Highest Rated Comments


LoSchifoso80 karma

If we reject the hypothesis of Universal Grammar, how do we explain the cross-linguistically invariant prosodic shape infants’ of canonical babbling (CV.CV.CV)? It is not clear that the articulatory mechanics of VC.VC.VC are any different or more difficult or that there are cognitive/usage-based/cultural reasons why ba.ba.ba is preferable to ab.ab.ab for all infants irrespective of where they are born or what language they are acquiring. What accounts for this fact if UG is wrong?

LoSchifoso18 karma

Forgive my lack of familiarity with that literature, but an issues I have with a transition perceptibility explanation is that syllables are only ‘phonetically real’ to the extent that the phonology imposes some kind of change on a sound as a phonetic cue for that sound’s structural position: e.g. stops are unreleased in codas in American English as a cue that the stop is in a coda. Otherwise, you can’t ‘hear syllables’. Consonant-vowel transitions in VCV should be equally perceptible regardless of whether the string is syllabified as V.CV or VC.V