Cover not available
Part of
Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century
Edited by Nancy Stern, Ricardo Otheguy, Wallis Reid and Jaseleen Sackler
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 77] 2019
► pp. 281–300

Evolutionary phonology as human behavior

| The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY)
In this chapter I compare Columbia School Phonology as first sketched in Diver (1974, 1979) to Evolutionary Phonology (Blevins, 2004a, 2005a, 2006a, 2008, 2009a, 2015, 2017), highlighting similarities and differences between the two approaches. Where Columbia School Phonology grazes the surface of phonological typology, Evolutionary Phonology grounds itself in extensive cross-linguistic surveys of common and rare sound patterns. Where Columbia School Phonology suggests relatively simplistic intuitive phonetic explanations for sound patterns, Evolutionary Phonology refers to detailed empirical work in distinct sub-fields of phonetics, including articulatory phonetics, aerodynamic modeling, and perceptual studies of speech. And where Columbia School Phonology proposes usage-based explanations for skewed distributions of sounds, Evolutionary Phonology suggests ways in which these are inadequate, and proposes analyses where non-phonetic factors interact in complex ways with overriding phonetic factors.
Keywords: Columbia School phonology, Evolutionary Phonology, phonological typology, functional phonology, skewings, phonetic explanation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An overview of Evolutionary Phonology
  • 3.Evolutionary Phonology and the Columbia School: “Le bon Dieu est dans le détail”
    • 3.1Segment inventories: The high frequency of coronal sounds
    • 3.2Phonotactics: Explaining Tl-gaps
    • 3.3Neutralization: Where substance matters
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.11ble
References (55)
References
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Folser-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M. & Gildea, D. (2003). Effect of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 113, 1001–1024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (2004a). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). The mystery of Austronesian final consonant loss. Oceanic Linguistics, 43, 179–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a). The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics, 44, 455–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005b). Understanding antigemination. In Z. Frajzyngier, D. Rood, & A. Hodges (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp.203–234). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006a). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 32, 117–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b). New perspectives on English sound patterns: 'Natural' and 'Unnatural' in Evolutionary Phonology. Journal of English Linguistics, 34, 6–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories. In J. Good (Ed.), Language universals and language change (pp.79–107). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009a). Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. In A. Adelaar, & A. Pawley (Eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Bob Blust (pp.33–49). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2009b). Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics, 48, 264–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Evolutionary Phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In P. Honeybone, & J. Salmons (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology (pp.485–500). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (pp.88–121). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Evolutionary Phonology and the life cycle of voiceless sonorants. In S. Cristofaro, & F. Zuniga (Eds.), Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony (pp.29–60). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, J., & Garrett, A. (1998). The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language, 74, 508–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The evolution of metathesis. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology (117–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J., & Grawunder, S. (2009). *Kl > Tl sound change in Germanic and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications. Linguistic Typology, 13, 267–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J., & A. Wedel. (2009). Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica, 26, 143–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, R. (2004). *t to k: An Austronesian sound change revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 43, 365–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, T. G. (2006). Contrast and markedness in complex onset phonotactics. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 25, 29–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14, 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (2006). Phonology without the phoneme. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond Its Origins (pp.163–175). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekker, A. & de Jonge, B. (2006). Phonology as human behavior: The case of Peninsular Spanish. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School Beyond Its Origins (pp.131–141). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diver, W. (1974). Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotext(e), 1, 12–30.Google Scholar
Diver, W. (1979). Phonology as human behavior. In D. Aaronson, & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), Psycholinguistic research: Implications and applications (pp.161–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Diver, W. and Davis, J. (2012). The phonology of the extremes, or, what is a problem? In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.323–341). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, W. & Huffman, A. (2012). The phonological motivation for Verner’s Law and Grimm’s Law. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.343–364). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (1985). Syllable weight, sloppy phonemes, and channels in Pirahã discourse. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp.408–416.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). “Thyme and time are not homophones. The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84, 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A. & Hale, M. (1993). The phonetics and phonology of Grimm's and Verner's Laws. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gick, B., Bliss, H., Michelson, K., & Radanov, B. (2012). Articulation without acoustics: “Soundless” vowels in Oneida and Blackfoot. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 46–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42, 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. (1997). Review of Brockhaus 1995. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures, 9, 255–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. K., & Salmons, J. C. (2007). Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition. Phonology, 24, 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, M., & Kisseberth, C. (1979). Generative Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Martínez-Celdrán, E., Fernández-Planas, A., & Carrera-Sabaté, J. (2003). Castilian Spanish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33, 255–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP Effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 207–263.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior (pp.178–203). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
(1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In J. Kingston, & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I (pp.258–275). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The phonetics of sound change. In C. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives (pp.237–278). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1997). Aerodynamics of phonology. Proceedings of the Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (92–97). Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (Eds.). (1991). The special status of coronals. Internal and external evidence. Phonetics and phonology. 2. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sabar, N. (2018). Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: the case of English look, see, seem and appear. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. (1999). Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. In M. Gordon (Ed.), Papers in Phonology 3 ( UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2 ) (pp.25–145). Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Tobin, Y. (1997). Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham, NC /London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Comparing and contrasting Optimality Theory and the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. The Linguistic Review,17, 291–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Comparing and contrasting Natural Phonology, Optimality Theory and the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Special Thematic Issue on Natural Phonology, 45, 169–189.Google Scholar
(2011). Phonology as human behavior from an evolutionary point of view. In B. de Jonge & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Linguistic Theory and Empirical Evidence (pp.169–195). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux de cercle linguistique de Prague, 7.Google Scholar
Vaux, B., & Samuels, B. (2005). Laryngeal markedness and aspiration. Phonology, 22, 395–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

VAN SOEREN, D.P.
2023. The role of word recognition factors and lexical stress in the distribution of consonants in Spanish, English and Dutch. Journal of Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.