Professional Documents
Culture Documents
t d
t
h
d
k g
k
h
g
?
Kashmiri (Kelkar & Trishal 1964, Bhat 1987):
Bilabial
Dental
Alveolar
Retrofle
x
Palatal
Velar
Glottal
Plosives
p b
p
h
t d
t
q
k g
k
h
Toda (Emeneau 1984)
Bilabial
Dental
Alveolar
Retrofle
x
Palatal
Velar
Glottal
Plosives
p b t d
t d
q
c
k g
17
The blank slots in the charts show that the relevant consonants do not occur in the
language. The consonants on the left in a slot are voiceless and on the right are voiced.
Note that none of the inventories is identical with another. A crucial question regarding
the inventories is: How are they brought about? What are the factors that give rise to
them? At least two contending explanations have been proposed in the literature, namely,
the principle of Maximal Dispersion or Sufficient Contrast (e.g. Lindblom 1986, 1992,
Lindblom, MacNeilage and Studdart-Kennedy 1983), and the principle of Feature
Economy (Clements 2001, 2003, Weijer and Hinskens 2003). Both employ functional
concepts and both have formalized them.
According to Lindblom and his colleagues a combination of constraints on production
and perception of speech sounds, called Sufficient Contrast, helps shape inventories of
speech sounds in languages. We find the principle at work for the phonological systems
in general, especially vowels. The vowel systems that are commonly found among world
languages are optimally dispersed (Lilyencrants and Lindblom 1972). A typical eight
vowel pattern is as in (11), attested to be found commonly among world languages
(Maddieson 1984):
(11)
u
e o
c o
a
The inventory in (11) shows that the vowels are distributed symmetrically in terms of
height and front-back parameters. Alternative symmetrical patterns are possible, such as
the following:
18
(12)
I u
e e o
a
There exists a fairly large body of literature in phonetics by now which accounts for such
symmetrical patterns (see Boersma 1998, and De Boer 2001 for detailed discussions).
While the theory of maximal dispersion accounts for vowel systems in general, it must
leave as exceptions cases of asymmetrical patterns, such as the following found in Indian
languages: e u o a (7 vowels in Gallong, see Dasgupta 1963), e u m o o b
( 7 vowels in Nicobarese, see Radhakrishnan 1981). When it comes to consonants the
theory of Maximal dispersion meets with less success. There are many cases of consonant
patterns that seem to clutter up a given articulatory-perceptual area.
The crucial question at hand is: Do we have a theory to account for the organization of
both symmetrical and asymmetrical patterns? Such a theory will be superior to the one
that makes predictions only about symmetrical patterns.
Clements in a number of recent studies (e.g. 2001, 2003) proposes such a theory, drawing
from earlier work (e.g. Martinet 1955), and in consonance with a lot of contemporary
work on representational economy. Clements argues for a general principle of
representational economy according to which representational elements are specified in
a given language only to the extent that they are needed in order to express
generalizations about the phonological system (Clements 2001).
The theory of representational economy differs from earlier versions of feature theory,
namely, full specification (Chomsky and Halle 1968), and underspecification theories. It
assumes that only active features are specified. The conditions for feature activation vary
19
at different levels: lexical, phonological and phonetic. In short, features should be
lexically distinctive, phonologically involved in alternations, and phonetically
pronounceable. Given their frequency of activation, features can be ranked on a Feature
Accessibility Scale (e.g. Calabrese 1994). Thus the feature [sonorant ] is found to be the
highest on the scale, because it is found to contrast segments at the lexical level, whereas
[constricted glottis], which characterizes glottal stops, is a feature that is lower on the
scale, since fewer languages need to activate it.
Given the theories of Feature Activation and Representational Economy, Clements
proposes the principle of Feature Economy (Clements 2003) that says, if a feature is
used once in a system, it will tend to be used again. Feature economy applies to
features that are commonly distinctive in the class of sounds under comparison, but not to
features that tend to be redundant in that class (Clements 2003). Feature Economy
predicts the presence of regular patterns in phonological inventories, such as the ones for
plosives in the languages presented in (10). The features used for the bilabial plosives /p
p b/ in Angami are [-sonorant, -continuant, +spread glottis (aspiration)], among others.
Feature Economy predicts that these features may be used again. Thus the plosive series
emerges. It is usually found that segments are patterned in phonological inventories. The
principle has also been found to further make predictions about segments that result from
modification types such as labialization, palatalization, breathy voice, etc. (van de Weijer
2003, van de Weijer and Hinskens 2004). Termed as Feature Economy of Segmental
Modification (I), the principle says, If a feature occurs as segmental modification, then it
will also occur as a primary consonantal feature. Thus languages having aspirated
plosives, /p t / etc. also have the segment /h/. The feature common for aspiration and
/h/ is [+ spread glottis]. Since [+spread glottis] has been used once in the system, as a
primary feature for /h/, it gets used again in modified segment type, namely, aspirated
plosives. I expect that some version of feature economy can also explain allophonic
inventories in languages.
3. Discussion and pedagogic implications
The discussion of the issues relating to phonological segments in the above section
underscores the view of phonological knowledge that integrates form and function. We
20
have seen that the notion distinctive features is of functionalist origin, and its theoretical
development was guided by formal concerns. Questions of the minimal number of the
distinctive features, their organization, and the nature of their specification have been
taken up for rigorous examination, in relation to other formal aspects of phonological
knowledge. Thus the geometrical representation of the features was seen as possible in
the light of the independent theory of Autosegmental Phonology. In regard to the
question of universal principles for the patterning of phonological segments, we found
that the explanations offered are functionalist in orientation, showing their motivation in
language use. Both the theories of Maximal Dispersion and Feature Economy suggest
that the computational system (in this case the set of distinctive features) is constrained
by considerations of Use, such as discriminability and pronounceability (for Maximal
Dispersion) and parsimony (for Feature Economy).
It should be quite clear that as a theory of phonology that seeks to account for the internal
structure of phonological segments and their inventories in different languages cannot
strictly separate formal from functional considerations, the knowledge of phonology (and
of language) must also be seen as an integrated whole. The investigation of linguistic
knowledge must thus be pursued by a unified research programme rather than one that is
only formal or functional in nature.
A little thought should make it clear as to why this should be so. The computational
system has to work within certain constraints. In the case of spoken language, the
constraints have to do with the auditory structure of the brain, the articulatory means
available, the dimension of time, memory space for information processing at one time,
etc. The computational system obviously has to work within the given constraints. Its
nature and its operation are integrated.
The general implication for pedagogy that follows from this discussion is that both
computational and adaptive considerations must go into a childs education. Pedagogic
methods cannot be different from the nature of knowledge. The linguistic curriculum
must have enough scope for the use of the specific linguistic structures aimed to be
acquired. If use and function are the ground then form is the structure that stands on it.
With respect to human knowledge, we should add further, the ground not only provides
the basis for the structure to stand on, but also contributes to determining its form. Form
21
and function are integrated. Unless the integrated nature of knowledge is perceived this
way, curriculum planning is likely to remain distant from the reality of knowledge. At
least thats the lesson we want to draw from a consideration of the nature of phonological
knowledge.
FOOTNOTES
1. To some extent, this is the strain in Darnell et al. (eds.) (1998) and Newmeyer (1998),
cited in the above footnote. Kelkar (1997) is a noteworthy attempt at unifying the two
approaches in an analysis of Marathi.
2. Economy Principle: A principle of grammar (discussed at length in Chomsky 1995)
which requires that syntactic representations contain as few constituents and syntactic
derivations involve as few grammatical operations as possible.
3. Greed: A principle of grammar (proposed as one of the self-serving principles in
Chomsky 1995) which specifies that constituents undergo movement in order to satisfy
their own morphological requirements.
4. Throughout this paper slanted lines are used to enclose phonemic transcription, square
brackets [] to enclose phonetic transcription. The latter is closer to actual pronunciation.
Thus the word talk will be transcribed phonemically as /to:k} and phonetically as
[t'o:k|. The first consonant is transcribed with closer detail in the square brackets. The
vowel is the same in both, namely , o: for the orthographic a. And the written symbol
l has nothing equivalent in either since it is not pronounced.
22
REFERENCES
Abbney, S. P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects. Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press.
Amritavalli, R. 1993. The pragmatic accessibility of formal systems: A functional view
of the development of formal abilities. In S. K. Verma and Prakasam (eds), New
Horizons in Functional Linguistics. Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation. Pp. 313-
324.
Archangeli, Diana. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and
Morphology. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT.
Archangeli, Diana. (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5.2: 183-
207.
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporatin: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E.
Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. N.Y.:
CUP.
Boersma, P. (1998). Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interactions between
Articulatory and Perceptual Drives. [LOT Dissertations, 11]. The Hague: Holland
Academic Graphics.
Brentari, Diane (1998). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Bromberger, S. and Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry
20(1): 51-70.
Burton-Roberts, N. (2000) Where and what is phonology? A representational perspective.
In: Burton-Roberts et al. (eds), pp. 39-66.
Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P. and Docherty, G. (eds) (2000). Phonological Knowledge:
Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan. (1994). A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perpective.
Cognitive Linguistics 5: 85-305.
Bybee, Joan. (2001). Phonology and Languge Use. Cambridge: University Press.
Carnie, A. and Mendoza-Denton, N. (2003). Functionalism is/nt formalism: an
interactive review of Darnell et. Al. (1999). Journal of Linguistics 39, 373-389.
Chomsky, N and Halle, M. (1968). Sound Pattern of English. NY: Harper and Row.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Problems and mysteries in the study of human of Language. In
Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization.
Chomsky, N. (1971). Problems of Knowledge and Freedom. New York: Random House.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. N.Y.: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1990). On formalization and formal linguistics. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 8: 143-147.)
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). New Horizons in the Study of Language.
23
Clements, G. N. (2003). Feature economy as an representational principle of sound
systems. Paper presented at the First Old World Conference in Phonology, Leiden
January 2003. Ms, University of Paris 3, CNRS.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Coulter, G. (ed.) (1993). Current Issues in ASL Phonology. New York: Academic Press.
Dane, F. (1964). A three-level approach to syntax. Travaux Linguistique de Prague I:
225-240.
Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F. J., Noonan, M. & Wheatley, K. (eds). (1998).
Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Dasgupta, K. (1963). An Introduction to the Gallong Language. Shillong: North-East
Frontier Agency.
Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London, N. Y.: Academic Press.
Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris.
Dummet, M. (1993). Language and communication. In A. George (ed.), Reflections on
Chomsky. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication.
Cambridge: University Press.
Foley, W. A. and van Valin, R.D. (1985). Functional syntax and universal grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gellner, E. (1998).
Givon, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function Based Introduction: Vol. I.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Greenberg, J. (ed.) (1966). Universals of Language. Mass., Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hale, M. and Reiss, C. (2000). Phonology as Cognition. In Burton-Roberts et al. (eds) Pp.
161-184.
Hall, T. A. (2001). Introduction: Phonological representations and phonetic
implementation of distinctive features. In T. A. Hall (ed.), Distinctive Feature
Theory. Berlin, N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 1-40.
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Language.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J, (ed.)
New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 140-165.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edwin
Arnold. [1
st
edn, 2
nd
edn 1994].
Haspelmath, M. (2000). Why cant we talk to each other? Lingua 110, 235-255. [A
review article on Newmeyer 1998].
Hayes, B. (1999). Phonetically-driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and
grounding. In Darnell et al. (eds.) 243-286.
Hjelmslev, Louis. (1943 [1961]). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. [Tr. By Francis
J. Whitfield]. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. 1981. Explanation in Linguistics. London: Longman.
Itkonen, Esa. (1978). Grammatical Investigations into the Methodological and
Philosophical Foundations of Autonomous Linguistics. Amsterdam.
Jakobson, R. (1968). Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies. The Hague Mouton.
24
Jayaseelan, K. A. (1993). Formal and functional explanations in linguistics. In S. K.
Verma and V. Prakasm (eds), New Horizons in Functional Linguistics.
Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation. 1-15.
Keating, Patricia A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5.2: 275-292.
Keating, Patricia A. (1996). The phonology-phonetics interface. In: Ursula Kleinhenz
(ed.) Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag [Studia Grammatica 4].
Pp. 262-278.
Kelkar, A. R. (1997). Language in a Semiotic Perspective: The Architecture of Marathi
Sentence. Pune: Shubhada-Sarasvat Prakashan.
Lahiri, Aditi and Reetz, Henning. (2001). Underspecified recognition. In: C.
gussenhoven, Natasha Warner and T. Rietveld (eds) Papers in Laboratory
Phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 667-675.
Lees, R. (1960). Two views of linguistic research. Linguistics 12: 37-48.
Lindblom, B. (1986). On the origin and purpose of discreteness and invariance in sound
patterns. In J. Perkell and D. H. Klatt, (eds), Invariance and Variability in Speech
Processes. N. J.: Erlbaum.
Lindblom, B. (1992). Phonological units as adaptive emergents of lexical development.
In C. A. Ferguson, Lise Menn and C. Stoel-Gammon (eds), Phonological
Development: Models, Research, Implications. Timonium, Md.: York Press.
Ludlow, P. (1992). Formal rigour and linguistic theory. NLLT 10: 335-344.
McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45: 84-108.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, P. H. (1982). Formalization. In F. R. Palmer (ed.) Linguistic Controversies Pp
1-15.
Myers, S. (2000). Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic and phonological
sound patterns. In: Burton-Roberts et al. (eds), pp. 245-272.
Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Newmeyer, F. J. (2001). The Prague School and North American functionalist
approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics 37, 101-126.
Nagel, E. (1960). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific
Explanation. London & Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nichols, J. (1984). Functional Theories of Grammar. Annual Review of Anthropology 13,
97-117.
Ohala, J. J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In P.
MacNeilage (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer. Pp. 189-216.
Ohala, J. J. (1990). There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A personal
view. Journal of Phonetics. 18: 153-71.
Pandey, P. K. (2001). Grammar and others. In Anvita Abbi et al. (eds), Linguistic
Structure and Language Dynamics in South Asia. [Papers from the Proceedings of
SALAXVIII Roundtable , 1997]. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.
Patemean: T. (1990). Language in Mind and Language in Society. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Pierrehumbert, Janet, Beckman, Mary A. and Ladd, D. R. (2000). Conceptual
foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. In Burton-Roberts et al. (eds),
pp 273-304.
25
Pylyshyn, Z. (1984). Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive
Science. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Radhakrishnan, R. (1981). Nancowry Word: Phonology, Morphology, and Roots of a
Nicobarese Language. Canada: Linguistic Research Institute.
Roca, Iggy and Johnson, Wyn. (1999). A Course in Phonology. London: Blackwell.
Steriade, Donca. (1987). Redundant values. In Anna Bosch, Barbara Need, and Eric
Schiller (eds), CLS 23: Papers from the 23
rd
Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society. Part Two: Parasession on Autosegmental Phonology. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society. Pp. 339-362.
Steriade, Donca. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In: J. Goldsmith ((ed.), The
Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 114-174.
Tomlin, R. (1986). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939 [1969]). Principles of Phonology, Tr. C. A. M. Baltaxe. Berkley
and Los Angeles: University of California.
Van de Wijer, Jeroem. (2003) Segmental Modification and Feature Economy. Ms. Leiden
University, Leiden
Van de Wijer, J. and Hinskens, F. (2004). The phonetics and phonology of segmental
modification: Distribution, Status and Economy. Ms. Leiden University, Leiden,
and Vrije University, Amsterdam.
Van der Hulst, H. (2000). Modularity and modality in phonology. In: Burton-Roberts et
al. (eds), pp. 207-243.
van Valin, R. (1993). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In S. K. Verma and V.
Prakasam (eds), New Horizons in Functional Linguistics. Hyderabad: Booklinks
Corporation. Pp. 103-296.
Wilbur, R. B. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. [2
nd
edn]. Boston: Little/Brown.
COLOPHON:
I am grateful to the participants at the seminar for their comments on the paper. I would
especially record a rather profitable experience of sharing some of the views expressed
here with my students for a course on Issues in Linguistic Theory given in the Winter
Semester 2004, especially the participation of Anish, Joyashri, Narayan and Rajakrishna.