Functional Load and the Lexicon: Evidence that Syntactic Category and Frequency Relationships in Minimal Lemma Pairs Predict the Loss of Phoneme contrasts in Language Change

All languages use individually meaningless, contrastive categories in combination to create distinct words. Despite their central role in communication, these “phoneme” contrasts can be lost over the course of language change. The century-old functional load hypothesis proposes that loss of a phoneme contrast will be inhibited in relation to the work that it does in distinguishing words. In a previous work we showed for the first time that a simple measure of functional load does significantly predict patterns of contrast loss within a diverse set of languages: the more minimal word pairs that a phoneme contrast distinguishes, the less likely those phonemes are to have merged over the course of language change. Here, we examine several lexical properties that are predicted to influence the uncertainty between word pairs in usage. We present evidence that (a) the lemma rather than surface-form count of minimal pairs is more predictive of merger; (b) the count of minimal lemma pairs that share a syntactic category is a stronger predictor of merger than the count of those with divergent syntactic categories, and (c) that the count of minimal lemma pairs with members of similar frequency is a stronger predictor of merger than that of those with more divergent frequencies. These findings support the broad hypothesis that properties of individual utterances influence long-term language change, and are consistent with findings suggesting that phonetic cues are modulated in response to lexical uncertainty within utterances.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  Scott A. Jackson,et al.  High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study , 2013, Cognition.

[3]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  Seeking predictions from a predictive framework , 2013, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[4]  A. Wedel Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems , 2012, Language and Cognition.

[5]  D. Robert Ladd,et al.  What is duality of patterning, anyway? , 2012, Language and Cognition.

[6]  Margaret Maclagan,et al.  /r/-sandhi in early 20th century New Zealand English , 2012 .

[7]  Elsi Kaiser,et al.  Exploring the Lexical and Acoustic Consequences of Referential Predictability , 2011, DAARC.

[8]  Cédric Gendrot,et al.  Anti-Markedness Patterns in French Epenthesis: An Information-theoretic Approach , 2011 .

[9]  T Florian Jaeger,et al.  On language 'utility': processing complexity and communicative efficiency. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[10]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory , 2011 .

[11]  Irit Meir,et al.  The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language , 2011, Natural language & linguistic theory.

[12]  Abby Kaplan,et al.  How much homophony is normal?1 , 2011, Journal of Linguistics.

[13]  Daniel Currie Hall,et al.  Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion* , 2011, Phonology.

[14]  Keren Rice,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Phonology , 2011 .

[15]  Melissa Baese-Berk,et al.  Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Production: An fMRI Study , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  M. Ernestus Categoricality and gradience in phonology theory , 2011 .

[18]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Sarah Ouwayda Contrast Preservation in dialects of North Levantine Arabic , 2010 .

[20]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Multilevel Exemplar Theory , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels , 2010 .

[22]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough , 2010 .

[23]  Ludger Hoffmann Grundzüge der Phonologie , 2010 .

[24]  P. Mok,et al.  Perception of the merging tones in Hong Kong Cantonese : preliminary data on monosyllables , 2010 .

[25]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper , 2009 .

[26]  D. Silverman Neutralization and anti-homophony in Korean1 , 2009, Journal of Linguistics.

[27]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Adam Albright,et al.  Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability* , 2009, Phonology.

[29]  Joseph Hilbe,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2009 .

[30]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Mechanisms of interaction in speech production , 2009, Language and cognitive processes.

[31]  Noah H. Silbert,et al.  Generalization Across Segments in Second Language Consonant Identification , 2009 .

[32]  Juliette Blevins,et al.  An evolutionary approach to lexical competition , 2009 .

[33]  Jean-Francois Mondon,et al.  The Nature of Homophony and Its Effects on Diachrony and Synchrony. , 2009 .

[34]  Juliette Blevins Structure-preserving sound change : A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian , 2009 .

[35]  Jaye Padgett,et al.  Systemic contrast and Catalan rhotics , 2009 .

[36]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[37]  Morten H. Christiansen,et al.  Language as shaped by the brain. , 2008, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[38]  Murat Saraclar,et al.  Turkish Language Resources: Morphological Parser, Morphological Disambiguator and Web Corpus , 2008, GoTAL.

[39]  Jeff Mielke,et al.  The Emergence of Distinctive Features , 2008 .

[40]  R. Mester,et al.  The Phonology of Voicing in Japanese: Theoretical Consequences for Morphological Accessibility , 2008 .

[41]  Monica Tamariz,et al.  Exploring systematicity between phonological and context-cooccurrence representations of the mental lexicon , 2008 .

[42]  Uriel Cohen Priva Using Information Content to PredictPhone Deletion , 2008 .

[43]  William D. Raymond,et al.  Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production , 2008 .

[44]  Bridget Samuels,et al.  On Evolutionary Phonology , 2007, Biolinguistics.

[45]  Máire Ní Chiosáin,et al.  Contrast, Comparison Sets, and the Perceptual Space , 2007 .

[46]  Judit Rebeka Campos-Astorkiza Minimal contrast and the phonology-phonetics interaction , 2007 .

[47]  Russell S. Kirby,et al.  The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. A Multimedia Reference Tool , 2007 .

[48]  A. Wedel Feedback and regularity in the lexicon* , 2007, Phonology.

[49]  Ioana Chitoran,et al.  From hiatus to diphthong: the evolution of vowel sequences in Romance* , 2007, Phonology.

[50]  WPP, No. 105: The Interaction between Spontaneous Imitation and Linguistic Knowledge , 2007 .

[51]  Margaret Maclagan,et al.  Getting fed up with our feet: Contrast maintenance and the New Zealand English “short” front vowel shift , 2007, Language Variation and Change.

[52]  Roger Levy,et al.  Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction , 2006, NIPS.

[53]  P. Niyogi,et al.  Quantifying the functional load of phonemic oppositions, distinctive features, and suprasegmentals , 2006 .

[54]  A. Wedel Exemplar models, evolution and language change , 2006 .

[55]  B. Phillips Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion , 2006 .

[56]  A. Samuel,et al.  Generalization in perceptual learning for speech , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[57]  Jennifer S. Pardo,et al.  On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[58]  William D. Raymond,et al.  Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors , 2006, Language Variation and Change.

[59]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[60]  Zsuzsanna Fagyal,et al.  French: A Linguistic Introduction , 2006 .

[61]  Larry K. Ichimura,et al.  Anti-Homophony Blocking and its Productivity in Transparadigmatic Relations , 2006 .

[62]  S. Kirby,et al.  Cultural selection for learnability: Three principles underlying the view that language adapts to be learnable , 2006 .

[63]  B. Munson Lexical Access , Lexical Representation , and Vowel Production , 2006 .

[64]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition , 2005 .

[65]  W. Labov,et al.  The Atlas Of North American English , 2005 .

[66]  A. Samuel,et al.  Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[67]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Cultural Selection for Learnability: Three hypotheses underlying the view that language adapts to be learnable. , 2005 .

[68]  J. McQueen,et al.  The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[69]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Some observations on representations and representational specificity in speech perception and spoken word recognition , 2005 .

[70]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  Storage and computation in the mental lexicon , 2005 .

[71]  M. Kenstowicz Paradigmatic Uniformity and Contrast , 2004 .

[72]  B. Munson,et al.  The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[73]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[74]  Grover Hudson,et al.  PHONOLOGY AND LANGUAGE USE , 2004 .

[75]  Juliette Blevins,et al.  The Mystery of Austronesian Final Consonant Loss , 2004 .

[76]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[77]  R. Wright Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation , 2004 .

[78]  Junko Ito,et al.  Morphological contrast and merger: ranuki in Japanese , 2004 .

[79]  Partha Niyogi,et al.  Measuring the Functional Load of Phonological Contrasts , 2003, ArXiv.

[80]  Andrew B Wedel,et al.  Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology , 2003 .

[81]  J. Pierrehumbert Phonetic Diversity, Statistical Learning, and Acquisition of Phonology , 2003, Language and speech.

[82]  Jaye Padgett,et al.  Contrast and Post-Velar Fronting in Russian , 2003 .

[83]  Leonie Cornips,et al.  An acoustic study of standard Dutch /v/, /f/, /s/, and /z/ , 2003 .

[84]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  How efficient is speech , 2003 .

[85]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change , 2002, Language Variation and Change.

[86]  Edward Flemming,et al.  Auditory Representations in Phonology , 2002 .

[87]  R. Wright A History of the Spanish Language (2nd edition) , 2002 .

[88]  Bart de Boer,et al.  Evolving Sound Systems , 2002 .

[89]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Simulating the Evolution of Language , 2002, Springer London.

[90]  Kazutaka Kurisu,et al.  The Phonology of Morpheme Realization , 2002 .

[91]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Word-specific phonetics , 2001 .

[92]  Boris New,et al.  Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE , 2001 .

[93]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast , 2000 .

[94]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals , 1999 .

[95]  Ho-min Sohn The Korean language , 1999 .

[96]  Richard Wiese,et al.  The Phonology of German , 1996 .

[97]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Language as a dynamical system , 1996 .

[98]  J. Elman,et al.  Learning and morphological change , 1995, Cognition.

[99]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[100]  W. Labov Principles Of Linguistic Change , 1994 .

[101]  Michael Kenstowicz,et al.  Phonology In Generative Grammar , 1994 .

[102]  Junko Ito,et al.  Feature Predictability and Underspecification: Palatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics , 1989 .

[103]  David Sankoff,et al.  Statistical evidence for rule ordering , 1989, Language Variation and Change.

[104]  John J. Ohala,et al.  Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation , 1989 .

[105]  John C. Wells,et al.  Accents of English , 1982 .

[106]  William S-Y. Wang Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue , 1969 .

[107]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[108]  C. F. Hockett The Quantification of Functional Load , 1967 .

[109]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[110]  R. N. Indah Language and Speech , 1958, Nature.

[111]  André Martinet,et al.  Function, Structure, and Sound Change , 1952 .

[112]  J. Gilliéron Généalogie des mots qui désignent l'abeille : d'après l'Atlas linguistique de la France / par J. Gilliéron,... , 1918 .

[113]  Baudouin de Courtenay,et al.  Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Alternationen : ein Capitel aus der Psychophonetik , 1895 .

[114]  S. Goldinger THE ROLE OF PERCEPTUAL EPISODES IN LEXICAL PROCESSING , 2022 .