University of Babylon College of Education for Human Sciences Department of English

Functional Phonology
A Theoretically Descriptive Account with an Epilogue on Formal Phonology
A Presentation for A course in Phonetics and Phonology PhD Programme, 2012-2013 First Semester

By

Ahmed Sahib Jabir

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Fareed H. Al-Hindawi, PhD

November, 27th , 2012

Contents

Section 1. Functional phonology 1. 1. Phonological Models 1. 2. Functional Principles 1. 2. 1. Functional principles of speech production 1. 2. 2. The functional principle of the communication channel 1. 2. 3. Functional principles of speech perception 1. 3. Functions of phonic elements 1.The representative function 2. The indexical function 3. The appellative 4. The culminative function 5. The distinctive function 6. The contrastive function 7. The delimitative function 8. The expressive function 1. 4. The Functional Model of Phonology 1. 5. The Functional load 2. Formal phonology 3. Conclusions References

Page

1. Functional phonology
Functional phonology is the type of phonology, part of functional linguistics, which is generally associated with the Linguistic Circle of Prague; hence it is sometimes referred to as Prague School Phonology. In the literature, the term functional is usually used to contrast with the term formal. In this respect, Davis and Baertsch (2012: 8) affirm that a formal explanation of phonology denotes that a process occurs in a particular language because of the way the constraints are ranked or ordered. A functional explanation, however, references something outside the language system. This could include allusion to general cognitive abilities such as perception or to frequency among other factors. Although it is difficult to specify an exact date for the beginnings of the theory of functional phonology, it is claimed that its early beginning was in 1911 when Daniel Jones went to St Petersburg and there he met erba, a professor of French and follower of Baudouin de Courtenay. From that meeting on, there were attempts to distinguish the phoneme from a speech sound (Akamatsu, 1992: iv). Nevertheless, its real start is usually associated with the Prague Linguistic Circle which was founded in 1926. At that time, Jakobson and Trubetzkoy attached great importance to the oppositions among phonemes rather than to the phonemes themselves. Thus to say that English has phonemes /s/ and /z/ is a statement about a distinction which English speakers make and recognize rather than a claim about phonemes as mental images or phonetic entities. (http://www.ling.fju.edu.tw/phono/prague.htm)

As hardly anything is static, functional phonology has undergone a substantial development, either during the work of the members of the LCP themselves or by adoption and ameliorations of its concepts by the Functionalist School led by Martinet (Bian 2005: 6). In the recent years, two names are much in the center of the theory, Tsutomu Akamatsu whose book Principles of Functional Phonology (1992) is introduced by Martinet; and Paul Boersma the whose publications (his PhD dissertation (1998) as well as a number of papers and studies1997-2000) all elaborate on the concepts and principles of functional phonology.

1. 1. Phonological Models
Until fairly recently, phonology was dealt with only within two competing models. The first is the structuralist model which has a discrete phonological level that is transitional between two sequentially ordered modules associated with phonology and phonetics: (1) Structuralist model of phonology | underlying | / phonemic / [ phonetic ] The second is the generative model collapsing the phonological and phonetic modules into one, which means it rejects the discrete phonological surface level. (2) Generative model of phonology | underlying | [ phonetic ] Boersma (1999: 1), however, argues that these two models actually share the major assumption of hybrid cognitive phonological

representations and thus proposes a third model called functional, claiming that it draws closer on the reality of the phonological phenomena. That model has an articulatory phonetic level lying between two sequentially ordered modules associated with production and perception: (3) Functional model of phonology | underlying | [ phonetic ] / phonemic / He (ibid) explains that the functional model of phonology in (3) is expressed in the structuralist and generative terms for maximal comparability with the structuralist and generative models. Consequently,(4) is a paraphrase of (3) by using functional terms that make explicit the distinction between articulation and perception: (4) Functional model of the production grammar |perceptual specification| [articulatory implementation] /perceptual output/ To illustrate the difference between the generative model and the functional model of phonology, Boersma (1999: 6) cites an example of /s/ production before and after teeth loss:

Figure (1) Generative view of teeth loss

Figure (2) Functional view of teeth loss

1. 2. Functional Principles
Language is intended to convey information from one person to another as quickly and clearly as possible. As such, each of its aspects will have to do with the three elements of production, channel, and perception (Passy, 1890 cited in Boersma, 1997: 3). Therefore, the functional principles will in accordance with these three elements.

1. 2. 1. Functional principles of speech production

As far as the production of speech is concerned, two principles are significant, these are: (1) the principle of economy stating that: languages tend to get rid of anything that is superfluous and (2) the principle of emphasis which proclaims that: languages tend to stress or exaggerate anything that is necessary (Passy, 1890 cited in Boersma, 1997: 3). The use of the terms superfluous and necessary in these two principles emphasizes the idea that articulatorily stimulated

constraints should be adhered to if they do not violate the (more important) perceptually stimulated constraints. Clearly these principles harmonize with the speaker-oriented principle of the minimization of articulatory effort and the listener-oriented principle of the maximization of perceptual contrast.

1. 2. 2. Functional principle of the communication channel

In so far as the communication channel is concerned, there comes out the principle of the maximization of information flow which says: put as many bits of information in every second of speech as you can, provided that such bits of information are communicative and not redundant.

1. 2. 3. Functional principles of speech perception

Regarding speech production, two functional principles emerge: maximization of recognition and minimization of categorization. Through the first principle, the listener attempts to maximally utilize the accessible acoustic information, because that will help them identify the meaning of the utterance. Alternatively, by the second principle the disambiguation of an utterance is facilitated by having a lesser number of perceptual classes into which the acoustic input can be scrutinized.

1. 3. Functions of phonic elements

Akamatsu (1992: 17) mentions that functional phonology is typically concerned with identifying, describing, and classifying various functions accomplished by phonic elements in a certain language. He (ibid: 17-24) states the following main functions:

1. The representative function is the function that relates the linguistic sign to the referent (hence it is also called the referential function). Speakers inform listeners of whatever extralinguistic facts or states they are talking about. For example, intonation contours provide an interpretation for a sentence by indicating which part of the information is viewed as new/known, salient /less salient or topic/commentetc. 2. The indexical function is the one which helps identify the speaker as belonging to different social groups (middle class, working class, etc.), geographical places (urban, rural etc. ), and occupations (lawyer, sergeant, etc.) (Malmkjar 2002: 160). 3. The appellative function is that which serves to provoke welldefinable impressions or feelings in the listener as when uttering an imperative with an intonation inducing the listener not to comply (ibid) as when insincerely inviting someone for dinner! 4. The culminative function is the function which helps indicate how many significant units (i.e. words or word-combinations) there are in an utterance. According to Akamatsu (1992: 20) this function is manifested in Spanish, for instance, where polysyllabic words are stressed on only one of the syllables so the number of stressed syllables will identify the number of polysyllabic words in an utterance. 5. The delimitative function is the function which spots the boundary between significant units. Akamatsu (1992: 21) states that this function is realized in languages like Czech, Finnish, and Estonia where the first syllable of polysyllabic words is normally stressed, the matter which demarcates words (hence this function is alternatively called demarcative).

6. The distinctive function is a function which derives directly from the concept of phonological opposition. It is the function by virtue of which linguistic forms are opposed to, or differentiated form, each other. The minimal linguistic form that is meaningful, or the minimal significant unit, is known as a moneme, which consists in the association between a signifier (vocal expression) and a signified (semantic content). For example, in English bit and bet are monemes semantically distinguished through the phonetic difference. 7. The contrastive function enables the listener to analyze a spoken chain into a series of significant units like monemes, words, phrases, etc. Stress in any language functions contrastively by bringing into prominence one, and only one, syllable in what is called an accentual unit. What is meant by the term contrastive is that the stressed syllable contrasts with the unstressed syllable and characterizes the accentual unit as a whole. In this respect, Akamatsu (1992: 23) states that in languages like 8. The expressive function is that function whereby speakers convey to listeners their state of mind without resorting to the use of additional monemes. Saying That tree is eNNNNormous! instead of saying That tree is really/absolutely/extremely enormous! is an example of this function. (162)

1. 4. The Functional Model of Phonology

After being differentiated from the structural and generative models, the functional model will now be elaborated on to make more explicit the processes of speech production and comprehension. These processes, Boersma (2000: 1) states, are best

described with reference to three Optimality-Theoretic grammars shown in Figure (3) below.

Fig. (3) The grammar model of functional phonology (after Boersma 2000)

First there is the production grammar which starts with an underlying form that is shaped by means of certain perceptual specifications to form a continuous articulatory output which is then transformed by the speakers perception system to a more distinct perceptual output form. From a list of appropriate output candidates, the chosen one will be that which minimally violates the ranked constraints of the production grammar. The constraints are divided into two groups: articulatory constraints (ART), which evaluate each articulatory output, thus implementing the functional principle of minimizing articulatory effort, and faithfulness constraints (FAITH), which evaluate the similarity between each perceptual output and the underlying form, thus implementing the functional principle of minimizing perceptual confusion.

Secondly, the perception grammar consists of constraints that help to classify the acoustic input to the ear into a finite number of perceptual categories (anti-categorization constraints CATEG, perceptual faithfulness constraints WARP) and higher-level structures (obligatory contour principle OCP, and line-crossing constraints LCC). This grammar was mentioned above as a part of the speech production process, but is also used by the listener as a first step in the comprehension process. Thirdly, the recognition grammar maps the discrete output of the perception grammar to underlying lexical forms. It consists of constraints that evaluate the lexical and semantic appropriateness of recognized underlying forms (*LEX) and, as in the production grammar, faithfulness constraints (FAITH).

1. 5. The Functional load

The term functional load refers to the case in which certain features make contrasts in a language and how much use that language makes from such contrasts. Also referred to as phonemic load, in phonology it is used to denote the measure of the work which two phonemes do in keeping utterances apart. Put differently, it is the gauge of the frequency with which two phonemes contrast in all possible environments (Surendran and Niyogi, 2003:1). The first suggested measurement for functional load was the number of minimal pairs, but this does not take into account word frequency and is difficult to generalize beyond binary phonemic oppositions. Hockett (1955) proposed an information theoretic

definition which has since been generalized. Now, given a large text corpus, one can compute the functional load of any phonological contrast including distinctive features, suprasegmentals, and distinctions between groups of phonemes (Wikipedia). In English for example, vowels have a very high functional load. There are numerous sets of words which are distinguished just by their vowels, such as: pin, pen, pun, prn, pein, pgin, pn:n but, bet, bit, bi:t, beqt, bgit, beit, bn:t Voicing is similar, as can be seen in pad - bad, sue - zoo. Speakers who do not control these differences make it very difficult for others to understand them. Although voicing in English is important, its difference between the two fricatives written th, /, /, has a very low functional load: it is difficult to find meaningful distinctions dependent solely on this difference. One of the few examples is thigh vs. thy although the two can be distinguished from context alone, not to mention that thy is no longer in normal use in English. Similar is the difference of /d/ (written j, ge, etc.) versus // (resulting from /z + j/, or the j, ge, etc. in some recent French loanwords), as in virgin vs. version. In this regard, Surendran and Levow (2004) have found that the functional load of tone in Mandarin, a Chinese dialect, is as high as that of vowels. This means the tone (which is a property of syllables in Mandarin) is as important to identify as it is to identify its vowels.

2. Formal phonology
Formal phonology is that view of phonology which refers to the conception of taking phonology to be a formal object in the sense of having abstract formal properties. The most eminent work in this regard is Chomskys who denies that human language is designed for communication and holds the view that language is designed for thinking (this is why he is considered as anti-functionalist). The term formal phonology is also used to denote any set of formal devices for the representation of linguistic structure, such as the formalisms known as metrical grids used in metrical phonology. Some linguists take the term to denote a way of describing human languages in terms of mathematical or logical formalisms. Therefore, some have argued that Chomskys work is not properly formalist, in the sense that it is not properly mathematical in nature. In the relevant literature, formal phonology is the term used to encompass any theory that does not adopt the functionalist view (i. e.) it refers to theories that are concerned rather with form than with function. Consequently, atomic phonology, autosegmental phonology, computational phonology, generative phonology, linear phonology, stratificational phonologyetc. are all considered part of formal phonology.

3. Conclusions
Functional phonology is the view of studying phonology from the angle of the functions of phonic elements of a language and how they are employed to express different meanings and reflect various attitudes and feelings. Thus, it focuses on function rather than form. It is usually associated with the linguistic circle of Prague because its pioneers are the founders of this circle; namely, Trubetzkoy and Jakobson who were the first to evolve this view. Other figures who developed it through its course of progress are Martinet and, more recently, Akamatsu and Boersma. A essential difference between functional phonology and other theories is its distinction between phonetic implementation and perceptual representation. It believes that an underlying form is phonetically implemented under the supervision of the perceptual representation.

References

Akamatsu, T. (1992) Essentials of Functional Phonology: with a forward by Andre Martinet. Peeters Louvain-la-neuve: Leuven. Bian, A. (2005) http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/bican/bic001.pdf Boersma P. (1997) Elements of Functional Phonology --------------- (1999) Nasal harmony in functional phonology. http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/ --------------- (2000) Phonetically-driven acquisition of phonology ---------------(1998). PhD Functional phonology: of formalizing Amsterdam. the LOT

interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. dissertation, University International Series 11. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/diss/] Davis S. and Baertsch K. (2012) Formal versus Functional Explanation for a Universal Theory of Syllable Structure: The Case of Vowel Epenthesis in Winnebago. Journal of Universal Language 13-2 (PP 7-34). Hockett, C. (1955) A manual of phonology International journal of American linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 4, Part 1 Pp. v, 246 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_load

Malmkjar, K. (2002) The Linguistics Encyclopedia, Second Edition http://books.google.iq/books?id=XMaq84Mc_5sC&pg=PA1 60&lpg=PA160&dq=%22the+appellative+function+of+pho nic+elements%22&source=bl&ots=7iEPkds1wo&sig=DIao3 XOEeygJk_Go_QQGNVz6S44&hl=ar&sa=X&ei=KkmuUIqxHL SM4gST04HYCg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22t he%20appellative%20function%20of%20phonic%20elem ents%22&f=false Surendra, D. Niyogi, P (2003) Measuring the Usefulness (Functional Load) on Phonological Contrasts. Retrieved on Nov. 19th 2012 from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.5.203

Surendran and Levow, The functional load of tone in Mandarin is as high as that of vowels, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, Japan, pp. 99-102.