Sziga - CH 12

What Is A Possible
Language?
Distinctive Features
Languages differ fro m one anothe r without lim it.

Edward Sa pir, Language, 1921
In examining the phonetic fra meworks tested on a large n umber of languages ... one
cannot fail to be impressed by the smaU number of features involved.
Morris Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian, 1971 , p. 20
Chapter outline
12.1
12.2
12.3
lntroduct'1on 254
12.1 .1 Phonological universals 254
12.1 .2 Why bother with formal'lsm? 255
12.1.3 Some hypotheses 256
Distinctive features 257
12.2 .1 Background 257
12.2.2 Major class and manner features 258
12.2 .3 Laryngeal features 262
12.2 .4 Major place distinctions 262
12.2.5 Subsidiary place distinctions 265
12.2.6 Features for vowels 267
How have our hypotheses fared? 270
The Sout~ds of Language: At1 Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology, First Editio n. Flizabeth C. Zsiga.
2013 Flizabeth C. Zs iga . Published 2013 by Blackwell Publis hing Ltd.
Zsiga, Elizabeth C.. LAWZ : Linguistics in the World : Sounds of Language : An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 25 March 2015.
Copyright 2012. John Wiley & Sons. All rights reserved.
254
WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE
Chapter summary 271

Further reading 272
Review exercises 272
Further analysis and discussion
Further research 27 4
Go online 27 4
References 27 4
272
T he precedin g chapter provided a survey of common phonologica l alternations in the languages of the world. As pho nologists, however, we want to know more. We wan t to un derstand not only the set of thi ngs that do happe n, bu t the set of things that can happen. We
wan t to answer the questio ns: "W hat is a possible p ho no logica l cont rast?" an d "What is a
possible phonological alterna tio n?"
T he chapte r begins with an excursus on why th is is an important question, and how
formal represen tatio ns help us to answer it. Section 12.2 then surveys one formal theory of
how the possible contrasts and alternations in human language can be encoded: d istinctive
feature theory. There is no t complete agreement among phono logists concerning the exact
co ntent and enumeration of features - we will consider several hypo theses, and conclude
the chapter with an evaluation of how our hypotheses have fared.
12 .1 introduction
1' 1 1
nhnno,ogical universals
Imagine that you are the one to discover a language previously unkn own to the world of the
Linguistics Society. Traveling up a tributary of the Amazo n in Brazil, or descending into a
hidden valley in Papua New Guinea, you come into contact with an isolated people, and
have the opportunity to learn t heir language. (Stephen Pinker, in his book The Language
lnstinct, provides a humorous but telling account of just such an encounter.) Do yo u have
any idea wha t thi s new language will be like? Ca n you make any predictions about how the
contrasts and alternations of th is language will be sim ilar to languages already known, or
about the parame ters along whi ch the y might vary?
We wa nt to know whethe r there are any phonological universals, proper ties th at are tr ue
of all languages. If there are universals, we want to know what they are, and why they occur.
Edward Sapir hypothesized that languages co uld d iffer "without lim it." Later phonologists
hypothesized tha t differences betwee n languages were in fact very limited, and that all languages were built on the same basic pattern, from the same building blocks provided by a
Uni versa/ Grammar.

If there is such a thing as Universal Grammar, where does it co me fro m? Some linguists
{pro minently, Noam Chomsky and his students, including Pinker) argue that the universal
properties of language are programmed into our DNA. O n this view, the structure of human
language and our ability to use it are part of our genetic endowment, in the same way that
the structure of our eyes and our ability to produce liver enzymes are a product of our genetic
endowment. just as we are genetically programmed to perceive light of a certain wavelength,

and to digest food of a certain kind, we are genetically programmed to be sensitive to the
difference between a sonorant and an obstruent (or a no un and a verb).
Other linguists argue that where language is concerned our genetics give us only powerful
brains that are good at classifying things and mouths of a certain shape and mobility, and
that all the other purported universals of language come about because of a universal desire
to communicate with each other, shared pathways for learning, and a common experience
of the world. On this view, nouns and verbs are not pre-programmed mental constructs, but
concepts that are learned through repeated interaction with actual objects and actions. The
difference between sonorant and obstruent is not given, but is learned, as infants try out the
effects of different vocal tract configurations in babbling. Since we all share the same basic
anatomy and physiology, and experience more or less the same world, the sa me categories
emerge every time.
Both tJ1 ese views em phasize the importance of the process of learning, b ut differ on what
is innate and what is learned fro m the environment. A th ird view places the emphasis on
language change rather tha n on hu man cog nitio n. Th is view argues th at hu mans could learn
any language that the envi ro nment presented them with. Languages turn o ut to have a lo t
in com mon simply beca use certain cha nges are more likely than others, whi ch over time
tend to produce languages with simila r properties.
The debate over th e existen ce an d natu re of a genetically-given Un iversal G ramm ar rages
on, and wo n't be resolved here. We ca n, however, examine the nature and desc ripti o n of
language universa ls: properties that do seem to hold across all 7,000-plus hu man languages
tha t have been investigated, and are predicted to hold of the next human language to be
discovered as well. In o rder to examine these properties, we will examine five hypotheses
that have been argued to be true across aU languages. In formulating and testing these
hypotheses, we will begin to use some mo re formaJ descriptions: terms and symbols that
may have more in common with algebra and geometry than with English prose.
12 1 2 uhu
hnth~r
with fo-mZ!Iism?
Why bother with formal language? The question is a valid one. Why not just make our generalizations in English prose and be done with it? Why introduce possibly confusing technical
terms and symbols? One reason is that we want our predictions to be as precise as possible.
ln order fo r a hypothesis to be interesting, it must be falsifiable. A hypothesis is falsifiable
if we can decide whether it is true or false based on observable data. And in order to decide
if a statemen t is true or false, we must understand precisely wha t each of its term s mean.
Co nsider, for example, a hypothesis tha t has been previously discussed:
Hypothesis I:
Pho nological alte rn ations target natura l classes.
ls this true o r fa lse? In orde r to test the hypo thesis, we must examine alternat io ns in the languages of the worl d, discover the classes of sounds tha t are ta rgeted, and dete rmine wh eth er
those classes are "natura l" o r not. If we find a class of sounds that is not natura l,
we co nclude that ou r hypothesis is no t supported. Our decision, however, depends o n the
defin ition of"natural class." The Eng lish word "natural" has many different meanings. Some.
times
th e term means "<.ound 111 nature," as opposed to mvente d or man-rna d e," an d t hus
linguists will speak of "natural languages" as opposed to computer languages. If "natural
class" means a class of sounds found in any natural language, then our hypothesis is (uninterestingly) always true: any set of sounds we might find in a natural language would be
by definition a natural class. It would not matter what the data actually was, so it would be a
waste of time to compile it. Or maybe we could define "natural" as "whatever feels easy and
255
256

uncontr ived." Again, this is not a useful definition. What counts as easy, and to whom? We are
all competent users of our native languages, so aU alternations are easy to the native speaker.
Withou t a precise and useful definition of"natural," our hypothesis is unfalsifiable and thus
completely uninteresting. In Section 12.2, we consider how to precisely define natural classes
in terms of a proposed universal set of distinctive Jeat11res. The formal use and definition of
these parameters lead us to clear hypotheses that can truly be tested against the data.
In addition to wanting our hypotheses to be precise, we want them to be constmined. The
m ore specific a hypothesis is, the more things it rules out, the more interesting the hypothesis
and the theory behind it is. Imagine that I have a theory of weather patterns that leads me to
make the prediction: "The high temperature in Washington D.C. on July 4 will be between 20
and II 0F." The prediction is falsifiable: it could in principle reach I II 0 or drop down to 19,
but even in the event the prediction is proven true, it doesn't mean I have a very good theory
of weather. My theory is too unconstrained; it allows too ma ny possibi lities; it says little if
anything about what July in Washington is really like. If, on the other hand, I make the highly
co nstrained prediction that on July 4 it will reach a high of 94 at 2 p.m., and that predictio n
is co nfirmed, you m ight co nclude t hat my theory of weather patterns is a pretty goo d one.
Every linguistic hypo thesis is pa rt of a theory of what hu man la nguage is like.. T he more
cons trained ou r hypotheses are, the more possibilities we can rule o ut, the more we understand what rea l human la ngua ges are actually like. For exa m ple, I might hypothesize that our
newly-discovered language will use sounds generated by the voca l tract. This is fa lsifiable - it
is logically possible that this group of people comm unicates using co mplicated foo t stomping
-but once the hypot hesis turns ou t to be true (yes, they do use spoken language), we don't
have much more to say. A more constrained hypothesis might predict, for example, that "this
language will syllabify VCV sequences as V-CV not VC-V." If that hypothesis turns ou t to be
true, we can ask interesting follow-up questions about why syllabic organization is universal,
and why syllables of CV form are preferred. Following up o n o ur more constrained hypotheses, we may learn something really interesting about possible human languages.
For the purposes of hypothesis testing, English prose descriptio ns are both too vague and
too powerful: Too vague in that English words are not necessarily precisely defined, and too
powerful in that our prose can describe anything and everything. Instead of describing
alternations in English prose, we will propose a constrained set of descriptors, and consider
the hypothesis that these, and only these, parameters are available for human language phonology. Every proposed feature or feature set is a hypothesis about what phonological grammars can manipulate. We will see that not all of the phonetic pa rameters and relationships
that the mouth can produce, the ear can perceive, or the analyst can desc ribe turn o ut to be
part of phonology.
12 .1.3 some hypotheses

Here are the hypot heses we wi ll co nside r. They formed the sta rting poin t of the book The
Sound Pattern of English (C homsky and Halle, 1968), which laid out the prog ram of ge nerative phonology.
Hypot hesis 2:
Phonological contrasts, classes, and alternations can be defined in terms of a closed set
of phonetic parameters that is the same across all languages: the set of distinctive
Jeat11res.
Hypothesis 3:
Features are defined in terms of bina r)' (+/- ) oppositions that are specified for every
segment (e.g., every segment is either [+voice) or [-voice]).
2,57
Hypothesis 4:
Every lexical item has a unique underlying representation (UR), which is defined in terms
of combinations of distinctive features.
Hypothesis 5:
Underlying representations are converted into contextually-varied surface representations
(SR) by the operation of a set of feature-changing rules.
Hypotheses I, 2, and 3 concern the nature of distinctive features in codifying contrasts and
alternations. Hypotheses 4 and 5 concern the role of features in mediating underlying and
surface representations. We begin in Chapter 12 with hypotheses 1- 3 and the discussion of
the definition of distinctive features. Chapter 13 co ntin ues with URs, SRs, and hypotheses
4 and 5.
12.2 distinctive features

12.2 1 background
The idea of a set of distinctive pho no logical features rests on the tenet that language is d iscrete and combinatorial. Sentences are made up of words, words are made up of segme nts,
and segments are made up of features that define the ca tegories to which the segments
belong, and determine the al ternations in which they participate.
The idea of binary dist inctive features began with the Structuralist idea that all objects
must be understood as part of a system: the nature of any sound in a given language can
only be understood in terms of its opposition to other sounds in the system: [p) holds a
certain place in the linguistic system because it contrasts with [b] . Nikolay Trubetskoy, in his
work Grund:zuge der Phonologic (Foundations of Phonology, 1939}, suggested a large set of
possible dimensions of contrast. Trubetskoy's student Roman Jakobson further defined and
developed the idea in 1mportant ways: it was Jakobson who proposed that featural oppositions should be binary, that the set of features is universal, and that every feature should be
unambigu ously defined in both articulatory and acoustic terms.
Jakobson's work on phonology spanned most of the twen tieth centu ry. jakobson wrote
extensively on markedness, language acquisition, and language typology (tha t is, types of
contrasts and alternations th at are co mm on or u ncom mon cross-linguistically). The clearest
exposition of jakobson's disti nctive feature system is foun d in his co-authored work with
G unnar Fant, a phonetician, and Morr is Halle, Jakobso n's colleague and former stude nt.
Jakobso n, Fant, and Ha ll e p ub lished Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Featu res
and Thei r Co rrelates in 1952. Whi le the se t of accepted disti nctive features has u ndergone
sign ifican t revisions in the decades since, the features currently in common use grew o ut of
those p roposed by jakobson, Fa nt, and Ha lle.
...
Jakobson hved from 1896 to 1982. and was aaive in research. writing. and teaching up until his
death. He began his career as a student of Trubetskoy in Moscow in 1915 and became a prominent
member of the influential Prague linguistics Circle in the 1920s. He fled across Europe and eventualo/
came to New York Cny during World War II. and ended his career as colleague to Morns Halle and Noam
Chomsky at MIT.
258

In order to test hypotheses about distinctive features, phonologists co nside r the different
systems of contrast and alternation in the languages of the wo rld, with the goal of determining whether a particular set of features correctly characterizes the required classes. It is to
this consideration that the following sections now turn.
1 ., ., .,
rn:.ior class and manner features
We have seen that phonological alternations often reference large classes of sounds: consonants vs. vowels, sonorants vs. obstruents, stops vs. fricatives, nasal consonan ts, approximant
consonants, lateral consonants. Any set of distinctive features must include parameters that
distinguish these classes of sounds. A widely-accepted set of such features is defined below.
As o riginally proposed by Jakobson, we define each dimension in terms of a binary(+/- )
contrast, and define each parameter in bot h acoustic and articu latory terms.
[+/-syllabic]
\ ,, ulll" y defin ition: [+sylla bic] sou nds form the nucleus of a sylla ble.
\u>t' tc defi ni tion: [+sylla bic] sounds ha ve higher amplitudes than neighboring
so unds.
l'vptL.ll natura l classes and alterna tio ns: vowels are [+syllabic]. as opposed to consona nts wh ich are, in the default case, [-syllabic]. Glides are also [-syllabic] . Co nso nants
may become [+syllabic] if they form the nucleus o f a syllable on their own, as in [ bA?J;t],
for example. We will fi nd this feature to be useful in defining these natural classes at
this point, but will revisit the need for a [+/-syllabic] feature in Chap ter IS, on syllable structure.
[+/- co nsonantal]
' definition: (-cons] = having no significant vocal tract constriction
Ac 1
definition: [-cons] = high amplitude resonance
natural classes and alternations: Vowels and consonants are often targeted
separately: alternations often apply to just o ne or the other, or are conditioned by just
one or the other. For example, vowel harmony skips consonants, place assimilation
applies to just consonants. Vowels and glides are [-consona ntal]. consonants are
[+consonantal].
[ +/- sonora n t]
\
c d 11< <' defin ition: [ - sonorant] = b uild- up of pressure behind an oral
constri ctio n.
A.u 1 defin ition: [ - sonora nt] = lower amplitude.
Tn''"' natu ral classes and alternations: The fea tu re 1+/-so no rant] classifies the sonora nt vs. obs truent co nso nan ts. O ral stops, affrica tes, and fricatives are [- sono rant]
while nasa ls, approximants, and laterals are [+so no rant]. Vowe ls and glides are also by
defi ni tio n [ +sonora nt]. Alterna tio ns in voici ng and assimi latio n often target obstr uen ts
and so no rants separa tely.
(+/- continuant)
,
1
I
definition: (- continuant) = complete closure in the oral cavity.
definition: (- continuant] = period of silence or low amplitude followed by
abrupt release.
natural classes and alternations: Oral stops and affricates are (-continuant],
fricatives and approximants are [+continuant). Vowels and glides are [+continuant].
Nasal stops, by virtue of their complete closure in the oral cavity, as well as their

Table 12
Major classes
or sounds.
Plosives
Fricati'es
Nasals
Approximants
Laterals
Glides
Syllabic
Consonantal
+
+
Sonorant
Continuant
(+)
Nasal
-(or+)
Lateral
Vowels
-(or+)
com m on patterning w it h ora l s tops, are [- continuant]. [Con tinua nt] is the active
feature in many a lte rn atio ns of len iti o n an d fortition .
[+/-nasal)
Aru, ul1 "1 1 defin iti o n: [+nasal] sounds are articulated w ith a n o pen vel u m.
Acou,tlc defin iti o n: [+nasa l] sou nds have nasal reso nance.
1 " I natu ral classes a nd a lternatio ns: Assim ilation o f nasa lity is com m on; nasa l
stops a re often targeted as a class. For example, nasal stops assimi la te in place of
articulation, most commo nly to a no ther stop.
[+/- lateral)
definition: vocal tract closed at the center line, open at the side.
definition: a particular resonance pattern.
natural classes and alternations: !-sounds often form a class unto themselves
in assimilations (as in Catalan, Arabic, and Komi ).
Table 12.1 summarizes how these features distinguish these major sound classes.
No te that every column in Table 12.1 is unique: each class of sounds is defined by a unique
combination of features. Plosives and fricatives share m ost of their features, but are distinct
in t hat plosives are [-<:ontin uant] and frica tives are [+co n tinuant]. Glides are distinct from
approximant co nsonants in that they are [- consonan tal] a nd distin ct from vo wels in that
they a re [-syllabic).
No te also that every cell in the tab le is filled. Eve ry co lu mn has either a plus or m in us
va lue for every feat ure. The cells w ith "- or + " d o not in dica te u ncerta in ty, b ut th e possibility
of two different classes: vowe ls may be e ither nasal or non-nasa l, a nd fricatives may be e ith e r
centra I o r Ia tera I.
There a re a few cases where values are in q uestio n. T he re is gen ui ne debate o ve r the
conti nuant va lue of [I]. T his is o n the o ne hand a question o f defi nition: should we define
[-co ntinuant] as havi ng a com plete closure in the oral tract (wh ich wo uld m ake latera ls, with
their o pen side c hanne l, [+con tinuan t]), or only a closure at the center of th e ora l tract (wh ich
would make laterals f-co nti nua n t]). Ei ther position is phonetically coherent, so we need to
look at the phonological behavior of [J] to a nswer the question: d oes [IJ usua lly form a
natural class with the [-continuant] stops or with the [+contin uant! fricatives? T he jury is
still out on this one: so me language data poi nts one way, some the other. It has be.:n s uggested that laterals may be defined as [+continuant] in some languages and [-continuant!
in others, contradicting the hypothesis that features and feature definitions are truly universal. Acknowledging that this point is controversial at present, we tentatively define [I] as
[+continuant), but see Section 12.3 below.
259
260

Another questio n is how to ha nd le the continuant value of affricates. Because of the difficu lty of the question, I have left affr icates out of Table 12.1 entirely. In terms of ar ticulation,
affricates are both (- cont inuant] and [+continuant] : [-continuant] during their closu re
phase and [+continuant] during their release phase. However, it would go against Jakobson's
conception of distinctive features to say that they are both plus and minus continuant. He
considered the plus/minus distinction to indicate mutually exclusive categories to which a
segment must be assigned. To say that a segment is both +F and-Fat the same time would
be, for him, like saying a numb er is both positive and negative, a switch is both on and off,
or a direction is both East and West: it's a logical contradiction. Crucial, however, is the
observation that affricates are not mi nus and plus continuant at the same time, but in
seque nce. Jakob son's system, however, had no way of accounting for changes in the middle
of a segment.
Here, provisionally, we will assign the affrica tes to the [-conti nuan t] class, on the basis
of ou r defin ition (they do have a complete closure) and on ou r prelimina ry observa tio n that
they seem to pa tte rn with the stops, mak ing the [-co ntin ua nt ] segments a na tural class. (In
English palatalization, for example, (t] alternates with (\f] wh ile [s j alte rnates with [JJ , and
in Zoque we saw that nasals assim ilate to both stops and affricates but dele te befo re fricatives.) How then are stops and affricates to be distin guished? In Englis h, an d in many ot her
languages, affrica tes and sto ps are disti nct in place of a rticulatio n: [ tl is alveola r and [\f] is
pos t-alveo lar. T here are many languages, howeve r, where the re are stops and frica tives at the
same place o f art iculatio n, so another feature is needed. We will adopt the solutio n o f stati ng
that affricates have all the same features as stops, except that affricates are marked as [+delayed
release] .
[ +/- delayed release]
definition: [+delayed release] = opening from a stop into a fricative, rather
than being fully released into an open vowel articulation.
definition: [+delayed release] = period of frication upon release.
natural classes and alternations: affricates are [+delayed release]; stops and all
other segments are (- delayed release].
This works for distinguishin g stops and affricates, but it introduces an interesti ng asym metry: we may often fi nd reason to refer to the class of sounds that are affrica tes, but we
never seem to have occasion to refer to the class of all the so u nds that are not affr icates. T he
same holds true for the featu res [ nasal] and [lateral]: th e class of ]+nasa l] and [+lateral] are
very useful. Fo r exam ple, nasals assim ilate in place of articulation to a fo ll owing stop, or
late rals assimilate in place of a rticulatio n to a fo llowi ng coro nal. Bu t th e class of "soun ds
that are no t nasal" o r "sounds that are not lateral" do n't see m to be a classes at all, b ut more
like an elsewhere case.
T his is in contrast to o ther fea tures, where bo th + and- val ues are equa ll y useful. We
re fer eq ually o ften to the class of [- sonora nt] obs truents as to the class of so nora nts, and
eq ually o ften to the class of [- conso nantal] vowels and glides as to the class o f co nso nants.
T hat is, some contrasts, like [+/ - sonorant], [+/- consona ntal] and [+/- co ntinuant] seem
to be t ruly bi nary, while o thers like [nasal], (late ral] and [de layed release] seem mo re onesided. Recognizing this asymm etry, m ost linguis ts have departed from the requiremen t of
b inary symme try (a nd fro m ou r Hypo th esis 3) and have argued that featu res like [ nasal]
and [lateral] do not have plus a nd minus values. They are unar;' rat her than binary. If a
sound has an open velum, it is designated (nasal], sometimes abbreviated [N], otherwise,
no specification for this feature is given.
Note the differing predictions that are made by the use of binary vs. unary features. If
[-nasal] is among the set of features universally available, then we would expect that ian-

Table 12
Revised feature values for the major classes of sounds. including affricates and some unary features.
Plvcs
Fricatives
Affricates
Nasals
Approx.
Laterals
Glides
Syllabic
Consonantal
Sonorant
Continuant
(+)
+
N
Nasal
Lateral
Delayed rei
Vowels
L
DR
guages wou ld make use o f it. If in fact they do not (as seems to be th e case), we shou ld
remove it from the se t, maki ng our prediction abo ut possible human languages mo re co nstrained. Gi ven our current state of knowledge, most phonologists work with in a system that
has some binary feature va lues and so me unary feature values. Here, we will mark some
features as b inary and so me as unary, recognizi ng, however, tha t these are hypotheses subject
to further testing and refinemen t (Tab le 12.2) .
Finally, consider how these features work to defin e specific natural classes. The se t of
sonorant consonants is defined as the set of sounds that are [+so no rant, +consonantaJI: all
and only the sonorant consonants share these t\vo features. The set of fricatives is [ +continuant, -sonorantl: all and only the fricatives share these t\vo features. Using the table above,
which features would you use to define the natural class of glides? Try to create your specifications using as few features as possible.
One might ask, at this point, how is it that [+continuant, - sonorant) is better than "fricative"? Isn't saying "fricative" simpler? It is, but it is also less predictive. By using distinctive
features, we are making a specific, testable hypothesis that all natural classes can be defined
in terms of these parameters (for the moment, those in Table 12.1.)
For example, imagine a phonologist is working on language similar to Zoque (call it A),
and she discovers that the segments [m, n, IJ) delete before the sounds [f, s, J, v, z, 3] in this
language. She will immediately note that these lists of sounds are not random, but co nstitute
a class of sounds that have ce rtain p honetic parameters in com mon. Further, these parameters are among those given by the list of disti nctive features: the sou nds [m, n, IJ] co nstitute
the class of sou nds in this language tha t are [nasa l, +consonantal], and the sou nds
[f, s, J, v, z, 3] constitute th e class of so un ds in this language th at are [+conti nu ant, -so no rant]. All is we ll: her hypo th eses abo ut the way phonology works are suppo rted. This phonological alte rn ation targets na tural classes defi ned in terms of the p roposed distinctive
features. (Of course, if the language's phonetic inventory were slightly d iffe rent, the se t of
sounds specified by these features wou ld be different as well: if the language happened to
have [x] and [Y], they also would be included in the set. However, there is no need to wo rry
about excluding so unds that do not occur in the language u nder study. For language A, the
features [+continuan t, -so noran t] designate the set of all the fricat ives that occur in A.)
Now imagine that, in the next city, the linguist fi nds a different dialect (B) which has a
somewhat different alternation: nasal consonants delete before [f, s, J, v, z, 3, p, bl, but not
[t, k, d, g, m, n, IJ]. That is, nasals delete before fricatives and labial oral stops. I can certainly
describe this class in English prose, but I cannot describe it in terms of a single set of distinctive features. (Try it.} There is no set of features that define all and only the fricatives and
labial stops. Thus, by hypotheses I and 2, Dialect A is a possible human language, and Dialect
261
262

Table 1~
Laryngeal features.
Voiceless
Voiced
Voiceless
aspirated
VoiCe
Spread glottis
Voiced
aspirtlted
Ejectives
and?
+
SG
Constricted glo ttis
Creaky
vorce
SG
CG
CG
B, which targets the set [f, s, J, v, z, 3, b, p) within a single rule, is not. T he set is not a na tu ral
class. Sho uld such a rule actua lly t urn o ut to exist, we will have to revise our hypo th eses.
12 .2.3 laryngeal features

La ngu ages often make use of co nt rasts a nd alternation s in volvin g la ryngea l distinctio ns.
La nguages such as French may con trast [p] and [b ), la ng uages like Tha i m ay co nt rast [ p]
a nd [p 11 ], languages like Q uechua may con trast plain [ p] a nd glotta li zed or ejec ti ve [p'], a nd
languages like Hi ndi m ay make a four-way cont rast betwee n plai n vo iceless [p), voice less
aspira ted [ph), plain voiced [b], and b reathy voiced (b 6 ]. Finally, so me languages, such Ha usa,
may co ntrast plain vo ice vs. creaky, or glottalized, vo ice, usually o n so noran ts. Features sufficient for describ ing these co ntrasts are defined below, and sho wn in Tab le 12.3. It is generally accepted that the features [spread glo ttis] and [constricted glottis] are unary. Some
linguists argue for a unary analysis of [ voice) as well, arguing that "plain" voiceless stops are
just that: they have no laryngeal specification at all. Unary-feature analyses of voicing assimilation would take us beyond the scope of this book, however, so the feature [voice] is here
assumed to be binary.
[+/- voice)
definition: sounds that are (+voice) have vibrating vocal folds.

Aco
definition: [+voice) sounds are periodic (have a regularly-repeating pattern) .
,1
natural classes and alternations: Many languages have alte rnations involving
voicing, especially amo ng obstruents.
t
[spread glotti s]
.\ ltc tll , y defin itio n: la rge glottal openi ng gestu re
t\col s defin itio n: extended period of vo iceless ness upo n release
h pte,, natu ral classes and alternatio ns: aspira ted stops have the feature [spread
glo ttis].
(cons tricted glottis]
dl l \ definition: constric ted vocal folds
\
t\v
definition: irregular glo ttal pulses
I\ I''
natural classes a nd alternations: ejectives, glottal stop, and creaky-voiced sonorants have the featu re [constricted glottis].
1., ., 4 ""'Jjor place distinctions

Our list of distinctive features must also account for contrasts and alternations in place of
articulation (abbreviated POA). All languages make place of articulation contrasts among

consonants, and many alternations either target a class of sounds based on place (such as
vowel lowering adjacent to uvulars) or manipulate place (as in place assimi lations). However,
developing a set of features for place of articulation has not proved straightfo rward.
Trubetskoy conceived of POA as a multi-valued feature. The distinctive feature was
PLACE, and its values were bilabial, labiodental, dental, alveolar, etc. This corresponds to
an accepted understa nding of the set o f phonetic distinctions, but does not allow for any
natural classes that group places together. For example, given the places of articulation bilabial, labiodental, and dental, we might assign bilabial to I PLACE, labiodental to 2PLACE, and
dental to 3 PLACE. Under this syste m, labiode ntal is equidista nt from both bilabial and dental;
and involving as it does both the lips and the teeth we would expect lab iode ntal to fo rm a
natural class with labia l sou nds and with dental sounds equally often. This is no t the case,
however. Rat her, labiodenta ls co nsistently form a class with the b ilabials, but not with the
dentals.
In English, fo r exa mple, [ w] ca nnot follow a labial co nsonant, where " labia l" includes
both bilabia ls and lab iodenta ls: we have "twill," "swill," an d "quill," but no t ~ pwill or *fwiiJ.
([9w] is uncom mon, but acce ptable, as in "thwart." Clusters with voiced co nso nan ts are
ma rgina l at all places, but "Gwen" and "dwell" are better tha n *bwell.) In Korean and other
languages that do not have (f], the lab iodental fricative is co nsistently bo rrowed as [p], no t
[t]: " fish" is bo rrowed into Ko rea n as [piJi], not [tiJi]. In Setswana, wh ich does no t have [ v],
"u niversity" is [u nibesiti], no t [u nidesiti]. To ci te just o ne more example, Tu rkish ex hib its a
class of words that vi olate the principle of roundi ng ha rmony discussed in Chapter II
(example 25). In ge neral, [ u] can no t occur in a no n-in itial syllable in Turkish un less the
initial vowel is also rou nd: [dalw], branch, and [kolu) arm, are fine, but no t *[datu ]. The
only exceptions are words where a labial consona nt, either bilabial or labiodental, intervenes:
[karpuz) watermelon, and (havlu] towel are both acceptable.
This is the common pattern cross-linguistically: labiodentals and bilabials form a natural
class, and labiodentals and dentals do not. Dentals, however, form a class with other co nsonants made with the tongue front: the coronals. Evidence for the natural class of coro nals
comes fro m alternation s such as Arabic [l) assimilation (Chapter II, example 24). Some
examples are repeated here:
( I)
Arabic
/I! assimilation:
?aJ-Jams
?at-tid3a:ra
?a9-9aqa:fa
?a(Hahab
?az-zuhu:r
?33--:)il:
the
the
the
the
the
the
sun
commerce
cultu re
gold
flowers
shadow
the
the
the
the
moon
Bedouin
pepper
mustard
Co mpa re:
?al-qamr
?al-badw
?al- filfil
?al-xardal
In Arabic, [ I) assimilates completely to a following dental, alveolar, or post-alveola r, all

coronal consonants (the "sun letters.") AU other consonants (the "moon letters," including
[f)) induce no change. A si milar example is found in Catalan (exam ple 2): [I) assimi lates in
place of articulation to a following dental, post-alveolar, or retroflex, but not to a labial or
labio-dental.
263
264

(2)
Catalan IV assimilatio n:
e[ I pI a
e[ I floc
e[ ld]ia
""
e[ l d ic
e[.< 3]erma
the
the
the
the
the
bread
fire
day
rich
brother
Finally, consider the alternations between stop and fricative in Sudanese Arabic shown in
example (3).
(3)
Assimilation in Sudanese Arabic:
book
daughter
fish
kita:b
kita:f fat 11 i
kita:p sa m i:r
kita:p Jati:f
kita:p xa: lid
kita:p hasan
bit
b it fathi
b is sami:r
biJ Jari:f
b it xa:lid
bit hasan
samak
samak fathi
samak sa m i:r
samak Jari:f
samax xa:lid
samak hasan
X
Fathi 's X
Sameer's X
Sha rif's X
Halid's X
Hasan's X
T he pattern is tha t the word-final stop assim ilates to a follow in g fricative just in case the two
s hare an act ive a rticulato r. Bilabial [b] assimilates to labiodental [fl (shared lab ial ar ticulator), alveo lar [ d] assi m ilates to both alveolar [s] and postalveolar [JJ (shared tongue front
articulator), and [k] assimilates to [ x] (shared tongue body articulator). No stop assimilates
to pharyngeal [h], because no stop shares the tongue root articulator with [h].
Alternations such as those listed above have led phonologists to propose a set of unary
place features based on active articulator, as listed below. These features depart from the
)akobsonian pattern in two ways: they are unary, and they are defined in purely articulatory,
not acoustic, terms. They do however, seem to work. That is, they make accurate predictions
about the possible natural classes found in the languages of the world.
[labial]
lltnn constriction at the lips
1\!Jlur l
<: bilabials and labiodentals
[coro nal]
lleh 1ition: constriction made with the tongue fro nt
N.1lur,d da 8: denta ls, alveolars, alveopalata ls, retrotlexes, palatals
[dorsal]
tlll
constriction made with the tongue body

tu
lJ
palatals, velars a nd uvulars. Palatals have been found to involve an
extended constriction of both tongue blade and tongue body against the upper surface
of the vocal tract, so they may be considered both coronal and dorsal.
[pharyngeal]
constriction made with the tongue root
NJtur I . pharyngeal fricatives

Table 12. 4 Features based on active articulator. The fricative symbol stands for all sounds made at the corresponding
place of articulation.
Labial
tP
Coronal
Do rsal
fj
II
c
(D )
Ph
Pharyng.,al
Lar
La ryng.,al
[laryn geal)
I ~~h11
N.ltUJ".ll
r: co nst ri cti on at the glottis
,J"' [ hi a nd( ?].
Additiona l fen tures ~ re necessa ry to make distinctions with each of the classes defi ned by the
fea tu res in Tab le I 2.4. These subsidiary place features are listed in Table 12.5 a nd d isc ussed
below.
12.2.5 subr;-i;1ry place distinctions

No language has all of the fr icatives shown in Table 12.5, or uses all these places of articu lation, but for any pair, there is some language that creates a contrast between those two
sounds. Therefore, we need a set of features sufficient to uniquely identify each column.
We begin with the coronal consonants, since there are five different possible places of
articulation that can be contrasted within the coronal articulator. For a first distinction, the
feature [anterior) divides sounds made at or in front of the alveolar ridge ([+anterior!) from
those made behind the alveolar ridge ((- anterior)). Many languages have alternations similar
to the palatnlization rule of English: (t, d, s, z] become (tf, <5, J, 3] before the glide [j). This
alternation can be analyzed as assimilation of th e feature (- anterior] : [+anterior] /s/ changes
to [- anterior) [J) before [-a nterio r] [j] .
The feature [anterior) was first used by jakobson to make a b ina ry division of the w hole
voca l tract, at the alveolar ridge, di viding [f] and (s] fro m (J] and [x]. We have just seen,
however, that this ma kes the w rong predictio ns: (f) and (s) don't go together. To fix the
problem, and properly co nstrain the dom ai n of th e feature, we will defi ne [anterior) as
pertaini ng to coro nals o nly: it distinguish es (s) from [J], b ut does not apply to non-co rona l
sou nds such as ( f1 and I xJ.
[+/-a n teri or)

n r+a nte rio r] so unds are mad e with the tongue fro nt at o r in front of the
alveolar ri dge; (-anterior! so unds are made with the to ngue fro nt beh ind th e alveola r
ridge.
U
,, de ntals and alveolars are (+anterior); postalveolars, retroflexes, and
palatals are [-anterior). Non-coronal sou nds are not sp ecified for [anterior].
[
J~llll
Within the [+anterior) class, we need to distinguish [9] vs. [sJ, and within the [-anterior)
class we need to distinguish (SJ vs. [;?] vs. (~) . One way to do this is to reference the distinction between tongue tip {apical) and tongue blade (!aminal) consonants. While we could
have named a feature for this distinction(+/- apical) or (+/- lamina!), the term commonly
265
266

in use is [distribu ted], going back to a Jakobsonian feature that was proposed to apply across
all places of articulation.
[ +/- distributed)
[+distributed] sounds have a relatively long constnct10n. In practice,
this means that !aminal consonants are (+distributed] and apical consonants are
[-distributed].
" [s] and[~] are [-distributed); (9 ), [J) and [10] are [+distributed].
Thus among the coronal fricatives, [9] is [+anterior, +distributed], [s] is [+anterior, - distributed], [SJ is [- an terior,+distribu ted] a nd[~] is [-anterior,-distributed]. Stops and nasals
at the same places of articulation would be distinguished in the same ways.
Amo ng the coronals, th at leaves the distinction between post-alveolar [J] and pala tal [10].
One obse rva tio n to make about this contrast is that no language is kno wn to co ntrast postalveolar an d palatal stops or nasals: th is d isti nctio n seems to apply only to fricat ives and
affrica tes. T hus we ca n appeal to the fact th at these frica tives sound ve ry diffe rent: lJ] and
[s] (kn own as "sibila n ts") have a no ise co mpo nent that is bo th high -am plitude and highfrequency, whi le the other coronal fricatives are softer. A fea ture that refere nces this di fference
is I+/- striden t]. This is o ne of the few features that has a primarily acoustic defi nition. The
feature [s trident] has the added adva ntage of bei ng ab le to distingu ish higher-pitched labiodental [ f] from softer b i lab ial[~], another place distinctio n that applies only to fricatives.
It can also dist inguish [9) fro m [s] for those who make [9] with the tongue tip.
[ +/- strident)
[+strident] sounds have high-amplitude, high -pitched frication .
~ sibilants (alveolar and post-alveolar fricatives and affricates), as well as
labiodental and uvular fricatives and affricates are [+st rident]. All other fricatives and
affricates are [- strident] . This feature is only defined for fricatives and affricates.
The features [a nterior] and [strident] sometimes seem to duplicate effort: the distinction
between [s] and [9], for example, can be defined in terms of either [+/- strident] or[- /+
distributed]. But the features defin e different natural classes, both of which seem to be useful.
[+strident) is crucial in defi ning the class of sibilant consonants. For example, the English
plural allomorph [tz] occ urs only after the coronal sibilants: [coronal, +striden t). On the ot her
hand, the fea ture [strident] is not available for stops and nasa ls, and there are languages (such
as Tiwi, see Cha pter 10 exercises) that disti nguish lam ina! denta l vs. apica l alveolar, or lam ina!
pos talveo lar vs. apical retroflex, stops an d nasals.
As wns noted in the defi n itio n, the fea ture [strident) ca n be used to d isti ngu ish [- stride nt]
vela r frica tives fro m ha rsher [+strident] uvular fricat ives. But ano th er fea tu re is needed to
disti nguish ve lar an d uvu lar sto ps and nasals. The featu re [distributed] will no t do it, as both
vela rs and uvu lars are made wi th the same art iculato r, the to ngue body. The mos t salient
dist inction be tween these two is positio n of the tongue body: the feature [h igh] ca n b e
rec ruited to distinguish these sounds. This fea ture, wh ich is defined o nly for so unds that use
the tongue body as an active articulator, is mostly ac tive for vowels, and is de fi ned (s traightforwa rd ly) in Section 12.2.6.
The aforeme ntioned set of features is hypothesized to be sufficient for accurately and
succinctly describing aU the consonantal contrasts and natural classes that are found in the
languages of the world.
There is one consonantal natural class that has not yet been covered, however.
Languages that utilize the uvular, pharyngeal, and laryngeal places of articulation (including
the Semitic languages, and a number of Caucasian and Native American languages) often

group these consonants into a natural class (which does not include the velars). For example,
we saw in C hapter I I that, in Syrian Arabic, [e) lowers to [a] when it follows a uvular, pharyngeal, or laryngeal conso nant. The data are repeated in example (4):
(4)
Syrian Arabic:
dara3 -e
Jerk-e
mad ras-e
wa:3h-a
mni:n -a
dagga:R -a
step
society
school
display
good
tanning
T his class is often refe rred to as the class of guttural consonants, and [guttu ral) is so metimes
pro posed as a una ry articulato r feat ure, para llel to [lab ial], [coronal] and [do rsal). Un li ke
th ose three featu res, however, [guttura l] does not refer to a si ngle active ar ti culator: uvulars
use the tongue body, pha ryngea ls the tongue root, and laryngeals the larynx. (O ne intriguing
possib ili ty, still speculative however, is that th e guttu ral conso nan ts may co m pr ise the class
of conso nants that do not invol ve ra ising of the jaw.) In part, the issue is di ffi cul t to resolve
beca use pharyngeal consona nts, which a re crucial to determining the correct gene ra liza ti o ns,
are not amo ng the mos t co mm o n. Here, wh ile we reco gnize that the issue is far from reso lved,
we will no te the affinity of guttural consona nts and low vowe ls, and specify uvulars, pharyngeals and laryngea ls as [+low]. Like [+/- high], [+/ - low) is most often a featu re of vowels,
and it is to features of vowels that we now turn.
Table 12
Expanded table ol place dtstinctions
Labial
"'
L
II
Co ronal
c
(D)
Dorsal
Ph
Pharyngeal
La r
Laryngeal
Anterior
Distributed
Strident
II
High
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Low
12.2 .6 tea turPs for vowels

Vowels always involve movement of the tongue body, as thus are always co nsidered to be
[dorsal]. ln add itio n, since rounding is implemented with tbe lips, round vowels are [labia l] .
The distincti ve features needed to distinguish vowels are straightforward: [ +/- high], [ +/low), [+/-back!, [+/-advanced tongue root) (ATR) and [+/ - round]. A subset of these
features can also be used to indicate secondary articulations on co nso nants (vowel-like
constrictions articulated simultaneously with the consonant): !+low) for pharyngealization,
267
268

[+back] for velarization, [- back] for palatalization, and [+round) for rounding. The feature
[+/-round] must be distinct from [labial), as languages may distinguish rp) ([ labial]) from
[p"J ([labial, +round]); and [t], for example, can become [+round) [t") without becoming
labial (pJ.
Vowel features can be defined in both articulatory and acoustic terms. Each lip and tongue
body position results in a typical resonance pattern. (If you haven't studied acoustic phonetics (Chapters 6 to 8), and these descriptions of resonance patterns mean nothing to you,
ignore them and concentrate on the articulatory definitions.)
[+/- round]
t!H ., definition: [ + round] segments have pursing of the lips.
A~
definition: rounding lowers aU resonances.
f'
natural classes and alternations: round vowels, including ru, u, o, :>, y, a:] are
[+round], as are roun ded consonants such as [t", s", g"J.
[+/- high ]
'\ lie td.ll,,ry defi niti o n: fo r [+high] seg men ts, the tongue body IS raised fro m the
neut ral positio n.
t\c st defin ition: [+high] segm ents have low Fl.
I 1 I''' ' natural classes and alternations: high vowels, includ ing (i, u, u, i y,] are
[+h igh], all o ther vowels are [-high]. May also be used to distinguish [+high] palatals
and velars from [- high ] uvulars.
[+/- low ]
definition: for [+low] segments the tongue body is lowered from the
neutral position.
definition: [+low] segments have high Fl.
natural classes and alternations: [a ], (a] and [:rJ are [+low]. Guttural consonants may also be described as [+low].
[+/- back)
Jl 1 ' definition: for [+back] segments, the tongue body is moved back from
the neutral position.
definition: for [+back] vowels, the first two resonances (FJ an d F2) are close
together, for [- back] vowels, F1 and F2 are farther apart.
I !'t
natura l classes an d alternations: Front vowels (including [i, 1, e, , re) are
[-back]. Back and cent ra/vowe ls (incl ud ing [ u, i, o, A, a) are [+back]. See discussio n
below.
[+/- advan ced tongue r oot] ( [+/- ATR))
\ lcttl.tlory de fin ition: [ +ATR] vowels have the tongue root pu lled forward.
\c t' ,, de fi nition: [+ATR] vowels have lowered Fl compared to their [-ATR]
counterparts.
natura l classes and alternat ions: [i, e, u, o ] are (+ATR), [1, u, e, :>)are [- ATR ].
I !''
The [ ATR I feature is active in vowe l harmony in a number of West African languages,
such as lgbo (Chapter 11, example 14). In other languages, [+ATR) vowels may be
termed [+tense). See discussion below. Low vowels are sometimes considered to be
[-ATR), o r may be undefined for [ATR) .
Vowel features are in general quite straightforward, but there are a few points worth noting.
First, a note on vowel height. The usually-accepted features for vowel height are [ +/- low]

and [ +/- high]. There is no d istinctive featu re [mid] . T he mid vowels [e, e, o, o, A[ are
[- high, - low[. Other apparent or subsid iary differences in tongue body height may be subsumed with the feature [ +/-ATR] . There may be a d ifference in tongue body height between
[i] and [], but the primary distinction is that [i] is [+ATR] and [l] is [- ATR].
Concerning the feature [ATR], we wiU use [+ATR] for the English vowels that are usually
described as tense, and [-ATR] for the English vowels that are usually described as lax.
Introducing a separate feature r+/- tense] would, first, create redundancy, since [+/- ATRI
and[+/- tense] target what are essentially the same vowel contrasts. Second, it would make
wrong predictions. Generally, we expect featUies to cross-classify: if we have features [+/high) and [+/-back]. we expect that all four combi nation s [+ back, +high], [+back, -high],
[-back, +high) and [-back, -high] should occu r. With [ATR) and [tense], the combinations
[-ATR, + tense] and [+ATR, -tense] would neve r occur. O ne possible approac h wou ld be to
assu me that so m e languages use [ATR] an d some languages use [tense], con tra the claim
tha t featu res are uni versa l. Less radica ll y, one co uld propose that [ATR] and [tense] refer to
a si ngle universally-availab le di mensio n of contrast (essen tially [i] vs. []) and should th erefore be re presented by a single distincti ve feat ure (whi chever term is chose n), b ut tha t languages may di ffe r so mewha t in the exact pho netic implemen ta tion. T his is th e solution
chosen here. This weakens the requ irement that fea tures have a un iversa l, shared, pho netic
defi ni tion, and thu s ope ns the possibi lity that so me disti nctive features might no t be
pho netically-based at a II. The subjec t o f the precise phonetic de fin ition o f fea tu res continues
to be one of debate.
The central vowels, such as [i] and [A], can be defi ned in featural terms as [+back,
- round]; and they contrast with [ u] and [o] tha t are [+back, +ro und] . That is to say, although
there are three degrees of backness phonetically (front, central, back), there are only two
dimensions of contrast phonologically: [-back) front vowels and [+back] back and central
vowels. In retrospect, it would have been better to have named the feature [+/-front], but
Chomsky and Halle happened to choose [back], and it seems to be too late to change it now.
There are few, if any, cases of languages contrastmg a bac~ vs. central vowel without also ma~ing a
contrast in round1ng. There are no complete~ convincing cases of languages that contrast central[t] and
back [UJI. or centraliA! and bad [T]. Afew possible back vs. central contrasts, in Nimboran, Norwegian,
and Bostonian are discussed in Seaion 4.3 on p. 59, but each is subjea to reana~sis. Bostonian, for
example, contrasts "shack" [J~k] vs. shock" [Jok] vs. shark" [Jak]. but in that case [a] may be argued
to be underlying (ar). so that back /a/ and central /a/ are not real~ contrastive.
Table 12.6 gives the featu re val ues of a representa tive set of vo wels. The [ATR] va lues
shown in parentheses are te ntative, as these vowels do not com monly participate in [ATR]
contrasts or alternations, so definitive data as to thei r value is lacki ng.
Finally, note that, secondary articulatio ns aside, the set of"place" features for vowels and
consonants are largely mutually exclusive. Only consonants can be [coronal!, for example,
and only vowels are specified for [ATR]. For the most part, consonants are not specified as
[high], [back], or [low] . This is by design, allowing for simpler and more general statements
of the alternations that affect only consonants or only vowels, which constitute the majority.
269
270

Table 1 J .6 Place features for a representative set of vowels.
Back
H1gh
Low
ATR
Round
+
(- )
()
II
+
+
+
+
+
+
(-)
(- )
(- )
T his decision, ho wever, co mplicates cases where vowe ls and co nso nants in teract. Palatalizatio n is a case in point. The alterna tion "[s) is realized as (J) before [i)" is quite co mm o n, and
its phone tic grou nding is clear: the fronted and raised tongue body position of [i] is more
co mpati ble with (J] than with [s), making palatalizatio n a kin d of ass imila tio n. This compatibili ty is not cap tured in fea tures, however. The change from fsl to (J] is o ne of [+anterior]
to [-a nter ior}, a feature that is not eve n defi ned for [i] . Reacti ng to this pro blem, some
pho nologists have proposed a uni fied set of fea tures for vowels and consonan ts, suggesting
that fron t vowels should be [coronal] instead o f [-back]. This fa ils to acco un t, however, fo r
the many times tha t coronal consona nts and [i] fa il to interac t. Finding a si ngle representatio n that elegantly captures both interactions and lack of interactio ns between vowels and
co nso nants co ntinues to be a matter of research and debate.
T here are nvo mo re vowel features that we will find usefu l at this point to define natural
classes and alternations. We need a feature [ +/- long) to distinguish vowels that differ in
length but not quality, such as are found in the Japanese words [biru) building vs. [bi:ru)
beer, and to capture alternations Like compensatory lengthening and closed syllable shortening. We will also find it useful to refer to a feature [+/-stress! in order to account for alternations that are conditioned by stress, such as English tapping and vowel reduction. We will
see, however, that a more ca refully-elaborated theory of timing, syllable structure, and stress,
to be developed in Chapters 15 and 16, will obviate the need for these two features. Chapter
17 will discuss the features n ecessary to account for alternations and contrast in tone.
12.3 how have our hypotheses fared?

We bega n this chapter with a set of hypot heses about natural classes in hu ma n languages.
Hypo th eses 2 and 3 are repeated here:
Hypot hesis 2:
Pho no logical contrasts and natural classes ca n be defi ned in terms of a closed set of
phonetic parameters tha t is the same across all languages: the set of distinctive features.
Hypo thesis 3:
Features are defined in terms of binary (+/- ) oppositions (e.g., every segment is either
[+voice] o r [- voice)).
The bulk of this chapter has been spent specifying the set of distinctive features. Is this set
able to account for all phonological contrasts and natural classes? As far as contrasts go, the
hypothesis is pretty well supported. The features are defined clearly enough that we know
271
what kind of datn wou ld render them inadequate: a language that required six degrees of
vowel height could not be accounted for with the features ( +/- high) and [ +/- low], or a
language that contrasted four degrees of rounding could not be accounted for with the
feature [ +/- round]. Thus far, languages such as these hypothetical cases have not been
described.
As far as natural classes go, the story is more complicated, and we have seen that the set
of distinctive features has undergone significant revisions since the original work of )akobson, and new revisions continue to be proposed. Vt/e have seen that there are numerous cases
for which hypothesis 3 has not been supported. The lack of evidence for targeted classes
such as [-nasal] and [-lateral] have led to the suggestion that at least some features are unary
rather than binary. In particular, unary features for place of articulation based on active
articulator have proven to be useful.
Once unary features are introduced, it beco mes clear th at no t all segments are specified
for every featu re. A lack o f co mplete fea tural specificati on of a given segment is termed
underspecification. Abse nce of a unary feature (as when non-nasal consona nts si mply have
no [nasa l] specificatio n) is one type of underspecification. Another typ e is when a b ina ry
featu re is no t defined or not ava ilab le fo r a certa in class of so unds: (+/- an terior] is defined
o nly fo r coro nal consona nts, for example, and (+/- strident) is defi ned only for frica tives
and affricates. Other types of underspec ification are possible. For example, if we know that
all nasals are (+voice), do we need to specify nasa l co nsonan ts as both [+nasal] and [+vo ice]
in unde rlying represen tatio ns? There is reason to thin k we sho uld not. This and similar cases
are discussed in Chapter 13.
Cases that continue to be the subject of research and debate include the definition of the
feature [continuant], the possibility of unary [voice), features of guttural consonants, the
relation between "tenseness and ATR, the best representation for vowel height, and the
interaction or non-interaction of vowels and consonants. These specific cases feed into larger
questions of whether the set of distinctive features is truly universal, how dearly-defined in
articulatory or acoustic terms each feature must be, and whether features are learned or
innate. Different hypotheses have been put forward, each one in service of a slightly different
theory of what human languages can be like. All the problems have not been solved- if they
were, phonologists would be out of a job. In that case, we could declare that we had learned
all there is to know about human language con trasts and alternations, and retire to our
respective beach houses. We're not there yet, but t he set of features described in this chapter
does ho ld up very well against the data. We will use this set of features in subsequen t chapters
as we investigate the next se t of hypo theses regarding the relatio nshi p between underlying
and surface representations.
chapter summary
The set of dist inctive features co nstitutes a hypothesis about the dimensions of con trast
and altern ations avai lable in hu man languages. As such, they define the space of possible
languages.
The distinctive features proposed by )akobson, Fant, and Halle were binary, defined in
both articulatory and acoustic terms, and fully specified for all segments.
Subsequent analyses, based on a range of cross-linguistic contrasts and alternations, have
suggested that some features are unary, some are based on the active articulator used,
and not all features are specified for all segments.
A suggested set of features and feature values are found in Table 12.2 (major class features), Table 12.3 (laryngeal features), Table I2.5 (place features), and Table 12.6 (vowel

Sziga - CH 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sziga - CH 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is A Possible

Languages differ fro m one anothe r without lim it.

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

Chapter summary 271

Uni versa/ Grammar.

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

12 .1.3 some hypotheses

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

12.2 distinctive features

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

rn:.ior class and manner features

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

Constricted glo ttis

12 .2.3 laryngeal features

definition: sounds that are (+voice) have vibrating vocal folds.

1., ., 4 ""'Jjor place distinctions

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

In Arabic, [ I) assimilates completely to a following dental, alveolar, or post-alveola r, all

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

Assimilation in Sudanese Arabic:

constriction made with the tongue body

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

r: co nst ri cti on at the glottis

,J"' [ hi a nd( ?].

12.2.5 subr;-i;1ry place distinctions

[+/-a n teri or)

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

Expanded table ol place dtstinctions

12.2 .6 tea turPs for vowels

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

12.3 how have our hypotheses fared?

WHAT IS A POSSIBLE LANGUAGE

You might also like