[The semester is finally winding down and I am back to writing again.]

Let us suppose one encounters a language in which the only adjacent consonants are affricates like [tʃ, ts, tɬ].¹ One might be tempted to argue that these affricates are in fact singleton contour phonemes² and that the language does not permit true consonant clusters.³

Let us suppose instead that one finds a language in which word-internal nasal-stop clusters are common, but nasal-glide and nasal-liquid clusters are not found except at transparent morpheme boundaries.⁴ One then might be tempted to argue that in this language, nasal-stop clusters are in fact sequences of nasal followed by an oral consonant rather than singleton contour phonemes.

In my opinion, neither of these argument “go through”. They follow from nothing, or at least nothing that has been explicitly stated. Allow me to explain, but first, consider the following hypothetical:

The metrical system of Centaurian, the lingua franca of the hominid aliens of the Alpha Centauri system, historically formed weight-insensitive trochees, with final extrametricality for prosodic words with odd syllable count of more than one syllable. However, a small group of Centaurian exiles have been hurtling towards the Sol system at .05 parsecs a year (roughly 1m MPH) for the last century or so. Because of their rapid speed of travel it is impossible for these pioneers to stay in communication with their homeworld, and naturally their language has undergone drift over the past few centuries. In particular, Pioneer Centaurian (as we’ll call it) has slowly but surely lost all the final extrametrical syllables of Classical Centaurian, and as a result there are no longer any 3-, 5-, 7- or 9- (etc.) syllable words in the Pioneer dialect.

As a result of a phonetically well grounded, “plausible”, Neogrammarian sound change, Pioneer Centaurian (PC) lacks long words with an odd number of syllables, though it still has 1-syllable words. What then is the status of this generalization in the grammar of PC speakers? The null hypothesis has to be that it has no status at all. Even though the lexical entries of PC have undergone changes, the metrical grammar of PC could easily be identical to Classical Centaurian: weight-intensitive trochees, with a now-vacuous rule of final extrametricality. Furthermore, it is quite possible that PC speakers have simply not noticed the relevant metrical facts, either consciously or subconsciously. Would PC speakers rate, say, 4-syllable nonce words as ill-formed possible words? No one knows. When PC speakers inevitably come in contact with English, will be they be reluctant to borrow a 6-syllable words like anthropomorphism or detoxification into their language, or will they feel the need to append or delete a syllable to conform to their language’s lexicon? Once again, no one knows.

The same is essentially true of the aforementioned language in which the only consonant clusters are affricates, or the aforementioned language in which nasal-consonant clusters are highly restricted. It might be the case that the grammar treats the former as single segments and the grammar treats the latter as clusters, but absolutely nothing presented thus far suggests it has to be true.

Let us refer to the idea that the grammar needs to encode phonotactic generalizations (somehow) as the phonotactic hypothesis. I have argued—though more for the sake of argument than out of genuine commitment—for a constrained version of this hypothesis; I note that any surface-true rule will rule out certain surface forms. Thus, if desired, one can derive—or perhaps more accurately, project—certain phonotactic generalizations by taking a free-ride on surface-true rules.⁵ But note: I have not argued that the phonotactic hypothesis is correct. Rather, I have simply provided a way to derive some phonotactic generalizations using entrenched grammatical machinery (i.e., phonological alternations). And this can only account for a subset of possible phonotactic generalizations.

Let us consider the language with word-initial affricates again. Linguists are often heard to say that one needs to posit phonotactic generalizations to “rule out” consonant clusters in this language. I disagree. Imagine that we have two grammars, G and G’. G has a set of URs, which includes contour phoneme affricates (/t͡ɬakaʔ-/ ‘people’, /t͡sopelik-/ ‘sweet’, etc., where the IPA tie bar symbolizes contour phonemes) but no consonant clusters. G also has a surface constraint on consonant clusters other than the affricates (which can be assumed to be contour phonemes, for sake of simplicity). G’ has the same set of URs, but lacks the surface constraint. Is there any reason to prefer G over G’? With the evidence given so far, I submit that there is not. Of course, there might be some grammatical patterns which, if otherwise unconstrained, would produce consonant clusters, in which case the phonotactic constraint of G may have some work to do. And, there may additional facts (perhaps the adaptation of loanwords, or wordlikeness judgments, though these data are not applied to this problem without making additional strong assumptions) may also militate in favor of G. But rarely if ever are these additional facts presented when positing G’. Now let us consider a third grammar, G”. This grammar is the same as G’, except that the affricates are now represented as consonant clusters (/tɬakaʔ-/ ‘people’, /tsopelik-/ ‘sweet’, etc.) rather than contour phonemes. Is there any reason to prefer either G’ or G” given the facts available to us thus far? It seems to me there is not.

This is a minor scandal for phonemic analysis. But it is not a purely philosophical issue: it is the same issue that children acquiring Nahuatl face. “Phonotacticians” have largely sidestepped these issues by making a completely implicit assumption that grammars (or perhaps, language learners) abhor a vacuum, in the sense that phonotactic constraints need to be posited to rule out that which does not occur. The problem is that there is often no reason to think these things would occur in the first place. If we assume that grammars do not abhor a vacuum—allowing us to rid ourselves of the increasingly complex machinery used to encode phonotactic generalizations not derived from alternations—we obtain exactly the same results in the vast majority of cases.

Endnotes

1. One language with this property is Classical Nahuatl.
2. Whatever that means! It’s not immediately clear, since there does not seem to be a fully-articulated theory that explains what it means to be a single segment in underlying representation to correspond to multiple articulatory targets on the surface. Without such a theory this feels like mere phenomenological description.
3. Recently, Gouskova & Stanton (2021) express this heuristic, which has antecedents going back to at least Trubetzkoy, as a simple computational model.
4. One language which supposedly has this property is Gurindji (McConvell 1988), though I only have only seen the relevant data reprinted in secondary sources. Thanks to Andrew Lamont (p.c.) for drawing my attention to this data. Note that in this language, the nasal-obstruent clusters undergo dissimilation when preceded by another nasal-obstruent cluster, which might—under certain assumptions—be a further argument that nasal-obstruent sequences are really clusters.
5. See also Gorman 2013, particularly chapters 3-4.

References

Gorman, K. 2013. Generative phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Gouskova, M. and Stanton, J. 2021. Learning complex segments. Language 97(1): 151-193.
McConvell, P. 1988. Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurundji and related languages. Aboriginal Linguistics 1: 135-165.