Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2008 / How the Phoneme Inventory Changes its Shape: A Cognitive Approach to Phonological Evolution and Change

How the Phoneme Inventory Changes its Shape: A Cognitive Approach to Phonological Evolution and Change

Paper · 2008 · Javier Enrique Díaz Vera

Summary

The paper asks whether Cognitive Grammar can explain sound change without abstract rule machinery, using only categories with graded structure. Díaz Vera combines Nathan's view of sonority as the main source of prototype effects in phonology with Labov's notion of vowel peripherality, defined as position on the edge versus the interior of the F1/F2 space. On this view, open vowels and peripheral vowels count as better examples of the category "phoneme", and /a/ is the best example of all. He then recasts Labov's chain-shift principles as two opposite routes, tested against episodes from the history of English. In one route, highly audible sounds lose prototypicality by closing, devoicing or shortening. In the other, weak sounds gain it by opening, voicing or lengthening. A phoneme is modelled as a radial network: one central allophone plus context-induced extensions. The same structure is shown for lexical meaning (the senses of eat). The main claim is that chain shifts are coordinated shifts in how speakers rank the prototypicality of a whole inventory. This links phonological and semantic change under one cognitive mechanism.

Key points

  • Prototypicality is judged by frequency of occurrence, order of acquisition and universality (after Langacker). /a/ ranks highest on all three and is also acquired first by infants.
  • The paper builds a two-axis table of change:
    • Opening (close > open) or gaining peripherality makes a sound more prototypical.
    • Closing or losing peripherality makes it less prototypical.
  • Principle 1 (louder sounds become less audible) is illustrated by three changes:
    • the Long Back Merger (IE */α:/ > PrGmc */o:/);
    • West Germanic long voiced fricatives becoming OE stops (habban, ridda, frogga);
    • the Great Vowel Shift, including the diphthongization of ME /i:/ and /u:/.
  • Principle 2 (weaker sounds become more audible) is illustrated by Grimm's Law Part I, Verner's Law voicing, and ME open-syllable lengthening (mete, broken, wiku, duru).
  • Allophones are explained through accommodation. In syllables such as [pa], [ta] and [ka], the neighbouring consonant keeps the vowel from reaching full loudness, so these variants sit further from the prototype than a bare [a].

Interesting ideas

  • I1. A category can be modelled as one central member plus extensions that are each licensed by a specific context, rather than as a checklist of required features; this keeps every peripheral member traceable to why it differs.
  • I2. Graded membership is scored with several independent, measurable signals (frequency, acquisition order, universality) instead of a single criterion.
  • I3. Change is described along two independent axes, each with a known direction, so any observed shift falls into one cell of a small table.
  • I4. Variants are treated as context-conditioned departures from a base form, where the conditioning environment itself explains the deviation, as with consonant accommodation causing vowel undershoot.
  • I5. One representational device, the prototype-schema-extension network, is reused at two very different levels, sound and meaning, to achieve conceptual unification.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (world): Verb senses taken from WordNet could be stored as radial networks, with literal eat (ingesting food) as the hub and metaphorical uses (eaten by jealousy, eating money) as labelled extensions, so the world builder can report which extension it chose and why.
  • I2 (learn): Silver-data examples or sense assignments could be ranked by a few separate prototypicality signals, which makes "typical versus marginal" an explainable composite score rather than a black-box confidence.
  • I3 (answer): Errors from readers and students could be logged on two explicit axes, such as category and direction of drift, giving a compact and interpretable error taxonomy for evaluation reports.
  • I4 (tokens): Inflected, contracted or archaic spellings could be linked to their lemma together with the triggering context recorded, so lemmatization stays explainable instead of being a bare lookup.
  • I5 (frames): A single prototype-plus-extension structure could serve both semantic roles (typical versus atypical Agents) and speech acts (literal versus indirect), so explanations share one format across the pragmatics layer.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad Real · Spain9 works · 48 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 870 works

Cite

Cite as Javier Enrique Díaz Vera. 2008. How the Phoneme Inventory Changes its Shape: A Cognitive Approach to Phonological Evolution and Change. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 37.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20089704

@article{vera2008how,
  title = {{How the Phoneme Inventory Changes its Shape: A Cognitive Approach to Phonological Evolution and Change}},
  author = {Javier Enrique Díaz Vera},
  journal = {Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 37},
  year = {2008},
  doi = {10.26754/ojs\_misc/mj.20089704},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20089704}
}

References

22 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. B LEVINS , Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. find
  2. D ÍAZ V ERA , Javier E. 2001. “Fonología medieval: La lengua inglesa entre dos mutaciones vocálicas”. In de la Cruz, I. and J. Martín (eds.) Lingüística Histórica Inglesa. Madrid: Ariel: 109-160. find
  3. E DDINGTON , David. 2007. “Flaps and other variants of /t/ in American English: Allophonic sonority scale, from “more sonorous” (vowels) to “less sonorous” (plosives). See also Gussenhoven (2007) for a detailed analysis of the articulatory effects of voiced and unvoiced consonantal contexts on PDE English vowels. 3 . The following abbreviations will be hencefoth used: IE: Indo-European; PrGmc: ProtoGermanic; WGmc: West Germanic; OE: Old English; ME: Middle English. 4 . Where W = word level and P = phonetic level. distribution without constraints, rules, or abstractions.” Cognitive Linguistics, 18.2: 23-46. find
  4. G IEGERICH , Heinz J. 1992. English Phonology. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford U. P. find
  5. G USSENHOVEN , Carlos. 2007. “A vowel height split explained: Compensatory listening and speaker control.” In Cole, J. and J. I. Hualde (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 145-172. find
  6. G UZMÁN G ONZÁLEZ , Trinidad. 2005. “Revisiting the revisited: could we survive without the great vowel shift?” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies, 39: 121-132. find
  7. H AMPTON , James. 1993. “Prototype models of concept representation.” In Van Mechelen, I. J. Hampton, R. S. Michalski and P. Theuns (eds.) Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Analysis. London: Academic Press: 67-95. find
  8. L ABOV , William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  9. L ABOV , William, Malcah Y AEGER and Richard S TEINER . 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: US Regional Survey. find
  10. L AKOFF , George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —. 1993. “Cognitive Phonology.” In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The Last Phonological Rule: reflections on Constraints and Derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago: 117-145. find
  11. L ANGACKER , Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. —. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton. find
  12. L ASS , Roger. 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. —. 1994. Old English. A Historical linguistic Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. find
  13. L INDBLOM , Björn. 1963. “Spectographic study of vowel reduction.” Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 65: 1773-81. —. 1990. “Explaining phonetic variation: Sketch of the HandH Theory.” In Hardcastle, W. J. and A. Marchal (eds.) Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. find
  14. M C C OMBS , Candalene J. 2006. “The acoustic properties of vowels: A tool for improving Received: 20 November 2007 Revised version: 18 September 2008 articulation and comprehension of English.” Forum on Public Policy Online, Fall 2006 edition. http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive06/mccombs.pdf (accessed September 24, 2007). ↗
  15. N ATHAN , Geoffrey S. 1986. “Phonemes as mental categories.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12: 212-223. —. 1995. “How the Phoneme Inventory Gets its Shape—Cognitive Grammar’s View of Phonological Systems.” Rivista di Linguistica, 6.2: 275-287. —. 1996. “Steps toward a cognitive Phonology.” In Hurch, Bernhard and Richard Rhodes (eds.) Natural phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107-120. —. 2006. “Is the phoneme usage-based? – Some issues.” International Journal of English Studies, 6.2: 173-194. find
  16. R OSCH , Eleanor and Carolyn B. MERVIS. 1975. “Family resemblances.” Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573-605. find
  17. S WEETSER , Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. find
  18. T AYLOR , Jeremy. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  19. T HOMAS , Erik T. 2000. “Reevaluating and Refining Peripherality.” ERIC Document ED 452 711. find
  20. V ALIMAA -B LUM , Riita. 2006. Cognitive Phonology in Construction Grammar: Analytic Tools for Students of English. Berlin: Mouton. find
  21. V ÁZQUEZ G ONZÁLEZ , Juan Gabriel. 2005. Diccionario conceptual de verbos para la donación en inglés antiguo. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. find
  22. V IHMAN , Marilyn May. 1996. Phonological Development. The Origins of Language in the Child. Oxford: Blackwell. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/vera-2008-phoneme-inventory-changes-shape-cognitive/