scholar
Cristià, Alejandrina, McGuire, Grant L., Seidl, Amanda & Francis, Alexander L. (2011). Effects of the distribution of acoustic cues on infants’ perception of sibilants. JPh 39. 388–402.Google Scholar
Cristià, Alejandrina & Peperkamp, Sharon (2012). Generalizing without encoding specifics: infants infer phonotactic patterns on sound classes. In Biller, Alia K., Chung, Esther Y. & Kimball, Amelia E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 126–138.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197–234.Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian, Dunbar, Ewan & Idsardi, William (2013). A single-stage approach to learning phonological categories: insights from Inuktitut. Cognitive Science 37. 344–377.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2009). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H., Myers, Emily B., White, Katherine S., Griffiths, Thomas L. & Morgan, James L. (2013). Word-level information influences phonetic learning in adults and infants. Cognition 127. 427–438.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli (1952). On the definition of phoneme categories on a distributional basis. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 7. 8–39.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–276.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2005). Deriving natural classes in phonology. Lingua 115. 287–309.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Smith, Caroline L. (1993). Illustrations of the IPA: French. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 23. 73–76.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-place in Arabic. Lg 77. 91–106.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Albright, Adam, Graff, Peter & O'Donnell, Timothy J. (2017). A generative model of phonotactics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 5. 73–86.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2013). Speaker awareness of non-local laryngeal phonotactics in Cochabamba Quechua. NLLT 31. 1067–1099.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2014). An identity bias in phonotactics: evidence from Cochabamba Quechua. Laboratory Phonology 5. 337–378.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2015). Natural classes in cooccurrence constraints. Lingua 166. 80–98.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2016a). Asymmetries in the representation of categorical phonotactics. Lg 92. 557–590.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2016b). Vowel height allophony and dorsal place contrasts in Cochabamba Quechua. Phonetica 73. 101–119.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian & Whang, James (2014). An acoustic study of trans-vocalic ejective pairs in Cochabamba Quechua. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44. 133–154.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2004). Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: the case of syllable contact. Phonology 21. 201–250.Google Scholar
Gwilliams, L. & Marantz, A. (2015). Non-linear processing of a linear speech stream: the influence of morphological structure on the recognition of spoken Arabic words. Brain and Language 147. 1–13.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth N. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 101. 198–212.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. LI 44. 45–75.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Holliday, Nicole & Martin, Sean (2018). Vowel categories and allophonic lowering among Bolivian Quechua–Spanish bilinguals. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 48. 199–222.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2005). Filling the gap. Journal of English Linguistics 33. 207–221.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar, C., Fant, M. & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René & Pater, Joe (2012). Phonotactics as phonology: knowledge of a complex restriction in Dutch. Phonology 29. 81–111.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Pater & Johnson, Keith (2014). A course in phonetics. 7th edn. Stamford, Conn.: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Laime Ajacopa, Teofila, Cazazola, Efraín & Pairumani, Félix Layme (2007). Diccionario bilingüe: iskay simipi yuyayk'ancha (Quechua–Castellano Castellano–Quechua). 2nd edn. La Paz.Google Scholar
Lin, Ying & Mielke, Jeff (2008). Discovering place and manner features: what can be learned from acoustic and articulatory data? Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 241–254. Available (November 2018) at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol14/iss1/19/.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara (2013). Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30. 297–345.Google Scholar
McMurray, Bob, Aslin, Richard N. & Toscano, Joseph C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science 12. 369–378.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew, Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2013). Learning phonemes with a proto-lexicon. Cognitive Science 37. 103–124.Google Scholar
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82. B101–B111.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2005). Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22. 169–203.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pan, Ho-hsien (2004). Nasality in Taiwanese. Language and Speech 47. 267–296.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Le Calvez, Rozenn, Nadal, Jean-Pierre & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2006). The acquisition of allophonic rules: statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 101. B31–B41.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne, Nowak, Pawel, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. WCCFL 22. 423–435.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & King, Lisa (2007). Speech error elicitation and co-occurrence restrictions in two Ethiopian Semitic languages. Language and Speech 50. 451–504.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R. & Thiessen, Erik D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology 39. 484–494.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward (1925). Sound patterns in language. Lg 1. 37–51.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3. 25–145.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Vallabha, Gautam K., McClelland, James L., Pons, Ferran, Werker, Janet F. & Amano, Shigeaki (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 13273–13278.Google Scholar
Wang, Sheng-Fu (2018). Phonotactics and phonetic context in the perception of onset nasality in Taiwanese. In Gallagher, Gillian, Gouskova, Maria & Yin, Sora Heng (eds.) Supplemental proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4231.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2003). Experimental investigation of phonological naturalness. WCCFL 22. 533–546.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin & Gallagher, Gillian (2018). Accidental gaps and surface-based phonotactic learning: a case study of South Bolivian Quechua. LI 49. 610–623.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth (2018). In favor of [fortis]: evidence from Setswana and Sebirwa. In Gallagher, Gillian, Gouskova, Maria & Yin, Sora Heng (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4252.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. & Boyer, One Tlale (2017). Sebirwa in contact with Setswana: a natural experiment in learning an unnatural alternation. In Kandybowicz, Jason & Torrence, Harold (eds.) Africa's endangered languages: documentary and theoretical approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 343–366.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gallagher supplementary material

Gallagher supplementary material 1

Download Gallagher supplementary material(File)
File 355.7 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Gallagher supplementary material

Gallagher supplementary material 2

Download Gallagher supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 38.2 KB