Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:08:08.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns and scales of expressive palatalization: Experimental evidence from Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Alexei Kochetov  and
John Alderete
Alexei Kochetov
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
John Alderete
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues for the existence of expressive palatalization (E-Pal) – a phonologically unmotivated process that applies in sound symbolism, diminutive constructions, and babytalk registers. It is proposed that E-Pal is grounded in iconic sound-meaning associations exploiting acoustic properties of palatalized consonants and thus is inherently different from regular phonological palatalization (P-Pal). A cross-linguistic survey of patterns of E-Pal in 37 languages shows that it exhibits a set of properties different from P-Pal. The case study focuses on patterns of palatalization in Japanese mimetic vocabulary and babytalk. Two experiments testing native speaker intuitions of these patterns revealed that both patterns exhibit place and manner asymmetries typical of cross-linguistic patterns of E-Pal. The cross-linguistic survey, the two experiments, and analysis of the origins and structural differences of E-Pal and P-Pal provide strong empirical and theoretical motivation to distinguish the two.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose des arguments en faveur de l’existence de la palatalisation expressive (E-Pal) — un processus, non motivé phonologiquement, retrouvé dans le symbolisme phonique, dans des constructions diminutives et le langage enfantin. Il est proposé que E-pal trouve sa source dans les associations iconiques sens-sons, et exploite les propriétés acoustiques des consonnes palatalisées. E-pal est donc intrinsèquement différent de la palatalisation phonologique régulière (P-Pal). Une étude de la distribution de E-Pal dans 37 langues montre que ce phénomène manifeste un ensemble de propriétés qui diffèrent de celui de P-Pal. L’étude se concentre sur les schémas de palatalisation relevés dans le vocabulaire imitatif et le langage enfantin en japonais. Pour tester les intuitions de locuteurs natifs, nous avons effectué deux expériences qui ont révélé que les deux types de schémas manifestent des asymétries de place et de manière articulatoires typiques de la distribution de E-Pal. L’étude interlinguistique, les expériences et l’analyse des origines et des différences structurelles entre E-Pal et P-Pal constituent des preuves empiriques et des motivations théoriques en faveur de la distinction de ces deux types de palatalisation.

Keywords

palatalizationphonetic scalesJapaneseexpressive registersphonetics-phonology interfacepalatalisationéchelles phonétiquesjaponaisregistres expressifsinterface phonétique-phonologique
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 345 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32:239–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Alderete and Kochetov, Alexei. 2009. Japanese mimetic palatalization revisited: implications for conflicting directionality. Phonology 26:369–388.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 1999. Standard Modern Greek. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29:167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1996. Language games and related areas. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 697–712. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bateman, Nicoleta. 2007. A crosslinguistic investigation of palatalization. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris and Shimron, Joseph. 1997. The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition 64:39–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14:150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, D.N.S. 1978. A general study of palatalization. In Universals of human language, vol. 2: Phonology, ed. Greenberg, J.H., 47–92. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, Shankara D.N. 1967. Lexical suppletion in baby talk. Anthropological Linguistics 9:33–36.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 1995. A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26:373–463.Google Scholar
Chen, Su-I. 1996. A theory of palatalization and segment implementation. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Chew, John J. Jr. 1969. The structure of Japanese baby talk. Journal-Newsletter of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 6:4–17.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. 2009. Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In Phonological Argumentation, ed. Parker, Steven, 9–42. London: Equinox Publishers.Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1970. Acoustic theory of speech production: With calculation based on X-ray studies of Russian articulations. The Hague: Mouton. [1960]Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1964. Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist (new series) 66:103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1977. Baby talk as a simplified register. In Talking to children: Language input and acquisition, ed. Snow, Catharine E. and Ferguson, Charles A., 209–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward S. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan Guignard. 1996. Velar palatalization: Coarticulation, perception, and sound change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Hall, T.A. 2000. Typological generalizations concerning secondary palatalization. Lingua 110:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris and Clements, G.N.. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce and Steriade, Donca. 2005. Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Phonetically-based phonology, ed. Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoskison, James. 1975. Notes on the phonology of Gude. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1991. Basque phonology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio and Urbina, Jon Ortiz de. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1994. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. Phonology: theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2006. Sound symbolism and motion in Basque. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, Kita, Sotaro, Nagumo, Miho, and Okada, Hiroyuki. 2008. Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109:54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iskarous, Khalil and Kavitskaya, Darya. 2010. The interaction between contrast, prosody, and coarticulation in structuring phonetic variability. Journal of Phonetics 38:625–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Tsujimura, Natsuko, 62–100. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko, Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and Mester, Armin. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: Evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5:217–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Linda M. 1988. Cree baby talk and universal baby talk. Doctoral dissertation, McMaster University.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1994. Modern Greek ts: Beyond sound symbolism. In Sound symbolism, ed. Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Joanna, and Ohala, John, 222–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. On the linguistics of marginality : The centrality of the periphery. In Papers from the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Singer, Kora, Eggert, Randall, and Anderson, Gregory, 197–213. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kakehi, Hisao, Tamori, Ikuhiro, and Schourup, Lawrence, eds. 1996. Dictionary of iconic expressions in Japanese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael and Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2011. Palatalisation. In Companion to phonology, ed. Ewen, Colin, Hume, Elizabeth, Oostendorp, Marc van, and Rice, Keren, 1666–1690. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei and Alderete, John. 2011. The typology of expressive palatalization. Ms., University of Toronto and Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2009. Palatalisability via feature compatibility. Phonology 26:437–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 1984. Warlpiri baby talk. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4:73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, Keiko. 2007. The physical basis for phonological iconicity. In Insistent images, ed. Tabakowska, Elzbieta, Ljundberg, Christina, and Fischer, Olga, 57–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazuka, R., Kondo, T., and Hayashi, A.. 2008. Japanese mothers’ use of specialized vocabulary in infant-directed speech: Infant-directed vocabulary in Japanese. In The origin of language: Unraveling evolutionary forces, ed. Masataka, N., 39–58. Tokyo: Stringer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43:84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mester, Armin and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65:258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagao, Kyoko and McCall, Betsy. 1999. A perception-based account of mimetic palatalization in Japanese. Poster presented at the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences satellite meeting, The Role of Perception in Phonology, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1971. Diminutive consonant symbolism in Western North America. Language 47:826–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In Sound symbolism, ed. Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Joanna, and Ohala, John, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2003. Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:39–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajusalu, Karl. 2001. Baby talk as a sophisticated register: A phonological analysis of South Estonian. Psychology of Language and Communication 5:81–92.Google Scholar
Regier, Terry. 1998. Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. In Proceedings of the 20th Cognitive Science Society Conference, 22:182–187. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J. 1986. The lexicalization of sound symbolism in Santiago del Estero Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 52:54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 1997. Theoretical issues in comparative Ethio-Semitic phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2004. Long distance vowel-consonant agreement in Harari. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 25:41–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon and Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80:475–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, , Elizabeth, C. 1990. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence and Tamori, Ikuhiro. 1992. Palatalization in Japanese mimetics: Response to Mester and Itô. Language 68:139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinohara, Kazuko and Kawahara, Shigeto. To appear. A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size. Berkeley Linguistic Society 36.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsurutani, Chiharu. 2004. Acquisition of yo-on (Japanese contracted sounds) in L1 and L2 phonology in Japanese second language acquisition, Journal of Second Language 3:27–48.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14:263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar