Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T00:05:11.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crosslinguistic evidence for a strong statistical universal: Phonological neutralization targets word-ends over beginnings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Andrew Wedel ,
Adam Ussishkin  and
Adam King
Andrew Wedel*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Adam Ussishkin*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Adam King*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
[wedel@email.arizona.edu]
[ussishki@email.arizona.edu]
[adamking@email.arizona.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report a statistical test of a long-standing hypothesis in the literature: that phonological neutralization rules are more common at the ends of lexical domains than the beginnings (Houlihan 1975 et seq.). We collected descriptive grammars for an areally and genetically diverse set of fifty languages, identified all active phonological rules that target the edge of a lexical domain (root, stem, word, phrase, or utterance), and further coded each rule for whether it was phonemically neutralizing, that is, able to create surface homophony. We find that such neutralizing rules are strongly, significantly less common at the beginnings of lexical domains relative to ends, and that this pattern is strikingly consistent across all languages within the data set. We show that this pattern is not an artifact of a tendency for syllable codas to be a target for phonological neutralization, nor is it associated with a suffixing or prefixing preference. Consistent with previous accounts, we argue that this pattern may ultimately be based in the greater average information content of phonological categories early in the word, which itself is a consequence of incremental processing in lexical access.

Keywords

phonologytypologyneutralizationlexical processing

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. e428 - e446
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allopenna, Paul D., Magnuson, James S.; and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 419–39. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Martin, and Muller, Nicole. 2012. The Celtic languages. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1–46. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675797003308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Coetzee, Andries W., Styler, Will, McGowan;, Kevin B. and Boland, Julie E.. 2018. The time course of individuals' perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language 94. 931–68. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0051.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–51. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2017. The AUTOTYP genealogy and geography database. Online: http://www.autotyp.uzh.ch/, accessed August 2018.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117–65. DOI: 10.1515/TL.2006.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, and Wedel, Andrew. 2009. Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26. 143–83. DOI: 10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brohan, Anthony, and Mielke, Jeff. 2018. Frequent segmental alternations in P-base 3. Phonological typology, ed. by Hyman, Larry M. and Plank, Frans, 196–228. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110451931-006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and McNeill, David. 1966. The ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5. 325–37. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80040-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S., and O'Dowd, Donald. 1958. A note on the informativeness of parts of words. Language and Speech 1. 98–101. DOI: 10.1177/002383095800100203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6. 243–78. DOI: 10.1515/lp-2015-0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahan, Delphine, Magnuson, James S., Tanenhaus, Michael K.; and Hogan, Ellen M.. 2001. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 507–34. DOI: 10.1080/01690960143000074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J., and Mtenje, Al. 2017. The phonology of Chichewa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1998. Why statistical universals are better than absolute universals. Chicago Linguistic Society 33. 123–45.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/26.Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2018. The global dispreference for posterior voiced obstruents: A quantitative assessment of word-list data. Language 94.e311–e323. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, Anne, Swingley, Daniel; and Pinto, John P.. 2001. When half a word is enough: Infants can recognize spoken words using partial phonetic information. Child Development 72. 1003–31. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33). 10336–41. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1502134112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graff, Peter Nepomuk Herwig Maria. 2012. Communicative efficiency in the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Essays in linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie, Hume, Elizabeth, Jaeger, T. Florian; and Wedel, Andrew. 2016. The message shapes phonology. PsyarXiv preprint. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/sbyqk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie, Hume, Elizabeth, Jaeger, T. Florian; and Wedel, Andrew. 2018. The role of predictability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistics Vanguard 4(s2):20170027. DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2017-0027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Forkel, Robert; and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2018. Glottolog 3.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Online: http://glottolog.org, accessed September 1, 2018.Google Scholar
Henderson, John M. 2017. Gaze control as prediction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21. 15–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houlihan, Kathleen. 1975. The role of word boundary in phonological processes. Austin: University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
Houlihan, Kathleen, and Iverson, Gregory. 1979. Functionally-constrained phonology. Current approaches to phonological theory, ed. by Dinnsen, Daniel A., 50–73. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1998. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua 104. 147–86. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00031-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko. 2018. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, Graff, Peter, Croft, William; and Pontillo, Daniel. 2011. Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology 15. 281–319. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnuson, James S., Dixon, James A., Tanenhaus, Michael K.; and Aslin, Richard N.. 2007. The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science 31. 133–56. DOI: 10.1080/03640210709336987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, William, and Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15. 576–85. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, and Hume, Elizabeth. 2001. Consequences of word recognition for metathesis. Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, ed. by Hume, Elizabeth, Smith, Norval, and de Weijer, Jeroen Maarten van, 135–58. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Friedman, Elizabeth A.. 1957. The reconstruction of mutilated English texts. Information and Control 1. 38–55. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-9958(57)90061-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb. 1981. Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words: Beginnings vs. endings. Journal of Phonetics 9. 407–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 43), ed. by Breivik, Leiv Egil and Jahr, Ernst Håkon, 173–98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter, and Van, Freek Velde, de. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94. 867–901. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Sean. 2009. Welsh mutation and lexical dispersion. Proceedings of the 1st European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association conference, ed. by Laland, Keven, Brown, Gillian, Rendell, Luke, Dean, Lewis, and Saxton, Tamsin.Google Scholar
Roettger, Timo B. 2019. Researcher degrees of freedom in phonetic research. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 10(1):1. DOI: 10.5334/labphon.147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Méndez, Rodrigo. 2008. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe (Tukyo'm Ayuujk). Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10477/45504.Google Scholar
Schad, Daniel J., Vasishth, Shravan, Hohenstein, Sven; and Kliegl, Reinhold. 2018. How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. arXiv:1807.10451 [stat.ME]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10451.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott, Buz, Esteban; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(2). EL31–EL37. DOI: 10.1121/1.4942544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, Claude. 1949. Communication in the presence of noise. Proceedings of the IRE 37. 10–21. DOI: 10.1109/JRPROC.1949.232969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Joseph P., Nelson, Leif D.; and Simonsohn, Uri. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22. 1359–96. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Jennifer L. 2004. Making constraints positional: Toward a compositional model of CON. Lingua 114. 1433–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márton, Sóskuthy, and Hay, Jennifer. 2017. Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition 166. 298–313. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032.Google Scholar
Taft, Lori. 1984. Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Lorraine. 1984. The structure of the initial cohort: Evidence from gating. Perception & Psychophysics 36. 417–27. DOI: 10.3758/BF03207496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Son, Rob J. J. H., and Pols, Louis C. W.. 2003. How efficient is speech? Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25. 171–84.Google Scholar
Warner, Natasha, Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan; and Kemps, Rachèl. 2004. Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32. 251–76. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00032-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2012. Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems. Language and Cognition 4. 319–55. DOI: 10.1515/langcog-2012-0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Kaplan, Abby; and Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128. 179–186. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Nelson, Noah; and Sharp, Rebecca. 2018. The phonetic specificity of contrastive hyperarticulation in natural speech. Journal of Memory and Language 100. 61–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Bodo, and Wedel, Andrew. 2016. The co-evolution of speech and the lexicon: The interaction of functional pressures, redundancy, and category variation. Topics in Cognitive Science 8. 503–13. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Wedel et al. supplementary material

Wedel et al. supplementary material
Download Wedel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 31.2 KB