Laboratory Phonology: Past successes and current questions, challenges, and goals1, 2 Abigail C ...

27 Pages·2010·0.28 MB·English

Laboratory Phonology: Past successes and current
questions,challenges,and goals1,2
Abigail C. Cohn
Laboratory Phonology, both as a series of conferences and as a particular
approach to the investigation of human sounds and sound systems, has been
active for over twenty years. In this paper, I consider the goals and successes
ofLaboratory Phonologyaswellasthecurrentchallenges.Iconcludethatthe
successofLaboratoryPhonologyisthatthoseissueswhichatfirstweredefined
intheefforttobridgephonology andphoneticsarenowunderstoodinaricher
multidisciplinary way:The central question of understanding the relationship
betweenthecognitiveandphysicalaspectsofhumanspeechisnowdefinedasa
questionofcognitivescience.Ialsoexploreaseriesoffoundationalassumptions
andarguethatweneedtobewillingtobecriticalofourworkingassumptions.
To fully accomplish the work ahead of us, we need to extend our integrated
methodologies totrulyintegrated models.Becausetheverynature oflanguage
is so complex,anadequate model will becomplex.Themodel needsto enable
us to accurately model adult grammar, not as epiphenomena, but as a system
of knowledge, while also modeling acquisition, language use, and language
change.
1. Introduction
What is Laboratory Phonology? Most tangibly, Laboratory Phonology (Lab-
Phon)isabiennialconference.3Moreimportantly,ithasgrownintoacommu-
nity of scholars. The strength of Laboratory Phonology is its shared research
agenda,achievedthrougheclecticism,notdogmatism.
ThefirstLabPhonconferencetookplaceatTheOhioStateUniversity, June
1987.Itwasco-organizedbyMaryBeckmanandJohnKingstonwithabout40
peopleinattendance,mainlythepresenters,localstudents,andafewadditional
scholars.Ithastakenplaceroughlyeverytwoyearssincethen(withonethree-
year interval, hence the 10th was 19 years after the first). It has also usually
alternatedbetweentheUnitedStatesandWesternEurope.ThetermLaboratory
PhonologywascoinedbyJanetPierrehumbertintheplanningstagesofthefirst
4 AbigailC.Cohn
conference.Oneofthecentralgoalsofthe firstmeetingwastobridge thedis-
tinct subfields andsubcultures ofphonology and phonetics, andcrucially both
phonologists and phoneticians were in attendance. LabPhon is a very special
conference,bringing together alargecommunity of scholars with diverse per-
spectivesbutsharedinterests,addressingthefundamentalquestionofthenature
of human speech sounds and sound systems. Its organizational structure – in
plenary session, with both papers and commentaries– maximizes the breadth
anddepthofintellectualexchange.
TounderstandthenatureofLaboratoryPhonology,weneedtoconsiderwhat
it is beyond aconference.Laboratory Phonology is an approachto investigat-
ing human sound systems, taking as foundational the premise that progress
will be achieved more successfully through integrated methodologies. This
view grows directly out of one of the central questions asked at LabPhon I,
asstatedintheintroduction to theLabPhonIvolume(BeckmanandKingston
1990:3):
Therefore,weask:howcanweusethephysicalmodelsandexperimentalpara-
digmsofphoneticstoconstructmoreviablesurfacephonologicalrepresentations?
Conversely, what can we learn about underlying phonetic representations and
processes from the formal cognitive models and computational paradigms of
phonology?Determiningtherelationshipbetweenthephonologicalcomponent
andthephoneticcomponentdemandsahybridmethodology.[Emphasismine.]
Whilethereissomedebate,manyholdthatLaboratoryPhonologyisnotatheory
assuch.Pierrehumbert,Beckman,andLadd(2000:279)statethefollowing:
Frameworksarepackagesofassumptionsaboutthefundamentalnatureoflan-
guage,andtheresearchstrategyforempiricalinvestigationisdrivenbytop-down
reasoningabouttheconsequencesoftheframework[...]Incontrast,laboratory
phonologyisnotaframework.[...] itisacoalitionamongstgroupsofpeople,
with some working in one or another of the various current frameworks, and
othersworkinginnophonologicalframeworkatall.
In this paper, I consider the goals and successes of Laboratory Phonology as
well as the current challenges.The paper is divided roughly into two parts. In
the first (§2), I try to characterize some of what we have accomplished over
the past almost two decades.Inthe second (§3–§5), Iturn to the current chal-
lenges,suggesting thatsomerefocusingofhowweframeourassumptionsand
modelswillhelpustocontinuetomakeheadwayonthepressingquestionsthat
faceus.
LaboratoryPhonology:Pastsuccessesandcurrentquestions,challenges,andgoals 5
2. Goalsandaccomplishments
In this section, Idiscuss the nature of the enterprise of Laboratory Phonology
and consider how LaboratoryPhonology has changedhow we understand and
dophonology andphonetics. Istartbygiving abriefoverviewoftheevolution
of the goals of Laboratory Phonology as I see it. (I do not attempt to high-
light individual contributions; this alone would take up morethan my allotted
space.)
At the outset, the central goal of Laboratory Phonology was, and I believe
still is, gaining anunderstanding oftherelationship betweenthe cognitive and
physicalaspectsofhumanspeech.ItisimportanttoemphasizethatLaboratory
Phonology wasnot the inception of this sort ofintegrated, hybrid approach to
investigating phonology and phonetics. A number of phoneticians and admit-
tedly fewer phonologists were doing this sort of work at the time of the first
LabPhon conference.LaboratoryPhonology wasacodificationandnamingof
this approach.
The firstLabPhon conferenceset out to bridge thegapbetween phonology
andphonetics,toredefinethequestionsbeingasked,andtopromotemoreinte-
gratedmethodologies.Forthefirstseveralmeetings,thequestionsandmethod-
ologies were defined in terms of phonology and phonetics. These included a
focus on prosody, segmental structure, and the mapping between phonology
and phonetics. This can be seen by reviewing the themes of LabPhon I–IV,
listed inTable 1 (including the date, location, conferenceorganizer(s)/volume
editor(s),numberofattendees,volumetitle,andthemesforeachoftheLabPhon
conferences).
Table1. LabPhonI–X,date,location,conferenceorganizer(s)/volumeeditor(s),number
ofattendees(#),volumetitle,andthemes
Lab date location # title
Phon – organizers – themes
I ‘87 OSU 40 BetweentheGrammarandPhysicsofSpeech
– JohnKingston – suprasegmentalphenomena
– MaryBeckman – phonological representations and phonetic
structures
– segmentalorganizationandcoordination
II ‘89 Edinburgh 88 Gesture,Segment,Prosody
– GerryDocherty – gesture
– BobLadd – segment
– prosody
6 AbigailC.Cohn
Lab date location # title
Phon – organizers – themes
III ‘91 UCLA 100 PhonologicalStructureandPhoneticForm
– PatKeating – intonation
– syllables
– featuretheory
– phoneticoutput
IV ‘93 Oxford 80 PhonologyandPhoneticEvidence
– BruceConnell – featuresandperception
– AmaliaArvaniti – prosody
– articulatoryorganization
V ‘96 Northwestern 130 AcquisitionandtheLexicon
– MichaelBroe – articulationandmentalrepresentation
– JanetPierrehumbert – toneandintonation
– acquisitionandlexicalrepresentation
VI ‘98 York 90 PhoneticInterpretation
-JohnLocal – phonologicalrepresentationsandthelexicon
-RichardOgden – phoneticinterpretationandphrasalstructure
-RosalindTemple – phoneticinterpretationandsyllablestructure
– phonologyandnaturalspeechproduction
VII ‘00 Nijmegen 115 – phonologicalprocessingandencoding
– CarlosGussenhoven – inthelaboratoryandinthefield:relatingpho-
– NatashaWarner neticsandphonology
VIII ‘02 Yale 160 VarietiesofPhonologicalCompetence
– LouisGoldstein – qualitativeandvariablefacesofphonological
– DougWhalen competence
– CatherineBest – sourcesofvariationandtheirroleintheac-
quisitionofphonologicalcompetence
– knowledgeoflanguage-specificorganization
ofspeechgestures
IX ‘04 UofIllinois 180 ChangeinPhonology
– JenniferCole – acquisitionofsoundpatterns
– Jose´Hualde – indexingofspeakeridentityinsoundpatterns
– sourcesofsoundpatternsinmechanismsof
speechperceptionandproduction
– sourcesofsoundpatternsintheinteractionof
first-andsecond-languagephonologies
X ‘06 Paris 240 Variation,DetailandRepresentation
– Ce´cileFougeron – variation, phonetic detail and phonological
– Mariapaolo modeling
D’Imperio – variationatthecrossroadbetweennormaland
disorderedspeech
– variationandtheemergenceofphonology
– variationandlanguageuniversals
LaboratoryPhonology:Pastsuccessesandcurrentquestions,challenges,andgoals 7
Laboratory Phonology brought into focussomeof thecentralquestions ofthe
time, including the nature of the interface and the language-specific nature of
phonetics (contra the view espoused by Chomsky and Halle 1968The Sound
PatternofEnglish),leadingtotheconceptofphoneticknowledge(seeKingston
andDiehl1994).
The focus on integrated methodologies meantencouraging phonologists to
extend their methodologies beyond the impressionistic and beyond the analy-
sis of what Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) termcorpus-internal evidence;
that is, the transcription of a corpus of utterances.The methodologies include
investigating corpus-externalevidence–abroaderrangeoflanguagebehavior
whoseexplanationseemstodependonaspeaker’sknowledgeofthephonology
ofhis/herlanguage.
It also meant calling on phoneticians to enhance phonetics with more for-
mal,quantitative,experimentalmethodology.Experimentalapproachesquickly
expanded from linguistic phonetics to include psycholinguistic experimental
approaches as well. Laboratory Phonology has enriched our understanding of
whichfacetsofphoneticsinformphonologybothmethodologicallyandconcep-
tually, emphasizing the importance of both production and perception. These
methodologicalshiftswerefundamentaltobreakingdownthewaythatpractice
in phonology and phonetics respectively led to “theassumed division of labor
[...]creates[-ing]aharmfulillusionthatwecancompartmentalizephonological
factsfromphonetics facts.”(BeckmanandKingston 1990:5.)
Theemphasisonexperimentaldatahighlighted thewaysthatrelyingonim-
pressionisticdataisinadequate.LaboratoryPhonologyhasplayedacriticalrole
inshowingthatonlywithgreaterattentiontofinedetailinourempiricalstudies
will webeabletodevelop adequatemodels.Ithasalsoverymuchencouraged
the idea that we need to strengthen our base of empirical knowledge, through
experimentalworkaswellasfieldworksupporting cross-languagedocumenta-
tion. Linguistic phonetics sets as its goal the documentation of the sounds of
thelanguagesoftheworld,inanefforttoanswerthequestions: Whatisapos-
siblehumanspeechsound?Whatisapossiblesoundsystem?Whileitpredates
Laboratory Phonology by many decades (even centuries on some interpreta-
tions),linguisticphoneticsisnowunderstoodbymanytobepartofLaboratory
Phonology.Noteworthyinthisregardaretherecentinitiativesinlanguagedoc-
umentationwithparticularconcernforendangeredlanguages.4Descriptiveand
typological workonsound systemsiscentraltotheseendeavors.
Laboratory Phonology has led to more sophisticated modeling of speech,
which can be seen through the increased participation of computational lin-
guists. It has also fostered and benefited from the development of important
researchtools sharedbythe community.Two primeexamplesareToBi (Beck-
8 AbigailC.Cohn
man and Hirschberg 1994), a prosodic annotation system (described on the
OSU department website, http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/∼tobi/, as “a frame-
workfordeveloping community-wide conventions fortranscribing the intona-
tion and prosodic structure of spoken utterances in a language variety”) and
Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2002), a free multi-platform acoustic analysis
program(alsoincludingresynthesisandavarietyofothertoolsfortheanalysis
andinvestigation ofspeech).Whatis important about thesetools beyond their
intrinsicusefulnessisthattheyprovideacontextforshareddatacollectionand
analysis.
Acentralresult, seenthroughout theLabPhonconferencesandhighlighted
inLabPhonVI,isanenrichedawarenessofvariation,notjustintermsofthede-
tailsofphysicalrealization(implicitinphonetics),butalsointermsofvariation
in all dimensions of language use, leading to the question of the role of vari-
ation in the knowledge of sound systems.This awarenesshas included moves
towardabetterunderstandingofsociolinguisticvariation,supportingthedevel-
opment of sociophonetics (in contrast to descriptive dialectology). It has also
challenged us to pay closer attention to the effects of variation in diachronic
change (both themes of LabPhon IX).Attention to phonetics, as well as soci-
olinguistic and diachronic detail, has revealed the closely integrated nature of
languagecompetenceandlanguageperformance.
Therehasalsobeenanincreasedorientationtowardpsycholinguistics.These
issueswerebroughttotheforeatLabPhonV,whichexplicitlyincorporatedques-
tions about languageacquisition andthe lexicon.The collective results of that
meetinghighlightedtheroleofstochasticgeneralizationintheorganizationand
knowledge of sound systems and questioned the framing of the relationship
between phonology and phonetics as one of mapping between strict modules.
Thisledtomuchmoredirectinvolvementofpsychology,leadingtoLaboratory
Phonologybeingseenmoreclearlyascognitivescience.Recentmeetingscon-
tinue to strengthen thesethemeswhile drawing in newempiricaldomains and
approaches,e.g.LabPhonVII:phonologicalprocessingandencoding;LabPhon
VIII:signedlanguage;LabPhonIX:secondlanguageacquisition; LabPhonX:
disorderedspeech.
Some simple statistics highlight these developments. Consider first how
Laboratory Phonology has grown. Looking at the number of attendees at the
LabPhon conferences I–X, Figure 1, we see that there has been very robust
growth,from40to240participants.
LabPhonhasgrownfrombeingaworkshoptoamajorconference.Bymain-
taining the original organizational structure, with all presentations in plenary
sessionsandwithbothpapersandinvitedcommentaries,ithaseffectivelymain-
tainedaworkshop format,albeitwith amuchlargeraudience.Thisformathas
LaboratoryPhonology:Pastsuccessesandcurrentquestions,challenges,andgoals 9
Figure1. Number(#)ofattendeesatLabPhonI–X
beenhighlysuccessfulinfosteringthoughtfulandthought-provokingdiscussion
andexchange.SinceLabPhonII,it hasbecomeincreasinglyinternational. For
LabPhon X, there were abstracts submitted from 27 countries. With LabPhon
XI having taken place in New Zealand, the increasing geographical diversity
of theparticipants is mirroredbyour firstmeetingin thesouthern hemisphere
(indeedthefirstoutside ofWesternEuropeortheUnitedStates).
Next considerthesubfieldsanddisciplines representedatLabPhon.InFig-
ure2,thereisacomparisonofthespecializationoftheoralpresentersatLabPhon
I,II,IX,andX.
This is a very rough (and debatable) characterization of the specialization
of the presenters of oral presentations. It does not include poster presenters.
In the case of coauthored papers, only the first author is included, unless the
collaboration includes multiple subfields or multiple institutions. We can see
that at the first two meetings, the presenters were primarily phoneticians and
phonologists,whiletherangeofspecializationsofthepresentersatLabPhonIX
and X highlights the truly multi-disciplinary nature of Laboratory Phonology.
Just the task of identifying the primary specialization of presenters indicated
a significant change as it was much harder to identify a primary area of spe-
cialization formanyofthe participants in LabPhonIXand Xthan forthefirst
two.Notcodedhere,butnoteworthy,isthefactthatthereweremanymorejoint
10 AbigailC.Cohn
Figure2. Specializationsoforalpresenters,LabPhonI,II,IX,X
presentations at LabPhon IX and X, many of which were across disciplines.
Thus, Laboratory Phonology has not only becomemoremultidisciplinary, but
collaborativelyso.
There have consistently been more phoneticians than phonologists partici-
pating,andsinceLabPhonIItherehasbeenanincreasingly greaterproportion
of phoneticians, although this trend was broken at LabPhon X.Also, with the
clear exception of LabPhon IX, all of the organizers have been more on the
phoneticsside.
All of this speaks to Laboratory Phonology’s successful development as a
recognizedapproachtotheinvestigation ofhumansounds andsound systems.
Additional evidencethat Laboratory Phonology has established itself includes
the fact that some job ads list Laboratory Phonology as a subfield, and many
finishing graduate students describe their specialization as being Laboratory
Phonology. Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that at the 150th meeting of
theAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,Iandmanycolleaguespresentedpostersin
asessionentitledLaboratoryPhonology(!).
AnotherwaytoassessthesuccessandacceptanceofLaboratoryPhonology
is to consider where Laboratory Phonology work appears.Almost definition-
ally, the most important venue is the LabPhon volumes themselves. Each vol-
umehas proved the test of time with seminal work held to very high editorial
LaboratoryPhonology:Pastsuccessesandcurrentquestions,challenges,andgoals 11
standards.Therehavealsobeenanumberofimportanteditedvolumesonpho-
netic/phonology themes(e.g.OhalaandJaeger1986ExperimentalPhonology;
Burton-Roberts,Carr,andDocherty2000Phonological Knowledge:Concepts
and Empirical Issues;HumeandJohnson 2001TheRoleofSpeechPerception
inPhonology;Hayes,Kirchner,andSteriade2004PhoneticallyBasedPhonol-
ogy;andSole´,Beddor,andOhala2007ExperimentalApproachestoPhonology;
amongothers).
What about journals? Indications suggest mixed results on this front. We
canconsiderwhetherlaboratoryapproachesplayanincreasinglyimportantrole
in the journal Phonology. First, it is important to remember that Phonology
(originally Phonology Yearbook) defined its purview in a way that certainly
encompassed Laboratory Phonology: “The PhonologyYearbook is committed
to thestimulation, dissemination, andcross-fertilization ofideasinphonology
andthosedisciplines whichimpingeonit.”(PhonologyYearbook 11985:vii.)
Indeedoneofthefirstvolumes,PhonologyYearbook 3,takesasoneofitstwo
themesthe validation ofclaimsin phonology. Nevertheless, wecanseeashift
intheacceptanceofintegratedmethodologies ifwecompare,forexample,the
first non-thematic volume, Phonology 5.1 (1988), with more recent volumes.
In Phonology 5.1, the papers were all straight phonology, including articles
on syllable structure, metrical constituency and reduplication, all written by
theoretical phonologists. In a recent volume, Phonology 22.1 (2005), of the
five papers – on topics ranging from identity in Optimality Theory to vowel-
length neutralization – threearestraight phonology andtwo takeaLaboratory
Phonologyapproach,includingexperimentalphoneticdata,aswellasevidence
fromalliedsubfields(acquisition andlanguagechange).
On the other hand, it seems that Laboratory Phonology has had less direct
impact on the inclusion of phonology in phonetics journals. Some reflections
of Laboratory Phonology areseen in Journal of Phonetics and Journal of the
InternationalPhoneticAssociation;thereseemstolesseffectonotherphonetics
journals.Thismaybedueinparttothepositionofphoneticsasmultidisciplinary
(notjust representinglinguistic phonetics)aswell aseditorial policy, e.g.page
limitsandstrictlystructuredformat.Perhapsironically,itmayalsobeduetoone
of the costs of Laboratory Phonology’s success. Impressionistic phonological
analysesarenowoftencomplementedbyexperimentalwork,butthatworkisnot
carriedout orpresentedinthewaysthatarecharacteristicofphoneticsjournal
publications.5
A question I have heard raised from time to time is whether Laboratory
Phonology should have its own journal. In the preconference draft of this pa-
per,myconclusion to this question was“Idon’tthink so”. AtLabPhon X,the
decision was reached to form a Laboratory Phonology society and launch a
12 AbigailC.Cohn
journal. In light ofthis felicitous decision (which speaks very directly to Lab-
oratoryPhonology’scomingofage),Ireframemyreservationsasacautionary
note.ItisimportantthatthenewjournalfosterthecentralpointthatLaboratory
Phonology is about the integration of phonology, phonetics, and increasingly
allied fields.Weneedto ensurethat creationof anewjournal does not leadto
furtherfragmentationofthefieldbysiphoning offreadershipandsubmissions
tootherlinguistic andcognitivesciencevenues.
Inmanyways,thecentralgoalsofbetterdialogacrossboundaries,betterin-
tegrationofmethodology,andbettercollaboration,haveremainedthehallmarks
ofLaboratoryPhonology.ThesuccessofLaboratoryPhonologyisthatthoseis-
sueswhichatfirstweredefinedintheefforttobridgephonologyandphonetics
are now understood more broadly, as truly interdisciplinary questions, bridg-
inglinguistics withpsychology, computerscience,etc.Thecentralquestion of
understanding the relationship between the cognitive and physical aspects of
humanspeechisnowdefinedasaquestion ofcognitivescience.
3. Currentquestionsandchallenges
As we have just seen, Laboratory Phonology has had genuine success both in
termsofredefiningthequestions thatweaskaboutthenatureofhumansound
systems and in terms of enriching the methodologies that we use to answer
these questions.Yet many challenging questions still present themselves, and
muchworkremainsforustoprovidefullysatisfactoryanswerstotheseage-old
questions.Thesequestions includethefollowing:
– Whatisphonologicalknowledge–asdistinctfromphoneticorlexicalknowl-
edge?
– Whataretheunits ofspeech–features,segments,syllables, words?
– Aretherenaturalclasses,andwhataretheirroles?
– Whatismarkedness?
– Whatisnaturalness,andwhatisitssource?
– Towhatdegreearephonologicalandphoneticsystemslanguage-specific,and
towhatdegreearetheycommontoallhumanlanguages?
– Inwhatwaysdoboth productionandperceptionaffectphonology?
– Howarelinguistic knowledgeandlanguageuseintegrated?
– Whatis therelationship betweensynchronic sounds systems anddiachronic
change?
– Howdoes the processof languageacquisition result in the knowledge of an
adultphonology?