Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Phonological regularities in a given language can be described as a set of formal rules applied to logical expressions (e.g., the value of a distinctive feature) or alternatively as distributional properties emerging from the phonetic substance. An indirect way to assess how phonology is represented in a speaker’s mind consists in testing how phonological regularities are transferred to non-words. This is the objective of this study, focusing on Coratino, a dialect from southern Italy spoken in the Apulia region. In Coratino, a complex process of vowel reduction operates, transforming the /i e ɛ u o ɔ a/ system for stressed vowels into a system with a smaller number of vowels for unstressed configurations, characterized by four major properties: (1) all word-initial vowels are maintained, even unstressed; (2) /a/ is never reduced, even unstressed; (3) unstressed vowels /i e ɛ u o ɔ/ are protected against reduction when they are adjacent to a consonant that shares articulation (labiality and velarity for /u o ɔ/ and palatality for /i e ɛ/); (4) when they are reduced, high vowels are reduced to /ɨ/ and mid vowels to /ə/. A production experiment was carried out on 19 speakers of Coratino to test whether these properties were displayed with non-words. The production data display a complex pattern which seems to imply both explicit/formal rules and distributional properties transferred statistically to non-words. Furthermore, the speakers appear to vary considerably in how they perform this task. Altogether, this suggests that both formal rules and distributional principles contribute to the encoding of Coratino phonology in the speaker’s mind.
verified
References
1 Albright, A. (2007). Gradient Phonological Acceptability As a Grammatical Effect, ms., MIT. (http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/Albright-GrammaticalGradience.pdf)Search in Google Scholar
2 Albright, A., Andrade, A. E., & Hayes, B. (2001). Segmental environments of Spanish diphthongization. In A.Albright & T.Cho (Eds.),UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 7: Papers in Phonology 5 (pp. 117–151).Search in Google Scholar
3 Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study.Cognition, 90(2), 119–161. 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X0010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4 Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2011). Learning and learnability in phonology. In J.Goldsmith, J.Riggle, & A.Yu (Eds.),Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 661–690). Blackwell/Wiley. 10.1002/9781444343069.ch20Search in Google Scholar
5 Bailey, T. M., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 568–591. 10.1006/jmla.2000.27560749-596XSearch in Google Scholar
6 Barnes, J. (2002). Positional neutralization: a phonologization approach to typological patterns. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Search in Google Scholar
7 Barnes, J. (2006). Strength and weakness at the interface: positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
8 Beckman, J. (1998). Positional Faithfulness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar
9 Berent, I. (2013). The phonological mind.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(7), 319–327. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.0041364-6613Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10 Berent, I., Everett, D. L., & Shimron, J. (2001). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.Cognitive Psychology, 42(1), 1–60. 10.1006/cogp.2000.07420010-0285Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11 Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.Cognition, 64(1), 39–72. 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00016-40010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12 Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. from http://www.praat.org/Search in Google Scholar
13 Bucci, J. (2013). Voyelles longues virtuelles et réduction vocalique en coratin. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 58(3), 397–414. doi:10.1017/S0008413100002632Search in Google Scholar
14 Bucci, J. (2017). L'alternance des voyelles moyennes en coratin : une analyse basée sur la théorie des éléments. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63, 1–24. doi:10.1017/cnj.2017.22Search in Google Scholar
15 Bucci, J., Perrier, P., Gerber, S., & Schwartz, J. L. (2018). Vowel Reduction in Coratino (South Italy): Phonological and Phonetic Perspectives.Phonetica. 10.1159/0004909470031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16 Bucci, J., Scheer, T., & Schwartz, J. L. (Manuscript submitted for publication). Phonological analysis of a system with two targets for vowel reduction in Coratino. Linguistic Review.0167-6318Search in Google Scholar
17 Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar
18 Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition.Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.3810167-6318Search in Google Scholar
19 Chociej, J. (2011). Phonological grey areas: The case of polish vowel-zero alternations. Unpublished dissertation. http://individual.utoronto.ca/chociej/Files/UToronto-GP2-Chociej.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
20 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
21 Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar
22 Coady, J. A., & Evans, J. L. (2008). Uses and interpretations of non-word repetition tasks in children with and without specific language impairments (SLI).International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(1), 1–40. 10.1080/136828206011164851368-2822Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23 Coleman, J. (2002). Phonetic representations in the mental lexicon. In J.Durand & B.Laks (Eds.),Phonetics, Phonology, and Cognition (pp. 96–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
24 Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability.Search in Google Scholar
25 D’Introno, F., & Weston, R. M. (2000). Vowel Alternation, Vowel Consonant Assimilation and OCP Effects in a Barese Dialect. In L.Repetti (Ed.),Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy (pp. 89–110). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.212.07dinSearch in Google Scholar
26 Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch.Language, 79(1), 5–38. 10.1353/lan.2003.00760097-8507Search in Google Scholar
27 Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology.Phonology, 18(1), 7–44. 10.1017/S09526757010040060952-6757Search in Google Scholar
28 Flemming, E. (2005). A phonetically-based model of phonological vowel reduction. Manuscript. Cambridge: MIT.Search in Google Scholar
29 Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords.Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 83–94. 10.3758/BF032105590090-502XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
30 Hamann, S. (2011). The phonetics-phonology interface. In N. Kula, B. Botma, & K, Nasukawa (Eds.), Continuum Companion to Phonology (pp. 202–224). London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
31 Hammond, M. (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology.International Journal of English Studies, 4, 1–24.Search in Google Scholar
32 Hayes, B., & Steriade, D. (2004). Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In B.Hayes, R.Kirchner, & D.Steriade (Eds.),Phonetically based phonology (pp. 1–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.001Search in Google Scholar
33 Honeybone, P. (2005). Sharing makes us stronger. In P.Carr, J.Durand, & C.Ewen (Eds.),Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: Phonological papers in honour of John Anderson (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.259.12honSearch in Google Scholar
34 Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 50(3), 346–363. 10.1002/bimj.2008104250323-3847Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35 Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. USA: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
36 Kawahara, S. (2013). Emphatic gemination in Japanese mimetic words: A wug-test with auditory stimuli.Language Sciences, 40, 24–35. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.02.0020388-0001Search in Google Scholar
37 Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J., & Vergnaud, J. R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology.Phonology, 7(1), 193–231. 10.1017/S09526757000011840952-6757Search in Google Scholar
38 Kingston, J. (2006). The phonetics phonology interface. In P.de Lacy (Ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (pp. 401–434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
39 Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11), 1773–1781. 10.1121/1.19188160001-4966Search in Google Scholar
40 Lindblom, B. (1967). Vowel duration and a model of lip mandible coordination.Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report, 4, 1–29.Search in Google Scholar
41 Marcus, G. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1187.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
42 McClelland, J. L. (2009). Phonology and perception: a cognitive scientist’s perspective. In P.Boersma & S.Hamann (Eds.),Phonology in Perception (pp. 293–314). Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
43 Munson, B., Edwards, J., & Beckman, M. E. (2005). Phonological knowledge in typical and atypical speech-sound development.Topics in Language Disorders, 25(3), 190–206. 10.1097/00011363-200507000-000030271-8294Search in Google Scholar PubMed
44 Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J.Bybee & P.Hopper (Eds.),Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar
45 Pierrehumbert, J., Beckman, M. E., & Ladd, D. R. (2000). Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. In N.Burton-Roberts, P.Carr, & G.Docherty (Eds.),Phonological knowledge: Its nature and status (pp. 273–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
46 Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759400Search in Google Scholar
47 R Development Core Team. (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.orgSearch in Google Scholar
48 Saporta, G. (2011). Probabilités, analyse des données et statistique. Paris: Editions TECHNIP.Search in Google Scholar
49 Scheer, T. (2004). A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV, and why should it be? (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908336Search in Google Scholar
50 Scobbie, J.M. (2005). Interface and Overlap in Phonetics and Phonology. In G, Ramchand. & C, Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 17–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
51 Steriade, D. (1994). Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. ms. UCLA.Search in Google Scholar
52 Treiman, R., & Barry, C. (2000). Dialect and authography: Some differences between American and British spellers.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1423–1430. 10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.14230278-7393Search in Google Scholar PubMed
53 Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Knewasser, S., Tincoff, R., & Bowman, M. (1996). English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. In M.Broe & J.Pierrehumbert (Eds.),Papers in Laboratory Phonology V (pp. 269–282). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
54 Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words.Language and Speech, 40(Pt 1), 47–62. 10.1177/0023830997040001030023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
55 Zhang, J., Lai,Y., & Turnbull-Sailor, C. (2006). Wug-testing the “tone circle” in Taiwanese. In D.Baumer, D.Montero, & M.Scanlon(Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 453–461). Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
