Bybee, Joan L.;
Phonology and language use
Cambridge University Press, 2001, 238 pages
ISBN 0521583748, 9780521583749
topics: | linguistics | functional | phonology
To someone approaching linguistics from other disciplines, it might seem odd that language use is not considered while formulating theories of language. However, since language is such a complex phenomenon, it has been necessary to narrow the field of study to make it manageable. Thus we commonly separate phonology from syntax, synchrony from diachrony, child language from adult language, and so on, constantly bearing in mind that interactions exist that will eventually have to be taken into account. ... [leads to] a theory of syntax, a theory of phonology, a theory of language acquisition – knowing all the while that the ultimate goal is to encompass all these subfields in one theory of language. Early in the twentieth century, a proposal was made to distinguish the shared knowledge that a community of speakers has from the actual uses to which that knowledge is put (de Saussure 1916). Many researchers then focused their attention on the structure of that shared knowledge (called ‘langue’ by Saussure and ‘competence’ by Chomsky 1965) and paid little attention to language use in real time. The focus on competence, or the structure of language, turned out to be extremely productive. Structuralism provided linguists with a workshop of analytic tools for breaking down the continuous speech stream into units, and these units into features; structuralism postulated hierarchical relations among the units and assigned structures to different levels of grammar, organizing language and the people who study it into subfields – phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. [Bybee] proposes to demonstrate that the focus on structure needs to be supplemented with [a] view that includes two other important aspects - the material content or substance of language, and language use. Language use includes not just the processing of language, but all the social and interactional uses to which language is put. For present purposes, in the context of phonology, the frequency with which certain words, phrases, or patterns are used will be shown to have an impact on phonological structure. In the domain of morphosyntax, a substantial development beyond structuralism has already taken place. The content of grammatical categories has been studied as a substantive rather than a structural matter, for example, in crosslinguistic studies of subject, topic, noun, verb, tense, aspect (Comrie 1976, 1985, Dahl 1985), mood, and so on. Also use is being studied as a prime shaper of syntactic structure (Givón 1979, Haiman 1994, Hopper and Thompson 1984, and others) and morphological structure (Bybee 1985, Bybee et al. 1994, DuBois 1985). So far, no comparable development has occurred in phonology... We still do not have strict definitions of even the most basic units, such as segment, syllable, morpheme, and word. Instead we find variation and gradience commonplace in empirical studies, and we find phonological phenomena intimately bound up with lexicon and morphology, syntax, discourse, and social context. Other developments also point to a new view of language. Studies of natural categorization by psychologist Eleanor Rosch and her colleagues have had an impact on the way that linguists view categories, including word meaning (Lakoff 1987), grammatical classes such as gender (Zubin and Köpcke 1981), verb classes (Bybee and Moder 1983), grammatical functions such as subject and topic, and phonetic categories (K. Johnson 1997, Miller 1994, and other ‘exemplar’ approaches to phonetic categories). In particular, these studies show that the way human beings categorize both nonlinguistic and linguistic entities is not by discrete assignments to categories based on the presence or absence of features, but rather by comparison of features shared with a central member. Moreover, Nosofsky (1988) has shown that the perceived center of a category can shift toward the more frequently experienced members.
A second development important to linguistic modeling is the
development of computer models that can reproduce apparent
‘rule-governed’ behavior as well as probabilistic behavior using
parallel distributed processing (Daugherty and Seidenberg 1994,
Rumelhart and McClelland 1986, and others).
In such models, labeled connectionist models, structures are not given in
advance (i.e., innate), but take their form from the nature of the input,
just as neurological matter is structured by the input it
receives. Connectionist models, then, are quite compatible with usage-based
theories of language.
Langacker (1987) and now Ohala and Ohala (1995) argue that storage of
linguistic percepts should be like the storage of other mental percepts.
Yet a third recent development applicable to a large array of sciences
is the study of complex systems and their emergent properties.
The basic idea behind emergence as it will be applicable here is that
certain simple properties of a substantive nature, when applied repeatedly,
create structure.
Lindblom et al. (1984) are, to my knowledge, the first to apply the notion
of emergent structure in linguistics. They illustrate emergence in the
following way:
Termites construct nests that are structured in terms of pillars and
arches and that create a sort of ‘air-conditioned’ environment. The
form of these nests appears to arise as a result of a simple local
behavioral pattern which is followed by each individual insect... Each
termite appears to follow a path of increasing pheromone density and
deposit when the density starts to decrease. Suppose the termites
begin to build on a fairly flat surface. In the beginning the deposits
are randomly distributed. A fairly uniform distribution of pheromone is
produced. Somewhat later local peaks have begun to appear serving as
stimuli for further deposits that gradually grow into pillars and walls
by iteration of the same basic stimulus-response process. At points
where several such peaks come close, stimulus conditions are
particularly likely to generate responses. Deposits made near such
maxima of stimulation tend to form arches. As termites continue their
local behavior in this manner, the elaborate structure of the nest
gradually emerges. (Lindblom et al. 1984: 185–186)
Lindblom et al. point out that the importance of this notion for linguistics
is that structure can be explained without attributing a ‘mental blueprint’
to the creatures creating the structure – that substance and form are
intimately related (see also Hopper 1987, Keller 1994).
... phonological fusion of morphemes reflects their degree of semantic fusion, and in the chapters of this book, I will explore further the relation between grammatical and lexical units and phonological structure. In fact, a good deal of progress in morphology and syntax has been made in explaining specific phenomena by making just this assumption. It has been shown that syntactic structures are the result of the conventionalization of frequently used discourse patterns (e.g., DuBois 1985, Givón 1979), and that grammatical morphemes develop from lexical morphemes in particular constructions through increases in the frequency of use and through extension in use to more and more contexts (Bybee et al. 1994, Haiman 1994). Greenberg (1966) has demonstrated that markedness effects are directly related to frequency of use, with unmarked members of categories being the most frequent, and Tiersma (1982) has shown that this hypothesis also explains cases of local markedness in morphology. Psycholinguists have long known that high-frequency words are accessed faster than low-frequency ones, and I have argued that high-frequency irregular morphological formations tend to maintain their irregularities precisely because of their high frequency (Bybee 1985, Hooper 1976b). In all of these findings we have a dynamic aspect – language structure is becoming or remaining because of the way language is used. Thus the emphasis on the static, synchronic language as the object of study has given way to the view of language as slowly, gradually, but inexorably mutating under the dynamic forces of language use.
1. Experience affects representation. [AM: chunks?] The use of forms and patterns both in production and perception affects their representation in memory. High-frequency words and phrases have stronger representations in the sense that they are more easily accessed and less likely to undergo analogical change. The lexical strength of words may change as they are used more or less in different contexts. 2. Mental representations of linguistic objects have the same properties as mental representations of other objects. 3. Categorization is based on identity or similarity. 4. Generalizations over forms are not separate from the stored representation of forms but emerge directly from them. In Langacker’s terms, there is no ‘rule/list separation’ (see Chapter 2). Generalizations over forms are expressed as relations among forms based on phonetic and/or semantic similarities. 5. Lexical organization provides generalizations and segmentation at various degrees of abstraction and generality. Units such as morpheme, segment, or syllable are emergent in the sense that they arise from the relations of identity and similarity that organize representations. Since storage in this model is highly redundant, schemas may describe the same pattern at different degrees of generality (Langacker 2000). 6. Grammatical knowledge is procedural knowledge. Anderson (1993) and Boyland (1996) distinguish declarative or propositional knowledge (e.g., ‘Washington, DC is the capital of the United States’) from procedural knowledge (how to drive a car, tie your shoelaces, and so on). While linguistic knowledge is in part declarative (in the sense that we can cite the meanings of words, for instance), much linguistic knowledge is procedural (Boyland 1996). A native speaker can form an acceptable sentence quite automatically, yet be unable to explain how this was done or to list what the properties of an acceptable sentence are.
Usage-based functionalism emphasizes language as a conventionalized, cultural object. In order to understand the nature of language, we need to understand what it means for behavior to be conventionalized. Haiman (1994, 1998) discusses grammar as ritualized behavior and points to various properties of both ritual and grammar that are the result of repetition. Unlike convention, which is agreed upon socially and evokes a consistent response in other members of a society, a ritual may be individual and idiosyncratic - but for both, their structure is shaped by repetition. Through repetition we get lexical strength – strong, easily accessible representations, such as a greeting when you see someone you know or responses such as ‘thank you’ and ‘you’re welcome’; that is, any kind of learned automatic response. It is repetition that ritualizes these responses and makes them readily available. Repetition also leads to reduction of form. This is true of nonlinguistic gestures such as making the sign of the cross. It is true in nonhuman rituals: among chimpanzees (according to Plooij 1978, cited in Haiman 1994) the original gesture of lying down is reduced to just leaning slightly backwards. And it is true of language ... (how are you becomes hi), (going to becomes gonna)... Repetition also leads to the reduction of meaning. This reduction or bleaching of meaning can be related to what Haiman calls habituation, or the loss of impact due to repetition. Habituation is also a general phenomenon, not restricted to language or to humans. It is ‘a decline in the tendency to respond to stimuli that have become familiar due to repeated or persistent exposure’ (Haiman 1994:7). We recognize habituation in the trivialization by repetition of great music (Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony) or great art (Van Gogh’s sunflowers). We also find it in language in cases where the emphatic becomes the normal. For instance, in the French negative construction ne pas; pas, literally ‘step’, was once an emphatic added to the original negative ne, but is now obligatory and nonemphatic. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, repetition leads to emancipation. In emancipation, instrumental actions are disassociated from their original motivation and are free to take on a communicative function instead. The military salute derives from the more instrumental gesture used in the Middle Ages when knights in armor greeted one another. It no longer raises the visor, but it has been imbued instead with the function of communicating respect for the military hierarchy.
phonetic change often progresses more quickly in items with high token frequency. [token = units, e.g. words, as opp to types, e.g. -ed past tense marker]. Phonology: This effect is particularly noticeable in grammaticizing elements or phrases that undergo drastic reduction as they increase in frequency. Thus the conventionalized contractions of English are reduced due to their high frequency: I’m, I’ll, I’ve, can’t, don’t, won’t, and so on (Krug 1998). [but high frequency forms are also conservative against broader patterns]: while English weep / wept, creep / crept, and leap / leapt have a tendency to regularize to weeped, creeped, and leaped, high-frequency verbs with the same pattern, keep / kept, sleep / slept show no such tendency (Bybee 1985, Hooper 1976b). Morphology: Morphological irregularity is always centered on the high-frequency items of a language. [e.g. irregular verbs] Syntax: Thus, pronouns show more conservative behavior than noun phrases - English pronouns, for example, maintain distinct forms for nominative and oblique case, while nouns have lost these case distinctions. Similarly, verbal auxiliaries, which are very frequent, often retain conservative syntactic characteristics. The English auxiliaries, for instance, retain the ability to invert with the subject, and they precede rather than follow the negative, both properties once shared by all verbs.
The prevalence of frequency effects at various levels in language are
contrary to :
* Structuralist and generative theories which assume that the lexicon is a
static list, and that neither the rules nor the lexical forms of a
language are changed at all by instances of use.
* Optimality Theory (Hayes 1999, Prince and Smolensky 1993, 1997):
all versions posit a strict separation of lexicon and grammar
(Pierrehumbert, 1999)
-> makes it impossible to describe any of the interactions of phonology
with the lexicon that are attested in the literature
List of Figures page xiii List of Tables xv Acknowledgments xvii 1 Language Use as Part of Linguistic Theory 1 1.1 Substance and Usage in Phonology 1 1.2 Some Basic Principles of a Usage-Based Model 6 1.3 The Creative Role of Repetition 8 1.4 Frequency Effects 10 1.5 Phonology as Procedure, Structure as Emergent 14 1.6 Organization of the Book 16 1.7 Language as a Part of Human Behavior 17 2 A Usage-Based Model for Phonology and Morphology 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 The Rule/List Fallacy 20 2.3 Organized Storage 21 2.4 Morphological Structure Is Emergent 23 2.5 Rules and Schemas Compared 26 2.6 Frequency Effects 28 2.7 Units of Storage 29 2.8 Phonological Units 31 2.9 From Local to General Schemas 31 2.10 Conclusion 33 3 The Nature of Lexical Representation 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 The Phonemic Principle 35 3.3 A Cognitively Realistic Model of Phonological Representation 37 3.4 Linguistic Evidence for Detailed and Redundant Storage 40 3.5 Usage-Based Categorization versus Phonemic Representation 49 3.6 Phonetic Detail in the Lexicon – Variation and the Early Involvement of the Lexicon and Morphology in Change 54 3.7 A Model for Sound Change 57 3.8 Special Reduction of High-Frequency Words and Phrases 60 3.9 Conclusion 62 4 Phonological Processes, Phonological Patterns 63 4.1 Introduction 63 4.2 Phonetic Etiology and Its Limits 65 4.3 Articulatory Gestures 69 4.4 Patterns of Change and Constraints on Processes 77 4.5 Segments as Emergent Units 85 4.6 Generalization over Syllable-Initial and Syllable- Final Position 86 4.7 Phonotactics 88 4.8 Conclusion 95 5 The Interaction of Phonology with Morphology 96 5.1 Introduction 96 5.2 Morphological versus Phonological Conditioning 97 5.3 Lexical Storage of Complex Forms, Both Regular and Irregular 109 5.4 Lexical Strength 113 5.5 Paradigmatic Relations Expressed as Lexical Connections 117 5.6 Lexical Classes: Productivity Due to Type Frequency 118 5.7 The Interaction of Lexical Strength and Lexical Connection 124 5.8 Product-Oriented Schemas 126 5.9 Phonological Similarity in Gangs 130 5.10 Conclusion 135 6 The Units of Storage and Access: Morphemes, Words, and Phrases 137 6.1 Introduction 137 6.2 Phonological Representations of Words 138 6.3 Morphemes within Words 144 6.4 Phrases and Constructions with Alternations 157 6.5 Conclusion 166 7 Constructions as Processing Units: The Rise and Fall of French Liaison 167 7.1 Introduction 167 7.2 Final Consonant Deletion in French 168 7.3 Grammatical Constructions and Liaison 171 7.4 Loss of Liaison as Regularization 177 7.5 Syntactic Cohesion as Frequency of Co-occurrence 185 7.6 Taking the Phonology Seriously 185 7.7 Conclusion 187 8 Universals, Synchrony and Diachrony 189 8.1 Universals and Explanation 189 8.2 Searching for Universals 191 8.3 Phoneme Inventories 197 8.4 Two Main Mechanisms for Phonological Change 199 8.5 Syllable Structure 204 8.6 More Evidence against Universals as Purely Synchronic 211 8.7 Diachronic Sources for Formal Universals: The Phonemic Principle and Structure Preservation 212 References 217 Author Index 231 Subject Index 235 Languages Index 238 --from blurb Rather than assuming phonological representations in terms of phonemes, Joan Bybee adopts an exemplar model, in which specific tokens of use are stored and categorized phonetically with reference to variables in the context. This model allows an account of phonetically gradual sound change which produces lexical variation, and provides an explanatory account of the fact that many reductive sound changes affect high frequency items first. The well-known effects of type and token frequency on morphologically-conditioned phonological alterations are shown also to apply to larger sequences, such as fixed phrases and constructions, solving some of the problems formulated previously as dealing with the phonology-syntax interface.