Sound change in Australia: Current knowledge and research priorities Luisa Miceli U.Western Australia Erich R. Round U.Queensland, Australia Sound change in Australia requires explanation • Australian languages • atypical homogeneity in synchronic sound patterns (Busby 1979, Dixon 1980, Hamilton 1996, Evans 1996) • less recognized — atypical diachronic sound patterns • Roadmap • nature of problem posed by sound change • begin to piece together some parts of the problem The poverty of Australian sound change Non-identical, regular correspondences are needed • For testing hypotheses of genetic relationship → comparative method • Demonstration of cognacy → sound correspondences: • amply attested • regular • a significant number must involve non-identical sounds • (near-)identical correspondences → could be due to borrowing Non-identical, regular correspondences are needed • Discussions of comparative method • don’t often highlight the role of non-identical regular correspondences • Evidence from non-identical correspondences • grants confidence → identical correspondences also reflect inheritance • without that evidence → arguments for cognacy are weaker In Australia, non-identical correspondences are scarce • Narrow differentiation → typical Jiwarli kampa- cook, burn Wirangu kampa- cook, eat Nyangumarta kampa- cook (tr), burn (intr) Martuthunira kampa be burning, cooking Warlpiri kampa- be burning – of fire; Manjiljarra kampa cook, burn burn it – of fire Djabugay kampa(:) cook in earth oven Walmajarri kampa cook it Wik-Mungknh ka:mp- cook in earth oven Kaytetye ampe- burn cover with Yingkarta kampa-ñi be burning, cooking Uradhi aβa- sand Theory provides no obvious response • Problem • Poverty of non-identical correspondences • Apparent poverty of sound change • Current theory — what to do with such data?? • What to do? • first, better understand how it comes about The poverty of Australian phonological diversity Australian languages are synchronically similar • Synchronically, very similar: • Phonemic inventories Busby 1979 • Phonotactic constraints Hamilton 1996 • Morpheme structure conditions (at least Pama-Nyungan) Dixon 1980 • Metrical systems • No lexical tone Phoneme inventories are highly similar coronal peripheral • Bardi apical apical laminal dorsal alveolar retroflex palatal velar bilabial plosive t ʈ c k p • Kukata nasal n ɳ ɲ ŋ m • Nyungar, Pintupi lateral l ɭ ʎ trill r • Umbugarla, Walmatjarri, rhotic ɻ approx. Nyangumarta, Wambaya, semi- vowel j w Wardaman, Jingulu, Warnman, Watjarri, Yankunytjatjara, Nyigina, Kunin.... Phoneme inventories are highly similar coronal peripheral • Kalkatungu, Badimaya, apical apical laminal laminal dorsal Payungu, Kariyarra, bilabial alveolar retroflex dental palatal velar Kurrama, Martuthunira, plosive t ʈ t̪ c k p Ngarluma, Panyjima, nasal n ɳ n̪ ɲ ŋ m Putijarra, Kija, Guugu Yimidhirr, Ganggalida, lateral l ɭ l̪ ʎ Wubuy, Ngawun, Marra, trill r Lardil, Kayardild, Jiwarli, rhotic approx. ɻ Gooniyandi... semi- vowel j w Australian languages are synchronically similar • Synchronically, very similar: • Phonemic inventories Busby 1979 • Phonotactic constraints Hamilton 1996 • Morpheme structure conditions (at least Pama-Nyungan) Dixon 1980 • Metrical systems • Don’t offer obvious explanation for sound change • Static properties, dynamic alternations We can reason from alternations to sound change • Synchronic alternations ← sound change antecedents • Hypothesis: • continent of absent sound changes: • morphophonology impoverished • AusPhon — currently 91 languages (Round 2014) • 1,786 alternations Lenition Other Lenition Other Assimilation Deletion Assimilation Deletion P-base AusPhon Outcomes are system-preserving • Deletion and lenition • preserve typical phonemic inventory and phonotactic patterns • stops → glides fricatives • deletions → uncharacteristic clusters σσ roots escape the most common changes • Nature of alternations ↔ Lack of observed changes in PN roots • Butcher (2006): Post-tonic consonants → ‘strong’ position • Assuming these are resistant to changes such as lenition and deletion: • Typical disyllabic Pama-Nyungan root, CV(Son).CV(Son)- STRONG • doesn’t contain most common targets (e.g. weak VCV) The role of multilingualism Are low cognate numbers linked to absent change? • Pama-Nyungan → low number of potential cognates • Implies → high rate of lexical replacement ● < 5% ● ● 5% ●●●● ●●●●●● ● 10% < 5% ●● ● ●● ● 15% ● ● ● 20% 5% ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● 25% • Paucity of sound change ● ● > 30% 10% ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● 20% ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● 25% • High lexical replacement ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● >30% ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● • Linked? ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Data: Claire Bowern ● ● ● ● ● Active bilingualism was ubiquitous • Exogamous marriage patterns → stable, ubiquitous, active multilingualism ? • The Australian pattern ← cognitive challenges faced by active bilinguals • Ellison and Miceli (2013) — lexical choices in code-switching: • if alternatives are available • avoidance of ‘doppels’: form–meaning similar across the languages Bilinguals avoid doppels monolinguals usage (N=25) Mode Bilingual Monolingual bilinguals avoidance (N=24) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The consequences for lexical replacement were tested • Assumption • Doppel avoidance → token frequency • Token frequency → transmission • Simulations • Transmission & replacement of doppels in 2 languages A B C Bilingualism accelerates loss of doppels A 100 generations B 100 generations C 100 generations Cognate loss links to multingualism & lack of change • High proportion of active multingualism • was the case in Australia • expected to accelerate the replacement of similar cognate words • Low levels of sound change • cognates remain similar • expected to accelerate their replacement Summary and conclusions • Initial observations • Poverty of non-identical correspondences • Apparent poverty of sound change • High rate of lexical replacement Plausible connections have been identified Similar inventories, Synchronic phonotactics alternations Recurrent Roots are Cognates changes shielded are similar Multi- High lexical lingualism replacement Alpher, Barry. 2004. Pama-Nyungan. In C. Bowern and H. Koch (eds), Australian languages: classification and the comparative method. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 92-126. Busby, Peter. 1979. A classificatory study of phonemic systems in Australian Aboriginal languages. Canberra: Australian National University MA Thesis. Butcher, Andrew. 2006. Australian Aboriginal languages: consonant salient phonologies and the place-of -articulation imperative. In J. M. Harrington and M. Tabain (eds), Speech Production: Models, Phonetic Processes and Techniques, Psychology Press, 187-210. Dixon, R.M.W. 1980. Languages of Australia. Cambridge: CUP. Ellison, M.T & L. Miceli. 2013. New Perspectives on Language Change: L2 Transmission and the Cognitive Basis for Contact-Induced Differentiation of Lexical Forms. ICHL2013, Oslo. Evans, Nick. 1995. Current issues in the phonology of Australian languages. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 723-61. Hamilton, Philip. 1996. Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian Aboriginal languages. Toronto: University of Toronto Ph.D. thesis. Round, Erich R., 2013. ‘The phonologically exceptional continent: a large cross-linguistic survey reveals why Australia is, and is not, typologically unusual’. ALT 10, Leipzig..