Predicting Perceptually Weak and Strong Unmarked Patterns: A Message-based Approach

Perceptual factors have been drawn on to provide insight into sound patterns and commonly serve as a diagnostic for markedness. However, a puzzling situation has emerged: patterns associated with strong perceptual distinctiveness and those with weak distinctiveness are both described as unmarked. We propose that insight into the unmarked nature of these patterns can be gained when we take seriously the view of language as a system of information transmission. In particular, we suggest that perceptually weak and strong unmarked patterns are those that effectively balance two competing properties of effective communication: (a) the contribution of the phonological unit in context to accurate message transmission, and (b) the resource cost of the phonological unit.

[1]  Donca Steriade,et al.  The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: The P-Map and Its Consequences for Constraint Organization , 2008 .

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

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

[4]  J. Hawkins,et al.  The suffixing preference: a processing explanation , 1985 .

[5]  K. Stevens,et al.  Primary Features and Their Enhancement in Consonants , 1989 .

[6]  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.

[7]  Joan Bybee.  Joan Bybee: Phonology and Language Use , 2004, Phonetica.

[8]  Philip James Hamilton,et al.  Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian Aboriginal languages , 1996 .

[9]  Uriel Cohen Priva.  Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates , 2015 .

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

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

[12]  M. Carmen,et al.  Stop and spirant alternations : fortition and spirantization processes in Spanish phonology , 1978 .

[13]  Jennifer L. Smith.  Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions , 2004 .

[14]  Elizabeth Hume,et al.  Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole , 2002, Phonology.

[15]  James P. Kirby,et al.  Cue selection and category restructuring in sound change , 2010 .

[16]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[17]  Keren Rice.  Featural markedness in phonology: variation , 2003 .

[18]  Young-mee Yu Cho.  Parameters of consonantal assimilation , 1991 .

[19]  Scott Seyfarth,et al.  Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation , 2014, Cognition.

[20]  Roman Jakobson,et al.  Toward the Logical Description of Languages in their Phonemic Aspect (with Ε. Colin Cherry and Morris Halle) , 2002 .

[21]  J. Ohala.  The listener as a source of sound change , 2012 .

[22]  Richard Wright,et al.  Consonant Clusters and Cue Preservation in Tsou , 1996 .