vienna, 31.03.08katarzyna dziubalska-kołaczyk1 natural phonology and beats-&-binding...

Vienna, 31.03.08 Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 1

Natural Phonologyand Beats-&-Binding

Phonotactics

Katarzyna Dziubalska-KołaczykSchool of English

Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Outline of the talkOutline of the talk

1. Natural Phonology

2. Natural Linguistics

3. Beats-&-Binding Phonology

4. Phonotactics (and morphonotactics) in B&B Phonology


Natural Phonology: introNatural Phonology: intro

• as all theories, Natural Phonology has evolved and changed over the years since its inception in the 1960s and 1970s

• the type of explanation offered NP originated in a variety of phonetic and phonological studies of the 19th and 20th century (Sweet, Sievers, Winteler, Passy, Jespersen, Kruszewski, Baudouin, Grammont, Fouché, Sapir, Jakobson)

• NP was founded by David Stampe (1969, 1973) and expounded by Patricia Donegan and David Stampe (1979)


• basic thesis was that phonological systems are phonetically motivated

• NP was proposed as an alternative to both structural and generative approaches to phonology

• Natural Linguistics - starting with Dressler (1984) and followers

• Modern Natural Phonology (MNP) - functional and semiotic foundation

Natural Phonology: intro


phonological processes• natural responses of the human vocal and

perceptual systems to the difficulties encountered in the production and perception of speech; e.g.,

• it is more difficult to:• on aerodynamic grounds, produce a voiced stop than a

voiceless one• a voiced velar stop than an alveolar one (a bilabial one

is the easiest)• perceive the sequences [] and [] than the sequences

[] and [], due to the insufficient perceptual contrast, which in turn stems from articulatory similarity

• it is easier to perceive lower than higher vowels due to the greater perceptual salience of the former


• phonetically motivated• universal: a child learns to inhibit some of

those natural responses in order to arrive at a language-specific phonology

• tension between two conflicting criteria: ease of production vs. clarity of perception

• a conflict between paradigmatic (segmental) and syntagmatic (sequential) difficulty

phonological processes


• processes perform substitutions in order to adapt the speaker's phonological intentions to his/her phonetic capacities as well as enable the listener to decode the intentions from the flow of speech• context-sensitive, assimilatory substitutions: lenitions• context-free, dissimilatory ones: fortitions• prosodic processes map segmental material on

rhythmic patterns prior to the operation of articulatorily and perceptually driven substitutions

phonological processes


processes vs. rules

• morphonological rules do not have any synchronic phonetic motivation and have to be learned

• morphonological alternations always involve phonemes, e.g., /k/ and /s/ in electric ~ electricity, umlaut in German (processes operate on features)

• the order of application:

rules > prosodic processes > fortitions > lenitions


Processes Rules

synchronic phonetic motivation semantic, grammatical function

innate learned

apply unconsciously formed through observation

exceptionless tolerate exceptions

apply to slips, Pig Latins, foreign words

do not

obligatory or optional obligatory (conventional, style-independent)

processes vs. rules


the phoneme

• an underlying intention (cf. Baudouin and Sapir) shared by the speaker and the listener (who are always "two in one")

• the shared knowledge of intentions guarantees communication between the speaker and the listener within a language, even if the actually pronounced forms diverge from what is intended, e.g., in casual speech

• phonemes are fully specified, pronounceable percepts


the principle of naturalness

• ”The principle of naturalness allows one to establish a possible phonological representation: if a given utterance is naturally pronounceable as the result of a certain intention, then that intention is a natural perception of the utterance (i.e. a possible phonological representation).” (Donegan and Stampe 1979:163)


processes account for:• normal performance• child language• second language acquisition• aphasia and other types of disorders• casual speech, emphatic speech• slips, errors, language games• whispered and silent speech• sound change • implicational universals by substituting the implying

sound by the implied one (e.g. fricativestop)


• naturally pronunceable in Natural Phonology means derivable by means of phonological processes

• the task of Natural Phonology is a constant search for processes in the languages of the world

processes…


Natural LinguisticsNatural Linguistics• predictions and explanations are functionalist and

semiotic in nature• one can, to some extent, predict form on the basis of its

function, but• multifunctionality of forms across languages• e.g., vowel epenthesis in a cluster of consonants serves

both the speaker and the listener, since it facilitates production and clarifies perception

• production of a cluster may be also facilitated by assimilation, deletion or even metathesis

• the latter processes would not improve perception, though, since they would lower the recoverability of the original

functionalism


• semiotics - a metatheory for linguistics• allows to link linguistics with other

disciplines in which signs are also the subject of investigation, and in this way better capture and explain linguistic phenomena

• criteria of transparency, iconicity, diagramaticity, indexicality and biuniqueness

semiotics


• generalizing statements have the status of universal or language‑specific preferences and not absolute rules or laws

• a gradual differentiation of forms along a preference scale specified according to a complex set of relevant criteria

• preference implies a human agent, i.e. (some) control of language by the selves of the speakers, reflecting behavioural strategies preferred by them (cf. functional explanation)

• Natural Linguistics is, thus, a preference theory rather than a general descriptive theory

preferences


• external linguistic evidence is regarded as substantive

• performance data, such as e.g. casual speech, speech of young children or speech of second language learners, provides evidence for the structure of the speaker’s competence

• both internal linguistic evidence (grammaticality judgements, conscious and subconscious) and external evidence

external evidence


Universals I

Performance V Type II

Norm IV Competence III

Dressler’s quintiple


The explanatory model of Natural Linguistics

higher

principles(e.g., the principle of the least effort, of cognitive economy)

non-linguistic (cognitive, phonetic, psychological, sociological etc)

preferences

(e.g., a preference for simple phonotactics, for a CV structure)

linguistic

preference parameters

(pronunceability, perceptibility)

functional and semiotic

consequences

of preferences

(absence of clusters in a language)

linguistic


The explanatory model of Natural Linguistics: exposition

• linguistic principles have a non-linguistic basis• they lead to explanatory preferences, referring

linguistic phenomena holistically to "the nature of things" and "the knowledge of the world”

• within language, preferences of performance become preferences of structure

• conflicts among preferences are resolved for the benefit of the more natural solution

• conditioning factors influencing such resolutions are highly complex


• conflicts may be solved either with respect to universal preferences (i.e. the ones which all languages respect on some level of usage)

• or with respect to typological preferences (for the benefit of a given language type)

• or with respect to language-specific, local preferences (for the benefit of a given language system)

explanatory model


NP & NL in modern research

• it is no longer true to say that “natural phonology (...) lacks any a priori methodology or formalization” (Donegan and Stampe 1979: 168)

• e.g. Beats-and-Binding Phonology - B&B Phonology (Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2002)

• cross-framework discussion:• with Optimality Theory, cf. Donegan 2001 and other papers in

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.) 2001• with Government Phonology, cf. the same source as well as the

abstracts to the workshop on GP and NP, PLM 2003, especially Scheer 2003, and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Cyran, Gussmann, Dressler

• workshops/sessions (PLMs, ICPhS 2007, SLE 2008)


NP responds to:

• increasing scope of external evidence in: psycholinguistics, acquisition of first and second language, neurolinguistics, speech technology and, indeed, phonetics

• interdisciplinary, holistic demands of modern research

NP & NL in modern research


Beats-&-Binding Phonology

Beats-&-Binding Phonology (Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2002) – a syllable-less theorya syllable-less theory of phonology embedded in Natural Phonology


a beat• in B&B phonology, the unit called beatbeat is proposed• a beat is a unit rather than a measurement or

device & it needs some referent in phonetic reality• it is expected to be better accessible than the

mora, on the one hand, and the syllable, on the other

• its functioning in phonology in relationships with other units of structure called non-beats (these relationships are called bindings) is expected to account better for the structure than the functioning of mora or syllable


• a beatbeat is a regularly recurring skeletal prosodic unit of phonological representation, of a size corresponding to that of a segment

• the most basic organizational principle of a sequence is the alternation of beats (which are relatively more prominent) and non-beats (which are relatively less prominent)

• beats and non-beats have direct phonetic correlates both in production and in perception

a beat


universal preferences involving beats

• preferencespreferences which specify the patterning, strength and realization of beats in a sequence:– preference for a trochee – preference for the vocalic beat– preference for the alternation between beats

and non-beats


bindings

• beats (B) and non-beats (n) in a sequence are joined by means of bindingsbindings

• bindings in a sequence are binarybinary

• sound sequences are combinations of two basic binary bindings: nB and Bn (and, possibly, single beats)

• the principle of contrast: bindings are perceptually motivated


• nB is stronger than Bn• cf. the CV-preference• an acoustic phonetic basis for the preference

consists in the observation that acoustic modulations in a consonant-vowel transition can be much better perceived than in a vowel-consonant one

• also articulatory factors contribute to a better perception of CV's (more precise articulations in a CV transition)

bindings


• a subjective perceptual measure of contrast between a beat and a non-beat is constituted by sonority

• beats are uniformly more sonorous than non-beats• in objective terms, it is the degree of modulation [1] in

several acoustic parameters (amplitude, periodicity, spectral shape, F0) that decides whether an nB binding is actually realized as stronger than a Bn one

• actual auditory distances between segments become relevant for phonotacticsphonotactics

[1] as Ohala (1990) notices, larger modulations have more survival value than lesser ones and therefore will persist in languages

bindings


B&B phonotacticsB&B phonotactics

• a universal model of phonotactics within B&B Phonology

• intersegmental cohesion determines syllable structure, rather than being determined by it (if one insists on the notion of the ”syllable”)


the phonotactic preferences specify the universally required distances between segments within clusters which guarantee, if respected, preservation of clusters (cf. intersegmental cohesion)

clusters, in order to survive, must be sustained by some force counteracting the overwhelming tendency to reduce towards CV's (CV preference)

this force is a perceptual contrast defined as NADNAD PrinciplePrinciple (cf. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2002, 2003, Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2007, in press, Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Krynicki 2007, Bertinetto et al. 2007)

B&B phonotactics


NAD Principle the universal preferences specify the optimal

shape of a particular cluster in a given position by referring to the

Net Auditory Distance PrincipleNet Auditory Distance Principle (NAD PrincipleNAD Principle)NAD = |MOA| + |POA| + |Lx|

whereby MOA, POA and LX are the absolute values of differences in the Manner of Articulation, Place of Articulation and Voicing of the neighbouring sounds respectively

B&B phonotactics


Example:NAD (C1,C2) ≥ NAD (C2,V)

In word-initial double clusters, the net auditory distance (NAD) between the two consonants should be greater than or equal to the net auditory distance between a vowel and a consonant neighbouring on it.

NAD Principle


• The distances in terms of manner and place of articulation are calculated on the basis of the table below.

• The manners and places assumed in the table are selected according to their potential relevance:– 6 manners (stop, affricate, fricative, sonorant stop,

approximant, semivowel) where affricates and semivowels are attributed half a distance due to their dubious nature, and

– 5 places (labial, coronal, dorsal, radical and laryngeal or glottal).

• Manners refer to the most generally acknowledged version of the so called sonority scale, while places are taken from Ladefoged (2001: 258).


• Both lists are extendible and modifiable, depending on the amount of detail we want to include in the definition of distance.

• In fact, one would need to investigate from the auditory perspective as many acoustic/articulatory cues as possible which potentially contribute to the overall perceptual impression brought about by phonotactic sequences.

• This, however, is a wider research perspective reserved for the future investigation. In the present research and for the purposes of the present data, the assumption has been made as described above and in the table.


Table of consonants

5laryngeal(glottal)

4radical

3dorsal

2coronal

1labial

semiVaffricate

Vapproximantsonorant stopfricativestop

sonorantobstruent01234


Example:in CCV in E. try

t = (4, 2, 0), r = (1, 2, 1), V = (0, 0, 1)NAD (C1, C2) = |4-1| + |2-2| + |0-1| = 3+0+1=4NAD (C2, V) = |1-0| + |1-1| = 1+0=1

thus, the preference NAD (C1,C2) ≥ NAD (C2,V)

is observed because 4 > 1

NAD Principle


NAD NAD PrinciplePrinciple makes finer predictions than the ones based exclusively on sonority

e.g., it shows that among stop+liquid initial clusters, prV and krV > trV, brV, grV > drV, etc. (since their NAD’s are respectively: 5 > 4 > 3)


the universal NAD PrincipleNAD Principle leads to predictions about language-specific phonotactics, its acquisition and change

specifically, it also allows to predict and explain the order of difficulty in the acquisition of second language phonotactics which appears to be universally valid and as such calls for similar remedies across languages

NAD Principle


• e.g., if one compares the frequent English and Polish clusters, one can observe that among the English ones many more clusters are universally preferred (i.e. they observe the respective preference for initial doubles discussed above)

• a Polish learner of English is therefore expected to have fewer difficulties in the acquisition of those clusters than an English learner of Polish


English frequent initial doubles according to NAD PrincipleNAD Principle


Selected Polish clusters according to NADNAD Principle Principle

Cluster types in Polish acc. to NAD

5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

11 3 3 4 4

4 4 4

43 0 0

-1 -1 -2 -2 -2

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

pr fr lv mʂ rd fk mb ʂk sk

MOA+POA+Lx C2V NAD


phonotactic calculator

for the purposes of B&B phonotactics, Krynicki developed the phonotactic phonotactic calculatorcalculator

its purpose is to enable fine-tuning and developing the theory by statistical analysis of phonetic dictionaries and phonetically annotated corpora from various languages


phonotactic calculator - requirements

various cluster lengths at all word positions formulating phonotactic hypotheses feedback on predictability of a phonotactic hypothesis choice or customization of

available phone sets, features of each phone and scores for each feature

available phonetic dictionaries and languages (PolSynt, Festvox, Festival)

metrics used for calculating distances between phones (taxicab, euclidean)

accepted phonetic alphabets (IPA, SAMPA)


B&B phonotactics in the NL theory

• tthe higher, non-linguistic principleshe higher, non-linguistic principles involved here are:– the cognitive principle of least effort (it is less effortful

to produce a single consonant than a cluster; the effort is better managed when a produced cluster is well perceived)

– the semiotic principle of figure and ground (the contrast between a single consonant and a vowel is a better figure-against-ground structure than a cluster)

– the phonetic principle of alternation (louder/quieter sounds, jaw movements, cf. Maddieson 1999)


• the linguistic CV-preferencethe linguistic CV-preference is derivable directly from phonetics as well as from the other two principles

• a universal preference for a cluster is then defined with reference to the CV-preference (i.e. it necessarily needs to counteract it)



• tthe functional parameterhe functional parameter used to measure the phonotactic preferences is that of perceptibility, i.e. perceptual distance measured in MOA (manner of articulation), POA (place of articulation) and Lx (voicing)

• it is perceptibility rather than pronunceability since phonotactics is prelexical



• tthe linguistic consequencehe linguistic consequence of the universal phonotactics is:– a typological absence of clusters (70 percent

of languages do not have them)– a typological occurrence of preferred clusters– as well as universal and language-specific

processes reducing dispreferred clusters (in diachrony, acquisition, phonostylistics, speech pathology, etc)



morphonotactics

• semiotic metatheory of Natural Linguistics situates morphology as prior to phonology; thus, a morphological function may override a phonological one

• in the case of phonotactics, signaling a morphological boundary may override a phonologically driven phonotactic preference and, consequently, lead to the creation of a marked cluster


• therefore, one expects relatively marked clusters across morpheme boundaries and relatively unmarked ones within morphemes (cf. Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2006)

• language specific morphonotacticsmorphonotactics provides thus an additional parameter constraining the actual outcome of universal phonotactic preferences; this is an example of the holistic non-isolationist view on language represented by Natural Linguistics

morphonotactics


• morphonotacticsmorphonotactics is the area of interaction between morphotactics and phonotactics (cf. Dressler & Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2006) and represents a subfield of morphonology (cf. Dressler 1985, 1996)

morphonotactics


Conclusion

• explanations in Natural Linguistics stem from universal principles of human existence and interaction with nature, in which human language plays an essential part

• since both language and the setting are complex, explanations are necessarily holistic and take the form of preferences and not absolute laws


Bibliography on Natural Phonology: background and overview

• Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe. 1979. The study of Natural Phonology. In Dinnsen, D.A. (ed.). Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington: IUP. 126-173.

• Dressler, Wolfgang.U. 1985. Explaining Natural Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1. 29-50.

• Dressler, Wolfgang.U. 1996. Principles of naturalness in phonology and across components. In Hurch & Rhodes (eds.) Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 41-52.

• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Beats-and-Binding Phonology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Challenges for Natural Linguistics in the twenty first century: a personal view. In University of Hawai`i Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol 23 (2001-2002).15-39. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i at Mānoa. and in Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Weckwerth (eds.).

• Stampe, David. 1969. The acquisition of phonetic representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (1979).

• Stampe, David. 1979. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington: IULC.

vienna, 31.03.08katarzyna dziubalska-kołaczyk1 natural phonology and beats-&-binding...

Documents

phonology natural linguistics

katarzyna dziubalskakoaczyk6

bb phonology slide

binding phonology

intro slide

german processes

fortitions prosodic

phonological systems