. Bindseil’s generalization . What is a /t/ , anyway? From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? That sounds a bit fishy… …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations about phonological inventories.
. Bindseil’s generalization . What is a /t/ , anyway? From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? That sounds a bit fishy… …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations about phonological inventories.
. Bindseil’s generalization . What is a /t/ , anyway? From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? That sounds a bit fishy… …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations about phonological inventories.
. Bindseil’s generalization . What is a /t/ , anyway? From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? That sounds a bit fishy… …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations about phonological inventories.
. Bindseil’s generalization . What is a /t/ , anyway? From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? That sounds a bit fishy… …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations about phonological inventories.
. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations All spoken languages have sounds that can be realized as [t]. . Bindseil’s generalization, revised . . about phonological inventories. fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. Bindseil’s generalization …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as That sounds a bit fishy… So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about What is a /t/ , anyway? . ☛ This is a purely phonetic claim.
. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations All spoken languages have sounds that can be realized as [t]. . Bindseil’s generalization, revised . . about phonological inventories. fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. Bindseil’s generalization …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as That sounds a bit fishy… So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about What is a /t/ , anyway? . ☛ This is a purely phonetic claim.
. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations is non-distinct from /t/. All phonemic consonant systems contain either /t/ or a segment that . Bindseil’s generalization, revised again . . about phonological inventories. fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. Bindseil’s generalization …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as That sounds a bit fishy… So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about What is a /t/ , anyway? . ☛ This is vacuous.
. The problem is that we’re trying to make phonetic generalizations is non-distinct from /t/. All phonemic consonant systems contain either /t/ or a segment that . Bindseil’s generalization, revised again . . about phonological inventories. fishy to a speaker of Ngiyambaa. Bindseil’s generalization …but perhaps ignoring the dental/alveolar contrast sounds just as That sounds a bit fishy… So can we say that Hawaiian happens to have a velar /t/? the difference between an alveolar /t/ and a dental one. From the beginning, we’ve been assuming that we don’t care about What is a /t/ , anyway? . ☛ This is vacuous.
. . 5 . Clements’s generalizations 4 . . Mohawk 3 . Jakobson’s generalizations Contrasts, not consonants Jakobson’s generalizations 2 . . Bindseil’s generalization 1 . . Representations and their consequences
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants What kinds of generalizations can we make? Generalizations about phonological inventories need to look at phonemic contrasts, not individual phonemes. Roman Jakobson (1941, 1968): “The appearance of single sounds must not be treated in an isolated fashion without regard for their place in the sound system.” Jakobson teaching All consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast ( mama–papa )… … and a labial/coronal contrast ( mama–nana, papa–tata ).
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants What kinds of generalizations can we make? Generalizations about phonological inventories need to look at phonemic contrasts, not individual phonemes. Roman Jakobson (1941, 1968): “The appearance of single sounds must not be treated in an isolated fashion without regard for their place in the sound system.” Jakobson teaching All consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast ( mama–papa )… … and a labial/coronal contrast ( mama–nana, papa–tata ).
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants What kinds of generalizations can we make? Generalizations about phonological inventories need to look at phonemic contrasts, not individual phonemes. Roman Jakobson (1941, 1968): “The appearance of single sounds must not be treated in an isolated fashion without regard for their place in the sound system.” Jakobson teaching All consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast ( mama–papa )… … and a labial/coronal contrast ( mama–nana, papa–tata ).
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants What kinds of generalizations can we make? Generalizations about phonological inventories need to look at phonemic contrasts, not individual phonemes. Roman Jakobson (1941, 1968): “The appearance of single sounds must not be treated in an isolated fashion without regard for their place in the sound system.” Jakobson teaching All consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast ( mama–papa )… … and a labial/coronal contrast ( mama–nana, papa–tata ).
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants What kinds of generalizations can we make? Generalizations about phonological inventories need to look at phonemic contrasts, not individual phonemes. Roman Jakobson (1941, 1968): “The appearance of single sounds must not be treated in an isolated fashion without regard for their place in the sound system.” Jakobson teaching All consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast ( mama–papa )… … and a labial/coronal contrast ( mama–nana, papa–tata ).
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Jakobson’s generalizations . Contrasts, not consonants Do all consonant systems have a nasal/oral contrast? All the languages I’ve looked at contrast oral and nasal stops. They also contrast nasals with other sonorants (e.g., /r/, /l/, /w/). Do all consonant systems have a labial/coronal contrast? All the putatively /t/-less systems have (at least) a clear contrast between /m/ and /n/. The real challenge to this generalization comes from languages that (appear to) lack labials. Let’s look at Mohawk.
. Mohawk 5 . Clements’s generalizations 4 . . [kw] qua /k w / /p/ as in Postal? Borrowings from French The native inventory 3 Mohawk . . Jakobson’s generalizations 2 . . Bindseil’s generalization 1 . . Representations and their consequences
. t w j l/r n h s (ʧ) ʔ k . Mohawk Mohawk (Iroquoian) . . Michelson 1981): The native consonant inventory (according to Bonvillain 1984 and “The consonant inventory of Mohawk […] lacks labials.” Bonvillain (1984): The native inventory . There are no native labial [+consonantal] segments.
. t w j l/r n h s (ʧ) ʔ k . Mohawk Mohawk (Iroquoian) . . Michelson 1981): The native consonant inventory (according to Bonvillain 1984 and “The consonant inventory of Mohawk […] lacks labials.” Bonvillain (1984): The native inventory . There are no native labial [+consonantal] segments.
. t w j l/r n h s (ʧ) ʔ k . Mohawk Mohawk (Iroquoian) . . Michelson 1981): The native consonant inventory (according to Bonvillain 1984 and “The consonant inventory of Mohawk […] lacks labials.” Bonvillain (1984): The native inventory . There are no native labial [+consonantal] segments.
. Papa (We know from Hawaiian that languages with small consonant Mohawk so receptive to them? If the pre-contact inventory lacked these sounds, why was ‘wheelbarrow’ la brouee /raparoet/ ‘catfish’ la barbote /lapahpot/ /papaʔ/ Mohawk Moîse /majis/ Abram /aplam/ Some examples from Bonvillain (1973, 1978, 1984): names) borrowed from French. However, Mohawk has /p/ and /m/ in words (including proper Borrowings from French . inventories don’t necessarily expand them in response to contact.)
. Papa (We know from Hawaiian that languages with small consonant Mohawk so receptive to them? If the pre-contact inventory lacked these sounds, why was ‘wheelbarrow’ la brouee /raparoet/ ‘catfish’ la barbote /lapahpot/ /papaʔ/ Mohawk Moîse /majis/ Abram /aplam/ Some examples from Bonvillain (1973, 1978, 1984): names) borrowed from French. However, Mohawk has /p/ and /m/ in words (including proper Borrowings from French . inventories don’t necessarily expand them in response to contact.)
. Papa (We know from Hawaiian that languages with small consonant Mohawk so receptive to them? If the pre-contact inventory lacked these sounds, why was ‘wheelbarrow’ la brouee /raparoet/ ‘catfish’ la barbote /lapahpot/ /papaʔ/ Mohawk Moîse /majis/ Abram /aplam/ Some examples from Bonvillain (1973, 1978, 1984): names) borrowed from French. However, Mohawk has /p/ and /m/ in words (including proper Borrowings from French . inventories don’t necessarily expand them in response to contact.)
. Papa (We know from Hawaiian that languages with small consonant Mohawk so receptive to them? If the pre-contact inventory lacked these sounds, why was ‘wheelbarrow’ la brouee /raparoet/ ‘catfish’ la barbote /lapahpot/ /papaʔ/ Mohawk Moîse /majis/ Abram /aplam/ Some examples from Bonvillain (1973, 1978, 1984): names) borrowed from French. However, Mohawk has /p/ and /m/ in words (including proper Borrowings from French . inventories don’t necessarily expand them in response to contact.)
< = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ? [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. /hra+ko+as/ [ˈrak.was] ‘he picks it’ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: /hra+upeh/ [ˈruː.kweh] . . Mohawk In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified understood as a single segment underlyingly. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. /p/ as in Postal? . ‘man’
< = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ? [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. /hra+ko+as/ [ˈrak.was] ‘he picks it’ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: /hra+upeh/ [ˈruː.kweh] . . Mohawk In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified understood as a single segment underlyingly. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. /p/ as in Postal? . ‘man’
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. Mohawk [ˈruː.kweh] /hra+upeh/ [kw] from underlying ‘/p/’ does not: ‘he picks it’ [ˈrak.was] /hra+ko+as/ [kw] from underlying /ko/ closes syllables: For example, stressed vowels lengthen in open syllables. . ‘man’ understood as a single segment underlyingly. . /p/ as in Postal? Perhaps Mohawk already had labial consonants. Postal (1968) argues that some surface [kw] sequences are best In Postal’s analysis, this segment is /p/, specified < = � consonantal @ A @ A � sonorant @ A @ A @ A � grave @ A @ A � compact > ?
. /kʷ/ Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal /k/ Mohawk /t/ /ʔ/ Specifications for native Mohawk stops: is something more like /kʷ/. We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but and /b/ also come out as [kw]? But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ [kw] qua /k w / . contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory.
. /kʷ/ Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal /k/ Mohawk /t/ /ʔ/ Specifications for native Mohawk stops: is something more like /kʷ/. We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but and /b/ also come out as [kw]? But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ [kw] qua /k w / . contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory.
. Mohawk Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory. /kʷ/ /t/ . [kw] qua /k w / /k/ But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ and /b/ also come out as [kw]? We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but is something more like /kʷ/. Specifications for native Mohawk stops: /ʔ/ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘
. Mohawk Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory. /kʷ/ /t/ . [kw] qua /k w / /k/ But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ and /b/ also come out as [kw]? We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but is something more like /kʷ/. Specifications for native Mohawk stops: /ʔ/ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘
. Mohawk Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory. /kʷ/ /t/ . [kw] qua /k w / /k/ But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ and /b/ also come out as [kw]? We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but is something more like /kʷ/. Specifications for native Mohawk stops: /ʔ/ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘
. Mohawk Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal /p/ contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory. /k/ and /b/ also come out as [kw]? . [kw] qua /k w / /kʷ/ But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ /t/ /ʔ/ Specifications for native and borrowed Mohawk stops: is something more like /kʷ/. We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘
. Mohawk Jakobson is partially vindicated: there’s no direct labial/coronal /p/ can be represented using a subset of the features of /kʷ/. Mackenzie 2009; Hall 2007) in which Dorsal takes scope over Labial. It’s also consistent with a contrastive hierarchy (Dresher 2009; This is consistent with the realization of /kʷ/ as [kw]. Labial Labial Dorsal Dorsal Coronal /p/ contrast, but labial place is contrastive in the native inventory. /k/ and /b/ also come out as [kw]? . [kw] qua /k w / /kʷ/ But if there is a native /p/ realized as [kw], why don’t French /p/ /t/ /ʔ/ Specifications for native and borrowed Mohawk stops: is something more like /kʷ/. We can still say that it is a single segment, and has labial place, but ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘ ❘
. . 5 . . Labialization: Reality Labialization: Expectations Marked feature avoidance Feature economy Clements’s generalizations 4 . Mohawk Clements’s generalizations 3 . . Jakobson’s generalizations 2 . . Bindseil’s generalization 1 . . Representations and their consequences
. Clements’s generalizations . Clements (2009): Feature-based principles govern the shapes of phonological inventories. Feature bounding Feature economy Marked feature avoidance Robustness Phonological enhancement Nick Clements /kʷ/ and its ilk turn out to pose some interesting questions for two of these principles.
. Clements’s generalizations . Clements (2009): Feature-based principles govern the shapes of phonological inventories: Feature bounding Feature economy Marked feature avoidance Robustness Phonological enhancement Nick Clements /kʷ/ and its ilk turn out to pose some interesting questions for two of these principles.
. Clements’s generalizations . Clements (2009): Feature-based principles govern the shapes of phonological inventories: Feature bounding Feature economy Marked feature avoidance Robustness Phonological enhancement Nick Clements /kʷ/ and its ilk turn out to pose some interesting questions for two of these principles.
. Clements’s generalizations . Clements (2009): Feature-based principles govern the shapes of phonological inventories: Feature bounding Feature economy Marked feature avoidance Robustness Phonological enhancement Nick Clements /kʷ/ and its ilk turn out to pose some interesting questions for two of these principles.
. . bʰ ɡ d t p kʰ Less economical Clements’s generalizations . . “Features tend to be combined maximally.” Feature economy (Clements 2003, 2009): Feature economy . (see also Hall 2007: §4.3.3; Mackie & Mielke 2011)
. . bʰ ɡ d t p kʰ Less economical Clements’s generalizations . . “Features tend to be combined maximally.” Feature economy (Clements 2003, 2009): Feature economy . (see also Hall 2007: §4.3.3; Mackie & Mielke 2011)
. ɡ ɡ d b k t p . More economical . . bʰ d Clements’s generalizations t p kʰ . Less economical . . “Features tend to be combined maximally.” Feature economy (Clements 2003, 2009): Feature economy . (see also Hall 2007: §4.3.3; Mackie & Mielke 2011)
. . ɡʰ dʰ bʰ ɡ d b k t p kʰ tʰ pʰ . More economical . Clements’s generalizations bʰ ɡ d t p kʰ . Less economical . . “Features tend to be combined maximally.” Feature economy (Clements 2003, 2009): Feature economy . (see also Hall 2007: §4.3.3; Mackie & Mielke 2011)
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Marked feature avoidance (Clements 2009: 42): “Marked feature values can be defined as those that are not present in all languages.” “Inventories show a tendency to avoid marked feature values.” This looks circular. (Languages tend to avoid rare sounds?) But it does have empirical content….
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Marked feature avoidance (Clements 2009: 42): “Marked feature values can be defined as those that are not present in all languages.” “Inventories show a tendency to avoid marked feature values.” This looks circular. (Languages tend to avoid rare sounds?) But it does have empirical content….
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Marked feature avoidance (Clements 2009: 42): “Marked feature values can be defined as those that are not present in all languages.” “Inventories show a tendency to avoid marked feature values.” This looks circular. (Languages tend to avoid rare sounds?) But it does have empirical content….
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Marked feature avoidance (Clements 2009: 42): “Marked feature values can be defined as those that are not present in all languages.” “Inventories show a tendency to avoid marked feature values.” This looks circular. (Languages tend to avoid rare sounds?) But it does have empirical content….
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Marked feature avoidance (Clements 2009: 42): “Marked feature values can be defined as those that are not present in all languages.” “Inventories show a tendency to avoid marked feature values.” This looks circular. (Languages tend to avoid rare sounds?) But it does have empirical content….
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Predictions of Marked feature avoidance: Paerns of markedness should hold both within and between languages. Marked sounds are a last (or at least laer) resort for any inventory. There should be no sounds that occur only in small inventories. The markedness of a segment should correlate negatively with the number of inventories in which it occurs… …and positively with their mean size.
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Predictions of Marked feature avoidance: Paerns of markedness should hold both within and between languages. Marked sounds are a last (or at least laer) resort for any inventory. There should be no sounds that occur only in small inventories. The markedness of a segment should correlate negatively with the number of inventories in which it occurs… …and positively with their mean size.
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Predictions of Marked feature avoidance: Paerns of markedness should hold both within and between languages. Marked sounds are a last (or at least laer) resort for any inventory. There should be no sounds that occur only in small inventories. The markedness of a segment should correlate negatively with the number of inventories in which it occurs… …and positively with their mean size.
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Predictions of Marked feature avoidance: Paerns of markedness should hold both within and between languages. Marked sounds are a last (or at least laer) resort for any inventory. There should be no sounds that occur only in small inventories. The markedness of a segment should correlate negatively with the number of inventories in which it occurs… …and positively with their mean size.
. Clements’s generalizations . Marked feature avoidance Predictions of Marked feature avoidance: Paerns of markedness should hold both within and between languages. Marked sounds are a last (or at least laer) resort for any inventory. There should be no sounds that occur only in small inventories. The markedness of a segment should correlate negatively with the number of inventories in which it occurs… …and positively with their mean size.
. Number of inventories in K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop of the indicated type UPSID containing segments 450 Clements’s generalizations . K . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in fewer inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. Number of inventories in K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop of the indicated type UPSID containing segments 450 Clements’s generalizations . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in fewer inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop of the indicated type UPSID containing segments Number of inventories in 69 450 Clements’s generalizations . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in fewer inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop of the indicated type UPSID containing segments Number of inventories in 68 . 69 450 Clements’s generalizations . K’ . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in fewer inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop of the indicated type UPSID containing segments Number of inventories in 23 . 68 . 69 450 Clements’s generalizations . K’ʷ . K’ . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in fewer inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. in UPSID inventories K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop indicated type containing segments of the Mean number of consonants Clements’s generalizations 19.7 . K . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in larger inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. Mean number of consonants K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop indicated type containing segments of the in UPSID inventories 19.7 Clements’s generalizations . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in larger inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop indicated type containing segments of the in UPSID inventories Mean number of consonants 26.4 19.7 Clements’s generalizations . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in larger inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop indicated type containing segments of the in UPSID inventories Mean number of consonants 29.0 . 26.4 19.7 Clements’s generalizations . K’ . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in larger inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. . K’ʷ = labialized dorsal K’ = plain dorsal ejective Kʷ = labialized dorsal stop K = any plain dorsal stop indicated type containing segments of the in UPSID inventories Mean number of consonants 35.8 . 29.0 . 26.4 19.7 Clements’s generalizations . K’ʷ . K’ . Kʷ . K . . Clements (2009: 42): Marked segments occur in larger inventories. Marked feature avoidance . ejective
. Feature economy predicts that secondary articulations should be …except to the extent that some place features are inherently more others… primary and secondary place to be more or less marked than the …but there is no reason to expect any specific combination of The presence of labialization on consonants is marked… contrastive across the inventory if they are contrastive at all. independently (within anatomical limits). Clements’s generalizations Primary and secondary articulations should be able to vary (Clements & Hume 1995). as [+rounded] (Clements 2009), or [labial] under the V-place node Suppose that labialization is represented by a marked feature such What do Clements’s principles predict for labialized consonants? Labialization: Expectations . or less marked than others.
. Feature economy predicts that secondary articulations should be …except to the extent that some place features are inherently more others… primary and secondary place to be more or less marked than the …but there is no reason to expect any specific combination of The presence of labialization on consonants is marked… contrastive across the inventory if they are contrastive at all. independently (within anatomical limits). Clements’s generalizations Primary and secondary articulations should be able to vary (Clements & Hume 1995). as [+rounded] (Clements 2009), or [labial] under the V-place node Suppose that labialization is represented by a marked feature such What do Clements’s principles predict for labialized consonants? Labialization: Expectations . or less marked than others.
Recommend
More recommend
