Hostname: page-component-599cfd5f84-jr95t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T05:58:25.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duality of patterning: Absolute universal or statistical tendency?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Juliette Blevins
Juliette Blevins*
Affiliation:
Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As more of the world's languages are described and compared, more absolute universals have joined the class of statistical tendencies. However, few have questioned the universality of the duality of patterning. Following Hockett, most linguists assume that in all human languages, discrete meaningless parts combine to form meaningful units that, themselves, recombine. However, an alternative interpretation, explored in this article, is that duality, like other proposed linguistic universals, is a statistical tendency reflecting a complex set of factors, and most centrally, the need for some minimal number of basic units that can recombine to yield a potentially infinite set of form-meaning correspondences. If this is the essence of duality, then we expect: languages where duality is not a central component of grammar; languages where most, but not all, utterances are decomposable into meaningless phonological units; and different types of phonological building blocks in different languages. These expectations appear to be confirmed by natural language data.

Keywords

duality of patterninglanguage universalsstatistical tendenciesphonologyCharles F. Hockett
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Special Issue 4: New perspectives on duality of patterning , December 2012 , pp. 275 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

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

Abelin, Å. 1999. Studies in sound symbolism. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Abler, W. 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 12. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 65–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, A. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32. 239–289.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, A. 2011. Featural affixes. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J. & Hume, E. V. (eds.), Blackwell companion to phonology, 1945–1971. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M. & Gildea, D.. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1001–1024.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80. 290–311.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, J. 1960. Some problems in segmentation in the phonological analysis of Terêna. Word 16. 348–355.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, J. T. 1966. Some prosodic features of Terena. In Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. & Robins, R. H. (eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth, 30–39. London. Longman.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2001. Nhanda: An Aboriginal language of Western Australia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2004. A reconsideration of Yokuts vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 70. 33–51.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2005. The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44. 455–464.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2009. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48. 264–273.Google Scholar
Browman, C. & Goldstein, L.. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180.Google Scholar
Childs, G. T. 1994. African ideophones. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 178–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colarusso, J. 1992. A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. 2001. The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dieterman, J. I. 2008. Secondary palatalization in Isthmus Mixe: A phonetic and phonological account. Austin, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. 2011. The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen, NL: Radboud University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dumézil, G. 1965. Documents anatoliens sur les langues et les traditions du Caucase, III: Nouvelles études oubykhs. Paris: Librairie A. Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Elbert, S. H. & Pukui, M. K.. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: The University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Elbert, S. H. & Pukui, M. K.. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary. Honolulu: The University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In Oostendorp, M. Van, Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. & Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2115–2136. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–646.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1930. Speech. London: Benn's Sixpenny Library.Google Scholar
Fontana, W. & Buss, L.. 1996. The barrier of objects: From dynamical systems to bounded organizations. In Casti, J. & Karlquist, A. (eds.), Boundaries and barriers, 56–116. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. 2004. The evolution of Algic verbal stem structure: New evidence from Yurok. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on the Morphology of American Indian Languages, 46–60.Google Scholar
Goddard, I. 1979. Delaware verbal morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goddard, I. 1990. Primary and secondary stem-derivation in Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics 56. 449–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1976a. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1976b. An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2. 23–68.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graif, P. 2011. Signs of signs: Phonological considerations in the linguistics of signed languages. Ms., CUNY GC Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Hall, K. C. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hamano, S. 1998 [1986]. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harden, M. 1946. Syllable structure of Terena. International Journal of American Linguistics 12. 60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. 2009. Introductory phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96.Google Scholar
Hume, E. V. 1994. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. 83–137.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. & Raymond, W. D.. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C.. 1979. Generative phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, G. D. 1991. Koasati grammar. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kochetov, A. & Alderete, J.. Forthcoming. Scales and patterns of expressive palatalization: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kung, S. S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Huehuetla Tepehua. University of Texas at Austin doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1967. Yawelmani phonology. Special technical report (No. 15); M.I.T. research monograph series (No. 43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 2012 [this volume]. What is duality of patterning, anyway? Language and Cognition 4(4).Google Scholar
Lin, Y.-H. 1989. Autosegmental treatment of segmental processes in Chinese phonology. Austin, TX: The University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
MacKay, C. J. 1994. A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 60. 369–419.Google Scholar
MacKay, C. J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Magnus, M. 1998. Gods of the word: Archetypes in the consonants. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. 1949. La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5. 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. 1980. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. 1994 [1989]. Tone, intonation and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 115–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 1983. Consonantal morphology in the Chaha verb. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. & Wescoat, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 176–188. Stanford: Stanford University Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mester, R. A. & Ito, J.. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65. 258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, J. 2004. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1971. Diminutive consonant symbolism in Western North America. Language 47. 826–848.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. 1986. Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. C. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sakel, J. & Stapert, E.. 2010. Pirahã: In need of recursive syntax? In der Hulst, H. Van (ed.), Recursion in human language, 3–16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C.. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 502–543.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D.. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and company.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. 1960. Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems. Studies in linguistics, occasional papers, 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity. In Hurford, J., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language, 202–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, H. 1963. Dictionnaire de la langue oubykh. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Yu, A. C. L. 2004. Infixing with a vengeance: Pingding Mandarin Infixation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 39–58.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, E. 2005. Tsou. In Adelaar, K. A. & Himmelmann, N. (eds.), TheAustronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 259–290. London: Routledge.Google Scholar