Bert Vaux

On Feature Spreading and the Representation of Place of Articulation

Since Clements (1985) introduced feature geometry, four major innovations have been proposed: Unified Feature Theory, Vowel-Place Theory, Strict Locality, and Partial Spreading. We set out the problems that each innovation encounters and propose a new model of feature geometry and feature spreading that is not subject to these problems. Of the four innovations, the new model-Revised Articulator Theory (RAT)-keeps Partial Spreading, but rejects the rest. RAT also introduces a new type of unary feature-one for each articulator-to indicate that the articulator is the designated articulator of the segment.

The Laryngeal Specifications of Fricatives

Phonologists have traditionally assumed that the unmarked laryngeal state of fricatives is to be unaspirated ([spread glottis]). However, the data analyzed here, which are drawn from Armenian, Greek, Pali, Sanskrit, Spanish, and Thai, suggest that in their unmarked state voiceless fricatives are in fact [+spread glottis], whereas voiced fricatives are [spread glottis].

Laryngeal markedness and aspiration

We argue that the common phonological assumptions that (i) plain voiceless consonants are less marked than voiceless aspirates and (ii) the unmarked twoway stop system opposes unaspirated voiced and voiceless members are incorrect. A wide range of phonetic and internal and external phonological evidence suggests instead that (i) the maximally unmarked single-series stop is unspecified for laryngeal features and (ii) the unmarked two-way stop system opposes aspirated and unaspirated stops, and the aspirated series may be the unmarked member of this set.

Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar, and the Lexicon

This article approaches from a new angle the question of the extent to which predictable information is stored in the lexicon. By examining the ways in which morphological phenomena can be sensitive to prosodic structure, I argue that somebut not allpredictable information is stored in lexical entries. Detailed analysis of a fragment of the Armenian phonological system, focusing on the behavior of consonants at morpheme edges, supports a more abstract view of phonological representations (containing syllables, appendices, and unparsed segments) than can be inferred from phonetic facts alone, contra Ohala and Kawasaki-Fukumori (1997), Steriade (1999), Scheer (2002), and others. The Armenian facts furthermore indicate that attempts to abandon underlying representations (Flemming 1995, Burzio 1996) are misguided and that we must also retreat from the excessively abstract under specification approaches advocated by most phonologists.

Explaining vowel systems: dispersion theory vs natural selection

Abstract We argue that the cross-linguistic distribution of vowel systems is best accounted for by grammar-external forces of learnability operating in tandem with cognitive constraints on phonological computation, as argued for other phonological phenomena by Blevins (2004). On this view, the range of possible vowel systems is constrained only by what is computable and learnable; the range of attested vowel systems is a subset of this, constrained by relative learnability (Hale and Reiss 2000a, Hale and Reiss 2000b; Newmeyer 2005). A system that is easier to learn (e.g., one whose members are more dispersed in perceptual space) is predicted by our model to become more common cross-linguistically over evolutionary time than its less learnable competitors. This analysis efficiently accounts for both the typological patterns found in vowel systems and the existence of a non-trivial number of “unnatural” systems in the world’s languages. We compare this model with the leading forms of Dispersion Theory (notably Flemming’s (1995) implementation in Optimality Theory), which seek to explain sound patterns in terms of interaction between conflicting functional constraints on maximization of perceptual contrast and minimization of articulatory effort. Dispersion Theory is shown to be unable to generate the attested range of vowel systems or predict their interesting properties, such as the centralization typically found in two-vowel systems and the quality of epenthetic segments.

Retroflex variation and methodological issues: A reply to Simonsen, Moen, and Cowen (2008)

We argue that the differences in the articulation of Norwegian retroflex consonants described by Simonsen, Moen, and Cowen (2008) as individual variation may instead be due to factors such as individual and dialectal background, rather than variation across a single variety. Our main argument is based on existing dialect literature and speech corpus data, which show that the phonemes involved in the retroflexion process are not present in the same linguistic contexts in all dialects. SMC’s experimental stimuli and conditions include linguistic contexts which do not necessarily induce retroflexion naturally, and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide an accurate picture of retroflexion in natural speech contexts. The peculiar retroflex pronunciation that can be heard in some of SMC’s sound files may be due to the invasive intra-oral equipment or to the unnatural retroflexion contexts introduced by their stimuli. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Chapter 3 Underlying representations that do not minimize grammatical violations

In this paper we review evidence from a variety of sources, including deneutralization studies, that indicate that the choice of underlying representations is governed by causal reasoning, statistical inference, orthographic knowledge, and hypercorrection, but rarely, if ever, by a principle of minimizing faithfulness violations.