Edward Flemming (MIT)
This mini-course is co-organized with Maria Giavazzi
Class I:
Class II:
Class III:
Monday May 29th 2017, from 10:00 to 12:00
ENS (29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris), salle Ribot
The handout for this class is available here
Wednesday May 31st 2017, from 10:00 to 12:00
(followed by a light lunch from 12:00 to 13:00)
ENS (29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris), salle Séminaire du DEC
The handout for this class is available here
Friday June 2nd 2017, from 10:00 to 12:00
ENS (29 rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris), salle Séminaire du DEC
The handout for this class is available here
[a pdf version of the abstract below is available here]
Distinctiveness constraints penalize pairs of contrasting possible words that fall below some threshold of perceptual difference. In these lectures we will explore evidence for distinctiveness constraints in phonology, and the implications of these constraints for the nature of phonological grammars.
A preference for perceptually distinct contrasts has long been hypothesized to explain cross-linguistic tendencies in the phonetic and phonological form of languages (e.g. Passy 1890:227ff., Martinet 1952, 1955). Most notably Liljencrants and Lindblom (1972) proposed a model of inventories of vowel contrasts based on the hypothesis that vowel inventories are selected so as to maximize the perceptual differences between a specified number of vowels. Lindblom (1990a, b, et seq.) dubbed the development of this approach to the analysis of phoneme inventories the Theory of Adaptive Dispersion because a preference to maximize the perceptual distinctiveness of contrasting sounds translates into a preference for maximal dispersion of those sounds in perceptual space.
The preference for distinct contrasts is hypothesized to follow from a preference to minimize perceptual confusion: In order to recover what a speaker is saying, a listener must identify the words in the utterance. The more confusable words are, the more likely a listener is to make errors. Because contrasts are the minimal permissible differences between words in a language, banning indistinct contrasts reduces the likelihood of misperception.
When construed as one class of constraints in an Optimality Theoretic model of phonology, distinctiveness constraints yield a variety of dispersion effects (Flemming 2002, 2004, 2017). The most basic is the preference for maximal dispersion in inventories of contrasting sounds that first motivated the development of the Theory of Adaptive Dispersion. However, distinctiveness constraints evaluate word-forms, so they can also motivate neutralization or enhancement of contrasts in particular phonological contexts. These patterns arise because the phonetic realizations of sounds depend on their context, so the perceptual differences between contrasting sounds also depend on context. If the realization of a contrast in a particular context would be insufficiently distinct (i.e. it would violate a high-ranked distinctiveness constraint), there are two options: the offending contrast can be neutralized, or it can be modified (‘enhanced’) to make it more distinct.
In this mini-course we will:
—
—
—
Review evidence for all three types of dispersion effects, and their analysis in terms of distinctiveness constraints.
Explore the proper formulation of distinctiveness constraints and the technical problems that arise in working with constraints that compare independent phonological forms.
Consider alternative analyses that have been proposed for various subsets of dispersion effects, e.g. perceptually-ranked faithfulness constraints (Steriade 2001) and ‘evolutionary’ approaches (Boersma & Hamann 2008), showing that they do not provide comprehensive accounts.
References:
Boersma, P., & Hamann, S. (2008). The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25, 217-270.
Flemming, E. (2002). Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York: Garland Press.
Flemming, E. (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (eds.) Phonetically-Based Phonology (pp. 232—276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flemming, E. (2017). Dispersion theory and phonology. M. Aronoff (ed.) The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
Liljencrants, J., and Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48, 839–62.
Lindblom, B. (1990a). Phonetic content in phonology. Phonetic Experimental Research, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 11, 101–118.
Lindblom, B. (1990b). Models of phonetic variation and selection. Phonetic Experimental Research, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 11, 65–100.
Martinet, A. (1952). Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8, 1–32.
Martinet, A. (1955). Economie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.
Passy, P. (1891). Etude sur les changements phonétiques et leur caractères généraux. Librairie Firmin-Didot, Paris.
Steriade, D. (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation. In E. Hume and K. Johnson (eds.) The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Suggested readings:
Flemming, E. (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (eds.) Phonetically-Based Phonology (pp. 232—276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liljencrants, J., and Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48, 839–62.
Flemming, E. (2017). Dispersion theory and phonology. M. Aronoff (ed.) The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.