The Structure of Language
The study of phonetics is part of the larger study of
language.
Purpose: To show how phonetics fits into the language
system.
Language: Term is used in two related but different ways:
1. A specific language: French, Portuguese, Farsi, Urdu …
2. Much broader sense: the general design plan that is
common to all languages. All human languages are built
on the same underlying design plan, but differ in many
details. For our purposes, this 2nd one is the more
interesting use of the term language.
Dog analogy: Many differences in detail across breeds
and individual dogs. BUT – the deeper truth is that they
are all built on the same body plan and have far more in
common than the superficial differences suggest.
What are some features common to all dogs?
1. Social animals
2. Territorial
3. Omnivorous but with a strong preference
for meat
4. Same basic configuration of skeleton
5. Same number and basic shape of teeth
6. Any dog will breed with any other dog,
regardless of large differences in size and
general appearance
7. … (a large number of other features)
The Structure of Language
Language works this way as well. All human
languages are built on the same basic design
plan. The broad design features that all languages
have in common run deeper and are far more
important than the differences in details, as large
as those difference may at first appear.
Languages are defined by their grammars – a
collection of rules that allow a speaker (or signer
in the case of a sign language) to generate wellformed utterances (and the knowledge to
recognize “broken” utterances when they are
encountered).
Your knowledge of English grammar allows you
to figure out:
Vern went to Memphis. Good
*Vern went Memphis to. Bad
* = ungrammatical
Notes:
(1) A sentence can be perfectly meaningful but still
be ungrammatical:
*This is a four doors car.
*He drove a red big car.
It’s perfectly clear what these sentences mean, but
they are ungrammatical.
(2) The word grammatical here does not mean the
same thing that it meant in grade school.
She ain’t got no crayons.
Where were you at, John. We was waitin’ on you.
These sentences conform to the grammar of
some dialects of English; they happen not to
conform to the dialect of standard English.
There are two very different uses of the term
grammar:
(1) descriptive grammar: rules that real speakers
actually use, no matter what teachers, parents,
or “usage experts” say.
(2) prescriptive grammar: rules that English
teachers (and other “experts”), and sometimes
your parents, believe speakers OUGHT to use.
Examples of prescriptive grammar rules:
Don’t end a sentence with a preposition.
Don’t split infinitives.
Don’t use ‘like’ like this: “So I was, like, ‘Calm
down, man; you’re getting all agitated’.
Say “Betty and I went to the picnic,” not
“Betty and me went to the picnic.”
Violating a rule of descriptive grammar means that the
utterance would be considered ungrammatical to any
mature (i.e., not a little twirp) native speaker of any dialect.
*That book looks alike.
*I Am America And So Can You. (book title, Stephen Colbert)
*Frank seems sleeping.
*Bag garbage no good; ski good.
*I did not know how should I dress. (very common
among non-native English speakers)
*I'll be whatever I wanna do. (Philip J. Fry)
*People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
–Philip J. Fry (again)
*I’m going to turn you onto a Poindexter. [Poindexter=nerd]
*I am a new tie wearing. (Homer Imposter)
NOTES
(1) All of these sentences would be ungrammatical to
a native speaker in all dialects of English; i.e.,
there is more going on here than someone
speaking nonstandard English. This is what
makes them violations of descriptive rules.
(2) The issue is grammaticality; i.e., utterances can
be easy to understand but still ungrammatical.
The science of linguistics is concerned exclusively
with descriptive grammar, not prescriptive grammar.
So, descriptive grammar is the domain of linguistics,
prescriptive grammar is the domain of (mostly selfappointed and often not very knowledgeable) “usage experts”.
More about this later when we discuss dialect.
To do on your own: Which of these sentences violate
English prescriptive rules and which violate descriptive
rules?
Phil has a three-legs cat.
[Its] 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds,
… to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Badges? We don't need no stinkin’ badges. (The
Treasure of the Sierra Madres)
I wonder who and Frieda went swimming.
Where is Maurice going to?
We was at the liberry when we seen Mildred.
What Myron has done with my star fish?
Answers:
Phil owns a three-legs cat. [descriptive; should read, “Phil owns a
three-legged cat.”]
… to boldly go where no man has gone before. [prescriptive; “to
boldly go” is a split infinitive, considered by many to be bad form.]
We don't need no stinkin’ badges.
[prescriptive; should read, “We
don't need any stinking badges.”]
I wonder who and Frieda went swimming. [descriptive; should
read, “I wonder who Frieda went swimming with.” or the Yalie version, “I
wonder with whom Mary went swimming.”]
Where is Maurice going to? [prescriptive; should read, “Where is
Maurice going?”]
We was at the liberry when we seen Mildred.
[prescriptive; We
were at the library when we saw Mildred”]
What Myron has done with my star fish? [descriptive; “What has
Myron done with my star fish?”]
One more point: the term grammar is sometimes
used to refer specifically to syntax (word-order
rules), but more recently it refers to all of the
rules of the language, including syntax,
semantics (meaning), morphology (rules for
creating words out of smaller units called
morphemes; e.g., to form walking from walk,
readable from read, etc.), and phonology (sound
pattern rules). More later.
Now, finally, back to the two uses of the word
language:
• a specific language (English, Dutch, Hungarian,
etc.)
• the general design structure of all human
languages
The 1st meaning is simple and obvious, but what
about the 2nd? What features do all human
languages have in common? Called the Universal
Grammar – it’s a huge, gimongous list (and
incomplete).
Here a just a few universal rules:
1. Rules are always structure dependent. E.g.,
English question formation:
John will run. [statement]
Will John run? [question: invert subject & predicate]
Question is formed by reversing the order of the
subject & the predicate – subject & predicate being
structural properties.
One more:
Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department. [statement]
Is Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department? [question]
How about this hypothetical rule: Form a question
by reversing the order of the last two words in the
sentence.
Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department.
Hanley is the most stubborn person in
department the?
John will pitch on Thursday.
John will pitch Thursday on?
(1) Not a rule of English; (2) not a structuredependent rule; and, most important: (3) no rule
remotely like this in any language, yet this rule
would work just fine.
Q: Why is there no rule like this in any of the world’s
~6,000 languages?
A: Because the hypothetical rule violates a rule of the
universal grammar.
Q: Which one? (Hint: I’ve only introduced one
universal rule, so it’s probably that one.)
A: All of the rules of all of languages are structure
dependent. The hypothetic rule (form a question by
reversing the order of the last two words) depends on
serial position, not structure.
(Once again, I have not given you a formal definition of what a
‘structural property’ is. A useful way to think about it is that structural
properties are all those English-major things: whether a verb is
transitive or intransitive, parts of speech, independent vs. subordinate
clauses, subjects vs. predicates, etc. All these – and many others –
are examples of structural properties. Serial position is not.)
One more example:
The soldier that is ill is in the hospital.
How do we make a question of this? Which of the
two instances of is gets moved?
*Is the soldier that ill is in the hospital?
Is the soldier that is ill in the hospital?
(Move the 1st one? Not good.)
It’s the 2nd instance of is that gets moved, but why?
Does the rule say – move the 2nd instance of the
verb if there are 2?
No. The 1st instance of is gets passed over because
it’s buried inside of a NP that is treated as a unit –
the NP being a structural property.
No language uses a rule that says, “move
the 2nd instance of the verb if there are
2”, or “move the 1st instance of the verb”.
Why? Because it is based on serial
position, not structure.
Since the hypothetical violates a
language universal, you won’t see a rule
like this: (a) in English, and (b) in any
language. (Or so goes Chomsky’s idea.)
No child ever makes the mistake of getting mixed
up about which verb to move.
Why? Because they come into the world knowing
that rules are structure dependent and not
dependent on something like serial position –
though serial-position rules would work fine.
More about the significance of this point soon.
2. Nearly all languages have agreement rules.
The box is in my office.
The boxes are in my office.
Subject and predicate agree for number (plural
vs. singular).
Languages vary a lot in what kinds of things there
needs to be agreement on. Not all languages
enforce agreement on number, but all except a
very few languages incorporate lots of agreement
rules.
Spanish (and French and many other languages)
enforce agreement on gender:
los perros (dogs), las casas (houses), los
árboles (trees), las tablas (tables), las flores
(flowers), las montañas (mountains)
Important: Agreement is not a necessary feature.
• It’s quite easy to imagine a language w/ out
agreement.
• “My shoes are in the closet.”: In English, number
is already specified by the noun (“shoes” in this
case). Why give exactly the same information by
supplying a plural verb (“are”) to go along with a
noun that you already know is plural?
• Not all languages have this particular form of
agreement, but all except a very few languages
have agreement rules.
• Is subject-verb number agreement part of the
universal grammar? [No]
• How about agreement for gender as in French
and Spanish? [No]
• What is it that’s (very nearly) universal?
[Agreement rules]
3. Phonological rules: All languages incorporate
sound-pattern rules called phonological rules.
• beed – beat
• bid – bit
• league – leak
• cub – cup
• cab – cap
• lag – lack
What do you notice about the lengths of the
vowels on the left vs. those on the right? Rule:
Vowels are lengthened when they precede voiced
consonants.
Most languages do not have this particular rule.
However, all languages have large numbers of
sound-pattern rules like this one.
Once again, what is the universal?
1. The English vowel-lengthening rule?
2. The incorporation of phonological rules that
vary in details from one language to the next?
Another rule in English. Look at these plural forms:
walks
lips
rats
tracks
-------------labs
dogs
awards
doors
What sound is added to form the plural in the 1st
group vs. the 2nd group? Orthographically, it’s always
an ‘s’, but what sound is it? (Note: [lQbs] -- as
opposed to [læbz] – is not impossible to pronounce.)
Languages don’t necessarily need to incorporate
phonological rules – though all of them do.
They can’t be essential to communication:
• Nearly every language besides English gets by fine
without the vowel-lengthening rule.
• English gets by fine without the very different set of
sound pattern rules in Spanish, Tamil, Hindi, Korean,
etc.
All languages incorporate phonological rules.
• Is the incorporation of phonological rules part of the
universal grammar?
• Is the vowel lengthening rule (e.g., “cab” vs. “cap”)
part of the universal grammar?
4. Recursion
All languages exhibit a property called recursion.
Recursion is a general principle that can be seen in
many areas other than language. In general, recursion is
seen whenever “things” can be embedded inside of
other “things,” which in turn can be embedded inside of
other “things,” which can be …
Simple example: Russian Nesting Dolls (nesting is
another word for embedding).
Russian Dolls
The embedding idea is very simple here – embedded (or
nested) inside the biggest doll is another doll;
embedded inside of that doll is another doll; embedded
inside of that doll is … And on it goes. Russian dolls are
an example of recursion – things embedded inside of
things which are embedded inside of things which …
The branching structure that is seen trees is another clear
instance of recursion: the main trunk divides into large
branches, which further divide into smaller branches,
which further divide into yet smaller branches ... This
branching pattern is exactly what is seen in language (but
with words & phrases instead of tree branches). We’ll be
there very soon.
Mississippi River Watershed
(Note the recursive, branching structure.)
Ketchup Squeeze Bottle
This example is a little weird (though not hard
to understand). This is an ordinary ketchup
bottle. But notice that the picture on the bottle
shows a lovely waitress holding a tray with a
ketchup bottle on it.
Imagine the unlikely situation in which the
ketchup bottle on the tray is drawn accurately.
If it is, then the bottle on the tray must have a
picture of a waitress holding a tray with a
ketchup bottle on it.
And what about that ketchup bottle? It should
also have a picture of a ketchup bottle on the
tray, right? How far does this recursion go? It
boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
Does this ketchup bottle (under the crazy
assumptions) show recursion? (Hint: Yes)
How so? What, if anything, does the ketchup
bottle have in common with the Russian
Nesting Dolls?
What does this have to do with the universal
grammar?
The idea we’re heading toward is simple (sort
of): The grammars of all languages differ in
many details, but they ALL exhibit recursion.
One example: A phrase can be embedded
inside of a phrase, which can be embedded
inside of a phrase, which can be embedded …
Sound familiar?
An example of recursion in language:
This is the house that Jack built.
Recursion: “This is the house” branches off into the
phrase “that Jack built.”
This is the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.
More recursion: “This is the malt” branches into “that lay
in the house” which branches into “that Jack built.”
This is the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that
Jack built.
Same thing, but still more of it: A phrase branches into a
phrase which branches into a phrase …
English shows recursion. What other languages do? All of
them.
Recursion in language is universal.
We have already seen an example of this:
I did not know how I should dress.
In this utterance, a sentence (in this case, a question) is
embedded inside of a sentence.
“I did not know.” + “How I should dress?” →
I did not know how I should dress.
(For reasons that are not obvious, the subject-predicate inversion rule that
normally applies in questions is blocked when the question is embedded in a
sentence.)
Recursion: Things are embedded inside of other things.
Recursion in language is the same kind of thing as the
Russian Dolls and the crazy ketchup bottle.
Recursion is seen in English. Recursion is seen in all
languages. It is part of the universal grammar.
Last example, from a child of about five:
Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't
like to be read to out of up for?
Pretty crazy sentence, but:
(a) grammatically well formed
(b) insanely recursive
Is recursion specific to English or is it part
of the universal grammar?
Note: All of the language examples we’ve
looked at show recursion in syntax. All
levels of language show a branching,
recursive tree structure – even at the
phonological level. (You’ll have to trust me
on that. The idea is not hard, but we have to
move on.)
5. Head First/Head Last (I will not go over this in class; read it on your own)
Phrases in (almost) all languages contain a special
“boss” word called the head. The head controls
grammatical features of other words in the phrase.
The fox in socks is in the yard.
*The fox in socks are in the yard.
“fox” is singular, “socks” is plural. Why is it that the verb
agrees with the “fox rather than “socks”? Because it’s the
“boss” word; i.e., the head of the noun phrase “fox in
socks.”
Flying out of Kalamazoo on small planes is scary.
*Flying out of Kalamazoo on small planes are scary.
“Flying” here is the head of the phrase because the
phrase is mainly about flying, not planes, so the verb
agrees with the singular “flying”, not the plural “planes”.
English is a head-first language – the head precedes all
other words in the phrase. Many other languages reverse
this.
English: Kazu ate sushi. (Kazu=NP; ate sushi=VP;
ate=head)
Japanese: Kazu sushi ate.
So, Japanese is a head-last language. So, big deal? Here’s
the big deal: Every head-first language applies the headfirst rule to all of its phrases: NPs, VPs, PPs. Everything.
Similarly, every head-last language applies the head-last
rule to all of its phrases: NPs, VPs, PPs. Everything.
English:
Japanese:
to Tokyo (preposition)
Tokyo to (postposition)
There are no languages that mix these up – e.g., head-first
for NPs, head-last for VPs and PPs. Also, no “headmiddle” languages.
Now, after all that, this is the universal
rule:
There are no languages that mix these up
– e.g., head-first for NPs, head-last for
VPs and PPs. There are no languages with
head-first NPs but head-last VPs (or PPs).
So, the universal: the rules for all
languages are either all head-first or all
head-last. No languages mix them.
There is no reason that languages have to behave
this way.
It is easy to imagine a language that uses Japaneselike head-last NPs along with English-like PPs:
Kazu sushi ate at home. (head-last NP, head-last PP)
Or the other way around:
Kazu ate sushi home at. (head-1st NP, head-last PP)
These mixed rule systems don’t happen. Ever. Why?
It’s more logical? Languages do not work this way.
• I say
• You say (formerly Thou sayest)
• He says
Anything logical about this system?
One more example that we saw earlier.
He threw the garbage out.
He threw it out. [it’s ok to substitute a pronoun
for the noun phrase]
He threw out the garbage. [this ordering is ok
too]
threw out it. [here it’s not ok to substitute the
pronoun]
*He
Is there anything logical about this system?
So, we can rule out “the-brain-wants-language-tobe-logical” as an explanation for the headfirst/head-last universal.
So, how did we get these grammatical regularities
that comprise the universal grammar (the five we
discussed and a zillion others)?
1. By coincidence, 6,000 separate human
languages happened to adopt these
regularities – without benefit of committee
meetings.
2. Neural circuitry incorporating these
grammatical regularities are built into the brain
– just like the neural circuitry that allows a bat
to convert sonar signals into an image is wired
into bat brains, or the circuitry that allows
spiders to know how to spin a web is wired into
spider brains.
Why is the concept of a universal grammar
important? Current thinking among most
linguists:
When children acquire language they do not need
to learn the universal grammar at all. They already
know it.
Children do not need to learn that there are
agreement rules; they need to learn what those
specific agreement rules are.
They do not need to learn that rules are structure
dependent; they do, however, need to learn what
those structure-dependent rules are.
Kids do not need to learn that there are soundpattern rules; they do need to learn which
particular sound-pattern rules apply to the
language they are learning.
They do not need to learn about the concept of
recursion, but they do need to learn the languagespecific rules that constrain exactly how
recursion occurs. For example, the odd rule that
blocks subject-predicate inversion in
I wasn’t sure what I should do.
is specific to English. Recursion is not. Recursion
is part of the Universal Grammar (and an
extremely important part of it).
The Modularity of Language
Central feature of language: It is a layered or
modularized system – the neural substrate for
language is not a blob of brain tissue that
“knows” about language. It is a collection of
interconnected specialists that know a great deal
about just one thing.
Modularity is another term for division of labor –
different modules specialize in different jobs.
This is similar in principle to the way a house is
built – not by a bunch of people who all know the
same thing, but by specialists like plumbers,
electricians, carpenters, roofers, masons, roofers,
…
Modularity
Modularity characterizes all complex systems. A
car is not a mass of metal and plastic that knows
how to go. Cars have specialized modules:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
fuel delivery system (carburetor/fuel injector)
combustion chambers
transmission
suspension/steering system
brakes
exhaust system
mp3 player
etc.
The human body is modularized. It’s not a blob of
protoplasm that knows how to live – it’s a highly
interconnected system of specialists that each
handle just one kind of job:
•
Circulatory system (pump, veins, arteries, etc.)
•
Waste management system (kidneys, liver, poo
disposal)
•
•
•
•
Central control system (brain, spinal cord, …)
Musculo-skeletal system
Sensors (visual, auditory, tactile, …)
etc.
The heart does not know how to think, the brain
does not know how to pump, the kidneys do not
know how to secrete insulin. Each specialist has
its own act and they stick to it.
Language is modularized – it’s a highly
interconnected collection of experts, each of
which handles just one kind of analysis.
Major modules of the language system:
• Semantics (meaning)
• Syntax (structural rules governing word order)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0BuKYiwhVQ
• Lexicon (mental dictionary)
• Morphology (word-making rules – walk, walked,
walking, …)
• Phonology (sound-pattern rules)
• Phonetics (articulation/sound patterns)
The layers of the language system are
interconnected but DISTINCT or AUTONOMOUS –
i.e., different from one another.
A few examples:
Syntax and semantics are not the same thing.
*Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (Chomsky)
• Syntactically well formed but semantically
anomalous (i.e., all messed up).
• Conforms perfectly to English syntax but
violates semantic rules. Your syntax module
reports that it checks out; your semantics
module reports that it’s busted.
Compare:
*Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
*Green sleep furiously ideas colorless.
Both sentences are ungrammatical, but the 2nd
sentence is more problematic than the 1st.
Both sentences are meaningless, but the 2nd
sentence also violates rules of English syntax.
This is an illustration of the concept of modularity –
your knowledge of language consists of semantics
and syntax modules that are distinct from one
another (autonomous).
*We throwed out it. The lawn we throwed it onto.
Semantics? OK. Syntax? Nope. (Morphology is also
messed up – throwed is not formed correctly.)
*You no stupid computers. (Meaning, in context:
You’re not stupid about computers.)
Semantics? Fine. Syntax? Nah.
Moral: Syntax and semantics are not the same
thing; they’re distinct or autonomous. Your
syntax and semantics modules are specialists,
each with their own separate jobs to do.
Humor is often derived from semantic clash.
It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times.
-Mark Twain
Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded. -Yogi
Berra
Wagner’s music is better than it sounds. -Mark Twain
I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of
answering that question. -Yogi Berra
Bart, with $10,000 we'd be millionaires. -Homer
Simpson
The report of my death was an exaggeration. -Mark
Twain
If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark,
nobody’s going to stop them. –Yogi Berra
• In all of these cases one part of an utterance
contradicts (clashes with) another part, as in
Chomsky’s “Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously.”
• All of these example focus explicitly on the
semantic layer of the language system.
(Twain is doing this on purpose. Yogi is doing his
best to make sense.)
Phonology (sound pattern rules) and the lexicon (mental
dictionary) are distinct from one another; e.g.,
brick – blick – bnick
• brick: a word
• blick: a non-word, but conforms to English
phonological rules that constrain word shapes
• bnick: a non-word that violates an English
phonological rule that constrains sound sequences
These examples prove specialization, or modularity:
“brick”: Your lexicon specialist tells you this is a word.
“blick”: Your lexicon specialist tells you this is not a
word, but your phonology specialist tells you it could
be.
“bnick”: Lexicon specialist: not a word; phonology
specialist: not a permissible word.
“bnick” violates a particular type of
phonological rule is called a phonotactic rule.
phono = sound (speech sound in this case)
tactic = arrangement or ordering
So, phonotactic rules impose limits on
permissible and impermissible arrangements
of speech sounds.
On my web page, there’s a link called
phonotactic rule assignment. It’s due one
week from today.
All languages have large numbers of phonotactic
rules. A few others in English:
Words cannot begin with [ŋ] ([no] is ok but not [ŋo])
Words cannot begin with [ʃt] ([stɑp] is ok but not [ʃtɑp]).
Words cannot end with [ɛ, ɪ, ʊ] ([be], [bi], and [bu] are ok
but not [bɛ], [bɪ], or [bʊ].
Terminology: The rules above are called
phonotactic phonological rules, or (more often)
just phonotactic rules.
The other kinds that we talked about (e.g., vowels
are lengthened before voiced consonants) we’ll
simply refer to as non-phonotactic phonological
rules. We’ll discuss many other examples.
Morphology: Rules for word formation (e.g., dog  dogs;
walk walking)
If boof were a word, what kind would boofable be (noun,
verb, adjective, etc.)?
How can the word understand (verb) be turned into noun?
He used to live in Pakistan, so he has a good _________
of cricket. (This is a bogus sentence. No one understands cricket.)
What form of understand goes in the blank?
How about making an adjective?
Some of the concepts were unfamiliar to me, but the
teacher made these ideas ________________.
What form of understand goes in the blank?
What module of the language system are you
relying on to answer these questions?
You are applying your knowledge of
morphological rules – rules for forming words out
of smaller units called morphemes.
Morpheme: The smallest unit of language that has
meaning. Some examples – one word in all cases,
but not always one morpheme:
dog, dogs
read, reading, readable, unreadable
person, personal, personalize
Bound vs. Unbound: Morphemes can be either bound
or unbound (also called free).
Unbound (free): Can stand alone as a separate word
(e.g., dog, walk, park, …). Unbound morphemes are
also called free.
Bound: Must appear in combination with one or more
other morphemes; e.g., suffixes like -s, –ed, -ing;
prefixes such as pre-, post-, un-, etc.
premature: pre=bound, mature=unbound
blindness: blind=unbound, ness=bound
Check out the exercise on my web page called
Counting Morphemes.
One more point about morphemes: The concept of a
morpheme is pretty straightforward, but counting them is
not always so simple. A few examples:
How many morphemes in these?
uniform
Do speakers realize this word is
derived from morphemes meaning one
form? Maybe, but I doubt it.
agnostic
The word gnostic does exist, but do
most speakers know this; i.e., do
speakers treat this as meaning not
gnostic? Maybe, but I doubt it.
atheist
Do speakers understand this to mean
not theist? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Last one: A specific sound or sound sequence can
sometimes behave as a morpheme and sometimes not.
worker: ‘er’ ([ɚ]) is a morpheme (‘er’ indicates one who works)
player: ‘er’ ([ɚ]) is a morpheme
sitter: ‘er’ ([ɚ]) is a morpheme
splatter: ‘er’ ([ɚ]) is not a morpheme (‘er’ does not mean
one who splats)
matter: ‘er’ ([ɚ]) is not a morpheme (‘er’ does not mean
one who mats)
preschool: ‘pre’ ([pri]) is a morpheme; (‘pre’ indicates ‘before’)
prejudge: ‘pre’ ([pri]) is a morpheme
predisposed: ‘pre’ ([pri]) is a morpheme
precaution: ‘pre’ ([pri]) is a morpheme
pretty: ‘pre’ is not a morpheme
supreme: ‘pre’ is not a morpheme
What about:
batter [bæɾɚ] (as in baseball)
batter [bæɾɚ] (as in pancakes)
Is the [ɾ] of “He is the next batter.” a
morpheme?
Is the [ɾ] of “pancake batter” a morpheme?
Moral: It’s not the sound sequence per se,
it’s the function that the sound sequence
plays in the word.
Phonology and phonetics are not the same thing.
Let’s start with an example we know something about.
batter (as in baseball)
/bQt/ (abstract, underlying representation)
[bQ] (surface phonetic form)
slashes
brackets
There are two distinct (autonomous) layers or language
modules involved in the production of this word:
(1) phonological (abstract) layer or underlying
representation, or phonemic layer) – abstract
representation in your head – e.g., you “think” of the
medial sound in “batter” as a /t/.
(2) phonetic layer or surface phonetic form – the
sounds that are actually spoken ([] in the example).
Rule
/t,d/  [ɾ]
when intervocalic,
(betw two vowels)
but only when the
2nd vowel is
unstressed
Translation: /t/ & /d/
are pronounced as
a flap when they
occur between two
vowels and when
the 2nd vowel is
unstressed (weak).
/bætɚ/
phonemic (phonological,
linguistic, underlying
representation)
Phonological
Rules
[bæɾɚ]
phonetic (surface
phonetic form)
Phonology and phonetics are not the same thing; for
example, note the /p/ in the following:
[thAp]
[thAp|]
[phAt]
[spAt]
(released)
(unreleased)
(aspirated)
(unaspirated)
These realizations are phonetically distinct but
phonemically/phonologically/linguistically equivalent;
i.e., they are members of the same broad phonemic
category /p/.
Released and unreleased /p/: allophones or allophonic
variants.
Aspirated and unaspirated /p/ are allophones or
allophonic variants.
Other examples:
/g/: “geese” vs. “gone”
/t/: “tap” “kitten” “button” “eighth” “fatty”
The /g/ of “geese” and the /g/ of “gone” are
allophones: Same phonemic/phonological/linguistic
category; different phonetic realizations of the
category.
Compare /l/ of “Lee” vs. “law”.
These distinctions vary across languages.
Differences which are allophonic in one language
may be phonemic in another, and vice versa.
How to tell whether two speech sounds are members of
the same or different phoneme class
Are /p/ and /b/ allophones of the same phoneme class, or
are they members of different phoneme classes?
Different. Here’s the test: Can we find a pair or words with
different meanings, where this difference in meaning is
conveyed by the /p/-b/ difference? Yes. Many.
pin-bin, pat-bat, pan-ban, pill-bill, pace-base, peek-beak …
So, /p/ and /b/ are different phonemes, not allophones of
the same phoneme category.
What about [ph] vs. [p]; i.e., the aspirated /p/ in “pot” versus
the unaspirated /p/ in “spot”. Can we find a pair of words
in which an aspirated /p/ means one thing while an
otherwise identical word with an unaspirated /p/ means
something else?
The fact that a sound occurs in a language does not mean
that it has the status of a phoneme. Vowel nasalization:
compare the vowels in “pad” and “man” (and notice what
you’re velum is doing): [pæd] [mæ̃n] (tilde = nasalized)
But, vowel nasalization is predictable in English – it
occurs whenever a vowel precedes a nasal consonant.
The presence vs. absence of nasalization never signals a
difference in meaning; i.e., it is not contrastive.
So, in English, [æ] and [æ̃] are allophones of the phonemic
category /æ/.
Not true in all languages; e.g., in French, Portuguese, & a
few other languages, differences in word meaning can be
signaled based EXCLUSIVELY on whether the vowel is
nasalized or not – just as in pin vs. bin in English.
French: “beau” [bo] (good looking) vs. “bon” [bõ] (good)
(The tilde is a diacritic for nasalized.)
So, in French, are [o] (non-nasalized) and [õ] (nasalized)
allophonic variants of /o/?
In English, are [o] and [õ] allophonic variants of /o/?
Central idea: Contrast. Does a phonetic feature (nasalization in this example) serve a contrastive function
(distinguish one word from another)? If the answer is yes,
then it’s phonemic. Otherwise, we’re talking about
allophonic variation.
Terminology
In English, [o] and [õ] are:
1. allophonic variants or allophones of /o/
2. phonetically different but phonemically/
phonologically/linguistically equivalent
In French, are [o] and [õ] both phonetically distinct
and phonemically/phonologically/linguistically
distinct: /o/ and /õ/.
Yet another way to say exactly the same thing: In
French, vowel nasalization serves a contrastive
function; i.e., nasalization by itself can serve to
distinguish one word from another. In English, it
does not.
Summary
1. A phonemic or phonological type is an abstract
linguistic category that can be phonetically
realized in different ways.
2. These phonetically different but phonologically/
phonemically/linguistically equivalent
realizations of phonemes are called allophones
of the phoneme category.
3. The phonemic/phonological layer of the
language system is a distinct module, separate
from the phonetic module.
Dog
(abstract category, analogous to a phoneme)
Physically distinct but equivalent members of the
abstract category dog. These are analogous to
allophones of a phoneme category – i.e., they are
“allodogs.”
(from Andrew Carnie,
University of Arizona)
The mental
concept of
“supermanhood”
(phoneme)
In complementary distribution: never seen in
the same place at the same time. Allophones.
(from Andrew Carnie)
NOT in complementary distribution: can both be present
at the same time: allophones of different phonemes
allowaves
An Important Thing
The wave analogy is useful but imperfect.
“Allowaves” – different realizations of the abstract
category “wave” are roughly analogous to allophones
of /t/ (or any other phoneme). They are different from
one another but equivalent members of the category.
But here’s where the analogy is imperfect: These
different kinds of waves all mean the same thing –
“Hi”. The different allophones of /t/ (or /p/ or /o/ …) are
equivalent, but phonemes, by themselves, never
mean anything. Ever.
Phonemes are capable of signaling or conveying a
difference in meaning. Meaning something and being
capable of conveying a difference in meaning are not
the same thing.
Compare phoneme with morpheme – the smallest unit of
language with meaning. Main idea: morphemes have
meaning but phonemes do not.
What do these morphemes mean? (rendered here in orthography)
preanti-s
-est
before
against or counter to
the root word is plural
most (funniest, dumbest, tallest, …)
What do these mean?: /t/ /u/ /ʃ/ /dʒ/? The question can’t
be answered because they do not mean anything.
But, phoneme differences are capable of signaling
differences in meaning (/pɪt/-/bɪt/, /rɑt/-/lɑt/, /sɪt/-zɪt/, /kɑt//gɑt/,…). Once again, meaning something and being
capable of conveying a difference in meaning are not the
same.
Lesson
•Morphemes mean something.
•Phoneme differences can convey
differences in meaning (i.e., they serve a
contrastive function).
•Allophonic differences do not do either.
/t/
(abstract phoneme type)
[phɑt]
“pot”
(released)
[phɑt̚]
“pot”
(unreleased)
[thɑp]
[stɑp]
[kɪɾi]
“top”
“stop”
“kitty”
(aspirated) (unaspirated) (flap)
[bʌʔn̹]
“button”
(glottal stop,
nasal release)
Physically distinct phonetic realizations of the abstract
category /t/. These are analogous to physically distinct
but equivalent members of the category dog. These are
allophones of /t/.
Last point: Sound types that are allophonic
variants of a single phoneme class in one
language may be separate phoneme categories in
another language.
English
French
/o/
/o/ /õ/
[o]
[õ]
Two distinct phoneme classes
“boat” “moan”
Nasalized/non-nasalized
allophones of /o/
Final Point about the Modularity Concept
The modularity concept is NOT an arcane, egghead
detail that you can safely forget about once you begin
working as a clinician.
Pretty soon many of you will begin to learn a great
deal about diagnostic methods in speech & language.
Whether the word is used or not (and it usually isn’t),
modularity is the central guiding principle underlying
speech & language assessment.
The main idea is to assess a client’s abilities
separately in several distinct areas of linguistic
performance – syntax, morphology, vocabulary (i.e.,
the lexicon) phonology, etc. It’s not possible to
understand diagnostics without appreciating the
modularity concept.
Pragmatics
The module referred to as pragmatics may or may not be
properly viewed as part of the linguistic system, but it
clearly plays a major role in language comprehension.
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Is my prescription ready?
Yes.
Can you get it for me?
Yes.
Will you get it for me?
Yes.
I have a baseball bat. I’ll use it.
I didn’t know that.
Get it for me. Now.
OK. Why didn’t you say so when you first came in?
• What aspect of language is the dense pharmacist having difficulty
with? Phonology? Syntax? Semantics?
• Grammatically, what type of sentences is the first utterance (i.e.,
declarative, interrogative, imperative, etc.)?
A Short Story
Janie heard the jingling of the ice cream truck. She
ran upstairs to get her piggy bank. She shook it till
some money came out.
 Roughly how old is Janie?
 Does the money consist of coins or paper
currency?
 What is Janie likely to do with the money?
Where in the language of the story do we find the
answers to these questions?
If we don’t get this information entirely out of the
language, where does it come from?
A Shorter Story
Tyler brought a six pack to the party. His mother
found out about it.
 How old would you guess Tyler is?
 Six pack of what?
 What do you think Mom’s reaction was?
A Really Short Story
Bill: I’m leaving you.
Louise: Who is she?
 What is the story underlying this conversation?
 What do you think Bill means by “leaving”?
Running out to gas up his car? Picking up the dry
cleaning?
 How are you able to reconstruct a story based on
two 3- to 4-word sentences?
 Is it your linguistic knowledge that allows
understand what is going on here?
Language vs. Speech
Last point: I’ve been talking about language and speech
as though they were the same thing. Not.
All speech is language, but not all language is speech.
Two major counterexamples:
• Written language (different in one major way from
spoken language – IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLICITLY
TAUGHT. But it’s still language.)
• Sign language (ASL and all other sign languages)
Sign language is not a stripped down or impoverished
version of spoken language. It conforms to the universal
grammar and contains all of the elements of spoken
language (except sound): structure-dependent rules,
agreement rules, recursion, even movement analogs of
phonological rules and gestural analogs of babbling. It is
full-blown language, not a cheap imitation.