Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Natural class.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Natural class
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
In phonology, a natural class is a set of phonemes in a language that share certain distinctive features.[1] A natural class is determined by participation in shared phonological processes, described using the minimum number of features necessary for descriptive adequacy.
Overview
[edit]Classes are defined by distinctive features having reference to articulatory and acoustic phonetic properties,[2] including manners of articulation, places of articulation, voicing, and continuance. For example, the set containing the sounds /p/, /t/, and /k/ is a natural class of voiceless stops in American Standard English. This class is one of several other classes, including the voiced stops (/b/, /d/, and /g/), voiceless fricatives (/f/, /θ/, /s/, /ʃ/, and /h/), sonorants, and vowels.
To give a further example, the system of Chomsky and Halle defines the class of voiceless stops by the specification of two binary features: [-continuant] and [-voice].[3] Any sound with both the feature [-continuant] (not able to be pronounced continuously) and the feature [-voice] (not pronounced with vibration of the vocal cords) is included in the class, thus specifying all and only the voiceless stops.
By implication, the class is also described as not having the features [+continuant] or [+voice]. This means that all sounds with either the feature [+continuant] (able to be lengthened in pronunciation) or [+voice] (pronounced with vibration of the vocal cords) are excluded from the class. This excludes all natural classes of sounds besides voiceless stops. For instance, it excludes voiceless fricatives, which have the feature [+continuant], voiced stops, which have the feature [+voice], and liquids and vowels, which have the features [+continuant] and [+voice].
Voiceless stops also have other, redundant, features, such as [+consonantal] and [-lateral]. These are not relevant to the description of the class and are unnecessary, since the features [-continuant] and [-voice] already include all voiceless stops and exclude all other sounds.
It is expected that members of a natural class will behave similarly in the same phonetic environment, and will have a similar effect on sounds that occur in their environment.
References
[edit]- ^ Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992-10-15). English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521336031.
- ^ Jakobson, Roman (2002-01-01). Phonological Studies. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110173628.
- ^ Chomsky, Noam; Halle, Morris (1991-01-01). The Sound Pattern of English. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262530972.
External links
[edit]Natural class
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
In phonology, a natural class refers to a group of speech sounds, or phonemes, that share one or more common phonetic or articulatory properties, allowing them to be described succinctly using a minimal set of distinctive features and to behave uniformly in phonological rules or processes.[1][2] These classes contrast with arbitrary or unnatural groupings, as natural classes are grounded in the perceptual and articulatory realities of human speech production and perception, enabling predictable patterns such as assimilation or neutralization.[3][4]
Natural classes are typically defined within the framework of generative phonology, where sounds are represented by bundles of binary features (e.g., [+voice], [-nasal], or [+sonorant]), and a class is the intersection of sounds that match a specific combination of these features—such as all voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) specified as [-voice, +consonantal, -sonorant, -continuant].[2][5] This feature-based approach, originating from works like those of Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle in the mid-20th century, facilitates the formulation of phonological rules that apply efficiently to entire classes rather than individual sounds, explaining cross-linguistic universals and language-specific alternations.[1] For instance, in English, the natural class of coronal consonants ([t, d, n, s, z]) often undergoes place assimilation before similar sounds, as in "ten men" pronounced as [tɛm mɛn].[4]
The concept underscores the phonetic naturalness of sound patterns, where rules operating on natural classes are considered more "natural" or unmarked compared to those affecting unnatural classes, influencing theories of phonological acquisition, typology, and sound change.[3][6] Research in natural phonology, as developed by David Stampe and Patricia Donegan, further emphasizes that such classes reflect innate tendencies in speech, with processes like nasalization or devoicing preferentially targeting perceptually or articulatorily coherent groups.[7] Empirically, natural classes are identified through minimal feature specifications that uniquely capture phonological behaviors, aiding in computational modeling and linguistic analysis across languages.[8]
This matrix illustrates how the conjunctive specification defines the class without exceptions, highlighting shared properties while allowing place-based variation.[9]
Definition and Fundamentals
Core Definition
In phonology, a natural class is a set of phonemes that share one or more distinctive features, allowing them to be described compactly and to pattern together in phonological processes across languages.[9] These classes form the basis for phonological rules, where sounds within a class undergo similar transformations due to their shared properties.[1] Natural classes are considered "natural" because they align with phonetic and perceptual similarities in speech production and perception, such as articulatory ease or acoustic resemblance, in contrast to arbitrary groupings that lack such grounding.[1] The foundational components include phonemes as the basic units of sound in a language's inventory and distinctive features as binary attributes (e.g., [+voice] or [-nasal]) that capture relevant contrasts.[9] Distinctive features, as universal phonetic properties, enable the formation of these classes by specifying shared traits like voicing, nasality, or manner of articulation.[9] For instance, the voiceless stops /p, t, k/ constitute a natural class defined by the features [-voice, -sonorant, -continuant], reflecting their common non-vibrant, non-approximant, and interrupted airflow characteristics.[1] This grouping exemplifies how features succinctly capture phonetic coherence, facilitating uniform behavior in rules like aspiration in English.[9]Distinctive Features Basis
Distinctive features in phonology serve as the foundational binary properties that define speech sounds and enable the identification of natural classes. In the Jakobsonian model, these features are primarily acoustic and perceptual oppositions, such as vocalic/non-vocalic (distinguishing sounds with gradual formant onsets from those without), consonantal/non-consonantal (opposing segments with spectral zeros to those lacking them), nasal/oral (involving nasal cavity resonance versus oral-only articulation), and interrupted/continuant (abrupt versus gradual airflow onset).[10] The Chomsky and Halle framework in The Sound Pattern of English (SPE) refines this into a more articulatory-oriented system, incorporating features like (obstruction in the vocal tract), (minimal constriction with spontaneous voicing), (resonant voicing capacity), and (continuous versus stopped airflow). These binary traits allow sounds to be decomposed into bundles, facilitating systematic phonological analysis across languages. This feature-based approach is central to classical generative phonology, though later theories like Optimality Theory derive natural classes from interactions of universal constraints.[12] Phonological features are organized into hierarchies that reflect their functional roles in sound classification. Major class features, such as (separating resonants like vowels and nasals from obstruents) and (contrasting consonants with glides and vowels), establish broad categories at the highest level.[13] Manner features, including and , provide subcategorization within these classes by detailing airflow and resonance properties, while place features like , , and specify articulatory locations such as labial, coronal, or dorsal.[9] This hierarchical structure ensures that features interact predictably, with major class features often dominating in defining core phonological behaviors.[13] In the classical generative framework, a natural class emerges when a set of sounds shares a conjunction of these features such that all inventory members meeting the specification are included, with no exceptions or disjuncts required.[9] For instance, a class might be defined as , capturing all relevant sounds without extraneous inclusions from the language's phoneme set. This criterion ensures phonological economy and universality, as deviations would imply less natural or derived groupings.[9] Such definitions align with the core notion of natural classes as phonologically cohesive units, building directly on the feature system's binary logic. Formally, natural classes are represented using feature matrices, which tabulate shared and differing values across segments in a grid format. In the SPE system, a matrix lists features as rows and segments as columns, with plus (+), minus (−), or zero (0) for unspecified values. For example, the class unified by can be depicted as follows, where place features vary:| Feature | Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| + | + | + | |
| − | − | − | |
| + | + | + | |
| + | + | − | |
| − | + | − |
Types and Identification
Major Natural Classes
Natural classes in phonology are categorized primarily through major class features that group sounds based on shared articulatory and acoustic properties, such as degree of airflow obstruction and sonority. These features, including [±consonantal], [±sonorant], and [±syllabic], define broad divisions that capture how sounds pattern together in phonological processes across languages.[4] Obstruents form one fundamental class, specified as [-sonorant], encompassing non-nasal consonants produced with turbulent airflow due to significant oral obstruction, including stops, fricatives, and affricates.[4] In contrast, sonorants are [+sonorant], a class of sounds that allow unimpeded voiced airflow without turbulence, comprising vowels, nasals, liquids, and glides.[4] Vowels represent a core subclass within sonorants, defined by [+syllabic, -consonantal, +sonorant], as they function as syllable nuclei with open vocal tract configurations.[4] Consonants, broadly [-syllabic], exclude vowels and are subdivided using additional manner features to refine these groupings.[4] Within obstruents, key subclasses include stops (or plosives), specified as [-continuant, -sonorant], which involve complete vocal tract closure followed by release, and fricatives, defined as [+continuant, -sonorant], featuring narrow constrictions that generate frictional noise.[4] Among sonorants, nasals are [+nasal, +sonorant, -continuant], permitting airflow through the nasal passage while maintaining oral closure, whereas approximants are [+sonorant, +continuant], with smooth transitions and minimal obstruction akin to vowels but non-syllabic.[4] These subclasses emerge from manner features that hierarchically organize sounds based on production mechanisms, as formalized in distinctive feature theory.[4] Such major natural classes exhibit universal tendencies across languages, reflecting constraints on possible sound inventories and rule applications, such as the consistent distinction between obstruents and sonorants in voicing assimilation processes.[14] For instance, approximants universally pattern with other sonorants in syllable margins due to their high sonority.[14] Identification of these classes emphasizes minimal feature sets— the smallest conjunction of features that uniquely picks out the group without over-specification—ensuring they align with observed phonological behaviors rather than arbitrary groupings.[14] This approach, rooted in generative phonology, prioritizes classes that generalize across diverse languages while avoiding redundant specifications.[4]Testing for Naturalness
To determine if a set of sounds constitutes a natural class in a language, linguists employ the phonological behavior test, which assesses whether the sounds consistently pattern together under the same phonological rules or processes. Sounds hypothesized to form a natural class should undergo identical transformations, such as all members devoicing in word-final position, indicating shared distinctive features like [+consonantal, -sonorant]. This test ensures that the class captures empirical generalizations in the language's sound system, as phonological rules are formulated to target such cohesive groups for descriptive efficiency.[9][15] Complementing this is the economy principle, which evaluates naturalness by measuring how economically a class can be defined: natural classes use the fewest features to specify the largest possible set of phonemes, promoting reuse of features across the inventory. For example, the class of obstruents can be captured with just two features ([+consonantal, -sonorant]), maximizing coverage while minimizing complexity. Cross-linguistic analyses of sound inventories confirm that languages adhere to this principle, as deviations increase the descriptive burden without explanatory gain. Empirical studies using databases like UPSID demonstrate that feature economy correlates with the organization of natural classes, where marked feature values (e.g., [+voiced]) generalize across related segments to optimize the sounds-to-features ratio.[16][17] Non-natural alternatives, often termed ad hoc or disjunctive classes, fail these tests because they cannot be unified by shared features and instead require listing individual segments or contradictory specifications. A classic example is the set /p, k, s/, where /p/ and /k/ share bilabial and velar places but /s/ is alveolar and continuant, necessitating a disjunctive rule that lists them explicitly rather than invoking common properties. Such classes do not recur in phonological patterns and violate economy by demanding more features or exceptions than natural counterparts. In contrast, natural classes like voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) succeed because they align with phonetic and phonological coherence.[4][18] Practical tools for testing include feature charts, which array phonemes by articulatory dimensions (e.g., manner, place, voicing) to visually identify intersecting features defining a class. For instance, a chart might reveal that all coronals share [+coronal, +anterior], confirming their natural status if they behave uniformly in rules. Rule generalization further validates classes by iteratively reformulating phonological rules to target the proposed set and verifying coverage across minimal pairs or alternations, ensuring no unnatural exceptions arise. These methods, grounded in systematic analysis, distinguish natural classes from arbitrary groupings.[13][15]Examples in Languages
Consonant Classes
In phonology, natural classes of consonants are groups of sounds that share one or more distinctive features, allowing them to pattern together in phonological processes across languages. A prominent example in English is the set of voiceless stops /p, t, k/, which form a natural class defined by the features [-voice, -sonorant, -continuant]; this grouping reflects their shared manner of articulation involving complete closure and lack of vocal fold vibration.[9] Similarly, English sibilants /s, z, ʃ, ʒ/ constitute a natural class characterized by [+strident], capturing their intense fricative noise produced by a concentrated airstream against the teeth or alveolar ridge.[9] Cross-linguistically, labial consonants such as /p, b, m, f, v/ frequently form a natural class specified as [+labial], involving lip articulation and observed in diverse languages like Spanish and Japanese where they undergo place assimilation or other alternations together.[13] Coronals, including /t, d, n, s, l/, represent another widespread natural class marked by [+coronal], articulated with the tongue tip or blade; this class is particularly robust, appearing in phonological behaviors such as assimilation in Hindi.[19] More complex natural classes emerge with affricates, which often pattern with stops due to their closure phase or with fricatives due to their release, highlighting their transitional articulatory properties between stops and fricatives.[9] These consonant classes are phonetically motivated by articulatory ease and perceptual salience, where shared gestures (e.g., lip rounding for labials or tongue tip raising for coronals) reduce production effort and enhance acoustic distinctiveness, as evidenced in cross-linguistic surveys of over 500 languages.[19] Such motivations explain why these groupings recur universally, facilitating efficient sound systems without arbitrary specifications.[1]Vowel Classes
In phonology, natural classes of vowels are groups defined by shared distinctive features, such as height, frontness, backness, or rounding, which often pattern together in phonological rules across languages. In English, front vowels like /i/, /ɪ/, /e/, and /ɛ/ form a natural class specified as [+front] (or equivalently [-back] in some feature systems), as they share a tongue position advanced toward the front of the oral cavity and frequently undergo processes like tensing or raising in alternation rules.[9] Similarly, high vowels such as /i/, /u/, /ɪ/, and /ʊ/ constitute a [+high] class, characterized by a raised tongue body close to the palate, which allows them to participate in glide formation or vowel harmony without additional feature specifications.[9] These classes highlight the tense/lax distinctions within English, where tense high and front vowels (e.g., /i/, /e/) contrast with their lax counterparts (/ɪ/, /ɛ/) in distributional patterns, such as occurring in open syllables.[20] Cross-linguistically, rounded vowels exemplify another natural class, unified by the [+round] feature involving lip protrusion. In French, the vowels /y/, /ø/, and /u/ share this rounding, with /y/ and /ø/ being front rounded and /u/ back rounded; this class is phonologically active in processes like vowel harmony or nasalization avoidance, where unrounded vowels alternate differently. Low vowels, such as /a/ and /ɑ/, form a [+low] class defined by an open jaw position and lowered tongue, often behaving as a unit in rules targeting non-high vowels, as seen in various languages where they trigger distinct assimilatory effects compared to mid or high vowels.[9] Diphthongs can also constitute natural classes when they share the features of their onset vowel, facilitating compact rule descriptions in phonological grammars. In Spanish, rising diphthongs like /ie/ and /ue/ are treated as a class inheriting the height and backness of their nucleus vowel, which patterns in diphthongization processes where stressed mid vowels (e.g., /e/, /o/) become these forms under certain morphological conditions.[21] This shared onset feature ensures that rules apply uniformly, avoiding the need for listing individual diphthongs. The perceptual naturalness of these vowel classes is underpinned by acoustic properties, particularly formant frequencies, which provide cues for categorization in speech perception. Front vowels exhibit higher second formant (F2) frequencies (typically above 2000 Hz for /i/), while back vowels have lower F2 (below 1000 Hz for /u/), enabling listeners to group them rapidly based on spectral patterns that align with articulatory gestures.[22] Similarly, high vowels show lower first formant (F1) values relative to low vowels, reinforcing the perceptual salience of height-based classes and explaining why such groupings emerge universally in phonological systems.[22]Applications in Phonological Analysis
Role in Sound Rules
In phonological rule formulation, natural classes serve as efficient targets or triggers for processes that affect groups of sounds sharing distinctive features, allowing rules to be stated compactly rather than enumerating individual segments. For instance, in English, the aspiration of voiceless stops such as /p/, /t/, and /k/ in word-initial position or before stressed vowels is captured by the rule applying to the natural class defined by the features [-voice, -continuant], yielding aspirated allophones [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] (Chomsky and Halle 1968, p. 53). This approach highlights how natural classes generalize behaviors observed across related phonemes, avoiding redundant listings in rule descriptions (Kenstowicz 1994, p. 147).[9] Assimilation processes frequently employ natural classes to define the adapting (target) and influencing (trigger) elements. A prominent example is nasal place assimilation, where coronal nasals (specified as [+nasal, +coronal]) adjust their place of articulation to match a following obstruent, as seen in English forms like "impossible" [ɪmˈpɑsəbəl] from underlying /ɪnˈp/ or Spanish "un beso" [umˈbeso] (Gouskova 2016, p. 19). This rule can be formalized as [+nasal, +coronal] → [α place] / ___ [+consonantal, -sonorant, α place], underscoring the coronal nasal's propensity as a target due to its perceptual and articulatory flexibility compared to labial or dorsal nasals (Jun 2004, p. 65).[13] Natural classes also play a key role in deletion and insertion rules, such as epenthesis, where vowels are added to resolve illicit consonant clusters. For example, in English, schwa epenthesis can occur to break complex clusters, as in casual pronunciations of words like "athlete" [ˈæθlɪt] sometimes realized as [ˈæθəlɪt]; such rules often target obstruent classes ([-sonorant]) to ensure syllable well-formedness (Zwicky 1972, p. 10). This use of [-sonorant] as the conditioning environment illustrates how natural classes enforce structural constraints across phonological systems.[23] Within the generative phonological framework, natural classes minimize rule complexity by leveraging binary distinctive features to define underlying representations and derivations, enabling a finite set of general rules to account for diverse surface alternations (Chomsky and Halle 1968, pp. 54–57). By grouping sounds into classes like stops or nasals, rules avoid proliferation, promoting economy in grammar descriptions and facilitating predictions about unmarked phonological behaviors (Dresher 2009, p. 71). This methodology has been foundational in analyzing how languages systematically modify segments while preserving articulatory and perceptual naturalness.[9]Implications for Language Acquisition
Natural classes play a pivotal role in the phonological development of children, influencing the sequence and patterns observed in speech acquisition. Research indicates that children master sounds from simpler natural classes earlier due to their relative unmarked status and fewer distinctive features, such as stops (defined by [+consonantal, -continuant]) before fricatives ([+consonantal, +continuant]). For instance, in English-speaking children, plosives like /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, and /g/ are typically produced correctly by age 3, while fricatives such as /f/, /s/, /ʃ/, and /θ/ emerge later, often not until ages 4 to 7.[24] This progression aligns with the perceptual and articulatory ease of natural classes, where feature bundles like manner of articulation facilitate earlier categorization and production.[25] Error patterns in child speech further underscore the organization around natural classes, with substitutions predominantly occurring within rather than across class boundaries to preserve shared features. Common processes include fronting, where velar stops (/k/, /g/) are replaced by alveolar stops (/t/, /d/), maintaining the [+consonantal, -continuant, -voice] (for voiceless) or similar bundles, or stopping, where fricatives become stops (e.g., /s/ to /t/). Notably, children rarely substitute across classes, such as using a stop like /d/ for a voiceless fricative /s/, as this would violate multiple features including voicing and continuancy.[26] These systematic errors reflect an underlying phonological grammar sensitive to naturalness, aiding diagnosis in speech-language pathology.[27] The predictive power of natural classes extends to typological universals in acquisition, where hierarchies of markedness—such as sonority or place features—govern cross-linguistic orders, with less marked classes (e.g., labials over velars) acquired earlier regardless of language-specific inventories. Studies across languages like English, French, and Japanese confirm that constraints on codas or clusters often target natural classes, suggesting innate biases that streamline learning.[25] This universality supports models where phonological primitives are feature-based from the outset. Perceptually, infants demonstrate sensitivity to natural classes from birth, discriminating feature contrasts like voicing or place through statistical learning of distributional cues in input. By 6-12 months, exposure refines this to native categories, with bimodal distributions (e.g., clear voiced vs. voiceless tokens) enhancing boundaries for classes like obstruents.[25] Such early attunement provides a foundation for later production, linking perception to the acquisition of phonological rules.[28]Theoretical Perspectives
In Generative Phonology
In generative phonology, as developed in Chomsky and Halle's The Sound Pattern of English (SPE), natural classes are defined as sets of sounds that share one or more universal distinctive features, allowing phonological rules to be stated compactly and capturing generalizations across segments.[9] These features, such as [±voice], [±high], or [±anterior], are binary and assumed to reflect innate, universal properties of human speech, organized in a feature geometry that underlies all languages.[9] For instance, the class of voiceless stops ([p, t, k]) can be targeted by a rule like aspiration in English, specified simply as [-voice, -sonorant], demonstrating how features group sounds into natural classes for rule application without listing individual segments.[9] Markedness plays a central role in the SPE framework, where unmarked feature values (e.g., [-voice] for obstruents) are considered simpler and more basic, often serving as defaults in underlying representations and preferred outcomes of phonological rules.[9] Markedness conventions, detailed in Chapter 9 of SPE, assign these defaults systematically (e.g., [u voice] → [-voice] in the context of [-sonorant]), favoring rules that neutralize marked features toward unmarked ones, such as devoicing in final position.[9] This approach assumes that grammars minimize markedness to explain why certain classes, like voiceless consonants, appear more frequently in outputs and are easier to acquire.[9] Critiques of the SPE model highlight its over-reliance on binary features, which can generate unnatural classes that do not align with cross-linguistic phonological patterns.[29] For example, the features [anterior] and [coronal] sometimes group dissimilar sounds, such as alveolars and palatals, into classes that fail to capture natural behaviors in languages where palatals pattern separately. This has led to revisions, including hierarchical feature models that better reflect articulatory geometry and reduce such anomalies.[29] The SPE framework influenced subsequent theories, notably Optimality Theory (OT), where natural classes emerge dynamically from interactions among universal markedness constraints rather than being predefined by static features.[30] In OT, constraints like *VOICED-STOPS target marked structures, allowing classes to form based on constraint rankings that prioritize naturalness in outputs, thus addressing some SPE limitations while retaining the emphasis on universal primitives.[31]Cross-Linguistic Variations
Natural classes in phonology exhibit significant variation across languages, reflecting diverse phonological inventories and rule systems. In Khoisan languages such as !Xung, click consonants form a cohesive natural class defined by their shared lingual ingressive airstream mechanism. This class is articulated with posterior lingual gestures involving the tongue against the palate or teeth.[32] Similarly, in Asian tonal languages like those of the Wu dialect group in Chinese, tones are organized into natural classes based on features such as register (high vs. low) and contour (level vs. rising/falling), which govern tone sandhi rules; for instance, high-register tones may trigger spreading or simplification in adjacent syllables, demonstrating how tonal features create phonologically active groupings.[33] Typological surveys reveal patterns in the distribution of natural classes, with certain segments forming classes rarely across language families. Uvular consonants, for example, constitute a natural class in only about 16% of the world's languages, primarily in Afro-Asiatic, Northwest Caucasian, and some Indo-European branches, where they pattern with pharyngeals or velars in harmony processes due to shared dorsal articulation. This rarity contrasts with more universal classes like stops or nasals, highlighting how geographic and genetic factors influence class prevalence; in many Austronesian and Niger-Congo families, uvulars are absent, leading to reliance on alternative dorsal classes. Large-scale analyses of over 600 languages confirm that such typological asymmetries arise from articulatory and perceptual constraints, with rarer classes often limited to specific regions.[34][19] Language contact through borrowing can generate hybrid natural classes that blend features from donor and recipient systems. This hybridization occurs when borrowed segments adapt to native phonotactics, creating classes that violate traditional feature geometries but function coherently in rules like nasal spreading. Such effects are documented in contact zones, where social integration drives phonological convergence, as seen in loanword adaptations in Korean from English, yielding a fricative class incorporating both sibilants and approximants.[35] Endangered languages often present apparent non-natural classes that challenge standard feature analyses, necessitating reanalysis to uncover underlying regularities. These cases underscore how language attrition can obscure classes, with surveys of endangered varieties showing higher incidences of such anomalies, prompting feature revisions in phonological theory.[36]References
- https://web.mit.[edu](/page/.edu)/morrishalle/pubworks/papers/1968_Chomsky_Halle_The_Sound_Pattern_of_English.pdf