Duality of Patterning: Absolute Universal Or Statistical Tendency?

DOI 10.1515/langcog-2012-0016 Language and Cognition 2012; 4(4): 275 – 296

1 Juliette Blevins 2 3 Duality of patterning: Absolute universal or 4 statistical tendency? 5 6 Abstract: As more of the world’s languages are described and compared, more 7 absolute universals have joined the class of statistical tendencies. However, few 8 have questioned the universality of the duality of patterning. Following Hockett, 9 most linguists assume that in all human languages, discrete meaningless parts 10 combine to form meaningful units that, themselves, recombine. However, an 11 alternative interpretation, explored in this article, is that duality, like other 12 proposed linguistic universals, is a statistical tendency reflecting a complex set 13 of factors, and most centrally, the need for some minimal number of basic units 14 that can recombine to yield a potentially infinite set of form-meaning correspon- 15 dences. If this is the essence of duality, then we expect: languages where duality 16 is not a central component of grammar; languages where most, but not all, utter- 17 ances are decomposable into meaningless phonological units; and different types 18 of phonological building blocks in different languages. These expectations ap- 19 pear to be confirmed by natural language data. 20 21 Keywords: duality of patterning, language universals, statistical tendencies, pho- 22 nology, Charles F. Hockett 23 24 25 Juliette Blevins: Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, 26 NY 10016, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 27 28 29 30 31 1 Linguistic universals as statistical tendencies 32 33 Absolute universals are properties that all languages share. As more of the world’s 34 languages are described and compared, more absolute universals have joined the 35 class of statistical tendencies, holding true of most languages, but not all. For 36 example, in the realm of spoken language phonology, it was once thought that all 37 languages make use of a coronal stop phoneme /t/, with this following from the 38 unmarked status of coronal consonants cross-linguistically, and more generally 39 that all phonological systems have coronal phonemes (Hyman 2008). However, 40 Northwest Mekeo, a Western Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea has the

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 275–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 275) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM 276 J. Blevins

simple consonant inventory /p k β g m ŋ/, and not only lacks /t/, but appears to 1 1 have no coronal phonemes at all (Blevins 2009). The existence of a language like 2 2 Northwest Mekeo is good evidence that the contrastive use of coronal place of 3 3 articulation in spoken languages is a strong statistical tendency whose source 4 4 is not an innate design feature of language, but a range of independently con 5 5 vergent extra-grammatical factors including speech articulation, perception, 6 6 aerodynamics, and language contact. 7 7 Absolute universals are also compromised when a particular language 8 8 adheres to a universal most of the time, but not always. Language-internal statis- 9 9 tical tendencies of this kind (referred to as “matters of degree” by Ladd 2012), 10 10 challenge classical phonological theory, where universals of contrast, phonotac- 11 11 tics, and alternations are stated categorically (Ernestus 2011). Consider, for 12 12 example, 20th century analyses of Yawelmani Yokuts vowel alternations which 13 13 incorporate closed syllable-shortening to enforce a constraint against CVVC syl- 14 14 lables (Kuroda 1967; Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979; Kenstowicz 1994; McCarthy 15 15 1999). The great majority of CVVC syllables surface as simple CVC, but a small 16 16 number do not (Blevins 2004). If closed syllable-shortening is attributed to the 17 17 dominance of a universal preference for CVC vs. CVVC syllables in the grammar of 18 18 Yawelmani, how does one explain the fact that a small number of CVVC syllables 19 19 surface? While Sapir (1921: 39) observed early on that “all grammars leak”, it 20 20 seems we must all accept that all universals seep: within the grammar, most forms 21 21 adhere to them, but at the periphery where function may dominate form, they are 22 22 diluted and violable. 23 23 More general design features of human language (Hockett 1960) have also 24 24 come under renewed scrutiny as more and better language descriptions become 25 25 available. Recursion, once thought to be a universal feature of natural language 26 26 syntax, has been reported to be absent in some languages (Everett 2005; Sakel 27 27 and Stapert 2010). However, few have questioned the universality of the duality 28 28 of patterning. Following Hockett, most linguists assume that in all human lan- 29 29 guages, discrete meaningless parts combine to form meaningful units which, 30 30 themselves, recombine: “The meaningful elements in any language – “words” 31 31 in everyday parlance, “morphemes” to the linguist – constitute an enormous 32 32 stock. Yet they are represented by small arrangements of a relatively very small 33 33 stock of distinguishable sounds which are themselves wholly meaningless” 34 34 (Hockett 1960: 6; See Ladd 2012, for a comparison with Martinet’s view of “double 35 35 articulation”). 36 36 Hockett’s reference to duality as “a human design feature” suggests not only 37 37 that small meaningless elements can recombine to form larger meaningful units, 38 38 but that they must do so. Indeed, we find 21st-century textbooks stating that “The 39 39 sounds of a language are intrinsically meaningless: their only purpose is to form 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 276–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 276) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 277–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 277) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 277

1 1 the building blocks of which words are made” (Hayes 2009: 19). However, an al- 2 2 ternative interpretation is that duality, like other proposed linguistic universals, 3 3 is a statistical tendency reflecting a complex sets of factors, and most centrally, 4 4 the need for some minimal number of basic units that can recombine to yield a 5 5 potentially infinite set of form-meaning correspondences. If this is the essence of 6 6 duality, then our expectations regarding universality will be quite different from 7 7 the rigid interpretation of Hayes and others. 8 8 First, we expect that though rare, there may actually be a natural human lan- 9 9 guage where duality is violated, or not a central component of grammar. Though 10 10 duality of patterning is evident in all widely established sign languages (Stokoe 11 11 1960; Sandler 1989; Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006), there may be some excep- 12 12 tions. A case of this kind is suggested by research on a relatively young sign 13 13 language, Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. In their on-going description of 14 14 Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language grammar, Sandler et al. (2011) propose that 15 15 this natural human language lacks duality of patterning, despite its apparent 16 16 well-developed prosody, relatively large lexicon, productive word-formation pro- 17 17 cesses, stable SOV constituent order, and normal usage in everyday life. If this 18 18 is true, then, as with use of the coronal stop phoneme /t/ in spoken languages, 19 19 duality of patterning may be a strong statistical tendency whose source is not an 20 20 innate design feature of language, but related more directly to functional issues 21 21 such as means of productive word-formation processes, limits on memory, and/or 22 22 limits on word-specific articulatory routines. 23 23 Second, we expect to find languages where most, but not all, utterances 24 24 are decomposable into meaningless features, segments and other phonological 25 25 flotsam and jetsam. Since universals seep, there may be edges of the language 26 26 that are external to this seepage. In these far corners we may see holistic non- 27 27 compositional utterances on the one hand, or meaningful bits and pieces on the 28 28 other. In the sections that follow, I suggest several places where spoken languag- 29 29 es show grammar-internal violations of duality: in sub-systems of sound symbol- 30 30 ism where single features are systematically meaningful, and in what I call ‘holis- 31 31 tic morphemes’ where, at the level of sound, utterances resist decomposition. 32 32 However, before discussing these, it is worth noting that, while Al-Sayyid Bedouin 33 33 Sign Language may show an extreme case where duality of patterning is nearly 34 34 absent, other sign languages may have central iconic ‘channels’ which also lack 35 35 duality. For example, in Nepali Sign Language, duality is clear in some signing, 36 36 but not in other, and not consistently (Graif 2011). In discourse, it is common for 37 37 signers to go back and forth between iconic and arbitrary signing, and lexical 38 38 and iconic (non-decomposable, holistic) signs are interchangeable. The socio 39 39 linguistic context lends some understanding to the situation. As Graif (2011: 10) 40 40 describes:

NSL [Nepali Sign Language:JB] is a language, but it is also a language that keeps banker’s 1 1 hours: at 5 pm, the clubs, schools, and offices that host Kathmandu’s deaf community close 2 2 and the majority of NSL-speakers go home to non-fluent signing environments. Deaf people 3 3 are always – already [sic] immersed in highly complex linguistic and semiotic worlds, and it 4 4 appears that deaf languages represent this fact by incorporating complex mechanisms of interdiscursivity into the core of grammatical competency. 5 5 6 6 7 7 A third expectation we might have if duality is a way of making a lot of linguistic 8 8 “molecules” out of smaller linguistic “atomic elements”, is that these atomic ele- 9 9 ments or building blocks need not be limited to “distinguishable sounds”: dis- 10 10 tinctive features, which are abstract and not pronounceable or distinguishable 11 11 alone, might also serve as meaningless combinatory elements, and bigger phono- 12 12 logical units like syllable templates could do the same. This is, of course, what is 13 13 found in spoken languages. Segments are fruitfully viewed as composites of dis- 14 14 tinctive features, and it is only when these features have meaning (see below), 15 15 that we are forced to admit that the segment is too gross a level of description. The 16 16 same is true for bigger units: in the many Semitic languages where syllabic tem- 17 17 plates like CVCVC (vs. CVCCVC) lend meaning to words, one is forced to admit 18 18 that syllable structure (independent of segmental content) can act as an atomic 19 19 element in word-formation. In other words, though there is a clear statistical 20 20 tendency for spoken languages to make greater use of the combinatorial proper- 21 21 ties of meaningless single segments than smaller feature-sized units, or larger 22 22 sequences of segments, there is no reason to expect that either of these possibili- 23 23 ties will be ruled out, and indeed, they are not. 24 24 While combination and recombination are clear properties of phonological 25 25 features and segments, in this paper I suggest that duality not be regarded an 26 26 obligatory design feature of languages for two central reasons. First, though the 27 27 smallest bits of spoken language are typically meaningless, and thus, can rightly 28 28 be referred to as “cenemes” (< Greek ken- ‘empty’) within Martinet’s (1949, 1980) 29 29 model of double articulation, the exact same elements within a language can be 30 30 meaningful, and hence worthy of the “plereme” (< Greek pleth- ‘full’) label. But if 31 31 this is the case, duality is violated, since it is not possible to decompose every 32 32 sequence of pleremes into a sequence of cenemes. In Hockett’s more familiar 33 33 terms, there is a strong statistical tendency for meaningful units of speech to be 34 34 represented by small arrangements of a relatively very small stock of distinguish- 35 35 able features or sounds which are themselves wholly meaningless, however, this 36 36 is not always the case. The very small stock of combining elements can also, in 37 37 some contexts, in some languages, be meaningful. Section 2 discusses cases of 38 38 this kind, including a brief discussion of how meaningful sequences may arise 39 39 from chance distributional skewings. A second reason to question the obligatory 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 278–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 278) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 279–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 279) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 279

1 1 status of duality in spoken human languages is that not all utterances can be 2 2 analyzed into smaller meaningful parts. Like the signed languages discussed 3 3 above, spoken languages tolerate holistic meaningful utterances that are rela- 4 4 tively long and complex, but not decomposable. Some cases of this kind are 5 5 described in Section 3. 6 6 Throughout this article, I assume that the features and segments that are 7 7 identifiable in spoken human languages are particulate, and maintain their dis- 8 8 creteness when combining to form new objects (Abler 1989; Studdert-Kennedy 9 9 1998; Fontana and Buss 1996). Though the discreteness of distinctive features (or 10 10 gestures) and segments may be compromised greatly depending on other syntag- 11 11 matic and paradigmatic properties of the utterance, this will not play a role in the 12 12 discussion that follows. 13 13 14 14 15 15 2 Meaningful building blocks in spoken language 16 16 17 17 phonology 18 18 While all spoken human languages make use of seemingly meaningless features, 19 19 segments and prosodies to distinguish lexical meanings, Hayes’ (2009: 19) claim 20 20 that segments only serve as building blocks is too strong. In many languages, 21 21 features, segments and prosodies can serve one of two meaningful functions. 22 22 They can be the sole exponents of morpho-syntactic features, or they can denote 23 23 lexical meaning directly within language-specific sound-symbolic systems. In the 24 24 following subsections, I illustrate meaningful functions for what are usually con- 25 25 sidered the smallest units of phonological combination, single features. 26 26 27 27 28 28 2.1 Meaningful segments 29 29 30 30 31 31 Before examining these less common cases, consider, as shown in Table 1, a small 32 32 sample of languages where single segments can be the exponents of morphemes 33 33 with lexical (e.g. Kabardian /ʔ/ ‘say’) and grammatical content. 34 34 While the existence of single-segment sized morphemes is not in question in 35 35 morphological theory, or grammatical analysis more generally, the implications 36 36 of the existence of such morphemes should be clear. If, in principle, single- 37 37 segment morphemes, like other morphemes, have arbitrary sound/meaning 38 38 correspondences, then there should be cases where, at the level of segmental 39 39 analysis, we cannot find discretemeaningless parts within a word, because every 40 40 segment is a morpheme, and is meaningful.

Language Family Morpheme Meaning Source 1 1

Delaware Algic/Algonquian n- 1st p subj Goddard (1979) 2 2 k- 2nd p subj 3 3 -w 3rd p subj 4 4 English Indo-European/ -d simple past 5 5

Germanic -z1 plural 6 6

-z2 genitive 7 7 Kabardian NW Caucasian z- locative Colarusso (1992) 8 8 i- 3rd sg subj 9 9 -ʔ- ‘say’ 10 10 Mandarin Sino-Tibetan/ -r (standard) diminutive Lin (1989) 11 11 Sinitic -ɭ- (Pingding) diminutive Yu (2004) 12 12

Tsou Austronesian m- active voice Zeitoun (2005) 13 13 -a patient voice 14 14 -i locative voice 15 15 16 16 Table 1: Meaningful segment-sized morphemes 17 17 18 18 19 19 Admittedly, there are not many languages with words of this type, but Ka 20 20 bardian verbs provide many examples (Colarusso 1992). Kabardian, a Northwest 21 21 Caucasian language, is well known for its relatively large consonant inventory 22 22 (48–50 phonemes, depending on dialect), and relatively small vowel inventory, 23 23 with only two distinctive vowel qualities, /a/ and /ə/. Less appreciated is the 24 24 enormous complexity of words in this language, and the minimal form of many 25 25 stems and affixes which results in words like those illustrated in (1). 26 26 27 27 (1) No meaningless parts: Segment-sized morphemes in Kabardian 28 28 a. ƛ’- a- qw (Colarusso 1992: 5) 29 29 man- connective- son 30 30 ‘sons of a man’ (Kabardian clan rankings) 31 31 b. ø- y- a- w- gy- a (Colarusso 1992: 54: 91d) 32 32 3.abs-3.obl- dat- prog- call- to 33 33 ‘reads’ (tr.) 34 34 c. ø- ø- t- y- a- ƛ- ś (Colarusso 1992: 76: 136b) 35 35 3- 3 surf- dir- dat- lie- aff 36 36 ‘lies’ (on a surface) 37 37 38 38 Of course, the meaning of the morpheme-sized segments in Kabardian is not 39 39 solely a function of their phonological form, but also their position within the 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 280–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 280) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 281–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 281) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 281

1 1 complex word: /a/ is a connective morpheme in the noun (1a), but a dative marker 2 2 when prefixed to a verb (1b,c). Even so, it is clear from this example that there is 3 3 nothing, in principle, which appears to prohibit minimal combining segment- 4 4 sized morphemes, or words in which all segments are meaningful. A full lexicon 5 5 of this type might be unexpected, since nothing, in principle, would inhibit the 6 6 grammaticization of minimal /C/ and /V/ morphemes into bigger CV morphemes 7 7 over time (CV syllables being possible syllable types in all languages), however, 8 8 rigid morphological templates defining monosegmental shapes for roots and 9 9 affixes could result in such a system, at least for open word classes like nouns and 10 10 verbs. 11 11 Since duality of patterning is thought to be a necessary feature of human 12 12 language in enabling the creation of large lexicons, or at least large open classes 13 13 of content (nominal/verbal) roots, languages like Kabardian are significant 14 14 reminders that large segment inventories can contribute greatly to morpheme- 15 15 inventory size, even where morphemes are segment-size. Compare Hawaiian 16 16 with 8 consonants and 5 vowel qualities which combine in VV (long vowels + 17 17 diphthongs) for 25 syllabic nuclei (Elbert and Pukui 1979, 1986). This yields 18 18 125 possible monosyllables (all of which are attested), and 15,625 disyllables. 19 19 The majority of morphemes in Hawaiian are monosyllabic or disyllabic, so 20 20 we can assume that the 15,750 possible distinct strings is a fine starting point 21 21 for minimal units of meaning, which themselves can recombine in numerous 22 22 ways. Is it possible to arrive at a number of this kind from a language with a 23 23 larger segment inventory, even if morphemes are monosegmental? I think 24 24 the answer is yes. Consider the now extinct, Northwest Caucasian language 25 25 Ubykh, a relative of Kabardian (Vogt 1963; Dumézil 1965). Ubykh had approxi- 26 26 mately 80 distinct consonants and, like Kabardian, only two distinct vowels. 27 27 As in Kabardian, monosegmental morphemes occurred, and CV and CVC sylla- 28 28 bles were both possible. Now imagine a language like Ubykh, where each of 29 29 the 80 consonants is meaningful, and where lexical (vs. grammatical) meaning 30 30 of the morpheme is dependent on the position in the stem. As illustrated in

31 31 (2), stems have the form[C1-(V)-(C2)]stem. In C1 position, consonants have lexical

32 32 meanings, while in C2 position, their meanings are grammatical. (Tri-partite 33 33 stems are a common feature of Algic languages, see Goddard 1990 and Garrett 34 34 2004). 35 35 36 36 (2) An Ubykh-like language with only mono-segmental morphemes 37 37 # of distinctive consonants = 80 # of distinctive vowels = 2

38 38 Stem structure (for nouns and verbs) = [C1-(V)-(C2)]stem 39 39 | | 40 40 lexical grammatical

In this Ubykh-like language with 80 contrastive consonants and two vowels, 1 1 there would be 80 distinct C-stems, 160 distinct CV stems, 12,800 distinct CVC 2 2 stems, and 6,400 distinct CC stems, for a total of 19,440 possible distinct stems. 3 3 Even if half of the CC-stem types were unattested, the total would be 16,240, – 4 4 comparable with the 15,750 {monosyllabic + disyllabic} stringset available in 5 5 languages like Hawaiian. 6 6 Given the existence of the Northwest Caucasian languages with numerous 7 7 mono-segmental morphemes, some degree of templatic morphological struc- 8 8 ture, and CV and CVC syllables as well as consonant clusters, the absence of 9 9 languages with all and only mono-segmental morphemes could be viewed as 10 10 accidental. A language with these features, and a tri-partite stem structure, as 11 11 sketched in (2), would allow for over 15,000 distinct stems, comparable to multi- 12 12 segmental stems in simple phonological systems like that found in Hawaiian. 13 13 However, within nearly all phonological models, the segment is decomposed into 14 14 smaller meaningless units. In the following section I discuss cases where even 15 15 the smallest atoms of sound in spoken human languages must be viewed as 16 16 meaningful, and consider the implications of these systems for the duality of 17 17 patterning. 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 2.2 Meaningful features 22 22 23 23 Most phonologists are in general agreement that the smallest units of analysis 24 24 in speech are distinctive features, or, within Articulatory Phonology, gestures 25 25 (Browman and Goldstein 1992). In many cases, these two types of atomic units of 26 26 speech define more or less the same articulatory or acoustic event. For example, 27 27 the distinctive feature [spread glottis] refers to the same articulatory configura- 28 28 tion as the glottal gesture specified as “wide open”. However, there is continued 29 29 debate as to the appropriate set of features or gestures, and whether these are 30 30 innate and universal or emergent and language-specific (Mielke 2004). The argu- 31 31 ments that follow are structured to go through independent of the particular 32 32 feature model one adopts, and independent of whether features are viewed as 33 33 universals, or as language-specific emergent categories. 34 34 In many languages, a single feature, either in simple association with a single 35 35 segment, or in multiple association with a string of segments, is the sole expo- 36 36 nent of a morpheme, and hence, associated with meaning in the mental lexicon. 37 37 A well studied case is found in Isthmus Mixe, a Mixe-Zoquean language of Mexi- 38 38 co, where the 3rd person singular is expressed by palatalization of the stem-initial 39 39 consonant, marking 3rd person possessives on nouns and 3rd person subjects on 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 282–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 282) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 283–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 283) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 283

1 1 verbs (Dieterman 2008): /pa̰m/ [pa̰m] ‘illness’ vs. [pja̰m] ‘her illness’ /ka̰:k/ [ka̰:k], 2 2 ‘banana’ vs. [kja̰:k] ‘her banana’, etc. The native consonant inventory of Isthmus 3 3 Mixe includes /p t k ʔ ts ʃ h m n w j/ and all of these occur with secondary palatal- 4 4 ization when they are initial in a noun in the 3rd person possessed form. The same 5 5 feature-sized unit of palatalization has a distinct morphological function in verb- 6 6 final position: here, the plain vs. palatalized consonant contrast indicates dever- 7 7 balization, or one of three different types of conjuct clauses. As an example of 8 8 deverbalization, consider /tṵ:t/ [tṵ:t] / ‘to lay eggs’ vs. [tṵ:tj] ‘egg’. Whether one 9 9 adopts the model of Sagey (1986), where palatalization is represented by the fea- 10 10 ture [−back], a terminal feature of the DORSAL place node, the model of Hume 11 11 (1994) where palatalization is represented by [−anterior], a terminal feature of 12 12 CORONAL, or Articulatory Phonology, in which palatal constriction of the tongue 13 13 body is an atomic element, one arrives at the same conclusion: a single atomic 14 14 feature, palatalization, is the sole exponent of multiple morphemes in Isthmus 15 15 Mixe. As a “prefix”, associating with the first segment of the word, it marks 3rd 16 16 person singluar inflection. As a “suffix”, associating with the last segment of the 17 17 word, it encodes the syntactic category [+noun]. 18 18 Feature-sized morphemes, referred to as “featural affixes” by Akinlabi (1996, 19 19 2011), exist for all feature classes, as illustrated in Table 2. 20 20 Where Isthmus Mixe makes use of palatalization, a place feature, other place 21 21 features (Chaha/Afro-Asiatic/Semitic; McCarthy 1983), single manner features 22 22 (Terena/Arawakan; Harden 1946; Bendor-Samuel 1960, 1966; Aikhenvald 1999), 23 23 single laryngeal features (Misantla Totonac/Totonaco-Tepehua; MacKay 1994, 24 24 1999), and single tonal features (Tiv/Niger-Congo/Bantoid; Pulleyblank 1986), 25 25 play similar roles in the morphology of other unrelated languages, as illustrated 26 26 in Table 2. The fact that any type of feature (place, manner, laryngeal, tone) can 27 27 be the sole exponent of a morpheme and serve as a meaningful building block in 28 28 29 29 30 30 Language F-Class Feature Meaning Association 31 31 Isthmus Mixe place palatalization 3rd p sg single/initial C 32 32 Chaha place labialization 3rd p masc sg obj single/last labial, velar C 33 33 Terena manner nasalization 1st p poss multiple/initial 34 34 35 35 Misantla laryngeal laryngealization 2nd p sg single/final 36 36 Totonac 37 37 Tiv tone L general past single/final syllable 38 38 H past habitual single/final syllable 39 39 40 40 Table 2: Meaningful feature-sized morphemes

spoken human language suggests that there is nothing intrinsic to features them- 1 1 selves which makes them obligatorily meaningless. Features, the smallest inden- 2 2 tifiable units of spoken languages, can bear meaning, and do so in many different 3 3 languages. 4 4 However, two aspects of meaningful features like those illustrated in Table 2 5 5 might lead one to insist that Hockett was correct in interpreting meaningless 6 6 formatives as necessary components of linguistic systems. First, though in rare 7 7 cases, single distinctive features carry grammatical meaning, the historical ori- 8 8 gins of these features in full-blown segments might lead one to argue that feature- 9 9 sized morphemes are always “derivative”, having origins in segment-sized mor- 10 10 phemes. For all examples in Table 2, this is the case. Within the Mixe-Zoquean 11 11 family, Isthmus Mixe is not the only language with 3rd person singular expressed 12 12 by palatalization. However, comparative data illustrates that a segmental prefix, 13 13 *(ʔ)i- is reconstructable for the family (Dieterman 2008: 39). The same is true for 14 14 verb-final palatalization of consonants (see above), whose historical origins lie in 15 15 a segmental suffix, *-(h)i (op cit.). Segmental origins clearly underlie the other 16 16 feature-sized morphemes discussed above. Chaha 3rd person masculine object 17 17 labialization is cognate with /-u/ in other Semitic languages, and appears to orig- 18 18 inate from *-u with the same meaning. In Terena and closely related Southern 19 19 Arawakan languages Guaná, Chané and Kinikinao, the feature-sized nasalization 20 20 expressing 1sg possessive (which spreads from the beginning of the word until it 21 21 hits the first stop or fricative) is cognate with /nu-/ in other Arawakan languages, 22 22 and has developed from 1st p singular proto-Arawak */n-/ (Aikhenvald 1999: 88). 23 23 In the Totonaco-Tepehua family, Misantla Totonac is just one of several varieties 24 24 with 2nd person singular subject expressed as laryngealization. In Misantla Toto- 25 25 naco, this feature associates with a final vowel, while in Huehuetla Tepehua, any 26 26 stop or affricate in the verb stem is laryngealized (Kung 2007: 179). In this case, 27 27 the historical trajectory appears to be from segmental */-ʔ/, to a floating laryngeal 28 28 feature of glottal constriction. Finally we have the numerous cases of tone lan- 29 29 guages, like Tiv, where tones alone are morphemes. In many tone languages there 30 30 is both synchronic and diachronic evidence for “tonal stability”, the maintenance 31 31 of tone when the segments that tones are associated with are lost (Goldsmith 32 32 1976a, 1976b, 1990). All of these historical trajectories make it appear that feature- 33 33 sized morphemes are aberrations, occurring only as remnants of historically 34 34 more robust segments, or segment strings, that have undergone phonological 35 35 reduction over time. 36 36 A second argument that the feature-size morphemes in Table 2 are non- 37 37 canonical relates to their semantics. Unlike the mono-segmental morphemes in 38 38 languages like Kabardian, feature-size morphemes do not appear to span the full 39 39 range of possible meanings. Instead, they typically encode grammatical features, 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 284–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 284) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 285–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 285) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 285

1 1 like the inflectional categories of person, number, case, tense, aspect and mood 2 2 exemplified here. 3 3 However, both of these arguments are weakened somewhat by the existence 4 4 of feature-sized morphemes in systems of sound symbolism or ideophones 5 5 (“marked words that depict sensory imagery”; Dingemanse 2011: 25) (Hinton 6 6 et al. 1994; Dingemanse 2011). In sound symbolism and ideophonic speech, 7 7 feature-size morphemes appear to arise spontaneously, and are not clearly linked 8 8 to segmental pre-cursors. In the same systems, features-sized morphemes have 9 9 non-grammatical meanings, even if these meanings are different from those of 10 10 the non-sound-symbolic lexicon. 11 11 A well studied example is the case of mimetic palatalization in Japanese 12 12 (Hamano 1986/1998; Mester and Ito 1989). In this class of words, illustrated in (3), 13 13 the palatalized form is associated with what Hamano (1986) calls a semantic 14 14 notion of “uncontrolledness”, where this includes childishness, cheapness, 15 15 diversity, excessive energy, immaturity, instability, noisiness, lack of elegance, 16 16 uncoordinated movement, and/or unreliability, depending on the semantics of 17 17 the baseform. 18 18 19 19 (3) Palatalization in Japanese Mimetic Forms 20 20 a. poko-poko ‘up and down movement’ plain 21 21 b. pjoko-pjoko ‘jumping around impudently’ palatalized 22 22 c. kata-kata ‘homogeneous hitting sound’ plain 23 23 d. katja-katja ‘non-homogeneous clattering sound’ palatalized 24 24 25 25 e. kasa-kasa ‘rustling sound, dryness’ plain 26 26 f. kasja-kasja ‘noisy rustling sound of dry objects’ palatalized 27 27 g. pota-pota ‘dripping, trickling, drop by drop’ plain 28 28 h. potja-potja ‘dripping in large quantities’ palatalized 29 29 30 30 i. zabu-zabu ‘splashing’ plain 31 31 j. zjabu-zjabu ‘splashing indiscriminately’ palatalized 32 32 k. noro-noro ‘slow movement’ plain 33 33 l. njoro-njoro ‘(snake’s) slow wriggly movement’ palatalized 34 34 35 35 36 36 As Childs (1994: 178) points out in his discussion of African ideophones, one of 37 37 the properties that sets ideophones apart from others is that their origins are 38 38 obscure, constituting likely instances of nonce-creation. Unlike the feature-size 39 39 morphemes in Table 2, there is no clear evidence that palatalization in Japanese 40 40 mimetics arises from the lenition of an earlier segmental morpheme /i/ or /j/. On

the contrary, based on typological and experimental evidence, Kochetov and 1 1 Alderete (Forthcoming) suggest that Japanese mimetic palatalization and many 2 2 other cases of “expressive palatalization” (Nichols 1971; Ohala 1994) have their 3 3 origins in the iconic relationship between palatalization and smallness, childish- 4 4 ness, and/or affection. Though the notion of “uncontrolledness” in Japanese mi- 5 5 metics is a not a semantic category one would associate with a concrete noun or 6 6 verb, it certainly is distinct from the grammatical categories expressed by single- 7 7 feature morphemes in Table 2. 8 8 A similar argument can be made for other distinctive features that take part 9 9 in sound symbolism. For example, in Lahu, a Tibeto-Burman language, the class 10 10 of verbs with oral vowels can be paired with sound symbolic “vivid adverbials” 11 11 which have nasalized vowels (Matisoff 1994 [1989]) and a post-posed particle 12 12 /kàʔ/: under this transform the vowel of ŋá ‘spread open’ is nasalized, and means 13 13 ‘wide open’, while thê ‘straight’ when nasalization means ‘straight as an arrow’. 14 14 Here, the feature [+nasal] is associated with vividness or intensity, though, as 15 15 Matisoff makes clear, the feature is not the reflex of an earlier syllable-final nasal, 16 16 or any clear historical segmental morpheme. As with the case of Japanese palatal- 17 17 ization, a phonological feature directly expresses a non-grammatical semantic 18 18 feature, and appears to remnant represent an innovation, rather than sparse 19 19 remains of an earlier segmental morpheme. 20 20 Despite the existence of feature-sized morphemes in inflection and sound- 21 21 symbolic systems, it is rare in spoken languages to find even a single word made 22 22 up entirely of feature-sized morphemes. The primary impediment to meaningful 23 23 features is the atomic nature of the features themselves. A feature like [+nasal], 24 24 which may designate, in articulatory terms, velic aperture with nasal airflow, 25 25 cannot be realized in isolation: it will surface in combination with a consonant, 26 26 glide or vowel segment which is specified, minimally for major class features, and 27 27 typically for place features as well. In Lahu, where [+nasal] is associated with 28 28 vivid adverbials, it associates with the nuclear vowel of the monosyllabic verb, 29 29 which itself is a meaningless formative of the verb stem. However, [+nasal] as a 30 30 lone feature, is not realizable as a speech sound. The same can be said for nearly 31 31 every distinctive feature, with only a few exceptions. In some models, [spread 32 32 glottis] and [constricted glottis] can be realized as the simple laryngeal segments 33 33 /h/ and /ʔ/ without further feature specification; in Articulatory Phonology, a 34 34 palatal tongue body gesture can be realized as /i/ or /j/. In contrast, the proto- 35 35 typical autosegmental features, tonal features like H and L, demand strings of 36 36 tone-bearing units for their realization. Because features typically depend on 37 37 other features for their realization in speech, a system in which multiple features 38 38 were meaningful would quickly erode, since meaningful and faciliatating in- 39 39 stances of features could not be distinguished. Features, by their very nature, 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 286–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 286) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 287–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 287) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 287

1 1 then, cannot take part in the same kind of syntagmatic combination as segments 2 2 for the simple reason that, with only a few exceptions, their realization in the 3 3 speech stream necessarily implicates other features. 4 4 Even with this caveat in mind, we might push the idea of meaningful features 5 5 to the limit, by assuming that ‘default’ segments could arise to bear meaningful 6 6 features. As with the pseudo-language considered in (2), let us allow a morpho- 7 7 logical template to supply major class (C,V) categories and a minimal degree of 8 8 semantic distinctness in the realization of meaningful elements, as suggested in 9 9 (4), and consider whether factors other than the intrinsic unpronounceability of 10 10 features in isolation limit the distribution of meaningful features. 11 11 12 12 (4) A language with (mostly) mono-featural morphemes 13 13 Sample morphemes: [+high] ‘go’/allative H ‘yesterday’/past 14 14 [+round] ‘lie’/locative L ‘now’/non-past 15 15 [+C.G] ‘man’/3sm [+nasal] ‘one’/def

16 16 Stem structure (for nouns and verbs): [C1- (V)- (X2)]stem 17 17 | | | 18 18 lexical lex/gram grammatical 19 19 Sample lexeme: [í ̰N] ‘the man went’ (N = a nasal glide) 20 20 21 21 In (4) distinctive features are associated with lexical and grammatical meanings 22 22 whose distribution is determined by the position within the stem template. The 23 23 sample lexeme [í ̰N] ‘the man went’ is composed of four feature-sized morphemes: 24 24 [+high] ‘go’ whose default realization in this context is the vowel /i/; [+C.G] 25 25 ‘man’ whose default realization is laryngealization of the /i/ vowel (indicated 26 26 by the under-tilde); H ‘past’, which results in a H-toned syllable; and [+nasal] 27 27 ‘definite’, instantiated by a syllable-final placeless nasal glide. While a simple 28 28 language with a very small lexicon is easy enough to construct with meaningful 29 29 features of this kind and default segmental realizations, two related properties of 30 30 distinctive feature systems limit the number of morphemes to what appears to be 31 31 under the threshold of usefulness for human language. 32 32 The first limitation is due to the size of the feature set. Within some phono- 33 33 logical models, like Articulatory Phonology, only eight basic gestures are pro- 34 34 posed, making the feature set smaller than the combined inventory of 8 conso- 35 35 nants and 5 vowels in Hawaiian (not counting diphthongs and long vowels)! In 36 36 this model, the atomic gestures are: lip protrusion, lip aperture, tongue tip con- 37 37 striction location, tongue tip constriction degree, tongue body constriction loca- 38 38 tion, tongue body constriction degree, velic aperture, and glottal aperture. Since 39 39 some of these gestures like tongue body constriction location and constriction 40 40 degree are necessarily paired, the feature set is actually smaller than it appears.

While Articulatory Phonology may constitute an extreme, standard distinctive 1 1 feature systems in generative models are only slightly larger, with between 27–35 2 2 features depending on their characterization of clicks, tone systems, and rare 3 3 contrasts (e.g. labio-dental vs. bilabial nasals in Teke). However, even if we 4 4 imagine a system of 40 distinctive features, the combinatorics are limited by 5 5 paradigmatic (segment-internal) factors determined by the nature of speech 6 6 sounds: a sound specified as [+high] cannot simultaneously be [−high], nor can it 7 7 be [+low]; a sound specified as [+round] cannot be [−labial], since rounding in- 8 8 volves activation of the lips; and if the tongue tip constriction location is at the 9 9 teeth, it cannot also be simultaneously at the hard palate. In short, distinctive 10 10 features, or articulatory gestures are not useful meaningful elements in human 11 11 linguistic systems since they are constrained in combination by intrinsic proper- 12 12 ties of speech sounds. We can conclude that the primary inhibition to features as 13 13 primary meaningful elements is speech is that there are too few of them, and that 14 14 they cannot freely combine with other features in the same way that segments 15 15 can. 16 16 17 17 18 18 2.3 Emergent meaning via skewed distributional frequencies: 19 19 a note on phonesthemes 20 20 21 21 Phonesthemes (Firth 1930), as defined by Bergen (2004), may be viewed as addi- 22 22 tional instances in which segment-sized parts (or, often, slightly bigger units, like 23 23 CC-clusters) contribute meaning to utterances, and have psychological reality. 24 24 Under Bergen’s definition, phonesthemes are form-meaning pairings that cru 25 25 cially are better attested in the lexicon of a language than would be predicted, all 26 26 other things being equal (Bergen 2004: 293). An extreme case of this would be, for 27 27 example, the Swedish word-initial /fn/ cluster, which is associated with pejora- 28 28 tive meaning in 100% of the words in which it occurs (Abelin 1999). This notion 29 29 contrasts with the more general claim that every sound has some iconic associa- 30 30 tion with meaning, a claim that has been much harder to justify for the full range 31 31 of sounds made use of in human sound systems (Magnus 1998). 32 32 An important property of all phonesthemes investigated up to this point that 33 33 derive from skewed lexical distributions, is that they occupy a particular position 34 34 in the word, highlighting Firth’s original definition of phonesthemes as indi 35 35 vidual sounds or “initial and final phone groups not ordinarily recognized as 36 36 having any function” (1930: 184). If, as suggested by studies like Abelin (1999) 37 37 and Bergen (2004) many initial clusters in Swedish and English have strong 38 38 associations with particular meanings for native speakers, then we must re- 39 39 evaluate the notion of sub-morphemic ‘meaninglessness’. 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 288–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 288) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 289–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 289) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 289

1 1 Consider the case of /gl-/ clusters in English, where approximately 60% of 2 2 the tokens in the Brown Corpus have meanings associated with light or vision, 3 3 and where Bergen’s (2004) priming experiment support the psychological status 4 4 of phonesthemes in these word-types. The recognition of meaningful word-initial 5 5 /gl/ suggests that “duality of patterning”, in the normal sense, is compromised: 6 6 though /g/ and /l/ are segments which can combine freely, once combined, they 7 7 are associated, at least within a probabilistic model of grammar, with a particular 8 8 meaning, which is emergent from specific distributional properties of the lexi- 9 9 con of English. Since semantic associations of this kind can arise for single 10 10 segments as well as for clusters, we must accept that the lexicon of a language 11 11 can compromise duality of patterning when distributions are skewed. Unlike 12 12 mono-segmental morphemes which are non-probablistic and categorical, 13 13 weighted semantics of particular segments in particular positions of words might 14 14 lead one to question whether any instance of a segment in any position is really 15 15 ‘meaningless’. 16 16 While this issue can be mentioned only in passing here, parallel problems in 17 17 the categorical versus probabilistic treatment of segmental contrastiveness is 18 18 dealt with constructively within the Probabilistic Phonological Relationship 19 19 Model (Hall 2009). This model precisely quantifies the degree to which two pho- 20 20 nological units are predictably distributed in a language. Building on insights 21 21 from probability and information theory, it could ultimately allow researchers to 22 22 calculate degrees of predictability of distribution and meaning for segments and 23 23 clusters in particular contexts. 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 3 Holistic morphemes 28 28 29 29 Though the majority of words or morphemes in most languages can be viewed as 30 30 composites of contrastive segments or features of the language in question, this is 31 31 not true of all sound-meaning associations. Aberrant sound patterns are often 32 32 found in the most common expressions, as for example in English in the positive 33 33 expression [ʔʌ̃ˈhʌ̃] and the negative [ʔʌ̃ˈʔʌ̃]. Notice that though nasalized vowels 34 34 and contrastive glottal stop do not occur generally in English, in these utterances, 35 35 nasalization occurs throughout, with the positive/negative contrast indicated by 36 36 medial [h] vs. medial [ʔ] respectively. Further evidence that the contrast in these 37 37 words is holistic in nature comes from their common variants, [ʔm h̍m] (positive) ̍ ̍ 38 38 and [ʔm ʔ̍m] (negative), where the nasalized vowels are replaced by a bilabial ̍ ̍ 39 39 /m/. However, this segmental description of the variants is clearly flawed when 40 40 we look at the bigger picture. In the vocalic variants, the mouth is open for

the entire utterance. In the bilabial variants, the mouth is closed for the entire 1 1 utterance. But having an open or closed mouth is not a distinctive feature of 2 2 the English sound system, nor of any other language, as far as phonology has 3 3 been able to determine. These articulatory routines are holistic, and wreak of 4 4 function over form: the mouth can be open or close, the velum is lowered as in 5 5 relaxed breathing, and one ‘breathes’ to indicate agreement, and stops breath to 6 6 indicate dissent. There is no clear segmental phonology in these utterances, 7 7 despite their minimal disyllable word status, iambic foot structure, and intona- 8 8 tional melodies. 9 9 Holistic utterances of this kind are not limited to English. In Nhanda, a Pama- 10 10 Nyungan language of Western Australia once spoken in the greater Kalbarri re- 11 11 gion, the word for ‘yes’ or general agreement is [ʔḛʔḛ], however the Nhanda vowel 12 12 system is /a,i,u/, with no /e/, and no contrastive vowel laryngealization (cf. [iʔu] 13 13 ‘south’) (Blevins 2001). Again, by being forced to analyze words in terms of dis- 14 14 tinctive segments or features, we lose a critical component of this utterance: it is 15 15 produced with holistic laryngealization, and (apparently) enough pharyngeal 16 16 retraction to produce regular vowel lowering. 17 17 Nor are holistic utterances limited to discourse functions of agreement or dis- 18 18 agreement. In Koasati, a Muskogean language of Louisiana, Kimball (1991: 502– 19 19 12) devotes an entire chapter to “Interjections”. This special class of words and 20 20 phrases are described as having “aberrant phonology”. There are 79 interjections 21 21 listed, and while these include particles like é ‘yes’ and ínkõ ‘no’, they also in- 22 22 clude utterances glossed with significant content, like hé: ‘Go on!’, and xé ‘Bad 23 23 dog!’. Though in other words, Koasati shows only a three vowel /a,i,o/ system, in 24 24 interjections the vowel space is expanded with /u/ and /e/. Though vowel length 25 25 is generally not contrastive, in these utterances, length can be contrastive in final- 26 26 position, as in hé: vs. xé. Another expansion of the phonological space in these 27 27 words involves the consonant system. Outside of this word-class, the full set of 28 28 contrasting obstruents is /p t c k b f ɬ s/. In interjections, however, one also finds 29 29 (contrastive) /g/ and /x/: gâ cry of surprise used by men vs. xá: ‘Whew!’ (vs. non- 30 30 interjection ká:h ‘He says it’). Finally, while the rest of the language makes use of 31 31 a four-way pitch accent contrast (high, mid, low, and high rising-falling), in inter- 32 32 jections the tonal system is also enlarged by the inclusion of a falling tone ( gâ), 33 33 which is absent outside of this special class of words. 34 34 In English, Nhanda and Koasati, holistic morphemes share certain functional 35 35 properties. They are high frequency items whose existence seems keyed to a high 36 36 level of contextual predictability. Contextual predictability can be equated with 37 37 very low entropy values, which we know independently, can yield high degrees of 38 38 articulatory reduction (Jurafsky et al. 2001; Bell et al. 2003; Blevins 2005). If this 39 39 becomes conventionalized, cues for original particulate structure may no longer 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 290–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 290) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 291–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 291) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 291

1 1 be present, and holistic utterances like the ones noted above can evolve. In other 2 2 words, phonology can devolve. From forms that respect duality of patterning, 3 3 holistic non-compositional meaningful utterances can emerge in a natural and 4 4 comprehensible way. As with Nepali Sign Language, speakers of English, Nhanda 5 5 and Koasati can shift from holistic to compositional utterances with ease, and can 6 6 interchange one word type for another, as in common English phone conver 7 7 sations where listeners can be heard saying things like yes . . . . uhuh . . . yes . . . 8 8 mhm . . . . yup. 9 9 The implications of holistic morphemes for strong versions of duality should 10 10 be clear. Not all meaningful utterances in spoken languages can be broken down 11 11 into smaller meaningless parts. A small number may resist decomposition. If this 12 12 is so, what limits are there on these aberrant word types? How many can a lan- 13 13 guage have? Must their meaning be contextual? Are they structural parallels to 14 14 the many lexemes of Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language that also appear to resist 15 15 decomposition? If so, evolution and devolution may both contribute to our under- 16 16 standing of duality of patterning as a statistical universal. 17 17 18 18 19 19 4 Concluding remarks 20 20 21 21 In the majority of spoken human languages, morphemes can be represented in 22 22 terms of “small arrangements of a relatively very small stock of distinguish- 23 23 able sounds which are themselves wholly meaningless” (Hockett 1960: 6). How- 24 24 ever, the meaningless status of segments, or “duality of patterning” at the 25 25 segmental level, need not be viewed as a necessary feature of spoken language. 26 26 On the contrary, there exist many languages with mono-segmental morphemes, 27 27 and even languages where larger words are made up of a small stock of distin- 28 28 guishable sounds which themselves bear meaning. While meaningless seg- 29 29 ments are the norm, and clearly facilitate generative capacity, yielding, in par- 30 30 ticular, lexicons of unlimited size, a relatively large segment-inventory with 31 31 relatively free phonotactics can yield similar generative capacity, even if seg- 32 32 ments are meaningful. There seems no reason, at present, to rule out grammars 33 33 of this kind. 34 34 The recognition of phonesthemes as psychologically real components of 35 35 speech based on skewed distributional frequencies in the lexicon compromises 36 36 Hockett’s original example of “duality of patterning” in which the English words 37 37 team /tim/ and meat /mit/ were used as illustration. In this example “meaning- 38 38 less” segments, /t/, /i/, and /m/, combine in different ways to produce -mor 39 39 phemes with distinct meanings. Hockett’s assumption, and that held by most 40 40 phonologists prior to probabilistic modeling, is that contrastive segments are,

by definition, meaningless when they constitute subparts of a single recogniz- 1 1 able morpheme. However, the work of Abelin (1999), Bergen (2004), Kochetov 2 2 and Alderete (Forthcoming) and others, highlights the extent to which sub- 3 3 morphemic clusters, segments, and even features, can bear meaning that can be 4 4 intimately tied to language-specific features of the lexicon. Until we explore the 5 5 overall frequency of segments in particular combination, and the possible 6 6 psychological reality of this probabilistic knowledge, we cannot, with certainty, 7 7 exclude the possibility that segments in English words like /tim/ and /mit/ 8 8 bear scraps of meaning which may not be accessible through native-speaker 9 9 introspection. 10 10 Finally, in the post-autosegmental era of phonology, where it is widely ac- 11 11 cepted that nearly any individual phonological feature can lead a life of its own, 12 12 independent of any particular segment, floating freely in a representation, asso- 13 13 ciating multiply, or, as in cases discussed here, listed in the lexicon as a compo- 14 14 nent morpheme with a clearly identifiable meaning, it is useful to ask why so few 15 15 languages make use of more than a handful of meaningful features. The answer 16 16 to this question seems to lie not in any requirement that atomic features be mean- 17 17 ingless, but rather in the nature of speech itself: the set of contrastive features 18 18 is small to begin with, due, primarily to perceptual thresholds; and for most 19 19 features, realization requires obligatory combination with others. (Indeed, the 20 20 largest vowel and consonant inventories in the world are those that take full 21 21 advantage of secondary articulations, – nasalized vowels, creaky vowels, breathy 22 22 vowels, palatalized consonants, labialized consonants, click accompaniments, 23 23 etc.) At the same time, some feature combinations are illicit. Though relaxation 24 24 of duality allows feature-sized meaningful elements, the full power of such 25 25 systems is never made use of due to these practical constraints on how sounds are 26 26 made. 27 27 It has been argued in recent literature on language evolution that both seg- 28 28 ments (e.g. de Boer 2001) and features (e.g. Mielke 2004) are emergent properties 29 29 of speech. Under these proposals, the discovery of a relatively young language 30 30 like Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, that appears to lack duality of patterning 31 31 (Sandler et al. 2011) is not surprising, since it is from systems like these that seg- 32 32 ments and features are claimed to arise. In the context of the discussion above, 33 33 there is even less reason to be surprised. If the primary role of duality is to create 34 34 basic lexicons of thousands of morphemes, there is no expectation that all mor- 35 35 phemes should respect duality, nor that all elements used in composition should, 36 36 on their own, lack meaning. Further, once language is viewed in its communica- 37 37 tive context, it is easy to understand how seeming ‘violations’ of duality might 38 38 arise in particular domains where meaning is, to a great extent, predictable. In 39 39 sum, though duality of patterning is a common and useful feature of spoken lan- 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 292–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 292) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 293–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 293) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 293

1 1 guages, it appears to be a statistical tendency rather than an absolute universal. 2 2 Most morphemes in most languages are composed of smaller meaningless bits of 3 3 sound. But some are not, and some bits of sound are meaningful. As probabilistic 4 4 modeling of speech evolves, we may find larger and larger chunks that resist de- 5 5 composition, and smaller and smaller bits that carry meaning. By dispensing of 6 6 duality as a necessary feature of all linguistic structures, we will be in a better 7 7 position to appreciate the implications of future discoveries. 8 8 9 9 10 10 References 11 11 12 12 Abelin, Å. 1999. Studies in sound symbolism. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University 13 13 dissertation. Abler, W. 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social and 14 14 Biological Structures 12. 1–13. 15 15 Aikhenvald, A. Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), 16 16 The Amazonian languages, 65–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 17 17 Akinlabi, A. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32. 239–289. 18 18 Akinlabi, A. 2011. Featural affixes. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen & E. V. Hume (eds.), 19 19 Blackwell companion to phonology, 1945–1971. Oxford: Blackwell. Bell, A., D. Jurafsky, E. Fosler-Lussier, C. Girand, M. Gregory & D. Gildea. 2003. Effects of 20 20 disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English 21 21 conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1001–1024. 22 22 Bergen, B. K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80. 290–311. 23 23 Bendor-Samuel, J. 1960. Some problems in segmentation in the phonological analysis of 24 24 Terêna. Word 16. 348–355. Bendor-Samuel, J. T. 1966. Some prosodic features of Terena. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. 25 25 K. Halliday & R. H. Robins (eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth, 30–39. London. Longman. 26 26 Blevins, J. 2001. Nhanda: An Aboriginal language of Western Australia. Honolulu: University of 27 27 Hawaii Press. 28 28 Blevins, J. 2004. A reconsideration of Yokuts vowels. International Journal of American 29 29 Linguistics 70. 33–51. 30 30 Blevins, J. 2005. The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44. 455–464. 31 31 Blevins, J. 2009. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. 32 32 Oceanic Linguistics 48. 264–273. 33 33 Browman, C. & L. Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180. 34 34 Childs, G. T. 1994. African ideophones. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (eds.), Sound 35 35 symbolism, 178–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colarusso, J. 1992. A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. 36 36 de Boer, B. 2001. The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 37 37 Dieterman, J. I. 2008. Secondary palatalization in Isthmus Mixe: A phonetic and phonological 38 38 account. Austin, TX: SIL International. 39 39 Dingemanse, M. 2011. The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen, NL: Radboud 40 40 University dissertation.

Dumézil, G. 1965. Documents anatoliens sur les langues et les traditions du Caucase, III: 1 1 Nouvelles études oubykhs. Paris: Librairie A. Maisonneuve. 2 2 Elbert, S. H. & M. K. Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: The University of Hawai’i Press. 3 3 Elbert, S. H. & M. K. Pukui. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary. Honolulu: The University of Hawai’i 4 4 Press. Ernestus, M. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In M. Van Oostendorp, 5 5 C. J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2115–2136. 6 6 Oxford: Blackwell. 7 7 Everett, D. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the 8 8 design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–646. 9 9 Firth, J. R. 1930. Speech. London: Benn’s Sixpenny Library. Fontana, W. & L. Buss. 1996. The barrier of objects: From dynamical systems to bounded 10 10 organizations. In J. Casti & A. Karlquist (eds.), Boundaries and barriers, 56–116. Reading, 11 11 MA: Addison-Wesley. 12 12 Garrett, A. 2004. The evolution of Algic verbal stem structure: New evidence from Yurok. 13 13 Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special 14 14 Session on the Morphology of American Indian Languages, 46–60. 15 15 Goddard, I. 1979. Delaware verbal morphology. New York: Garland. Goddard, I. 1990. Primary and secondary stem-derivation in Algonquian. International Journal 16 16 of American Linguistics 56. 449–483. 17 17 Goldsmith, J. 1976a. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. 18 18 Goldsmith, J. 1976b. An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2. 23–68. 19 19 Goldsmith, J. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. 20 20 Graif, P. 2011. Signs of signs: Phonological considerations in the linguistics of signed languages. Ms., CUNY GC Linguistics Program. 21 21 Hall, K. C. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. 22 22 The Ohio State University dissertation. 23 23 Hamano, S. 1998 [1986]. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI 24 24 Publications. 25 25 Harden, M. 1946. Syllable structure of Terena. International Journal of American Linguistics 12. 26 26 60–63. Hayes, B. 2009. Introductory phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. 27 27 Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96. 28 28 Hume, E. V. 1994. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear 29 29 phonology. New York: Garland. 30 30 Hyman, L. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. 83–137. 31 31 Jurafsky, D., A. Bell, M. Gregory & W. D. Raymond. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), 32 32 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229–254. Amsterdam: John 33 33 Benjamins. 34 34 Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 35 35 Kenstowicz, M. & C. Kisseberth. 1979. Generative phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. 36 36 Kimball, G. D. 1991. Koasati grammar. University of Nebraska Press. 37 37 Kochetov, A. & J. Alderete. Forthcoming. Scales and patterns of expressive palatalization: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 38 38 Kung, S. S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. University of Texas at Austin 39 39 doctoral dissertation. 40 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 294–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 294) (CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 295–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 295) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM Absolute universal or statistical tendency? 295

1 1 Kuroda, S.-Y. 1967. Yawelmani phonology. Special technical report (No. 15); M.I.T. research 2 2 monograph series (No. 43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ladd, D. R. 2012 [this volume]. What is duality of patterning, anyway? Language and Cognition 3 3 4(4). 4 4 Lin, Y.-H. 1989. Autosegmental treatment of segmental processes in Chinese phonology. Austin, 5 5 TX: The University of Texas dissertation. 6 6 MacKay, C. J. 1994. A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology. International Journal of American 7 7 Linguistics 60. 369–419. 8 8 MacKay, C. J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Magnus, M. 1998. Gods of the word: Archetypes in the consonants. Kirksville, MO: Thomas 9 9 Jefferson University Press. 10 10 Martinet, A. 1949. La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de 11 11 Copenhague 5. 30–37. 12 12 Martinet, A. 1980. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin. 13 13 Matisoff, J. 1994 [1989]. Tone, intonation and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 115–129. Cambridge: 14 14 Cambridge University Press. 15 15 McCarthy, J. J. 1983. Consonantal morphology in the Chaha verb. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger 16 16 & M. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 17 17 176–188. Stanford: Stanford University Linguistics Association. 18 18 McCarthy, J. J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399. 19 19 Mester, R. A. & J. Ito. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65. 258–293. 20 20 Mielke, J. 2004. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21 21 Nichols, J. 1971. Diminutive consonant symbolism in Western North America. Language 47. 22 22 826–848. 23 23 Ohala, J. J. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. 24 24 Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25 25 Pulleyblank, D. 1986. Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 26 26 Sagey, E. C. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. 27 27 Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. 28 28 Sakel, J. & E. Stapert. 2010. Pirahã: In need of recursive syntax? In H. Van der Hulst (ed.), 29 29 Recursion in human language, 3–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 30 30 Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. 31 31 Sandler, W., M. Aronoff, I. Meir & C. Padden. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form 32 32 in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 502–543. 33 33 Sandler, W. & D. Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: 34 34 Cambridge University Press. 35 35 Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company. 36 36 Stokoe, W. 1960. Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems. 37 37 Studies in linguistics, occasional papers, 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo. 38 38 Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity. In J. Hurford, M. 39 39 Studdert-Kennedy & C. Knight (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language, 202–221. 40 40 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vogt, H. 1963. Dictionnaire de la langue oubykh. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 1 Yu, A. C. L. 2004. Infixing with a vengeance: Pingding Mandarin Infixation. Journal of East Asian 2 Linguistics 13. 39–58. 3 Zeitoun, E. 2005. Tsou. In K. A. Adelaar & N. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages 4 of Asia and Madagascar, 259–290. London: Routledge. 5 6 7 Acknowledgements 8 9 I am grateful to Itamar Kastner for sharing his notes and observations on duality 10 in Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language with me, to Peter Graif for introducing me to 11 multiple channels of Nepali Sign Language, and to a wonderful colloquium audi- 12 ence at NYU in Fall 2011 for useful feedback and discussion. I thank Majda Hilmi 13 for patiently pronouncing many meaningful bits of Kabardian out of context, and 14 Bob Ladd and Jeff Mielke for comments on an earlier draft. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

(CS4) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2663 LANGCOG 4:4 pp. 296–296 2663_4-4_03 (p. 296) PMU:(idp) 21/9/2012 26 September 2012 9:37 AM