Phonology

In this introduction [to this special issue of the journal, on substance-free phonology], I will briefly trace the development of features in phonological theory, with particular emphasis on their relationship to phonetic substance. I will show that substance-free phonology is, in some respects, the resurrection of a concept that was fundamental to early structuralist views of features as symbolic markers, whose phonological role eclipses any superficial correlates to articulatory or acoustic objects. In the process, I will highlight some of the principal questions that this epistemological tack raises, and how the articles in this volume contribute to our understanding of those questions

Substance-free phonology or SFP (Reiss 2017) has renewed interest in the question of abstraction in phonology. Perhaps the most common form of abstraction through the absence of substance is underspecification, where some aspects of speech lack representation in memorized representations, within the phonology or in the phonetic implementation (Archangeli 1988, Keating 1988, Lahiri and Reetz 2010 among many others). The fundamental basis for phonology is argued to be a mental model of speech events in time, following Raimy (2000) and Papillon (2020). Each event can have properties (one-place predicates that are true of the event), which include the usual phonological features, and also structural entities for extended events like moras and syllables. Features can be bound together in an event, yielding segment-like properties. Pairs of events can be ordered in time by the temporal logic precedence relation represented by ‘<’. Events, features and precedence form a directed multigraph structure with edges in the graph interpreted as “maybe next”. Some infant bimodal speech perception results are examined using this framework, arguing for underspecification in time in the developing phonological representations.

At birth, infants discriminate most of the sounds of the world’s languages, but by age 1, infants become language-specific listeners. This has generally been taken as evidence that infants have learned which acoustic dimensions are contrastive, or useful for distinguishing among the sounds of their language(s), and have begun focusing primarily on those dimensions when perceiving speech. However, speech is highly variable, with different sounds overlapping substantially in their acoustics, and after decades of research, we still do not know what aspects of the speech signal allow infants to differentiate contrastive from noncontrastive dimensions. Here we show that infants could learn which acoustic dimensions of their language are contrastive, despite the high acoustic variability. Our account is based on the cross-linguistic fact that even sounds that overlap in their acoustics differ in the contexts they occur in. We predict that this should leave a signal that infants can pick up on and show that acoustic distributions indeed vary more by context along contrastive dimensions compared with noncontrastive dimensions. By establishing this difference, we provide a potential answer to how infants learn about sound contrasts, a question whose answer in natural learning environments has remained elusive.