Two Case Studies in Phonological Universals: A View from Artificial Grammars
Keywords: artificial grammar learning, consonants vs. vowels, phonological universals, precedence-modifying ludlings
AbstractThis article summarizes the results of two experiments that use artificial grammar learning in order to test proposed phonological universals. The first universal involves limits on precedence-modification in phonological representations, drawn from a typology of ludlings (language games). It is found that certain unattested precedence-modifying operations in ludlings are also dispreferred in learning in experimental studies, suggesting that the typological gap reflects a principled and universal aspect of language structure. The second universal involves differences between vowels and consonants, and in particular, the fact that phonological typology finds vowel repetition and harmony to be widespread, while consonants are more likely to dissimilate. An artificial grammar task replicates this bias in the laboratory, suggesting that its presence in natural languages is not due to historical accident but to cognitive constraints on the form of linguistic grammars.
Authors who submit to and publish with BIOLINGUISTICS agree to the following terms:
- The author(s) retain(s) copyright and grant(s) the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in BIOLINGUISTICS.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., archiving a format-free manuscript in institutional repositories, on their personal website, or a preprint server such as LingBuzz, PsyArXiv, or similar) prior to and during the submission process, because we believe that this behaviour can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).