Evolutionary Phonology as Human Behavior

Columbia School Linguistics views itself as a functional approach to language where problems, typically defined in terms of non-random skewings of sounds in the speech stream, are explained in terms of aspects of human behavior. In the realm of phonology, or sound patterns, the Columbia School was ahead of its time in formulating specific hypotheses where both phonetic and nonphonetic factors were assessed with respect to their roles in determining sound patterns (Diver 1974, 1979). For example, Diver (1974) sketches an analysis of final obstruent devoicing, and the relationship between voiced and voiceless consonants more generally, where phonetic substance is central in defining the directionality of the process from voiced to voiceless, and where communicative function is central in defining the position in the utterance where the process occurs. Since the 1970s, similar approaches to phonology have emerged, from Ohala’s phonetically-based models with special attention to perception (Ohala 1981, 1990, 1993, 1997), to Bybee’s (2001, 2002) usage-based approach, and the more comprehensive framework of Evolutionary Phonology (Blevins 2004a, 2005a, 2006a, 2008, 2009a, 2014, to appear a), where articulatory, perceptual and aerodynamic explanations and non-phonetic explanations combine to explain common and rare sound patterns in the world’s languages. In this chapter I compare Columbia School Phonology to Evolutionary Phonology, highlighting similarities and differences between the two approaches. Where Columbia School Phonology grazes the surface of phonological typology, Evolutionary Phonology grounds itself in cross-linguistic common and rare sound patterns. Where Columbia School Phonology suggests simple intuitive phonetic explanations for sound patterns, Evolutionary Phonology refers to detailed empirical work in distinct sub-fields of phonetics. And where Columbia School Phonology proposes usage-based explanations for skewed distributions of sounds, Evolutionary Phonology shows why these are inadequate, and how non-phonetic factors interact in complex ways with over-riding phonetic factors. While language use does play a role in shaping sound patterns, a complex interplay of frequency-based effects (Gahl 2008), predictability effects (Bell et al. 2003, Blevins 2005a), and lexical competition effects (Blevins and Wedel 2009) makes it difficult to isolate usage-based sound patterns that are independent of language-specific phonologies. This chapter is structured as follows. In section 2 I present an overview of Evolutionary Phonology and note similarities and differences between Evolutionary Phonology and Columbia School Phonology. In section 3 I compare Evolutionary Phonology and Columbia School