Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T02:33:41.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is duality of patterning, anyway?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

D. Robert Ladd
D. Robert Ladd*
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DA, Scotland, United Kingdom. E-mail: bob.ladd@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion of duality of patterning (henceforth DoP), at least for readers of this special issue, is probably most closely associated with Charles F. Hockett's project of identifying the ‘design features’ of language in order to characterise the ways in which human language is unique among biological communication systems (Hockett 1958: chapter 64; Hockett 1960; Hockett and Ascher 1964). Roughly speaking, DoP refers to the fact that the meaningful units of language – words or morphemes – are made up of meaningless units – phonemes or features – whose only function is to distinguish the meaningful units from one another. Stated this way, the idea seems quite straightforward, and to have it explicitly stated as a property of language seems a useful insight. In fact, though, of all the design features discussed by Hockett, DoP seems to have engendered the most confusion. The idea that meaningful units are composed of meaningless ones seems simple enough, but many complications arise when we look more closely. The goal of this short paper is to document some of the complications and perhaps alleviate some of the confusion.

Keywords

duality of patterningdouble articulationdesign features of languageproductivityCharles F. HockettAndré MartinetLouis Hjelmslev

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Special Issue 4: New perspectives on duality of patterning , December 2012 , pp. 261 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

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

Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1999. The origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1989. The writing systems of the world. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Denham, K. & Lobeck, A.. 2010. Linguistics for everyone: An introduction, international edition. Wadsworth, England: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1995 [translated by Fentress, James]. The search for the perfect language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansell, M. 2003. Chinese writing. In Thurgood, G. & LaPolla, R. J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 156–165. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Healy, A. F. 1973. Can chimpanzees learn a phonemic language? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2. 167–170.Google Scholar
Hewes, G. 1973. Primate communication and the gestural origin of language. Current Anthropology 14. 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjemlslev, L. 1953. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, C. F. & Ascher, R.. 1964. The human revolution. Current Anthropology 5. 135–168.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1984. Think and Believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60. 372–399.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. & Johnson, R. E.. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64. 195–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. 1949. La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5. 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. 1980. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. 1993. Mémoires d'un linguiste: Vivre les langues. Paris: Quai Voltaire.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 407–442.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7. 101–139. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R.. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95. 201–236.Google Scholar
Rosselló, J. 2006. Combinatorial properties at the roots of language: Duality of patterning and recursion. In Rossello, J. & Martin, J. (eds.), The biolinguistic turn: Issues on language and biology, 162–186. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. 1986. The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C.. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 503–543.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. 2000. A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8, University of Buffalo. [Reprinted 2005 in Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10. 3–37].Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10. 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. 1993. Segments and syllables in ASL phonology. In Coulter, G. R. (ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology (Phonetics and Phonology Vol. 3), 135–168. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar