v r i j d a g 2 3 s p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1

Afscheidscollege prof. dr. C.H.M. Gussen h o v e n Of migrant men, shifting sounds and stagnant waters A farewell lecture by Carlos Gussenhoven Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 23 September 2011

Mijnheer de Rector Magnificus, dames en heren

For over two decades, the second year Phonology course description has in- cluded the sentence

Languages resemble each other in the way [their sounds] are struc- tured, but vary in the complexity of their sound systems. For instance, the smallest number of segments that has been found in any is 11, the largest 144,...

In this lecture, I would like to show, first, that counting sounds has led to interesting findings in , and second, argue that counting sounds has helped to redefine research questions in phonetics and phonology.

1 Variation in phonological complexity

The data in that sentence came from Ian Maddieson’s 1984 survey of the inventories of 317 , a number that was later increased to 451, which represents 7% of the total number of languages spoken in the world (UPSID-II). Currently, these data have been incorporated in the phonological data base of World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), which now includes phonological data for almost 600 languages. For instance, French has a more complex system than Spanish, because it has 12 vowels against Spanish five. Complexity is spread throughout the phonology.

Correlations between numbers of phonological elements, like vowels, consonants, tones, are largely positive, never negative. Having more vowels means having more tones, more tones means more consonants (Maddieson 2011). Languages with more also tend to have more complex syllable structures. For instance, Hawaiian, which has five vowels and eight consonants, only allows a single consonant before the in the syllable and does not allow any consonant after it. As a result, all syllables have the form CV or just V. The only complexity is created by the fact that vowels may be long, giving 10 syllable rhymes and may combine with higher vowels to create a set of , giving

1 another eight vowel types. The number of possible syllables therefore is 9 (eight consonants plus absence of a consonant) × (10 + 8), or 162. Following Maddieson (1984), Ryan Shosted (2006) did this kind calculation for a sample of 32 languages, to show the multiplicative effect of these structural options.

2 Migrant men: an important discovery

Until 2007, it was always a matter of some fascination that no one had ever come up with any correlate of phonological complexity, other than the log-ical correlate of word length (Nettle 1998). But no external factors, like political organization or technological development, correlate with phonological complexity. Whatever the factors are that determine the phonological structure of languages, there are apparently many degrees of freedom. Languages with few phonemes are just as workable as those with many. While these observations remain true, a first indication that there was more behind phonological complexity came in 2007, when Jennifer Hay and Laurie Bauer (2007) showed that there was a weak, but robust positive correlation between population size and number of phonemes: smaller populations have smaller phoneme sets. They offered a plausible explanation, the only problem being that they would have had an equally plausible explanation if the situation had been the reverse. The next step occurred on 15 April of this year, when Quentin Atkinson published an article in Science based on 504 languages which showed that there was a fairly substantial correlation between the number of phonemes, measured as the mean of the normalized frequencies of the vowels, the consonants and the tones (‘Phoneme Diversity’), and the geographical distance from the southwest of Africa, as measured along the continental transit points known to have been used by modern man when colonizing the planet. The correlation explains 30% of the variance in phonological complexity against 14% by Hay and Bauer’s population size. Moreover, the variation due to population size is largely subsumed by that explained by distance from Africa. Spectacularly, the pattern of decreasing complexity would appear to reflect man’s first colonization of the planet, some 50 to 70 millenia ago (Fig. 1). Starting from south west Africa, we moved into the Eurasian landmass via the Middle East, moved along the southern edge of Asia and crossed over to Australia, some 40,000 years ago. About 14,000 years ago we trekked along the Bering Strait into North Amer-ica, making our way south over the next 6,000 years or so; lastly, about 3,000 years ago, we moved into Oceania, with New Zealand being among the most recently colonized areas, some 800 years ago. In addition to leaving a trail of diminishing phoneme sets, modern man also left a trail of ever smaller populations.

2 Exactly one month ago, Ian Maddieson discussed these findings at the Seven- teenth International Conference of Phonetic Sciences in Hong Kong. Tread- ing carefully, he suggested that it might be too early to draw conclusions from the Atkinson findings, since an observation made in 1996 about a cli- matic correlate of sound systems had not been taken into account: briefly, cold climates favour complex syllables. Complex syllables have many conso- nants, like English strictst (cf. a simple syllable like go). Munroe, Fought, & Macauley (2009) showed that it is the sonority of sounds that drives this correlation, since non-sonorant [i] and the sonorant consonants do not fall in with the broader generalisation. Incidentally, Munroe et al. (2009) explain the correlation by assuming that, other than in warmer climates, language use in colder climates largely takes place indoors. Possibly, it is rather the level of ambient noise that is the main explanatory variable, rain forests being particularly noisy places. An admittedly rhetorical example is Tamazight, the group of Berber language spoken in the Sahara. In some varieties, like Tarifit Berber, utterances can consist only of voiceless obstruents. A close example is (1), where [@] can be a voiceless release and [n] may thus be the only voiced sound (with thanks to Abder el Aissati).

(1) [[email protected]@tQ.t@nt] /t tt ttQf d ten t/ 2SG IMPERF catch 2SG 3PL Fem ‘You catch them’

To see if this ecological factor has played a role the results presented by Atkinson, I first established that it can in fact be detected in his data. I de- fined it as the distance from the equator expressed as Absolute Latitude (see Fig. 2). Atkinson only used aggregate vowel, consonant and tone fequencies, which don’t allow a breakdown into more and less sonorant sounds. Still, there are negative correlations between Absolute Latitude and both vowel frequency (r=-0.19) and tone frequency (r=-0.26), and a positive correlation with consonant frequency (r=0.27), all p<.01), meaning that closer to the equator there are more tones and vowels and fewer consonants than in places further away, confirming the finding by Munroe and colleagues. I also con- structed a crude sonority index by dividing the mean normalized frequencies of vowels and tones by the normalized consonant frequency, after adding 2 to all values to avoid negative numbers. As predicted, there is a negative correlation with Absolute Latitude (r=-0.30, p<.01). There is no correlation with Distance from Origin.

3 Figure 1: Boxplot of phoneme diversity by global region showing highest diversity in Africa and lowest in Oceania and South America (top) and map of the world showing highest phoneme diversity in Africa with diminishing diversity in areas that were settled later, controlled for population size (bottom). From Atkinson (2011).

4 Figure 2: Map of the world indicating equator, Absolute Latitude and correlations between Absolute Latitude and normalized vowel, tone and consonant densities and a crude sonority index (see text). Adapted from Atkinson’s map with transit points.)

I then ran a stepwise linear regression with Phoneme Diversity as the de- pendent variable and Distance from Origin, Log Population and Absolute Latitude as predictor variables. While unsurprisingly the results for the first two variables were as presented by Atkinson, no predictive contribution by 1 Absolute Latitude was found. We can conclude then that Ian Maddieson trod too softly, and that Atkinson’s data may suggest that language, as we know it today, existed when modern man left Africa and that all languages of the world can trace their origin to that source.

Atkinson explains this finding as a linguistic version of the Serial Founder Effect, the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is - tablished by a small number of people moving away from a larger population. In the genetic domain, it explains the vulnerability of the American popula- tions to European diseases during the Columbian Exchange, which started in 1491 (Mann 2005), and the relative immunity of the European population to American diseases. While the Americans suffered near-extinctions as a result of European diseases, the only American disease to pose a problem to the 1There is in fact no correlation between Absolute Latitude and Distance from Origin. There is a weak correlation between Absolute Latitude and Phoneme Diversity (r=-.09, p<.05). I assume this is because Atkinson’s Phoneme Diversity measure contains two ‘sonorous’ componenents, vowels and tones, and only one ‘non-sonorous’ component, which biases the measure to sonority and thus closeness to the equator. If we take the mean of tones and consonants or the mean of vowels and consonants, the correlation disappears.

5 Europeans was syphilis. But language is not genetic. Even if our strategies for learning and structuring languages are genetic, their content is not. (It would require another lecture to work this one out, so I refer to a recent ar- ticle on linguistc diversity by Nick Evans and Stephen Levinson (2009).) So how do small groups of migrants get to lose so many phonemes? Atkinson’s answer is that languages gain segments in older settlement locations because of the presence of other languages in the same location.

If a group of Dutch speakers had left the Dutch Republic in 1700, say, they might have ended up with a system of long vowels much like (2a). But in the old country in 1950, that vowel system was more like (2b) (Moulton 1962). The high vowels have split into a short set (riem, excuus, kroes ‘belt, excuse, mug’) and a long set (team, ´etude, cruise), four nasal vowels were introduced, as in (enfin, parfum, bon ton), and there are three new low vow- els (serre, oeuvre, zone ‘conservatory, works, zone’), increasing the 7-vowel system to a 17-vowel one. Around 2000, we effectively lost the four nasal vowels, but gained long [A:], as in cast, Master and Dove (cf. kast, tweemas- ter, DAF), see (2c). That is, staying put will increase your phonemes, as shown anecdotally in (2).

(2) a.ca.1700CE b.ca.1950CE c.ca.2000CE i: : u: i/i: y/y: u/u: i/i: y/y: u/u: e: ø: o: e: ø: o: e: ø: o: E: œ: O: E: œ: O: a: a: a: A: ˜E: ˜oe: ˜O: ˜A:

Phoneme accretion must not be confused with language change in the usual sense. The ‘Out of Africa’ connection is with phoneme inventory size, an aspect of language that has long been known to be far more constant than the distribution of phonemes over the words of the language. The English Great may serve as an example of language change in the usual sense. In (3a), the system of long vowels is given as it might have been used by Geoffrey Chaucer, while in (3b) we see the system as might have been used by William Shakespeare. Due to the lengthening of short vowels in a number of contexts, such as in position before [r] (not all already in Shakespeare’s time), new low long vowels arose to fill the gaps left by Chaucer’s words with low vowels. The Chaucerian high vowels of time and house had become diphthongs, being pushed out of the system of monophtongs by the rising [e:] and [o:] of meet and boot. Words with [a:] and [E:] moved up two steps,

6 except for a small group of high frequency [E:] words like great, which got stuck at [e:]. If the two poets were to have run into each other in the afterlife, each of them must have thought that the other had a peculiar pronunciation, but they might also have figured out that their long vowel systems were pretty much the same.

(3) a. ca. 1400 CE b. ca. 1650 CE i: time u: house i: meet, neat u: boot e: meet o: boot e: great, dame o: goat E: great, neat O: goat E: there O: port a: dame a: part

3 Redefining the research questions

Counting sounds has not just led to Atkinson's interesting finding, it has also redefined research questions in phonetics and phonology. Knowing what’s rare and what’s common forces us to consider what the factors are that shape sound systems. Phonological grammars are evolving systems, like biological species and technologies. In all these cases, we would like to know what the factors are that drive the changes, and what effects states of the system have. These are not the questions that have been at the heart of linguistic theory. For better or worse, linguistics adopted the model of the physical sciences. Physicists make observations about matter, gravity, light and time, and develop theories with physical elements and principles that explain their observations, regardless of whether those elements are observable. Likewise, linguists have considered that they could observe language data, but not look inside the black box in our brains that creates them. Linguistic elements thus became like Higgs particles: instead of asking why it exists and how it came into being, the question was whether a concept is needed to account for the data. Quite accidentally, this scientific stance in linguistics meshed with the finding that phonological elements have no consistent phonetic realization, and are in that sense unobservable. The pronunciation of consonants, tones, syllables, phonological phrases, etc. is context-dependent, and since contexts are infinitely variable, so are the pronunciations of the phonological elements, much to the chagrin of our speech technological friends. While we understand the insults hurled at us by the inarticulate drunk, no automatic speech recognizer will achieve the same feat for many years to come. At the semantic end of language, we have tended to ask what the function or functions of linguistic elements are. However, phrased in that way, such questions can be hard to answer satisfactorily, as in the case of wisdom teeth, nominal gender,

7 or as I’ll show below, the British dual flow mixer tap.

The factors I’m going to discuss will have an effect the distribution of phono- logical elements across the population of languages. Less well understood is whether the frequency of sounds within languages is determined by the same factors. If two languages have the same set of voiceless obstruents, but are spoken at different distances from the equator, will the speakers who live closer to the equator use them less frequently? The answer is probably ‘no’, because the ecological factor is historical. Noise levels in the temperate zones may today in fact be higher than nearer the equator. But ergonomic factors are unchanged. They favour sound contrasts that are easy to achieve and easy to hear, as testified in Maddieson (1984). But unusual sounds are not just unusual because they appear in relatively few languages, they also tend to be less frequent in the languages that have them (Gussenhoven & Jacobs 1998: 32/2011: 40) . The frequencies of the voiceless and voiced plosives in 2 British English (panel a of Fig 3) show the same biases as the frequencies of the voiceless and voiced plosives in UPSID-II, using Henning Reetz’s 3 interface (Reetz no date) (panel b).

2 The data were taken from Gimson (2006) and are originally from Fry (1947), who must have collected them the year before, as I was being born, given that academics in those days tended to do their research in the summer. 3Briefly, voiceless plosives are more frequent than voiced plosives, because the oral closure for voiced plosives inhibits voicing due to rising supraglottal air pressure as vocal fold vibration drives more air into the chamber between the vocal folds and the plosive’s closure. This problem is most acute for [g], where the supraglottal air chamber is smallest (Ohala 1983). In the voiceless series, [p] is rarer than expected, because of the poor acoustics of the plosive burst, which occurs outside the resonance chamber of the vocal tract (Stevens 1997). The fourth bias, for coronal consonant, is also present in both data sets; I am uncertain of the explanation of the privileged position of the coronal place of articulation.

8 Figure 3: The frequency of voiceless and voiced plosives in UPSID-II (bottom) and their text frequency in English (top).

9 4 Shifting sounds: The factors that shape sound systems

The factors that shape sound systems are summarized in (4).

(4) a. The ecological factor b. The social factor (i) Parents: historical linguistics (ii) Subgroup: sociolinguistics (iii) Geography: dialectology c. The ergonomic factor (i) Hearer serving: precision, enhancement (ii) Speaker serving: assimilation, reduction, lenition, truncation, undershoot, ... (iii) Frequency of use d. The cognitive factor

4.1 The social factor The effect of the ecological factor we have just seen. If there was no social factor, no two humans would speak the same language. It captures the role of the generations passing on their language to new generations, including the ‘Out of Africa’ connection, as well as the socially motivated adjustments we all make in the course of our lives. This latter effect was illustrated with the dramatic changes in the pronunciation of the British English short vowels made by Queen Elizabeth II between her twenties and fifties (Harrington, Palethorpe, & Watson 2000). A third social dimension is determined by who we live next to. I would like to illustrate this factor on the basis of the frequency of use of intonation contours from our recently completed NWO programme Intonation in Varieties of Dutch. As far as prosody is concerned, the Netherlands falls into two quite distinct zones. The first begins just north of Venlo and extends south from there so as to cover the southern half of the province of Limburg. The second zone is the rest of the country. We investigated the intonation of speakers from five locations in zone II that lie in an arc along the coast, plus a sixth, just inside Germany, which was added by J¨org Peters, the postdoc in this project, now Professor of Linguistics in the University of Oldenburg (Fig. 4). He counted intonation contours in the readings of a story by some 15 to 20 speakers per dialect.

10 My concern here is the geographical distribution of three question contours, whose frequencies I summed over the syntactic categories ‘Yes-no Question’, ‘List’ and ‘Statements’. A question like Bedoel je de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen? can be pronounced in at least three ways. In (5), we see the High Rise, the Low Rise and the Fall-Rise.4

(5) • • • ◦ ◦ {Bedoel je de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen} | %L H* H%

(6) • • • ◦ • {Bedoel je de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen} | %L L*H H%

(7) • • • ◦ • {Bedoel je de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen} | %L H*L H%

As shown in Fig. 5, the frequency of the High Rise decreases going from Goes to Weener (south-west to north-east), that of the Low Rise broadly increases, while the Fall-Rise shows an increase in the central area. As shown by former student Esther Grabe (2002, 2004), varieties of a language may have the same grammar, but differ in the way they use the structures they have in common. What hadn’t yet been shown for any language group is the fine-grained areal distribution, and I apologize to J¨org Peters for stealing his thunder. It is tempting to go beyond what we see. For one thing, we may predict that Belgian Dutch uses the High Rise, and that the Low Rise

4Former student Judith Haan (2002) found four interrogative contours to be reasonably frequent in standard Dutch, the three identified in (5) plus L* H%, the Low Low Rise, where the pitch remains low after the accented syllable until the last syllable. This contour may be hard to distinguish from the Low Rise when the accented syllable is close to the end of the intonational phrase. The frequency of occurrence in our data is negligibly low.

11 Figure 4: The tonal (Zone I) and non-tonal (Zone II) areas of the Netherlands and six locations along the North Sea Coast. is either non-existent or rarely used. This would concur with the finding by former student Brechtje Post (2000) that French does not have a L* in its grammar, suggesting the existence of an intonational continuum across a language boundary. What about the hump in the Fall-Rise in Holland and Friesland? Might it be an innovation that spread from England? John Wells characterizes the use of the Fall-Rise in questions as common in ‘local or Near-RP’, giving the Low Rise for RP (Wells 1981: 373), and notes elsewhere (Wells 2006: 245, note 8) that Roger Kingdon explicitly says that the Fall- Rise is not used for questions (1958: 10).5 A tentative conclusion might be that the central hump in our data reflects a British innovation, which has made its way into Dutch as it made its way into RP. If so, it is a sobering thought that since American English uses the High Rise and Low Rise for questions, Jane Austen would no doubt have preferred an American cast for the film versioon of her Pride and Prejudice.

4.2 The ergonomic factor The ergonomic factor amounts to the etablishment of a balance between the interests of the hearer and the interests of the speaker in the way the speaker pronounces his words. Not overprecisely, but not too sloppily either. Making contrasts clear for the hearer, Lindblom’s (1990) ‘hyperarticulation’,

5 I thank John Wells for directing me to these comments.

12 Figure 5: The High Rise decreasing in frequency and the Low Rise increasing in frequency as one goes from Goes to Weener. The use of the Fall-Rise is fre- quent in Rotterdam and Grouw, less frequent elsewhere. From Peters, Hanssen & Gussenhoven (in preparation). often amounts to the recruitment of additional phonetic features, known as ‘enhancement’. Taking liberties with precision in articulation, Lindblom’s ‘hypoarticulation’, has been much more widely studied and comes in many flavours, like ‘assimilation’, ‘undershoot’, ‘truncation’, ‘reduction’, ‘lenition’, ‘deletion’, and so on.6

Let’s take the Great Vowel Shift again, and ask ourselves what caused it. William Labov (1994) observed that quite generally, long vowels tend to raise and short vowels to lower, and that this behaviour can be explained as serving to enhance the difference between long and short vowels.

6High frequency of use of words or expressions shifts the balance in the battle between speaker and hearer in the direction of the speaker. Frequent words allow more reduction (Ernestus & Warner 2011) and will need less enhancement. Frequency of use is primarily determined by communicative factors. Words are frequent because they express meanings and functions that are often encountered by language users, like sentence coordinators, pronouns or basic meanings. As result, the English noun can is pronounced [kæn], but the auxiliary is [k@n] if it occurs in its typical location befor the main verb (Gimson 2006), while a frequent word like time will be more reduced than a rare word like thyme (Gahl 2008).

13 Figure 6: A high vowel [i] with a quickly reachable target position for tongue and jaw and a mid vowel [e] with a target position that takes longer to reach starting from a position with the tongue on the palate.

This answer correctly places the problem in category 3a of (4), the hearer- serving ergonomic factor. It doesn’t, however, answer the question why it is the long vowels that raise rather than the short, or why they don’t nasalize or aren’t spoken with breathy voice. I proposed an answer to this question in Gussenhoven (2006), and fortunately for us, it has yet to be generally accepted, so that it retains an air of freshness. Higher vowels sound longer. In two perception experiments with Dutch listeners, I found that [i] sounds longer than [e] and [e] longer than [E], if they have the same acoustic dura- tion. Listeners compensated for an inherent articulatory circumstance: lower vowels take longer to produce, assuming a rest position with the tongue on the palate. The distance that the tongue and jaw need to travel to the vowel target position is longer the further away the target is from the palate. Lis- teners may choose to discount the travelling time towards and away from the target when judging the duration of the vowel. This is shown impressionis- tically in Fig. 6. On the left, a high [i] is depicted, with excursion from the palate tracked below it. On the right is a lower vowel like [e]: its effective duration is shorter, as shown by the interrupted lines.7

7Roger Lass (1976: 66) called the question why the Great Vowel Shift took the shape it did the ‘inception problem’. It is rare in the recent linguistics literature to see the question why sounds change the way they do discussed at all. His comments, however, reveal the usual reserve when he says that he had no idea where to look for an answer, and dismissed an answer that was given earlier as incomprehensible. Lass did answer an

14 4.3 The changing Franconian tone My explanation of the Great Vowel Shift is a spin off from my work on dialects, where similar vowel shifts have occurred as a result of the enhancement of a duration difference. These dialects have a lexical tone contrast, whereby one tone, the ‘sleeptoon’ or ‘Accent 2’, is typically longer than the ‘stoottoon’ or ‘Accent 1’, in addition to differing in pitch. Here, I am concerned with the pitch differences. In addition to having a lexical tone contrast, the dialects contrast intonation contours. One curious fact is that in the question intonation a low rise on the last syllable of an intonational phrase signifies Accent 2 in Roermond, but Accent 1 in Venlo (see Fig. 7). The declaratives are very similar, a fall for Accent 1 and a fall-rise or fall- level for Accent 2, but where Roermond has a rise-fall vs a low rise for the interrogatives, Venlo has a low rise vs a high rise. Internally in the sentence, the tone is high level, and the rise only comes at the end of the intonation phrase. This is shown in Fig. 8.

Venlo looks like a late addition to the tonal area. While core dialects like Roermond have strikingly different intonation contours from German and Dutch, all of Venlo’s intonation contours also exist in the . However, they sometimes signify lexical differences instead of intonation dif- ferences. So it is with the Dutch High Rise and Low Rise. The grammar could have worked with the reverse assignment of the lexical tones, but Venlo speakers assigned the High Rise to Accent 2, and the Low Rise to Accent 1. As it happens, High level tones sound longer that low rising tones, and the High Rise is therefore ergonomically the better choice, as it will favour the recognition of the tone. In Fig. 9 we see the perceived durations of the vowel [a] embedded in a nonsense expression [meka/mega] by group of 20 Chinese and 20 Dutch listeners. Strikingly, the high level pitch is heard as longest, and the low level pitch as shortest. (This is based on work in progress with Wencui Zhou. For an explanation of these effects, see Yu (20o6)). Now you important preliminary question though, the ‘Order problem’. Was it was the high vowels that first diphthongized, after which the mid vowels raised to fill the gaps they left behind (Jespersen 1909: 231) or was it the mid vowels that raised so as to push out the high vowels, which then diphthongized (Luick 1964: 559)? The Luick version, the ‘push chain’ theory, is entailed by my explanation. Significantly, Lass presented data from dialects that unambiguously answered the order problem in favour of Luick’s descripion. If there was no mid vowel that could raise to push out the high vowel, Luick’s account predicts that the high vowel would not diphthongize. This is in fact what happened in Northern and Scottish dialects, where boot [bo:t] had fronted to [bøøt], later [by:t] or [bi:t]. In all the present-day versions of those dialects house is still [huus].

15 Figure 7: The Low Rise signifying interrogative Accent 1 in Venlo and interrog- ative Accent 2 in Roermond in phrase-final position, illustrated on the segmental structure [Gra:f]

Figure 8: The interrogative Accent 1 (a low rise, example a) and Accent 2 (a high level, example a), contrasting in phrase-internal position. From Gussenhoven & van der Vliet (1999).

16 Figure 9: Perceived duration of [a] in nonsense utterances [mega/meka] as a function of pitch contour on [a] by 20 Chinese and 20 Dutch listeners. With Wencui Zhou, in preparation. may ask: if the low level tone is the shortest perceptually, then why didn’t they pick it for Accent 1?

Here, I can make reference to the final factor that shapes sound systems, the cognitive factor. It concerns the kind of generalizations that humans make over data, given the cognitive organization of linguistic structure. Lan- guages assign tones to elements in the phonological structure, known as Tone Bearing Units. In the Venlo dialect, these are the moras of the accented sylla- ble. This is a sensible generalization, inspired by the fact that in Roermond, the donor dialect, the lexical tone contrast is absent on syllables that have only one sonorant mora: the presence of Accent 2 is tied to the presence of a second mora. A long vowel has two moras, and there shall therefore be two tones attached to any such syllable. For Accent 2 questions, the first has intonational H* and the second has the lexical H. Words with Accent 1 have no lexical tone. For Accent 1 questions, which have L* on the first mora, the tone that attaches to the second mora of syllable is whichever tone is found in the tone string further along, which is always a H-tone. There will therefore always be a rise in a long syllable starting with L*. Equally predictably, when the syllable has a short vowel, the low tone is there, since there is no second mora for a H to attach to.

So what about the rise for Accent 2 in the Roermond question? In Gussen- hoven (2000), I hypothesized that this form was handed down from the days before the tone contrast was introduced. The action in Roermond and the

17 Figure 10: Development of phrase-final contour for monosyllabic declarative Ac- cent 2 from Cologne, via intermediate stages represented by Mayen and Roer- mond to Arzbach through truncation, plus enhancement of the Arzbach contrast by hearer-oriented undershooting of the Accent 1 contour. In addition, it shows the development from Roermond to Venlo through undershoot of the final mid rise. The Arzbach contrast is the broadly the reverse of that found in Cologne. remaining area is in the form for the IP-final declarative Accent 2. It started out as a lengthened version of the original falling intonation, a high followed by a late fall, a form that still exists today in the dialect of Cologne, H*H L%, which contrasted with H* L% for Accent 1 (Gussenhoven & Peters 2004). (I am using italic print to indicate the lexical tone.) The main development was a truncation drive after a dip had developed between the two H-tones. An early stage can still be detected in the dialect of Mayen in the Eifel, thanks to the work by J¨urgen Erich Schmidt (1986), whose data show a weak final fall in the fading portion of the speech files. In the Roermond dialect, we see the stage with a final rise, without a hint of a further fall, analysed as H* L% H, still always contrasting with H* L% for Accent 1. As we have seen, Venlo developed from this system, adopting a form of this contour with undershoot of the final rise, analzed as H*L L% by Gussenhoven & van der Vliet 1999). It is not hard to see where the truncation process would lead to if it continued to eat away at the end of this contour. There would be a steep early fall, contrasting with a slower fall. The lexical tone would be analysed as an extra L, giving H*L L%, always versus H* L% for Accent 1.

In 1912, the German dialectologist Adolf Bach visited Arzbach, on the other side of the tonal area, east of the Rhine, acting on the rumour that Catholic villages in the area did, but Protestant villages did not have the tone contrast

18 (Bach 1921). I don’t know if this religious question has ever been answered, but what Bach did find was that in Arzbach Accent 1 and Accent 2 had reversed! He published his finding in 1921 after checking his facts again in the previous year. His publication gave rise to the division into a Regel A area, in which Mayen is located, and a Regel B area, with Arzbach as its best representative. It was Bjorn¨ Kohnlein¨ (2011), who earlier this year defended a PhD thesis in Leiden, who showed that the reversal had in fact only taken 8 place in the declaratives, quite as predicted by the hyper-truncation theory.

5 Stagnant waters: The dual-flow mixer tap

Let us now apply our changing systems view to a technological development in British sanitory equipment. It provides an illustration of how defining the function of things is less fruitful than trying to understand how things developed. So take the British dual flow mixer tap. A tap of that kind keeps the hot water separate from the cold until the end of the spout. Two reasons have been given for this particular arrangement. One is evidently secondary: when running the hot water, we can safely touch the tap, as the hot pipe is fully encapsulated by the cold. This is true, however, only for the con-centric type, one of the five types I will distinguish below. Moreover, it is somewhat of a chutzpah to advance this feature as a boon in the light of the many foreigners who have scalded their hands under a British hot tap. More commonly, the explanation refers to the risk of backflow. Backflow may conceivably occur when the water pressure disappears due to a breach in the mains and soiled water from some high positioned cistern or washing machine runs back into the mains. My physical friends tell me that for this to happen in a single-flow mixer tap, one of the two supply mains must be sub-atmospheric, since the water will flow to the point of lowest pressure, modulo gravity. Moreover, this would happen at the spout end as easily as inside the tap. And then the chances that sub-atmospheric pressure at one inlet should coincide with a polluted supply at the other, are very low indeed, to the extent that it seems safe to assume that it has never come to pass in the history of the British water industry.

The real reason for the mixer tap is that the British have a mental model of washing involving a filled basin, as opposed to the continental model of a flowing jet. When confronted with the continental mixer tap, the first British manufacturer must have failed to see its purpose, that of mixing hot 8Bj¨orn K¨ohnlein addresses the historical development, but his account differs from mine.

19 Figure 11: Diagrams of dual and single flow mixer taps with the prevention of backflow as an explanation of the purpose of the dual flow type (bottom right). Information leaflet by Abode, British a manufacturer of kitchen taps.

20 Figure 12: Hypothesized chronology of the British dual flow mixer tap. and cold to a comfortable temperature for the hands. The best theory the manufacturer must have been able to come up with was that this was a clever way of saving metal. The British model therefore is originally not so much a mixer tap as a mixed tap. Faced with having to interpret the function of this double tap, the next generation came up with the backflow prevention solution (Fig. 11). This theory suggests a chronology of the British mixer tap in which the first model looks close to what you would get if you squeeze two taps together, a tap with a neat vertical partition down the centre, the Ur model (see Fig. 12). From it, various fancy models arose, like one with a horizontal partition in a square spout, the oldest specimen I have been able to find in a junk yard in East London. Later there came the concentric model, which I know from the kitchens in the flats of Sir Christopher France House on the Queen Mary campus in East London. Once the two pipes were properly separated, as in the twin model, the road to the triple-flow mixer tap was open. I have labeled it OTT, or Over The Tap. In the triple flow mixer tap, to use the more plangeant phrase, the third pipe is used for filtered water.

In tune with the filled basin model, plumbing regulations emphasize that “every bath, wash basin, sink or similar appliance shall be provided with a watertight and readily accessible plug or or other device capable of closing the waste outlet.” This blanket instruction is mercifully followed by a series of exceptions, among which are showers, drinking fountains and washbasins with self-closing taps, as well as any “appliance which is used in medical,

21 dental or veterinary premises and is designed or adapted for use with an unplugged outlet”.9

But doubts have crept in even in official circles. The rationality of the instruc- tion to install check valves in the hot and cold pipes leading into contintental style mixer tap are not or no longer formulated with confidence. Regulation R15.13.2 of the Water Regulations Advisory Scheme in Gwent10 says that “it may be considered reasonable” to do so, adding somewhat lamely that the Water Supply Industry “supports the provision of single check valves [...] where there are unbalanced pressures”, while adding that the indus- try “deems that the particular requirement of the Regulation will be met if there are no check valves” in the case of balanced pressures. The apparent concern about water pressure reveals how the first interpretation of the dual flow mixer tap was that of a device to prevent backflow. The vacillation in this recommendation continues in the final sentence, which says boldly that “where a combination tap or mixer with water mixing in the body is used with balanced pressures (that is, both inlets are fed from supply pipes or both are from storage), the “cold side’ is now rated as Fluid Category 1, and the hot side’ is now rated Fluid Category 2, and single check valves should therefore - according to the Regulations - be installed on both ‘sides’”.

There are many more consequences of the British mental model for wash- ing. Showers, which according to Catherine Ashenburg (2007) are vaguely associated in the British mind with penitentiary institutions, are believed to be out of order more often than on the continent, and shower manufacturers find themselves having to target special interest groups like the elderly who cannot get into a bath, but who may still be able to take a shower bath while seated. Taps are typically mounted close to the wall of the washbasin, mak- ing it hard to use the water for washing your hands as it flows into the basin, and the water pressure is often too low for a comfortable continental-style shower. But then, the water pressure just needs to be high enough - you have guessed it - for creating stagnant waters.

6 Words of thanks

My words of thanks are first of all addressed to the Dutch taxpayers, many of whom are present here today. Thanks to them I studied

9Article 28 of the Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1148 from the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999. 10I thank Gareth Harris of WRAS for this information.

22 and Literature in Amsterdam supported by a mix of grants and repayable interest-free loans. Before going to Edinburgh for my year abroad, I ar- ranged to see someone in the Ministry of Education in order to explain how my Dutch grant money was insufficient to support my stay there, which resulted in an additional award of a thousand guilders. Little did he or I know that two months later, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson was to devalue the pound by 14%, famously commenting that this devaluation “doesn’t mean of course that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued.” It did have the effect though of multiplying the pounds in my pocket. When I began work in Nijmegen, the small debt in student loans I had run up was restructured, meaning I never paid it back. My thanks equally go to the College van Bestuur for appointing me and to my colleagues in the administrative and other units in the Arts Faculty in Nijmegen, from the Faculty board and the wider 4th floor of the Erasmusgebouw, the English department and the Linguistics department to the informal lunch group of the 9th floor. I am sincerely grateful for their practical and moral support. And I thank my students for making me want to understand things.

I will fight off the angst that comes with mentioning names by showing, proudly and gratefully, the names of my co-authors (see (8), and then, while you are contemplating the list, mentioning the names of five people who can be emblematic for the help I have received at different phases of my career.

(8) Flor Aarts, Jan Aarts, Vahideh Abolhasani Zadeh, Rob van den Berg, Frank van den Beuken, Jan Blom†, Sara B¨ogels, Dwight Bolinger†, Theo Bongaerts, Rolf Bremmer, Ton Broeders, G¨osta Bruce†, Aoju Chen, Yiya Chen, Manni Chu, Dorothee Chwilla, Peter-Arno Coppen, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Wilske Driessen, Lex Elich, Rachel Fournier, Esther Grabe, Judith Haan, Peter Hagoort, Judith Hanssen, Xuliang He, Linda Heijmans, Vincent van Heuven, Elise Hofhuis, Roeland van Hout, Haike Jacobs, Ole Jensen, Ren´eKager, Cornelia Keijsper, Eric Kellerman, Joop Kerkhoff, Carmen Kung, Erwin Marsi, Ger Peer- booms, Frans van Oss, J¨org Peters, Brechtje Post, Bruno Repp, Tomas Riad, Toni Rietveld, Willem Rump, Herbert Schriefers, Marc Swerts, Renske Teeuw, Jacques Terken, Inyang Udofot, Marco van de Ven, Jo Verhoeven, Edward Verhofstadt, Peter van der Vliet, Natasha Warner, Jeroen van de Weijer, Anne Wichmann, Wencui Zhou,

I thank Hans Bots, former dean of the faculty, for making me a professor twice, the second time being when I had exhausted myself after a year’s

23 worth of commuting between Nijmegen and London. From Ton Broeders I learnt how to listen to sounds in our early days in the Instituut Engels- Amerikaans, and more generally how to think. This latter aspect would be adequately described as ‘with loads of common sense’, were it not for the fact that his analytical talents are so uncommon. Leo Wetzels made me look beyond the self-imposed confines of the Anglistiek, which ultimately brought me to call myself a phonologist as opposed to an anglicist. I thank Toni Ri- etveld, with whom I experienced so many anni mirabiles. Before the waiter had brought us our first beers, we had decided on the research question and planned the experiment, leaving us little else to do for the rest of the meet- ing than to discuss the state of the world and, very very occasionally, gossip about our colleagues. And I thank Aditi Lahiri for generally looking after me, and for always forgiving me when I missed motorway exits, trains, planes, and sometimes whole occasions. And now I will greatly enjoy mentioning the names of Karel, Otto and Siegfried, who each in their own way have helped me to keep a sane perspective on life. And I thank the amazing Hyong-Sil Cho Gussenhoven, from whom I learn something every day. And not even ever the same thing twice, as far as I’m aware. But it would take yet another lecture to work that one out. So I’ll summarize the situation by observing that Sil is responsible for the fact that I can pronounce my closing words a happy man.

Ik heb gezegd.

References

Ashenburg, K. (2007). The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History. New York: North Point Press. Bach, A. (1921). Die Sch¨arfung in der moselfr¨ankischen Mundart von Arzbach (Westerwald). Beitr¨age zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Liter- atur 45, 266–291. Ernestus, M. and N. Warner (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants [Editorial]. Journal of Phonetics 39, 253–260. doi:10.1016/S0095- 4470(11)00055-6. Evans, N. and S. C. Levinson (2009). The myth of language universals: Lan- guage diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Siences 32, 429–492. Fry, D. B. (1947). The frequency of occurrence of speech sounds in southern English. Archives N´eerlandaises de Phon´etique Experimentale 20. Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84, 474–496.

24 Gimson, A. C. (2006). An Introduction to the Pornunciation of English. London: Arnold. Sixth Edition. Revised by Alan Cruttenden. Grabe, E. (2002). Variation adds to prosodic typology. In B. Bernard and I. Mar- lien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 127– 132. Laboratoire Parole et Langage. Grabe, E. (2004). Intonational variation in urban dialects of English spoken in the British Isles. In P. Gilles and J. Peters (Eds.), Regional variation in intonation, T¨ubingen, pp. 9–31. Niemeyer. Gussenhoven, C. (2000). On the origin and development of the Central Fran- conian tone contrast. In A. Lahiri (Ed.), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Prinicples of Change in Phonology and Morphology, pp. 213–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gussenhoven, C. (2007). A vowel height split explained: Compensatory listening and speaker control. In J. Cole and J. I. Hualde (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, Berlin and New York, pp. 145–172. Mouton de Gruyter. Gussenhoven, C. and H. Jacobs (1998). Understanding Phonology. London: Arnold/Hodder Stoughton. 2nd ed. 2005, 3rd ed. 2011. Gussenhoven, C. and J. Peters (2004). A tonal analysis of Cologne Sch¨arfung. Phonology 22, 251–285. Gussenhoven, C. and P. van der Vliet (1999). The phonology of tone and into- nation in the Dutch dialect of Venlo. Journal of Linguistics 35, 99–135. Haan, J. (2002). Speaking of Questions: An exploration of Dutch question into- nation. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Harrington, J., S. Palethorpe, and K. Watson (2000). Monophthongal vowel changes in : An acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30, 63–78. Hay, J. and L. Bauer (2007). Phoneme inventory size and population size. Lan- guage 83, 388–200. Jespersen, O. (1909). A grammar on Historical Prinicples. Vol- ume I. Sounds and . Munksgaard. Kingdon, R. (1958). The Groundwork of English intonation. London: Longman. K¨ohnlein, B. (2011). Rule Reversal Revisited: Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. Utrecht: LOT. Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Lass, R. (1976). and Phonological Theory: Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25 Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle and A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modeling, Dordrecht, pp. 403–440. Kluwer. Luick, K. (1964). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Oxford: Black- well. 2. Abteilung. Edited by F. Wild and H. Koziol. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Maddieson, I. (2011). Phonological complexity in linguistic patterning. Proceed- ings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 28–34. Mann, C. C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. New York: Knopf. Moulton, W. G. (1962). The vowels of Dutch: Phonetic and distributional classes. Lingua XI, 294–312. Munroe, R. L., J. G. Fought, and R. K. Macaulay (2009). Warm climates and sonority classes: Not simply more vowels and fewer consonants. Cross- Cultural Research 43, 123–133. Nettle, D. (1998). Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ohala, J. J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In P. F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The Production of Speech, New York/Berlin, pp. 189–216. Springer. Post, B. (2000). Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. The Hague: Thesus (Subsidiary of Holland Academic Graphics). Reetz, H. (no date). This is a simple interface for upsid. http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html. Schmidt, J. E. (1986). Die Mittelfr¨ankischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentu- ierung). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Shosted, R. K. (2006). Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Lin- guistic Typology 10, 1–40. Stevens, K. (1997). Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships. In The Hand- book of Phonetic Sciences, Oxford, pp. 462–505. Blackwell. Wells, J. C. (1981). Accents of English 2: The Britsh Isles. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Wells, J. C. (2006). Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Yu, A. (2010). Tonal effects on perceived vowel duration. In C. Fougeron, B. K¨uhnert, M. D’Imperio, and N. Vall´ee (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10, Berlin/New York, pp. 151–168. De Gruyter Mouton.

26