Prototypes and hyperspeech: Where are they in the grammar?

dc.citation.journalTitleRice Working Papers in Linguisticsen_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber1en_US
dc.contributor.authorVälimaa-Blum, Riittaen_US
dc.contributor.orgLinguistics Departmenten_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-02-11T22:41:37Zen_US
dc.date.available2009-02-11T22:41:37Zen_US
dc.date.issued2009-02-11en_US
dc.description.abstractIf languages are fundamentally symbolic systems, as it is assumed in cognitive linguistics, then it follows that what speakers learn in the course of language acquisition are symbolic systems. It is not unequivocally established that linguistically untrained speakers even have spontaneously emerging awareness of meaningless entities like the phonemes (Liberman et al. 1980, Lotto and Holt 2000, Port and Leary 2005, Read et al. 1986, Välimaa-Blum in press). In this paper, I will argue (i) that knowledge of individual phonemes and their prototypes is metalinguistic, (ii) that the hyperspeech variants of words constitute their prototypes, and (iii) that these should be explicitly represented in the grammar. Lakoff (1993) reintroduces three levels into cognitive phonology - morpheme, word and utterance levels, which I interpret in an exemplar-theoretical framework as representing three kinds of knowledge that speakers must have of the phonology and morpholexicon of their language. The morpheme level contains an exemplar-based lexicon with all the non-automatic allomorphy and word formation principles, the word level articulates the hyperspeech forms of isolated words, and the utterance level spells out the stochastically varying hypospeech shapes of the same in continuous speech. Phonologies only having an abstract 'underlying' level and a phonetic surface have no place for the hyperspeech forms, which, however, are cognitively real to speakers. In cognitive views, the prototypes of phonemes, and hence of words as well, tend to be schematic (Langacker 1987, Mompeán-González 2004, Nathan 1996, 2006, 2007, Taylor 2003), and consequently they are never instantiated as such. I consider it unlikely that a purely abstract, non-instantiated sound shape be the prototype of a category, just as unlikely as it would be for frequency to establish them. If we accept the distinct word and utterance levels, we introduce a specific point in the grammar - the word level - that spells out the hyper-articulated, best exemplars of words.en_US
dc.identifier.citationVälimaa-Blum, Riitta. "Prototypes and hyperspeech: Where are they in the grammar?." <i>Rice Working Papers in Linguistics,</i> 1, (2009) Rice University: <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/1911/21860">https://hdl.handle.net/1911/21860</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/21860en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherRice Universityen_US
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/en_US
dc.subject.keywordlinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.keywordlanguageen_US
dc.subject.keywordcognitive phonologyen_US
dc.subject.keywordphonemeen_US
dc.subject.keywordprototypesen_US
dc.subject.keywordmetalinguistic knowledgeen_US
dc.subject.keywordhyperspeechen_US
dc.titlePrototypes and hyperspeech: Where are they in the grammar?en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.dcmiTexten_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Välimaa-Blum_RWP.pdf
Size:
291.79 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.79 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: