Are Articulatory Hypotheses Necessary,
Sufficient, or Desirable in the Evolution
of Phonological Representations?
Shanti Ulfsbjorninn
BLCU // SOAS
su1@soas.ac.uk
0
Explanations of Phonological
Representations
Hypothesis


The central mechanism in the
evolution of phonological
representations is a mapping
from vocal tract / articulatory
structure to cognitive
structure.
Brown and Golston (2006)’s
hypothesis on the evolution
of phonological
representations.
1
Feature Geometry
Representations

Brown and Golston (2006)’s argument raises a
representation of the segment very similar to
Feature Geometry (arboreal collections of
articulatory based features (typically those
developed in the Sound Pattern of English
(Chomsky and Halle 1968)).
2
The Features of Articulatory
Phonology



Articulatory gestures are the phonological units
(Browman and Goldstein 1986; 1989), and the
dynamics of how they are coordinated are part of the
representation of the segment.
For stops for instance there would be the feature
closed, while in fricatives the gesture would be critical.
This approach is probably the most elaborated on in
the evolution of phonology: (Studdert-Kennedy 1998;
Studdert-Kennedy and Goldstein 2003; Goldstein 2003;
Studdert-Kennedy 2011).
3
Articulatory Hypothesis
The central mechanism in the evolution of phonological representations is a mapping
from vocal tract/articulatory structure to cognitive structure.



Brown and Golston (2006) make AH seem desirable
with an argument where phylogeny is recapitulated
in ontogeny. But the argument is not falsifiable.
Is AH testable? Studdert-Kennedy in various works
has shown simulations and models which show that
AH is indeed a possible model (therefore meeting
minimal conditions as an evolutionary system).
But, can we be sure that AH is necessary or
sufficient in explaining the origins of phonological
representations? One way to ask this question is:
What would falsify AH?
4
What would falsify AH?
A detachment of phonetic and
phonological representations within the
segment.
 Somewhere where concretely we can say,
the phonetics says that the features of
this sound must be like this, but the
phonology says the opposite.
 Does this exist? Yes, the representation
of affricates.

5
What are affricates?
Things like [ts], [dz], [pf], [tɕ], [dʐ], [kx] [qχ]
etc…
 An affricate is a single segment (in x-slot
terms, it constitutes a single position),
they are not clusters:

‘Brandon’  *[bran.don] [bu.lan.don]
 ‘Chase’ [tʂei.sɨ]  *[tʂei.sɨ]


Affricates are complex segments, they
contain conflicting gestures.
(The common saying: ‘Start as you intend to finish’ does not apply to them).
6
What are affricates II?
Affricates express both [+continuant] and [-continuant]
gestures but must conform to the following.




These are always expressed in the order [-cont] -> [+cont]
(*st, *zd, *fp.)
They always share a single specification for voicing (*tz,
*ds, *pv, *gx).
They always share a single specification for place of
articulation (*tf, *ps, *gz, *tx).
They contain maximally two expressions of these
properties (*tsθ, *dzð, *pfɸ).
7
Affricates are ubiquitous







Indo-European (all branches)
Altaic (all branches)
Sino-Tibetan (all branches)
Bantu (all branches)
…
Some individual languages with very simple
inventories do not have them (Hawaiian), but
this is not a family property (cf. Vanuatu).
Some isolates do not have them (Piraha), but
these would appear to be accidental gaps.
8
Representation of Affricates



Chomsky and Halle (1968)
have stops as unordered [cont] [+delayed release]
But [+delayed release] was
replaced by [+cont] (Campbell
1974). And this lead to the
most popular approach, the
ordered [-cont]  [+cont].
Others tried to keep affricates
unordered by using different
features. two ordered features:
[-cont] [+strident]. However
not all affricates are strident
(cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968).
9
Representation of affricates II
 AP
has to represent the ordered
aspect of the affricate because for
this framework the phonological form,
the underlying form is the dynamic
sequence of (phonetic) gestures of
the segment and an affricate always
has the gestures [closed]  [critical]
10
Wrong, affricates are unordered



Lombardi (1990) Explains that the ordered sequence
of [+cont]  [-cont] (e.g. Sagey 1986) is designed to
handle ‘edge’ effects were a rule makes reference to
[+/-cont] but which takes this value from one side only
(left or right).
However, this representation cannot account for antiedge effects (where a rule takes the relevant value of
+/-cont from either side of the segment.
The edge effects can all be formally re-written or are
phonetic rules (applying after the surface ordering
has occurred).
11
Affricates are unordered


Lombardi (1990) shows therefore that [+cont]
and [-cont] features are unordered in affricates.
This is impossible to model in AH because it
shows exactly where there is a mismatch
between phonetic gestures and phonological
representations.


This point was made early by [???] as problematic
for AH as a whole.
Counterargument is [???]. Which could perhaps be
accepted if not for Lombardi’s (1990) evidence.
12
AH Desirable, Necessary, Sufficient.
AH seemed desirable as a hypothesis
especially in the absence of any other
explanation.
 AH is definitely not sufficient.



Unordered affricates falsify AP and AH, AH is
therefore not sufficient to explain the
evolution of affricates.
The extent to which AH is necessary is
now especially open to doubt.
13
Phonological Information Theory
Competing hypothesis

The central mechanism in the evolution of
phonological representations is a mapping
from what can be done to the carrier signal to
a set of elements, and a systemic proclivity for
increases in entropy (allowing for
combinations of these elements).
14
Carrier signal, modulations, information.



The carrier signal is the channel over which phonological
information is sent in the speech modality (Ohala 1992;
Traunmüller 1994; Harris and Urua 2001; Harris 2005;
Harris 2009).
The fully predictable, unmodulated carrier signal
corresponds with the settings of a ‘schwa-like vowel’, a
periodic waveform lacking spectral peaks (Harris 2005).
Information in this system is produced by modulation of
the carrier signal. Modulations being deviations of the
carrier wave’s baseline along various parameters such as
spectral shape, periodicity, amplitude and fundamental
frequency (Ibid.).
15
A set of modulating elements
Other researchers use slightly different sets and slightly different definitions of the modulation, we only fill in some of
the definitions (here we used Harris (2005), and Nasukawa and Backley (2008).
Element
A
In C
In V
F1 and F2 converge
producing energy
peak in the middle of
the spectrum
I
F2 and F3 converge
producing peak at the
top of the spectrum
U
F1 and F2 converge
producing energy
peak at the bottom of
the spectrum
H
Aperiodic energy
(noise).
L
Broad resonance
peak at lower end of
the frequency range.
?
Abrupt sustained
drop in overall
amplitude
16
Differences from AH
Redundancy

Redundancy


The phonetic signal contains vastly more information
than is phonologically necessary. There is a role for
all this extra information, it is relevant to pragmatics,
sociolinguistics, group formation, individuation, but
it’s not part of what the phonology.
Here defining phonology as precisely the material left
over after you’ve siphoned off what is exclusively
required for each of these ‘peripheral’ domains.
17
Differences from AH II
Offsetting




If precise articulation cannot be achieved for whatever
reason (and there are many reasons (you might have no
teeth) or your tongue is slightly slower than an another
person’s), these may be offset with zero loss of linguistic
information, as long as the appropriate acoustic modulation
of the carrier signal is achieved.
Variations in articulation can be exploited by the various
language external, vocal tract systems, individual variation
(degree of stricture of fricatives), also because of offsetting.
If you can’t raise the back of the tongue during a lateral- no
problem- use the lips to get the same acoustic effect
(Backley 2011).
But! Modulation is not achieved, information cannot be
conveyed.
18
Entropy

The system has a proclivity for increases in
entropy.



Where entropy is defined as the number of
contrasting/unpredictable segments in the language,
which itself is the measure of the combinatorial
power of the system, that is, the number of permitted
combinations of elements.
Allophones are usually produced coincidentally by
natural phenomena and are readily phonologised.
Systems attempt to retain contrasts over time.
19
What is an affricate?.





Nasukawa and Backley (2008) hypothesize that the place
information of this segment is best served by affricates, and that
there is no phonological difference between stops and affricates,
rather affricates are just stops with more than one ‘place’ (i.e. they
plug in the missing bits between (cf. Clements 1999; and Scheer
2003).
But this does not explain the data which shows that affricates need
[+cont] as a feature (or H its equivalent) (cf. Lombardi 1990).
Maybe it is a coincidence, because if the order was contrastive,
[+cont] [-cont] [?] [H] would in fact, be ordered underlying. So it can
only have one surface order, and the surface order it has is - --> +. ?
--> H. And there was a 50-50 chance.
Or more likely, there is an articulatory, gestural explanation for the
ordering which would be served by AH.
But, and this is the point of the talk, that explanation will not give us
the underlying phonological representation.
20
Why do we have affricates?

Because entropy predicts that we should get
the combination of (headed) ?, and H, as a
function of time.
x ({?}) (stop)
x ({H}) (fricative)
x ({?} H) (affricate)
21
Further work (so much!)

That model needs significant work from an
evolutionary perspective especially in modeling.



Why those elements and those modulations and not
other possible ones?
Homologies of these modulations with non-human
animals, new ones or different ones may be
discovered.
What is the exact scientific relationship between
entropy and phonological systems, and where does
the tendency of free combination of features emerge
from? Is it equivalent to featural combination work in
syntax (Harbour 2010).
22
Conclusion


AH is necessary, and probably sufficient for
explaining the evolution of phonetics and
information which speaks to pragmatics,
sociolinguistics, group formation, individuation
etc… BUT,
AH is not sufficient to explain affricates which
are ubiquitous in phonological systems, and
which show exactly the way in which phonetic
representations are equivalent with
phonological representations.
23
Thank you!
24