WSC5-talk3.pdf

Transcript

1. Language, Culture, and Australian Exceptionalism Claire Bowern • WSC5 :: Davis, Jun 21-23, 2019 claire.bowern@yale.edu
2. The Problem How to account for patterns History (inertia) Culture, Society Linguistic Systems Physiology, cognition Acquisition process Chance
3. “[Australian languages] share a number of striking similarities in their phonology and in their phonetics, which set them apart from most other languages of the world.” [Tabain and Harrington 2013] Surprising Phonological Uniformity in Australia Little variation in inventory Similar cognates across the country Similar (superficial) changes in different subgroups
4. Today • Discussing the intuition ◦ ie, is it true? • Formulating an explanation ◦ ie, why?
5. Do we trust the intuition?
6. Do we trust the intuition? Generalizations in the literature about Australian languages tend to be false • Bowern (2018); Gasser and Bowern (2014) • But the inventory claims tend to be true • sound change not absent (cf. Paman, Arandic, descriptions of other languages) • but generalizations about relative uniformity of inventory are true in general • caveats are around definitions of ‘rare’ or ‘uncommon’ features impossible to test 17% no 33% yes 35% yes, but 15% impossible to test no yes yes, but Tested claims about Aus’n lgs.
7. A typical inventory • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • voicing fricatives laminals
8. Variation in inventory Source: Gasser & Bowern 2014
9. Cognates across the country • mara: Nyungar, Kungkari, Malyangapa, Adnyamathanha, Djabugay, Paakintyi, Warungu, Yalarnnga, Marrgany, Diyari, Yulparija, Kariyarra, Jiwarli, Watjarri, ... • mala: Dyirbal, Gudjal, Mayi-Kutuna • maʔa: Umpila • maʔ: Wik-Mungkan, Kuku Nganhcara • ara: Ikarrangal, • aʔa: Linngithigh, • mada: Wonarua • mar: Koko Bera, Kok Nar, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Languages with *mara 'hand' Source: Bowern (2016)
10. Maybe Pama-Nyungan is just a young family?
11. How old is the family? Mean: 5,671 years, 4455-6966 95% HPD Bouckaert, Bowern, and Atkinson (2018)
12. Why?
13. Why? Possible reasons: Not much change [stability] Lots of change [convergence] History (inertia) Culture, Society Linguistic Systems Physiology, cognition Acquisition process Chance
14. Not much variation/ change?
15. Variation Maybe... • language isn’t as variable (variation leads to change, but with less variation, there’s less change). • variation doesn’t play the same role in communication. • the phonological systems are stable, so the areas we see the most change in in other languages doesn’t apply here. • there’s variation, but it’s not under selection, so change is slow.
16. Variation But ... • No evidence that there’s less variation in general; positive evidence for variation in some domains. • pitch peak realization [e.g. Round 2009] • Prosody-stress relations [Fletcher & Butcher 2010] • stop voicing [e.g. Kakadelis 2018] • grammar descriptive studies Maybe... • The signal isn’t as variable (variation leads to change, but with less variation, there’s less change). • Maybe variation doesn’t play the same role in communication. • The phonological systems are stable, so the areas we see the most change in in other languages doesn’t apply here. • There’s variation, but it’s not under selection, so change is slow.
17. 140 150 160 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (normalized) F0 (Hz) Type init-contested init-stressed long unstressed Type Mean Intensity (dB) 50 60 70 80 Initial Long Stressed Unstressed a Initial Long Stressed Unstressed i Initial Long Stressed Unstressed u Evidence for variation
18. Variation But ... • Positive evidence for variation that’s socially conditioned • Bowern (2007) – Yan-nhaŋu • Sommer (2003) – Cape York • Meakins (much work) - Gurindji • Douglas/Miller exchange – Wati • Mansfield (2014) - Murrinh Patha • Yolŋu folk linguistics • Much informal evidence from speakers • But little formal study Maybe... • The signal isn’t as variable (variation leads to change, but with less variation, there’s less change). • Maybe variation doesn’t play the same role in communication. • The phonological systems are stable, so the areas we see the most change in in other languages doesn’t apply here. • There’s variation, but it’s not under selection, so change is slow.
19. Variation No one’s investigated this (yet)... • Babinski and Bowern (2018) replicated Wedel et al’s (2013) findings for Bardi. • More mergers in areas of lower functional load. • Differential distribution of minimal pairs over different languages • No systemic discussion of which sounds are more likely to change ◦ (data only recently available for worldwide study) ◦ not clear that this can be done with current transcriptions Maybe... • The phonological systems are stable, and the areas where we see sound change in other languages aren’t applicable. • Even functional load across system might impede change • Inventories might be disproportionately composed of stable segments
20. Variation But ... • There’s evidence for selection. ◦ Production biases apply in Australia as elsewhere (as far as studied). ◦ social selection (cf. below) ◦ Uniformitarian principle argues against this too. • Where there is change, it looks like we find elsewhere (cf. Bardi; Babinski & Bowern 2018; Koch 2007, Alpher 2004, etc) ◦ Lenition more common than fortition ◦ Final devoicing ◦ Palatalization ◦ Voicing / vowel length compensatory changes Maybe... • The signal isn’t as variable (variation leads to change, but with less variation, there’s less change). • Maybe variation doesn’t play the same role in communication. • The phonological systems are stable, so the areas we see the most change in in other languages doesn’t apply here. • There’s variation, but it’s not under selection, so change is slow.
21. Too much change? Transmission and contact
22. Transmission Maybe... • Transmission is different: highly constrained social networks of non-interaction (e.g. can’t talk to opposite sex relatives, mothers-in-law) make it hard for innovations to spread. • Dense/multiplex social networks might impede diffusion of change, make transmission more faithful • There are physiological bottlenecks [e.g. Otitis media] • Multilingual communities lead to intensive contact and convergence • Maybe there is sound change but it’s obscured by high rates of lexical replacement.
23. Transmission But... • We see innovation in other areas of culture (and language). • Others have deduced Australia’s exceptional fluidity and propensity to language change! • The social network interactions are complex; would lead to more fragmentation and variation? • The idea of Australian stasis is a myth. Maybe... • Transmission is different: highly constrained social networks of non- interaction (e.g. can’t talk to opposite sex relatives, mothers-in-law) make it hard for innovations to spread. • Dense/multiplex social networks might impede diffusion of change, make transmission more faithful
24. Transmission But... • Australian social networks also contain ‘weak’ links ◦ e.g. Wati ◦ exogamy ensures regional ties • Dense social networks also lead to faster change when innovations do arise. • Australian groups aren’t uniform here! (can’t use as global explanation) Maybe... • Transmission is different: highly constrained social networks of non-interaction (e.g. can’t talk to opposite sex relatives, mothers-in-law) make it hard for innovations to spread. • Dense/multiplex social networks might impede diffusion of change, make transmission more faithful (cf. Granovetter 1983 and much recent work)
25. Transmission But... • Bowern et al (2011) showed that Australian languages weren’t different from the rest of the world • Contact isn’t biased towards feature conservation Maybe... • Multilingual communities lead to intensive contact and convergence • There are physiological bottlenecks [e.g. Otitis media] • Maybe there is sound change but it’s obscured by high rates of lexical replacement.
26. Transmission But... • Time scale? • Not clear community rates are not inflated by colonial practices (missions, inappropriate housing without access to clean water, etc.) • Should have coastal gradient. • Doesn’t explain acquisition of allophonic variation of sounds that are hard to perceive. • Cf. Fergus (2019): no evidence Maybe... • Multilingual communities lead to intensive contact and convergence • There are physiological bottlenecks [e.g. Otitis media – idea due to Andy Butcher] ◦ Chronic middle ear infections create transmission bias against acquisition of stop- fricative contrasts • Maybe there is sound change but it’s obscured by high rates of lexical replacement.
27. Transmission But... • Death taboos vary across the country. • Most don’t last long, and don’t affect the whole community (they don’t lead to lexical replacement mostly) • It’s not clear that the replacement rates are higher than elsewhere. Maybe... • Multilingual communities lead to intensive contact and convergence • There are physiological bottlenecks [e.g. Otitis media] • Maybe there is sound change but it’s obscured by high rates of lexical replacement (e.g. due to death taboos).
28. Conclusions
29. Conclusions Genuinely exceptional? Yes, probably. Not much change? None of the arguments are convincing, but not all have been properly investigated. Therefore the areas that haven’t been investigated are the only options at this point [e.g. inventory structure] Too much change? None of the arguments are particularly convincing, but need to look at rates of lexical replacement w.r.t. other families.
30. Thank you! BCS-1423711