The Structure of Language

The study of phonetics is part of the larger study of

language.
Purpose: To show how phonetics fits into the language
system.
Language: Term is used in two related but different ways:
1. A specific language: French, Portuguese, Farsi, Urdu
2. Much broader sense: the general design plan that is
common to all languages. All human languages are
built on the same underlying design plan, but differ in
many details. For our purposes, this 2nd one is the more
interesting use of the term language.

Dog analogy: Many differences in detail across breeds

and individual dogs. BUT the deeper truth is that they
are all built on the same body plan and have far more in
common than the superficial differences suggest.

What are some features common to all dogs?

1. Social animals
2. Territorial
3. Omnivorous but with a strong preference
for meat
4. Same basic configuration of skeleton
5. Same number and basic shape of teeth
6. Any dog will breed with any other dog,
regardless of large differences in size and
general appearance
7. (a large number of other features)

The Structure of Language

Language works this way as well. All human
languages are built on the same basic design
plan. The broad design features that all
languages have in common run deeper and are
far more important than the differences in
details, as large as those difference may at first
appear.

Languages are defined by their grammars a

collection of rules that allow a speaker (or signer
in the case of a sign language) to generate wellformed utterances (and the knowledge to
recognize broken utterances when they are
encountered).
Your knowledge of English grammar allows you to
figure out:
Vern went to Memphis.
*Vern went Memphis to.
* = ungrammatical

Good
Bad

Notes:
(1)A sentence can be perfectly meaningful but still
be ungrammatical:
*This is a four doors car.
*He drove a red big car.
Its perfectly clear what these sentences mean, but
they are ungrammatical.
(2) The word grammatical here does not mean the
same thing that it meant in grade school.
She aint got no crayons.
Where were you at, John. We was waitin on you.

These sentences conform to the grammar of

some dialects of English; they happen not to
conform to the dialect of standard English.
There are two very different uses of the term
grammar:
(1)descriptive grammar: rules that real speakers
actually use, no matter what teachers, parents, or
usage experts say.
(2)prescriptive grammar: rules that English
teachers (and other experts), and sometimes
your parents, believe speakers OUGHT to use.

Examples of prescriptive grammar rules:

Dont end a sentence with a preposition.
Dont split infinitives.
Dont use like like this: So I was, like, Calm
down, man; youre getting all agitated.
Say Betty and I went to the picnic, not Betty
and me went to the picnic.

Violating a rule of descriptive grammar means that the

utterance would be considered ungrammatical to any
mature (i.e., not a little twirp) native speaker of any dialect.
*That book looks alike.
*I Am America And So Can You. (book title, Stephen
Colbert)

*Frank seems sleeping.

*Bag garbage no good; ski good.
*I did not know how should I dress. (very common

among non-native English speakers)

*I'll be whatever I wanna do. (Philip J. Fry)

*People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
Philip J. Fry (again)

*Im going to turn you onto a Poindexter. [Poindexter=nerd]

*I am a new tie wearing. (Homer Imposter)

NOTES
(1)All of these sentences would be ungrammatical to
a native speaker in all dialects of English; i.e., there
is more going on here than someone speaking
nonstandard English. This is what makes them
violations of descriptive rules.
(2)The issue is grammaticality; i.e., utterances can be
easy to understand but still ungrammatical.
The science of linguistics is concerned exclusively
with descriptive grammar, not prescriptive grammar.
So, descriptive grammar is the domain of linguistics,
prescriptive grammar is the domain of (mostly selfappointed and often not very knowledgeable) usage experts.
More about this later when we discuss dialect.

To do on your own: Which of these sentences violate

English prescriptive rules and which violate
descriptive rules?
Phil has a three-legs cat.
[Its] 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds,
to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Badges? We don't need no stinkin badges. (The Treasure of
the Sierra Madres)

I wonder who and Frieda went swimming.

Where is Maurice going to?
We was at the liberry when we seen Mildred.
What Myron has done with my star fish?

Answers:
Phil owns a three-legs cat.

[descriptive; should read, Phil owns a

three-legged cat.]

to boldly go where no man has gone before.

[prescriptive; to
boldly go is a split infinitive, considered by many to be bad form.]

We don't need no stinkin badges.

[prescriptive; should read, We

don't need any stinking badges.]

I wonder who and Frieda went swimming.

[descriptive; should
read, I wonder who Frieda went swimming with. or the Yalie version, I
wonder with whom Mary went swimming.]

Where is Maurice going to? [prescriptive; should read, Where is

Maurice going?]

We was at the liberry when we seen Mildred.

[prescriptive; We

were at the library when we saw Mildred]

What Myron has done with my star fish? [descriptive; What has
Myron done with my star fish?]

One more point: the term grammar is sometimes

used to refer specifically to syntax (word-order
rules), but more recently it refers to all of the rules
of the language, including syntax, semantics
(meaning), morphology (rules for creating words
out of smaller units called morphemes; e.g., to
form walking from walk, readable from read, etc.),
and phonology (sound pattern rules). More later.

Now, finally, back to the two uses of the word

language:
a specific language (English, Dutch, Hungarian,
etc.)
the general design structure of all human
languages
The 1st meaning is simple and obvious, but what
about the 2nd? What features do all human
languages have in common? Called the Universal
Grammar its a huge, gimongous list (and
incomplete).

Here a just a few universal rules:

1. Rules are always structure dependent. E.g.,
English question formation:
John will run. [statement]
Will John run? [question: invert subject & predicate]
Question is formed by reversing the order of the
subject & the predicate subject & predicate
being structural properties.
One more:
Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department. [statement]
Is Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department? [question]

How about this hypothetical rule: Form a question

by reversing the order of the last two words in the
sentence.
Hanley is the most stubborn person in the
department.
Hanley is the most stubborn person in
department the?
John will pitch on Thursday.
John will pitch Thursday on?
(1) Not a rule of English; (2) not a structuredependent rule; and, most important: (3) no rule
remotely like this in any language, yet this rule
would work just fine.

Q: Why is there no rule like this in any of the worlds

~6,000 languages?
A: Because the hypothetical rule violates a rule of the
universal grammar.
Q: Which one? (Hint: Ive only introduced one
universal rule, so its probably that one.)
A: All of the rules of all of languages are structure
dependent. The hypothetic rule (form a question by
reversing the order of the last two words) depends on
serial position, not structure.
(Once again, I have not given you a formal definition of what a
structural property is. A useful way to think about it is that
structural properties are all those English-major things: whether
a verb is transitive or intransitive, parts of speech, independent
vs. subordinate clauses, subjects vs. predicates, etc. All these
and many others are examples of structural properties. Serial

One more example:

The soldier that is ill is in the hospital.
How do we make a question of this? Which of the
two instances of is gets moved?
*Is the soldier that ill is in the hospital?
Is the soldier that is ill in the hospital?

(Move the 1st one? Not good.)

Its the 2nd instance of is that gets moved, but why?

Does the rule say move the 2nd instance of the
verb if there are 2?
No. The 1st instance of is gets passed over because
its buried inside of a NP that is treated as a unit
the NP being a structural property.

No language uses a rule that says, move

the 2nd instance of the verb if there are
2, or move the 1st instance of the
verb. Why? Because it is based on serial
position, not structure.
Since the hypothetical violates a
language universal, you wont see a rule
like this: (a) in English, and (b) in any
language. (Or so goes Chomskys idea.)

No child ever makes the mistake of getting mixed

up about which verb to move.
Why? Because they come into the world knowing
that rules are structure dependent and not
dependent on something like serial position
though serial-position rules would work fine.
More about the significance of this point soon.

2. Nearly all languages have agreement rules.

The box is in my office.
The boxes are in my office.
Subject and predicate agree for number (plural vs.
singular).
Languages vary a lot in what kinds of things there
needs to be agreement on. Not all languages
enforce agreement on number, but all except a
very few languages incorporate lots of
agreement rules.

Spanish (and French and many other languages)

enforce agreement on gender:
los perros (dogs), las casas (houses), los
rboles (trees), las tablas (tables), las flores
(flowers), las montaas (mountains)
Important: Agreement is not a necessary feature.
Its quite easy to imagine a language w/ out
agreement.
My shoes are in the closet.: In English, number
is already specified by the noun (shoes in this
case). Why give exactly the same information by
supplying a plural verb (are) to go along with a
noun that you already know is plural?

 Not all languages have this particular form of

agreement, but all except a very few languages
have agreement rules.
Is subject-verb number agreement part of the
universal grammar? [No]
How about agreement for gender as in French
and Spanish? [No]
What is it thats (very nearly) universal?
[Agreement rules]

3. Phonological rules: All languages incorporate

sound-pattern rules called phonological rules.
beed beat
bid bit
league leak
cub cup
cab cap
lag lack
What do you notice about the lengths of the
vowels on the left vs. those on the right? Rule:
Vowels are lengthened when they precede
voiced consonants.

Most languages do not have this particular rule.

However, all languages have large numbers of
sound-pattern rules like this one.
Once again, what is the universal?
1.The English vowel-lengthening rule?
2.The incorporation of phonological rules that
vary in details from one language to the next?

Another rule in English. Look at these plural forms:

walks
lips
rats
tracks
-------------labs
dogs
awards
doors
What sound is added to form the plural in the 1st
group vs. the 2nd group? Orthographically, its
always an s, but what sound is it? (Note: [] -as opposed to [lbz] is not impossible to

Languages dont necessarily need to incorporate

phonological rules though all of them do.
They cant be essential to communication:
Nearly every language besides English gets by fine
without the vowel-lengthening rule.
English gets by fine without the very different set of
sound pattern rules in Spanish, Tamil, Hindi, Korean,
etc.

All languages incorporate phonological rules.

Is the incorporation of phonological rules part of the
universal grammar?
Is the vowel lengthening rule (e.g., cab vs. cap)
part of the universal grammar?

4. Recursion
All languages exhibit a property called recursion.
Recursion is a general principle that can be seen in
many areas other than language. In general, recursion is
seen whenever things can be embedded inside of
other things, which in turn can be embedded inside of
other things, which can be
Simple example: Russian Nesting Dolls (nesting is
another word for embedding).

Russian Dolls

The embedding idea is very simple here embedded (or

nested) inside the biggest doll is another doll;
embedded inside of that doll is another doll; embedded
inside of that doll is And on it goes. Russian dolls are
an example of recursion things embedded inside of
things which are embedded inside of things which

The branching structure that is seen trees is another clear

instance of recursion: the main trunk divides into large
branches, which further divide into smaller branches,
which further divide into yet smaller branches ... This
branching pattern is exactly what is seen in language (but
with words & phrases instead of tree branches). Well be
there very soon.

Mississippi River Watershed

(Note the recursive, branching structure.)

Ketchup Squeeze Bottle

This example is a little weird (though not hard
to understand). This is an ordinary ketchup
bottle. But notice that the picture on the bottle
shows a lovely waitress holding a tray with a
ketchup bottle on it.
Imagine the unlikely situation in which the
ketchup bottle on the tray is drawn accurately.
If it is, then the bottle on the tray must have a
picture of a waitress holding a tray with a
ketchup bottle on it.
And what about that ketchup bottle? It should
also have a picture of a ketchup bottle on the
tray, right? How far does this recursion go? It
boggles the mind, doesnt it?

Does this ketchup bottle (under the crazy

assumptions) show recursion? (Hint: Yes)
How so? What, if anything, does the ketchup
bottle have in common with the Russian
Nesting Dolls?
What does this have to do with the universal
grammar?
The idea were heading toward is simple (sort
of): The grammars of all languages differ in
many details, but they ALL exhibit recursion.
One example: A phrase can be embedded
inside of a phrase, which can be embedded
inside of a phrase, which can be embedded
Sound familiar?

An example of recursion in language:

This is the house that Jack built.
Recursion: This is the house branches off into the
phrase that Jack built.
This is the malt that lay in the house that Jack built.
More recursion: This is the malt branches into that lay
in the house which branches into that Jack built.
This is the rat that ate the malt that lay in the house that
Jack built.
Same thing, but still more of it: A phrase branches into a
phrase which branches into a phrase
English shows recursion. What other languages do? All of
them.

Recursion in language is universal.

We have already seen an example of this:
I did not know how I should dress.
In this utterance, a sentence (in this case, a question) is
embedded inside of a sentence.
I did not know. + How I should dress?
I did not know how I should dress.

(For reasons that are not obvious, the subject-predicate inversion rule that
normally applies in questions is blocked when the question is embedded
in a sentence.)

Recursion: Things are embedded inside of other things.

Recursion in language is the same kind of thing as the
Russian Dolls and the crazy ketchup bottle.
Recursion is seen in English. Recursion is seen in all
languages. It is part of the universal grammar.

Last example, from a child of about five:

Daddy, what did you bring that book that I don't
like to be read to out of up for?
Pretty crazy sentence, but:
(a) grammatically well formed
(b) insanely recursive

Is recursion specific to English or is it part

of the universal grammar?
Note: All of the language examples weve
looked at show recursion in syntax. All
levels of language show a branching,
recursive tree structure even at the
phonological level. (Youll have to trust me
on that. The idea is not hard, but we have to
move on.)

5. Head First/Head Last (I will not go over this in class; read it on your own)
Phrases in (almost) all languages contain a special
boss word called the head. The head controls
grammatical features of other words in the phrase.
The fox in socks is in the yard.
*The fox in socks are in the yard.
fox is singular, socks is plural. Why is it that the verb
agrees with the fox rather than socks? Because its
the boss word; i.e., the head of the noun phrase fox
in socks.
Flying out of Kalamazoo on small planes is scary.
*Flying out of Kalamazoo on small planes are scary.
Flying here is the head of the phrase because the
phrase is mainly about flying, not planes, so the verb
agrees with the singular flying, not the plural
planes.

English is a head-first language the head precedes all

other words in the phrase. Many other languages reverse
this.
English: Kazu ate sushi. (Kazu=NP; ate sushi=VP;
ate=head)
Japanese: Kazu sushi ate.
So, Japanese is a head-last language. So, big deal? Heres
the big deal: Every head-first language applies the headfirst rule to all of its phrases: NPs, VPs, PPs. Everything.
Similarly, every head-last language applies the head-last
rule to all of its phrases: NPs, VPs, PPs. Everything.
English:
Japanese:

to Tokyo (preposition)
Tokyo to (postposition)

There are no languages that mix these up e.g., head-first

for NPs, head-last for VPs and PPs. Also, no headmiddle languages.

Now, after all that, this is the universal

rule:
There are no languages that mix these up
e.g., head-first for NPs, head-last for
VPs and PPs. There are no languages
with head-first NPs but head-last VPs (or
PPs).
So, the universal: the rules for all
languages are either all head-first or all
head-last. No languages mix them.

There is no reason that languages have to behave

this way.
It is easy to imagine a language that uses Japaneselike head-last NPs along with English-like PPs:
Kazu sushi ate at home. (head-last NP, head-last
PP)

Or the other way around:

Kazu ate sushi home at. (head-1st NP, head-last
PP)

These mixed rule systems dont happen. Ever. Why?

Its more logical? Languages do not work this way.
I say
You say (formerly Thou sayest)
He says

One more example that we saw earlier.

He threw the garbage out.
He threw it out. [its ok to substitute a pronoun for
the noun phrase]
He threw out the garbage. [this ordering is ok too]
He threw out it. [here its not ok to substitute the
pronoun]

Is there anything logical about this system?

So, we can rule out the-brain-wants-language-tobe-logical as an explanation for the headfirst/head-last universal.

So, how did we get these grammatical regularities

that comprise the universal grammar (the five we
discussed and a zillion others)?
1. By coincidence, 6,000 separate human
languages happened to adopt these
regularities without benefit of committee
meetings.
2. Neural circuitry incorporating these
grammatical regularities are built into the brain
just like the neural circuitry that allows a bat
to convert sonar signals into an image is wired
into bat brains, or the circuitry that allows
spiders to know how to spin a web is wired into
spider brains.

Why is the concept of a universal grammar

important? Current thinking among most
linguists:
When children acquire language they do not need
to learn the universal grammar at all. They already
know it.
Children do not need to learn that there are
agreement rules; they need to learn what those
specific agreement rules are.
They do not need to learn that rules are structure
dependent; they do, however, need to learn what
those structure-dependent rules are.

Kids do not need to learn that there are soundpattern rules; they do need to learn which
particular sound-pattern rules apply to the
language they are learning.
They do not need to learn about the concept of
recursion, but they do need to learn the languagespecific rules that constrain exactly how
recursion occurs. For example, the odd rule that
blocks subject-predicate inversion in
I wasnt sure what I should do.
is specific to English. Recursion is not. Recursion
is part of the Universal Grammar (and an
extremely important part of it).

The Modularity of Language

Central feature of language: It is a layered or
modularized system the neural substrate for
language is not a blob of brain tissue that
knows about language. It is a collection of
interconnected specialists that know a great
deal about just one thing.
Modularity is another term for division of labor
different modules specialize in different jobs.
This is similar in principle to the way a house is
built not by a bunch of people who all know
the same thing, but by specialists like
plumbers, electricians, carpenters, roofers,
masons, roofers,

Modularity
Modularity characterizes all complex systems. A
car is not a mass of metal and plastic that
knows how to go. Cars have specialized
modules:

fuel delivery system (carburetor/fuel injector)

combustion chambers
transmission
suspension/steering system
brakes
exhaust system
mp3 player
etc.

The human body is modularized. Its not a blob of

protoplasm that knows how to live its a highly
interconnected system of specialists that each
handle just one kind of job:

Circulatory system (pump, veins, arteries, etc.)

Waste management system (kidneys, liver, poo
disposal)

Central control system (brain, spinal cord, )

Musculo-skeletal system
Sensors (visual, auditory, tactile, )
etc.

The heart does not know how to think, the brain

does not know how to pump, the kidneys do
not know how to secrete insulin. Each
specialist has its own act and they stick to it.

Language is modularized its a highly

interconnected collection of experts, each of
which handles just one kind of analysis.
Major modules of the language system:
Semantics (meaning)
Syntax (structural rules governing word order)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0BuKYiwhVQ

Lexicon (mental dictionary)

Morphology (word-making rules walk, walked,
walking, )

Phonology (sound-pattern rules)

Phonetics (articulation/sound patterns)

The layers of the language system are

interconnected but DISTINCT or AUTONOMOUS
i.e., different from one another.
A few examples:
Syntax and semantics are not the same thing.
*Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
(Chomsky)

Syntactically well formed but semantically

anomalous (i.e., all messed up).
Conforms perfectly to English syntax but violates
semantic rules. Your syntax module reports that it
checks out; your semantics module reports that
its busted.

Compare:
*Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
*Green sleep furiously ideas colorless.
Both sentences are ungrammatical, but the 2nd
sentence is more problematic than the 1st.
Both sentences are meaningless, but the 2nd
sentence also violates rules of English syntax.
This is an illustration of the concept of modularity
your knowledge of language consists of semantics
and syntax modules that are distinct from one
another (autonomous).

*We throwed out it. The lawn we throwed it onto.

Semantics? OK. Syntax? Nope. (Morphology is also
messed up throwed is not formed correctly.)

*You no stupid computers. (Meaning, in context:

Youre not stupid about computers.)

Semantics? Fine. Syntax? Nah.

Moral: Syntax and semantics are not the same
thing; theyre distinct or autonomous. Your
syntax and semantics modules are specialists,
each with their own separate jobs to do.

Humor is often derived from semantic clash.

It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times.
-Mark Twain
Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded. -Yogi
Berra
Wagners music is better than it sounds. -Mark Twain
I wishIhadananswertothatbecauseI'mtiredof
answeringthatquestion. -Yogi Berra
Bart, with $10,000 we'd be millionaires. -Homer
Simpson
The report of my death was an exaggeration. -Mark
Twain
If the people dont want to come out to the ballpark,
nobodys going to stop them. Yogi Berra

 In all of these cases one part of an utterance

contradicts (clashes with) another part, as in
Chomskys Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously.
All of these example focus explicitly on the
semantic layer of the language system.
(Twain is doing this on purpose. Yogi is doing his
best to make sense.)

Phonology (sound pattern rules) and the lexicon (mental

dictionary) are distinct from one another; e.g.,
brick blick bnick
brick: a word
blick: a non-word, but conforms to English
phonological rules that constrain word shapes
bnick: a non-word that violates an English
phonological rule that constrains sound sequences
These examples prove specialization, or modularity:
brick: Your lexicon specialist tells you this is a word.
blick: Your lexicon specialist tells you this is not a
word, but your phonology specialist tells you it could
be.
bnick: Lexicon specialist: not a word; phonology
specialist: not a permissible word.

bnick violates a particular type of

phonological rule is called a phonotactic rule.
phono = sound (speech sound in this case)
tactic = arrangement or ordering
So, phonotactic rules impose limits on
permissible and impermissible arrangements
of speech sounds.
On my web page, theres a link called
phonotactic rule assignment. Its due one
week from today.

All languages have large numbers of phonotactic

rules. A few others in English:
Words cannot begin with [] ([no] is ok but not [o])
Words cannot begin with [t] ([stp] is ok but not [tp]).
Words cannot end with [, , ] ([be], [bi], and [bu] are ok
but not [b], [b], or [b ].

Terminology: The rules above are called

phonotactic phonological rules, or (more often)
just phonotactic rules.
The other kinds that we talked about (e.g., vowels
are lengthened before voiced consonants) well
simply refer to as non-phonotactic phonological
rules. Well discuss many other examples.

Morphology: Rules for word formation (e.g., dog dogs;

walk walking)
If boof were a word, what kind would boofable be (noun,
verb, adjective, etc.)?
How can the word understand (verb) be turned into noun?
He used to live in Pakistan, so he has a good
_________ of cricket. (This is a bogus sentence. No one understands
cricket.)

What form of understand goes in the blank?

How about making an adjective?
Some of the concepts were unfamiliar to me, but the
teacher made these ideas ________________.
What form of understand goes in the blank?

What module of the language system are you

relying on to answer these questions?
You are applying your knowledge of
morphological rules rules for forming words out
of smaller units called morphemes.
Morpheme: The smallest unit of language that has
meaning. Some examples one word in all cases,
but not always one morpheme:
dog, dogs
read, reading, readable, unreadable
person, personal, personalize

Bound vs. Unbound: Morphemes can be either bound

or unbound (also called free).
Unbound (free): Can stand alone as a separate word
(e.g., dog, walk, park, ). Unbound morphemes are
also called free.
Bound: Must appear in combination with one or more
other morphemes; e.g., suffixes like -s, ed, -ing;
prefixes such as pre-, post-, un-, etc.
premature: pre=bound, mature=unbound
blindness: blind=unbound, ness=bound
Check out the exercise on my web page called
Counting Morphemes.

One more point about morphemes: The concept of a

morpheme is pretty straightforward, but counting them is
not always so simple. A few examples:
How many morphemes in these?
uniform

Do speakers realize this word is

derived from morphemes meaning one
form? Maybe, but I doubt it.

agnostic

The word gnostic does exist, but do

most speakers know this; i.e., do
speakers treat this as meaning not
gnostic? Maybe, but I doubt it.

atheist

Do speakers understand this to mean

not theist? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Last one: A specific sound or sound sequence can

sometimes behave as a morpheme and sometimes not.
worker: er ([]) is a morpheme (er indicates one who works)
player: er ([]) is a morpheme
sitter: er ([]) is a morpheme
splatter: er ([]) is not a morpheme (er does not mean
one who splats)

matter: er ([]) is not a morpheme (er does not mean

one who mats)

preschool: pre ([pri]) is a morpheme; (pre indicates before)

prejudge: pre ([pri]) is a morpheme
predisposed: pre ([pri]) is a morpheme
precaution: pre ([pri]) is a morpheme
pretty: pre is not a morpheme
supreme: pre is not a morpheme

What about:
batter [b] (as in baseball)
batter [b] (as in pancakes)
Is the [] of He is the next batter. a
morpheme?
Is the [] of pancake batter a morpheme?
Moral: Its not the sound sequence per se,
its the function that the sound sequence
plays in the word.

Phonology and phonetics are not the same thing.

Lets start with an example we know something about.
batter (as in baseball)
// (abstract, underlying representation)
slashes

(surface phonetic form)

brackets

There are two distinct (autonomous) layers or language

modules involved in the production of this word:
(1)

phonological (abstract) layer or underlying

representation, or phonemic layer) abstract
representation in your head e.g., you think
of the
medial sound in batter as a /t/.
(2)
phonetic layer or surface phonetic form the
sounds that are actually spoken (in
the example).

Rule
/t,d/ []
when intervocalic,
(betw two vowels)
but only when the
2nd vowel is
unstressed
Translation: /t/ & /d/
are pronounced as
a flap when they
occur between two
vowels and when
the 2nd vowel is
unstressed (weak).

/bt/

phonemic (phonological,
linguistic, underlying
representation)

Phonological
Rules
[b]

phonetic (surface
phonetic form)

Phonology and phonetics are not the same thing; for

example, note the /p/ in the following:
thp (released)
thp
(unreleased)
pht (aspirated)
spt (unaspirated)
These realizations are phonetically distinct but
phonemically/phonologically/linguistically equivalent;
i.e., they are members of the same broad phonemic
category /p/.
Released and unreleased /p/: allophones or allophonic
variants.
Aspirated and unaspirated /p/ are allophones or
allophonic variants.

Other examples:
/g/: geese vs. gone
/t/: tap kitten button eighth fatty
The /g/ of geese and the /g/ of gone are
allophones: Same
phonemic/phonological/linguistic category;
different phonetic realizations of the category.
Compare /l/ of Lee vs. law.
These distinctions vary across languages.
Differences which are allophonic in one language
may be phonemic in another, and vice versa.

How to tell whether two speech sounds are members of

the same or different phoneme class
Are /p/ and /b/ allophones of the same phoneme class, or
are they members of different phoneme classes?
Different. Heres the test: Can we find a pair or words with
different meanings, where this difference in meaning is
conveyed by the /p/-b/ difference? Yes. Many.
pin-bin, pat-bat, pan-ban, pill-bill, pace-base, peek-beak

So, /p/ and /b/ are different phonemes, not allophones of

the same phoneme category.

What about [ph] vs. [p]; i.e., the aspirated /p/ in pot
versus the unaspirated /p/ in spot. Can we find a pair of
words in which an aspirated /p/ means one thing while an
otherwise identical word with an unaspirated /p/ means
something else?
The fact that a sound occurs in a language does not mean
that it has the status of a phoneme. Vowel nasalization:
compare the vowels in pad and man (and notice
what youre velum is doing): [pd] [mn] (tilde = nasalized)
But, vowel nasalization is predictable in English it
occurs whenever a vowel precedes a nasal consonant.
The presence vs. absence of nasalization never signals a
difference in meaning; i.e., it is not contrastive.
So, in English, [] and [] are allophones of the phonemic
category //.

Not true in all languages; e.g., in French, Portuguese, & a

few other languages, differences in word meaning can be
signaled based EXCLUSIVELY on whether the vowel is
nasalized or not just as in pin vs. bin in English.
French: beau [bo] (good looking) vs. bon [bo
] (good)
(The tilde is a diacritic for nasalized.)

So, in French, are [o] (non-nasalized) and [o] (nasalized)

allophonic variants of /o/?
In English, are [o] and [o] allophonic variants of /o/?
Central idea: Contrast. Does a phonetic feature (nasalization in this example) serve a contrastive function
(distinguish one word from another)? If the answer is yes,
then its phonemic. Otherwise, were talking about
allophonic variation.

Terminology
In English, [o] and [o] are:
1. allophonic variants or allophones of /o/

2. phonetically different but phonemically/

phonologically/linguistically equivalent
In French, are [o] and [o] both phonetically distinct
and phonemically/phonologically/linguistically
distinct: /o/ and /o/.
Yet another way to say exactly the same thing: In
French, vowel nasalization serves a contrastive
function; i.e., nasalization by itself can serve to
distinguish one word from another. In English, it
does not.

Summary
1. A phonemic or phonological type is an abstract
linguistic category that can be phonetically
realized in different ways.
2. These phonetically different but phonologically/
phonemically/linguistically equivalent
realizations of phonemes are called allophones
of the phoneme category.
3. The phonemic/phonological layer of the
language system is a distinct module, separate
from the phonetic module.

Dog
(abstract category, analogous to a phoneme)

Physically distinct but equivalent members of the

abstract category dog. These are analogous to
allophones of a phoneme category i.e., they are
allodogs.

(from Andrew Carnie,

University of Arizona)

The mental
concept of
supermanhood
(phoneme)

In complementary distribution: never seen in

the same place at the same time. Allophones.

(from Andrew Carnie)

NOT in complementary distribution: can both be present

at the same time: allophones of different phonemes

allowaves

An Important Thing
The wave analogy is useful but imperfect.
Allowaves different realizations of the abstract
category wave are roughly analogous to
allophones of /t/ (or any other phoneme). They are
different from one another but equivalent members
of the category.
But heres where the analogy is imperfect: These
different kinds of waves all mean the same thing
Hi. The different allophones of /t/ (or /p/ or /o/ )
are equivalent, but phonemes, by themselves,
never mean anything. Ever.
Phonemes are capable of signaling or conveying a
difference in meaning. Meaning something and
being capable of conveying a difference in meaning

Compare phoneme with morpheme the smallest unit of

language with meaning. Main idea: morphemes have
meaning but phonemes do not.
What do these morphemes mean? (rendered here in orthography)
preanti-s
-est

before
against or counter to
the root word is plural
most (funniest, dumbest, tallest, )

What do these mean?: /t/ /u/ // /d/? The question cant

be answered because they do not mean anything.
But, phoneme differences are capable of signaling
differences in meaning (/pt/-/bt/, /rt/-/lt/, /st/-zt/,
/kt/-/gt/,). Once again, meaning something and being
capable of conveying a difference in meaning are not the
same.

Lesson
Morphemes mean something.
Phoneme differences can convey
differences in meaning (i.e., they serve a
contrastive function).
Allophonic differences do not do either.

/t/
(abstract phoneme type)

[pht]
pot
(released)

[pht]
pot
(unreleased)

[thp]

[stp]

[ki]

top
stop
kitty
(aspirated) (unaspirated) (flap)

[bnn ]
button
(glottal stop,
nasal release)

Physically distinct phonetic realizations of the abstract

category /t/. These are analogous to physically distinct
but equivalent members of the category dog. These are
allophones of /t/.

Last point: Sound types that are allophonic

variants of a single phoneme class in one
language may be separate phoneme categories in
another language.
English

/o/
[o]
classes

[o]

boat moan
Nasalized/non-nasalized
allophones of /o/

French

/o/ /o/
Two distinct phoneme

Final Point about the Modularity Concept

The modularity concept is NOT an arcane, egghead
detail that you can safely forget about once you
begin working as a clinician.
Pretty soon many of you will begin to learn a great
deal about diagnostic methods in speech &
language. Whether the word is used or not (and it
usually isnt), modularity is the central guiding
principle underlying speech & language
assessment.
The main idea is to assess a clients abilities
separately in several distinct areas of linguistic
performance syntax, morphology, vocabulary
(i.e., the lexicon) phonology, etc. Its not possible to
understand diagnostics without appreciating the

Pragmatics
The module referred to as pragmatics may or may not be
properly viewed as part of the linguistic system, but it
clearly plays a major role in language comprehension.
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:
Customer:
Pharmacist:

Is my prescription ready?
Yes.
Can you get it for me?
Yes.
Will you get it for me?
Yes.
I have a baseball bat. Ill use it.
I didnt know that.
Get it for me. Now.
OK. Why didnt you say so when you first came in?

What aspect of language is the dense pharmacist having difficulty

with? Phonology? Syntax? Semantics?

Grammatically, what type of sentences is the first utterance (i.e.,

declarative, interrogative, imperative, etc.)?

A Short Story
Janie heard the jingling of the ice cream truck. She
ran upstairs to get her piggy bank. She shook it till
some money came out.
Roughly how old is Janie?
Does the money consist of coins or paper
currency?
What is Janie likely to do with the money?
Where in the language of the story do we find the
answers to these questions?
If we dont get this information entirely out of the
language, where does it come from?

A Shorter Story
Tyler brought a six pack to the party. His mother
found out about it.
How old would you guess Tyler is?
Six pack of what?
What do you think Moms reaction was?

A Really Short Story

Bill: Im leaving you.
Louise: Who is she?
What is the story underlying this conversation?
What do you think Bill means by leaving?
Running out to gas up his car? Picking up the dry
cleaning?
How are you able to reconstruct a story based on
two 3- to 4-word sentences?
Is it your linguistic knowledge that allows
understand what is going on here?

Language vs. Speech

Last point: Ive been talking about language and speech
as though they were the same thing. Not.
All speech is language, but not all language is speech.
Two major counterexamples:
Written language (different in one major way from
spoken language IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLICITLY
TAUGHT. But its still language.)
Sign language (ASL and all other sign languages)
Sign language is not a stripped down or impoverished
version of spoken language. It conforms to the universal
grammar and contains all of the elements of spoken
language (except sound): structure-dependent rules,
agreement rules, recursion, even movement analogs of
phonological rules and gestural analogs of babbling. It
is full-blown language, not a cheap imitation.