Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

ᝲ୫

Usage-based visual representationof phonological systems

Leah GILNER

ᛵǽ஖

本稿は，用法基盤アプローチ（usage-based approach）を基に，音韻体系の「視覚的側面」を追及する。国際音声記号（IPA）チャートは，世界の言語の音声システムの記述と研究に長年貢献してきた。そしてまた，個別
言語の音の記録や音の言語的普遍性とその構成要因についての理論化をも容易にしてきた。本稿では，まず第一に IPA に関する先行研究を簡潔ではあるが纏め，用法基盤モデルに基づく分析の可能性を追及する。換言すれば，これらの可能性がこれまでの我々の IPA に対する理解にどの程度貢献できるかを探ることになる。最後に，用法基盤アプローチを用いた音の記述例を紹介すると同時にこのアプローチがどのような分析を可能にするかを提示したい。

キーワード：音韻体系の図，国際音声記号（IPA）チャート，言語類型論，
音素の合併，用法基盤モデル

Keywords: diagrams of phonological systems, IPA chart, linguistic
typology, phoneme merger, usage-based models

1

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46

1. Introduction
The field of phonology has been built upon structural descriptions of sounds and setsof sounds that constitute the phonemic inventories of languages. The field was born inthe early 20th century from the desire to understand the function of sounds in conveying
meaning. At the time, linguists were focusing on phonetics, the study of the physicalproperties (e.g., body movements, sound waves) of sounds (Vachek & Dušová, 1983).
Research efforts centered on understanding the physiology of sound production by meansof “a most careful registration of all the movements of the speech organs during speechor of their results” (Mathesius, 1929, p. 128). The Prague School developed a frameworkand specialized terminology to study and describe the cognitive and expressive functionsof sounds in language. The terms phoneme, phonemic contrast, phonological opposition,markedness, universals, features, and functional load were coined in order to describe
phonological systems and the structure that sounds give words (Bičan, 2005; Mathesius,
1929; Trubetzkoy, 1939; Vachek & Dušová, 1983). This terminology has shaped thediscourse of the field ever since.
Usage-based theories have gained attention recently in a large part due to theavailability of corpora which sample and capture actual language use. As Ernestus andBaayen (2011, p. 374) point out, corpora “bridge the gap between the analyst’s conceptionof the data and the actual data themselves” and findings from corpus-based research
have revealed that some long-held generalizations based on purely structural descriptions“do not do justice to the data”. Bybee (2001, p. 2) asserts that phonology is shaped bylanguage use and that structural descriptions need to be supplemented by the descriptionsof the substance of language (i.e., phonetics and semantics) and demonstrates by means ofcorpus data how the frequency with which constructions (viz., words, phrases, patterns)
are used impacts phonological structure.
The focus of this manuscript is an analytical approach which adopts a usage-based
perspective to the description of vowel systems and provides a visual representationof relationships between and among elements in the system as a means by which to
study potential repercussions of sound mergers. In order to properly situate the work,
established practices will be reviewed before usage-based perspectives and what they
can contribute to current understanding are addressed. Subsequently, a usage-based
framework for description will be introduced and an analysis which exemplifies its

2

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

application will be presented.

1.1. History
The IPA charts were originally presented by the International Phonetic Associationin 1949 and the aims were formulated in the following way:
The alphabet of the Association Phonétique Internationale is an alphabet on
romanic basis designed primarily to meet practical linguistic needs, such as putting
on record the phonetic or phonemic structure of languages, furnishing learnersof foreign languages with phonetic transcriptions to assist them in acquiring thepronunciation, and working out romanic orthographies for languages written in othersystems or for languages hitherto unwritten. (International Phonetic Association,
2010, p. 1)
Although the charts have been revised periodically, it is worth noting that the
principles originally outlined by the Association are still being used to guide decisions
regarding how sounds are represented. As Ladefoged and Roach (1986, p. 25) explain,these principles indicate that:• each distinctive sound should correspond to a separate symbol• the same symbol should be used for “similar shades of sound” found acrosslanguages• the IPA should exploit ordinary orthographic letters as much as possible and avoid
the introduction of new letters• sound-symbol correspondences should be decided by international usage• the use of diacritics should be avoided
The current version of the vowel chart presents 25 vowels along three dimensions,as shown in Figure 1. The front-back dimension is depicted along the horizontal from left
to right and the close-open dimension from high to low along the vertical. The roundedunrounded dimension is illustrated by presenting sounds as pairs with rounded sounds to
the right of the unrounded. (International Phonetic Association, 1999, p. Foreword)

3

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46

Figure 1. The IPA vowel chart

1.2. Function of the charts
The charts have provided a means by which to produce standardized phonetic andphonemic transcriptions that can be interpreted systematically. Their utility has madethem an essential component of introductory linguistics textbooks and, importantly, themethod of representation adopted by referential works (e.g., Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013;
Kortmann & Schneider, 2004; Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996).
The fact that researchers use the IPA has facilitated descriptive precision,comparison, and generalization about sound systems in the world’s languages. Indeed,seminal typological studies have been founded on data sets which make use of the IPA
symbols (e.g., Lindblom & Maddieson, 1988; Maddieson, 1984; Schwartz et al., 1997).
The UPSID database, for example, contains distributional information on 919 different
sound segments found in 451 languages (Maddieson, 1984). The World Atlas of Language
Structures (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013) available online includes structural information
on 2,676 languages. The sections on vowel and consonant inventories, in particular,
include 564 languages. It merits mention that The Handbook of Varieties of English(Kortmann & Schneider, 2004) contains categorical descriptions of 60 varieties spoken
around the world, making it possible to compare structural properties within and acrossregions.

4

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

1.3. Limitations
These referential resources allow for observations based on the presence (or absence)of a given feature in the systems surveyed. When it comes to vowel systems, for instance,
De Boer (1999, p. 83) observes that vowels /i/, /a/, /u/ occur in more than 80% of all the
languages in UPSID while the vowel /ʌ/ occurs in 2% of them. Observations such as thesehave fueled the notion that human vowel systems are maximally dispersed throughout thevowel space (Liljencrants & Lindblom, 1972; Schwartz et al., 1997).
It is thus noteworthy that when corpus-based probabilities are taken into consideration,
it becomes apparent that certain sounds are used noticeably more than others. Gilner(2020) presents results from analysis of the vowel systems of several English varieties
which show that, on average, five vowel phonemes account for more than 60% of all
instances of vowels in the corresponding corpus. Furthermore, a preference for anteriorbased articulations was revealed across the varieties despite rather symmetrical structuraldescriptions. In other words, usage-based probabilities revealed characteristics of soundsystems that have gone unnoticed due to inherent limitations of structural descriptions.

2. Usage-based approaches to phonetic and phonological representation
2.1. PremisesThis manuscript provides an illustration of how usage data extracted from corpora cancontribute to the study of language sound systems. Usage data is becoming increasingly
important to efforts geared toward understanding the interplay of cognitive, social, andevolutionary forces that shape the mind of the individual and the linguistic conventions of
the community (Baird et al., 2014; Brdar et al., 2011; Caldwell-Harris et al., 2012; Gries,
2011, 2013; Hruschka et al., 2009). Linguistic description is consequently becoming moresophisticated, drawing on data obtained from corpus analysis, neuroscience techniques,
and experimental methods. New types of data obtained by means of innovative analytical
approaches are encouraging scholars to expand established frameworks in light offindings outside of any one specific domain. Cumulative evidence is encouraging scholars
across various subdisciplines of linguistics such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics,
evolutionary linguistics, cognitive linguistics to explore the descriptive and explanatory
potential of usage-based theories in understanding the role of communicative experiencein the creation of mental representations and how linguistic conventions emerge from

5

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46contact among individuals (Mauranen, 2018; Mufwene & Vigouroux, 2012; The Five
Graces Group et al., 2009; Wedel, 2012).
Usage-based theories posit that linguistic constructions (i.e., grammar) emerge
from communicative functions conveyed by means of form-meaning mappings, that is tosay, words. “The lexicon is the central locus of association between form and meaning”(Pierrehumbert, 2012, p. 173). By including both cognitive and social dimensions within
the framework, usage-based theory has provided the field with various models of mental
representation. These include prototype models (Lakoff, 1993), probabilistic models(Frisch et al., 2000), and exemplar models (Bybee, 2001; Pierrehumbert, 2001), all ofwhich presume some kind of abstraction process that groups individual instances ofusage into cognitive categories. From a usage-based perspective, previous experienceguides present and informs future usage. Goldinger (1998) reports results which indicatethat each experience with a spoken word adds a memory trace, or echo, to the mental
lexicon. Speaker-specific repetition effects have been found to contribute to talker
identification and indexical inferencing while abstracting across exemplars provides
stability and permanence to the system of relationships (Pierrehumbert, 2003, 2012). It
is worthy to note that Eulitz and Lahiri (2004) found that event-related brain responses
are sensitive to abstract phoneme representations. These researchers state that theirresults “…can be interpreted as neurobiological evidence that the human brains uses
phonologically underspecified mental representations during vowel perception” (Eulitz& Lahiri, 2004, p. 581). Similarly, confirmation of neural representation of articulatory
features during passive speech perception has been provided by means of brain imaging
studies (Archila-Meléndez et al., 2018; Chang, 2015; Correia et al., 2015).
A shared premise across usage-based models is that cognitive categories areconstantly being updated based on exposure to and tracking of distributional propertiesof form-meaning mappings in the speech signal. Communicative encounters provide
language users with the material they need to figure out the language, as Ellis (2006)
explains it. Divjak and Caldwell-Harris (2015) present arguments which support theview that learning is frequency-sensitive, resulting in mental representations that are
optimized to the environments from which they are created. The role of sequential
learning of statistical tendencies in language usage events has been demonstrated forsegmentation of the speech stream, discovery of syllabic structure, and locating phraseboundaries (see Christiansen & Chater, 2008 for discussion). Results reported by Kessler

6

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

and Treiman (1997) document distributional dependencies among phonemes in relation
to syllabic sequencing, finding that in English vowel-consonant sequences are morestrongly associated than consonant-vowel sequences. Kang’s (2015) study concurs andreports a relationship between statistical tendencies in linguistic input and processing
biases.
Usage-based phonology considers exposure and experience with situated andembodied meaning relevant to understanding mental representations of phonologicalsystems. A central concern is understanding and explaining how phonologicalcategories are formed from highly variable speech tokens (Silverman, 2013). Contextual,physiological, and psychological factors conspire to produce “dramatic” acoustic
invariance (Taylor, 2009, p. 23) that makes understanding how verbal communication
succeeds “a major challenge” (Pitt, 2009, p. 19). Accumulated evidence demonstrates
that a usage-based framework accommodates the invariance problem by positing thatmental representations of phonological targets and patterns gradually build up overtime and with experience (Bybee, 1994; McQueen et al., 2006, 2006; Norris, 2003;
Pierrehumbert, 2001; Wedel, 2012). Pierrehumbert (2003) likens the phonetic space to ahigh-dimensional cognitive map that includes acoustic and articulatory properties as wellas probability distributions of experienced exemplars. Wedel (2012) proposes the metaphorof a continually updating multi-dimensional network from which generalizations canemerge and exist with detailed encounters of variant pronunciations. Wedel presents amodel that incorporates usage-based experimental and theoretical contributions fromvarious fields and is able to account for how usage can drive development, propagation,and consolidation of phonological patterns over time. Work undertaken by Norris andcolleagues indicates phonetic retuning (i.e., categorization of novel input) is ongoingand occurs after very little exposure (McQueen et al., 1999, 2006; Norris, 2003). These
perspectives support the observation that: “Because this categorization is ongoing during
language use, even adult grammars are not fixed but have the potential to change as
experience changes” (The Five Graces Group et al., 2009, p. 7).

2.2. Informational value
Gries and Ellis (2015, p. 230) identify frequency of recurrence in usage as “the mostfundamental factor” driving learning since it influences strength of entrenchment, easeof access, and automatization of processing. It is also the basis upon which other statistical

7

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46

measures such as probabilities, dispersion, suprisal, informativity, and functional load
(FL) are derived. In this way, corpus data are an indispensable resource to usage-based
approaches as they provide a means by which to estimate frequency of recurrence
and thus facilitate the study of relationships between distributional characteristics of
linguistic units and cognitive and psycholinguistic processes.
The study by Gilner (2020) mentioned previously used corpus recurrence measures
to estimate FL for the vowel phonemes in each of 10 English varieties. As will be
discussed in more detail shortly, FL provides a measure of relative amount of workfor units in a linguistic class and results of these analyses made it possible to discern
usage-driven hierarchies among sounds. Figure 2 displays results for the monophthongphonemes of Irish English in the vowel chart. The circles around the phonemes areproportional to their FL values. The figure illustrates that the phoneme /e:/ does thegreatest relative amount of work followed by the phoneme /ɪ/ and so on. This visual
representation shows one way that usage statistics can augment structural descriptions inrelevant and informative ways.

Figure 2. Visual representation of FL of Irish English monophthongs

Oh et al. (2015) provide another example of usage-driven visual representationof vowel systems. Figure 3 is a reproduction from Oh et al. of the illustration of the
British Received Pronunciation according to decreasing usage frequency based on FL
computations derived from the CELEX corpus (van Gerven, 2013). The authors refer tothe figure on the right as a “functional network-based representation” and explain that the
thickness of the edges of the connecting lines reflect the FL associated with each vowel
pair (Oh et al., 2015, p. 155).

8

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

Figure 3. Standard and functional visual representations of British RP vowel system.
Reproduced from Oh et al. (2015).

This representation illustrates another way in which usage data augments structuraldescriptions. The functional network-based representation displays a usage-driven
hierarchy by positioning phonemes in order of decreasing frequency. The phoneme /ɪ/ on
the left recurs with relative greatest frequency followed by the phonemes /ə/, /ɛ/, /æ/, /ɒ/and so on. In addition, the network representation provides some indication of the relative
amount of work carried by phoneme contrasts. The line connecting the pair /ɪ - æ/ is the
thickest, representing its dominant position in a usage-driven hierarchy of contrasts. The
connection between /ɪ/ and /ɒ/ is also relatively thicker than the others. The percentages
associated with the pairs /ɪ - æ/ and /ɪ - ɒ/ indicate a significant difference between them,intimating a markedly uneven distribution of work among the pairs in the representation.
It is noted that the large number of phoneme contrasts displayed in this reproduction
makes it difficult to discern all of them clearly and thus a great amount of information is
not readily apparent. It is not possible to speculate on, for instance, the dynamics of thesystem in terms of how change in one aspect might affect others.

3. Introduction to the principal APP approach to representation
This section describes a framework that uses visual representations to explore
repercussions of potential mergers. The analytical methodology estimates FL for phoneme
contrasts, hereafter referred to as active phoneme pairings (APPs), observed in a spoken
corpus and then examines relationships among APPs. The discussion that follows firstoutlines the history and pertinent applications of FL and then introduces the terminology
required to understand the framework.

9

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 463.1. FL as a descriptive parameter
Contemporary applications of FL draw on information theory, which proposesthat information can be quantified mathematically in terms of entropy (Shannon &Weaver, 1949). From this perspective, the speech stream is viewed as comprised of bitsof information organized sequentially. Understanding an utterance implies decoding
the sequence of elements that comprise its meaningful units. Uncertainty, or entropy, isreduced as more bits are made available. When listening to an utterance, for example,
there is a large amount of uncertainty after hearing just the initial word or phrase. As
more words are uttered, meaning unfolds and uncertainty (i.e., entropy) is reduced.
Similar processes are at play at sub-lexical levels as demonstrated by findings frominvestigations into spoken word recognition which indicate lexical competitors are
reduced as more segments are recognized (Goldinger et al., 1992; Luce & Pisoni, 1998;
Magnuson et al., 2007; McQueen et al., 1999).
Entropy-based FL measures use corpus frequencies to calculate the relative
contributions that constituents of a linguistic class make to a system. This method was
initially formulated by Hockett (1966) who proposed that phonemic constituents do not
simply disappear rather they coalesce and that this process results in the redistributionof the work among the remaining elements. The contribution of a constituent to the classof elements is assessed in terms of the difference between two entropy measures: onethat corresponds to the entropy of the system containing all of its elements and one that
corresponds to the entropy of the system without a given element. Surendran and Niyogi(2003, 2006) have demonstrated that this formulation is informative across linguisticclasses including phonemic oppositions, distinctive features, suprasegmental features,and phonological rules.
The information-theoretic approach to estimating FL views language (L) as
sequences of word-forms (w) taken from a finite set of size NL. Equation 1 shows theentropy H of language L calculated over its lexicon NL.
ேಽ

H(L) = െ ෍ ‫݌‬௪೔ ‫ כ‬log ଶ (‫݌‬௪೔ )௜ୀଵ

Equation 1. Amount of information or entropy in language L

Equation 1 calculates the probability of word-forms (‫݌‬௪೔ ) as a factor of the recurrence
10

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systemsof a word in a corpus. The measure ‫ )ܮ(ܪ‬corresponds to the entropy of the system(Shannon & Weaver, 1949).
‫ܮܨ‬஦,ந = ‫כܮ(ܪ – )ܮ(ܪ‬ఝట )Equation 2. Functional load of the contrast between two phonemes φ and ψ

The FL of a phoneme pairing φ-ψ is defined (as shown in Equation 2) as thedifference between the entropy ‫ )ܮ(ܪ‬of the initial system and the entropy ‫כܮ(ܪ‬ఝట ) of the
post-merger system.
The usefulness of FL as a descriptive parameter for studying sound change, andpossibly an explanatory one, is seen in the work of Wedel and colleagues (e.g., Wedel,Jackson et al., 2013; Wedel, Kaplan et al., 2013). These researchers adopted corpus-based
information-theoretic approaches to the assessment of FL of phonological systems indiverse languages, namely, Dutch, English, French, German, Hong Kong Cantonese,
Korean, Slovak, Spanish, and Turkish. A series of statistical analyses revealed that highFL, that is to say, active information transmission, predicted greater stability of a given
phoneme and greater resistance to merger between two phonemes. These researchers
suggested that differentiative power hence contributes to phoneme contrast preservation.
Working within a variationist/usage-based/evolutionary framework, findings wereinterpreted as supporting the view of a speaker’s mental lexicon as a “…steadily-updating
multi-dimensional network, in which experienced phonetic detail can be represented
redundantly at multiple levels of analysis and where generalizations can emerge from andcoexist with that detail” (Wedel, Jackson et al., 2013, p. 398).

3.2. Increasing information value by narrowing complexity
The examples of representation presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 suggest that usage
measures such as probabilities of recurrence can complement structural descriptionsin informative ways. The focus of this manuscript is a study which estimates FL ofphoneme contrasts based on probabilities extracted from spoken corpora and graphicallydisplays systemic repercussions of the merging of two phonemes. This study implements
an information-theoretic approach to the calculation of FL and thus makes it possible
to quantify the relative amount of work that particular phonemic contrasts do and,furthermore, to envision how FL would be redistributed in the event of a merger.
The discussion of mergers and their consequences is not without complication. A

11

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46

method of visualization, in the form of diagrams, has been developed in order to assist
the interpretation of results. Each diagram is meant to depict a particular APP, hereafterreferred to as the principal APP, together with its associated APPs in a manner thatmakes it possible to easily resolve post-merger outcomes. This section will gradually
introduce these diagrams and their proposed interpretation. The APP with the highest FL
in Canadian English (CanE), formed by phonemes /eɪ/ and /ɑɪ/ (for brevity’s sake APPeɪɑɪ), will be used as the principal APP in all the examples below.

3.3. APPeɪ-ɑɪ and its associated APPs
The inventory of CanE has 21 phonemes and, thus, the maximum number of possible
phoneme pairings is 210 (=ଶଵ × ଶ଴
ଶ). Minimal pairs (MPs) for 116 phoneme pairings (PPs)were found in the spoken component of the ICE-Canada corpus. No MPs were found for
94 PPs. In short, 116 PPs have non-zero FL (thus, 116 APPs) while 94 PPs have zero FL(thus, 94 NAPPs). As mentioned, APPeɪ-ɑɪ has the highest FL of these 116 APPs.
Now, each of the constituent phonemes of APPeɪ-ɑɪ form APPs with other phonemes.
Specifically, /eɪ/ forms APPs with /ɒ, æ, ɑɪ, aʊ, ɔ, ɔɪ, ə, ɛ, ɪ, ɪi, ɵʊ, ʊ, ʉʊ, ʌ, ʌɪ, ʌʊ/ and /ɑɪ/forms APPs with /ɑ, ɒ, ɒ:, æ, aʊ, ɔ, ɔɪ, eɪ, ɛ, ɜ, ɪ, ɪi, ɵʊ, ʊ, ʉʊ, ʌ/.
The leftmost diagram in Figure 4 shows the principal APPeɪ-ɑɪ and its associated
APPs (NAPPs are not displayed in any diagram)1. The phonemes in between the two
principals, namely, /ɪi, ɵʊ, ʉʊ, ɪ, ɛ, ʌ, ɒ, æ, ʊ, ɔ, aʊ, ɔɪ/ form APPs with both /eɪ/ and /ɑɪ/and are referred to as the shared phonemes in this framework. To the left and right, arethe phonemes that form APPs with either /eɪ/ or /ɑɪ/. In the case of /eɪ/, the non-sharedphonemes are /ə, ʌʊ, ʌɪ/ while in the case of /ɑɪ/, the non-shared phonemes are /ɒ:, ɜ, ɑ/.

Figure 4. Initial and post-merger states of APPeɪ-ɑɪ

12

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systemsୣᢛ

Two mergers of APPeɪ-ɑɪ are possible, the first ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ where all instances of /ɑɪ/ arereplaced with /eɪ/ and the second ‫ܯ‬ᢌᢛୣᢛwhere all instances of /eɪ/ are replaced with /ɑɪ/.

The central and rightmost diagrams in Figure 4 show these two post-merger states,
respectively.
Consider for example that, in the initial state, APPɑɪ-ɒ: implies there are MPs
formed by /ɑɪ/ and /ɒ:/ while NAPPeɪ-ɒ: (or the absence of APPeɪ-ɒ:, thus, not shown)ୣᢛ

implies there are no MPs formed by /eɪ/ and /ɒ:/. Following ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ, the replacement of all
instances of /ɑɪ/ with /eɪ/ turns the MPs formed by /ɑɪ/ and /ɒ:/ into MPs formed by /eɪ/and /ɒ:/, effectively turning APPɑɪ-ɒ: into APPeɪ-ɒ: (or simply creating a new APPeɪ-ɒ:),displayed on the right in the central diagram in Figure 4. Similarly, APPeɪ-ɜ and APPeɪ-ɑୣᢛ

come to be new APPs following ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ . Note that just as the non-shared phonemes /ɒ:, ɜ,ୣᢛɑ/ of /ɑɪ/ come to form new APPs in ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ with the replacing phoneme /eɪ/, the non-sharedᢌᢛ

phonemes /ə, ʌʊ, ʌɪ/ of /eɪ/ come to form new APPs in ‫ ܯ‬with the replacing phoneme /ɑɪ/,ୣᢛ

specifically APPaɪ-ə, APPaɪ-ʌʊ, and APPaɪ-ʌɪ (all 3 shown on the left in the rightmost
diagram in Figure 4).

3.4. Window of consideration
The FL values of APPs vary greatly within and across systems. Figure 5 shows
the complete FL ranking for CanE. LDRN, plotted on the vertical axis, stands for
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
LDRN

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

APPs
Figure 5. FL ranking of the 116 APPs in CanE

1390

100 110

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46

least-dominant relative normalization. LDRN assigns the lowest FL a value of 1 andexpresses all others as magnitudes of this one. A markedly uneven distribution of FL
is apparent. The 1st ranked APP in Figure 5 has a FL ~5,500 times that of the 116th (thelast ranked). The 10th and 20th ranked have FLs ~1,260 times and ~750 times that of the116th, respectively. In short, the chart shows that the amount of variation is considerable
and that, consequently, the amount of information (or FL) lost can be quite different
depending on the APP undergoing a merger.
As shown in Figure 5, the top ranked APPs do substantially more work than others
but the threshold of relevance remains unclear, as is the case with all so-called frequency
based studies (Biber, 1999, 2006; Biber & Barbieri, 2007; Breeze, 2013; Bybee, 2000;
Conrad & Biber, 2004; Cortes, 2004; Hyland, 2008, 2009). What is common among thesestudies is that once a threshold has been established, observations are confined to thatwindow of consideration. Scrutiny of the results of this investigation suggests a thresholdthat limits the discussion to the top 20 ranked APPs for this window of consideration is
manageable, informative, and works reasonably well with the diagrams introduced in theprevious section.
Despite their differences, both Figure 4 and Figure 6 show the principal APPeɪ-ɑɪand its associated APPs as well as the two post-merger states. Figure 4 uses a windowof consideration of 116 (and thus displays 12 shared and 6 non-shared phonemes) while
Figure 6 uses a window of consideration of 20 (and thus displays 1 shared and 3 nonshared phonemes). The attentive reader will notice a reduction and redistribution ofphonemes. This is due to the low FL of most of the associated APPs of APPeɪ-ɑɪ, that is,
APPs that fall outside the window of consideration of 20. The end result is that Figure 6,
in effect, shows the APPs with the greatest FL in CanE.

Figure 6. A window of consideration of 20

The diagrams in Figure 6 show the FL of each APP (multiplied by 100). A
distinguishing characteristic of a shared phoneme is that its two associated APPs become

14

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

a single one after a merger, its FL becoming the addition of the FL values of these twoୣᢛassociated APPs. For example, in the case of ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ , the FL of APPeɪ-ɪi has changed fromୣᢛ

1.49 to 3.86 while, in the case of ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ , the FL of APPɑɪ-ɪi has changed from 2.37 to 3.86.

Note that although in both cases the post-merger FL is the same (3.86 = 1.49 + 2.37), the
APP affected is different, each undergoing an absolute change in FL, from 1.49 and from
2.37, respectively.
A distinguishing characteristic of a non-shared phoneme is that, depending on themerger, it might create a new APP with the replacing phoneme of the principal APP. Forୣᢛexample, in the case of ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ , the non-shared phonemes /ə, ɵʊ, ʌ/ come to create APPɑɪ-ə,

APPɑɪ-ɵʊ, and APPɑɪ-ʌ, each with their pre-merger FL values, all displayed on the rightof the rightmost diagram in Figure 6.
Note also that the loss of the FL of the principal APP decreases the FL of thesystem accordingly (by 5.97 in the case of Figure 6). As a result, the relative values of
the FL of the non-shared phonemes, while not changing in an absolute manner, become
proportionally greater. Indeed, this is a system wide phenomenon that affects all postmerger APPs.

4. Further inspection of CanE using the window of consideration
With the principal APP framework in mind, we will now take a closer look at the FL
ranking of CanE APPs. The FL values have been estimated from probabilities obtained
from the spoken component of the ICE-Canada corpus (Newman & Columbus, 2015).
Phonemic transcriptions were manufactured according to Boberg (2004)2. The dataset
contained transcriptions of 551,775 word forms. Recall that a total of 116 APPs were
found in the corpus. Table 1 presents the FL ranking for the APPs that fall within thewindow of consideration, that is to say, the top 20.
FL values range from 0.0597 for the APPeɪ-ɑɪ to 0.0082 for the APPeɪ-ʌ. The datashows that 5 of the 21 vowel phonemes in CanE do not form APPs that rank among the
top 20, namely /ɔɪ, i, ɪ, ʊ, ʌɪ/. The phonemes /eɪ/ and /ɪi/ form the most APPs (n = 5) while
the phonemes /aʊ, ɑ, ɒ, ɒ:, ɔ/ form the least (n = 1). Note that the phonemes /æ, ɛ, ɜ/ form
4 APPs each.
When using an entropy-based measure of FL, as in this study, the consequence of amerger is a decrease in information due a decrease in contrastiveness and consequently

15

愛知大学

No. 46

言語と文化

Table 1. Functional load ranking of the top 20 active phoneme pairings in CanE
Rank

APP

FL

1

eɪ

ɑɪ

0.05972ɪæ

0.05363eɪə

0.03934əʉʊ

0.02885ɑɪ

ɪi0.02376ɪɒ:

0.02137ɔɑ

0.01528eɪ

ɪi0.01499ɪʌʊ

0.014910ɛɒ

0.013711

ɪiɵʊ

0.013612ɪɛ

0.012913

ɪiʉʊ

0.011414æɛ

0.011215ɵʊ

aʊ

0.010416eɪɵʊ

0.010217

ɪiæ

0.009518

ɛʌ

0.008719æʌʊ

0.008520eɪʌ

0.0082the transformation of MPs into homophones. This loss of information is equal in amountto the FL of the merging APP and is taken from the replacing phoneme which is deprived
not only a contrast but of its corresponding FL. In short, a merger necessarily implies adecrease in information of the replacing phoneme.
Given this key observation regarding the information loss sustained by the replacing
phoneme and given the knowledge that APPs can have associated APPs (as shown
visually via the diagrams introduced previously), it is relevant to probe into the FL valuesof the replacing phoneme and its APPs as a consequence of merger. Of particular interest
would be outcomes that result in an increase in FL of the replacing phoneme despite thestated inevitable loss as well as the nature of this increase, if any. Moreover, it would be
important to note those cases involving a significant alteration to the FL ranking. These

16

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems

concerns lend to the formulation of three research questions (RQs) that will guide thediscussion of this analysis:
RQ1. Which principal phonemes gain more FL than they lose as a result of a merger?
RQ2. Which mergers lead to at least one APP which has a FL greater than the FL lost?
RQ3. Which mergers come to have APPs with a FL greater than the top ranked APP?
Figure 7 provides the visual representation for the top 5 APPs along with theirassociated APPs within the window of consideration. It is interesting to observe that each
APP creates a unique constellation of relationships and that these tend to be asymmetrical,
indicating rather different outcomes depending on which principal phoneme is replaced.
Even in the case of symmetrical constellations as in ᬛ and ᬝ, there is an evident
differential in the FL of associated APPs with non-shared phonemes. The simplestᖱᖲᖠ
example is ᬝ where both ᬝ ‫ ܯ‬and ᬝ ‫ ܯ‬would result in one new APP. Yet, the FLᖱᖲof the new APPʉʊ-eɪ associated with ᬝ ‫ܯ‬while that of the new APPə-ɪi is not.

ᖠᖱᖲ
ᖠ

is great enough to rank it among the top 5

Figure 7. Top 5 ranked APPs and their associated APPs in the top 20 in CanE

17

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46Given Figure 7, answers to the RQs can be formulated:
RQ1. Which principal phonemes gain more FL than they lose as a result of amerger?
The following do: ᬚ/ɑɪ/3, ᬜ/ə/, ᬝ/ʉʊ/, ᬞ/ɑɪ/, and ᬞ/ɪi/.
RQ2. Which mergers lead to at least one APP which has a FL greater than the FL
lost?
ᖠ

ᢛ୧

ᖱᖲ

ᢌᢛ

The following do: ᬜ‫ ܯ‬ୣᢛ, ᬝ‫ ܯ‬ᖠ , and ᬞ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ. Note that ᬞ‫ ܯ‬ᢛ୧ does not since it
already had such an APP before the merger and no other is so formed.

RQ3. Which mergers come to have APPs with a FL greater than the top ranked APP(FL = 5.97)?
ᬞ‫ܯ‬

ᢌᢛ
ᢛ୧

ᢛ୧

and ᬞ‫ ܯ‬ᢌᢛ form such APPs with /eɪ/ (FL = 7.46).

Additionally, certain observations can be made:• 7 out of the 21 phonemes in the inventory act as principal phonemes. Fourdiphthongs are included, three of these are anterior-closing and one is posteriorclosing.
• The phoneme /eɪ/ is present in 4 out of 5 diagrams. It has 5 APPs in the top 20,
2 of which are in the top 5 and are therefore principal (see ᬚ and ᬜ). Mergers
where /eɪ/ is the replaced phoneme would result in a noticeable transfer of FL andcreation of new APPs.
• The phoneme /ɪi/ is present in all 5 diagrams. It is shared in ᬚ, non-shared inᬛᬜᬝ and principal in ᬞ.

• The principal phonemes of ᬛ have limited presence across the diagrams because
none or few of the constituent phonemes with which they form associated APPs
form themselves other APPs with a FL high enough to fall within the top 5(see Table 1). The phoneme /ɪ/ is present only as a principal phoneme while thephoneme /æ/ is also present as a non-shared phoneme in ᬞ.
• As a whole, these 10 mergers would exert a substantial change in occupationof the vowel space since all principal phonemes, as arranged according to their
APPs, have a noticeably distinct composite of articulatory features.

18

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems• From a complementary perspective, both principal phonemes of ᬚ are anteriorclosing diphthongs and share the articulatory features corresponding to theoffglide. In the event of merger, the differences in the initial target phonemes
imply change along both the open-close and front-back articulatory dimensions.
The principal phonemes of ᬛ are both anterior-based sounds so a merger would
involve change in only the open-close articulatory dimension. The principal
phonemes of ᬜ differ along two primary articulatory dimensions so a merger
would involve change in both the front-back and the open-close articulatory
dimensions. Reduction is also at play. The same observation holds for the principal
phonemes of ᬝ with the addition of secondary articulation of rounding. The
principal phonemes in ᬞ are both anterior-closing diphthongs and thus sharecertain features corresponding to the offglide. A difference in tenseness should be
noted. The initial segments occupy diametrically opposed quadrants in the vowel
space so a merger would involve change along both the open-close and front-backarticulatory dimensions.

5. Closing remarks
The visual representations introduced in this manuscript have added resolution to ourunderstanding of phonemic contrasts in a variety of ways. The mapping out of the upperechelons of the usage-driven hierarchy of contrasts in CanE has shown, for instance, thateach APP ascribes a unique configuration of entanglements with shared and non-sharedphonemes. Furthermore, these configurations tend not to be symmetrical, indicating
distinct post-merger outcomes depending on the direction of the merger. By including
FL values of each APP in the diagrams, it has been possible to quantify the amount ofchange a particular merger would yield. In the case of CanE, for example, it was observedthat merger of one APP in particular, ᬞAPPɑɪ-ɪi, would result in an increase in FL of
both principal phonemes, would produce at least one APP with greater FL than that lost,
and would establish a new maximum FL. This combination of repercussions could be
described as highly disruptive to the dynamics of this vowel system and suggests a venue
for future research. Wedel et al. (2013, p. 397) provided “the first statistical evidence” thatphoneme contrasts which distinguish more minimal pairs were significantly less likely tomerge. The method of visual representation presented here encourages speculation that

19

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46the degree of disruption caused by a particular merger might act as a kind of inhibitor due
to the complications surrounding information transfer. More work needs to be done.
Maddieson (2011) points out that both structural and usage-based perspectives
have contributions to make to phonological description and theory. Examination ofcomponents within and across languages has encouraged speculation and theorization
regarding structural patterns as well as speech processing, (e.g., Lindblom & Maddieson,
1988; Schwartz et al., 2012). At the same time, usage-based approaches offer perspectives
in line with experiential and statistical models of learning. These perspectives proposethat language users form mental representations of phonological categories from analysisof actually encountered instances of usage and that representations influence speech
perception and processing. This manuscript has introduced an analytical approach which
demonstrates how corpus-driven quantification augments categorical descriptions alongwith a method of representations which reveals potential repercussions of sound merger
otherwise not evident. These results suggest that the approach constitutes an informativemeans by which to contribute empirical data for consideration when developing theories
of language learning and cognition.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Franc Morales for the seminal ideas that conceptually support these visualizations.

Notes
1
2
3

Full color version of this manuscript is available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
360255243_Usage-based_visual_representation_of_phonological_systems
The complete vowel inventory consists of /eɪ ɪ ɑɪ ɪi æ ɛ ə ɵʊ ʉʊ aʊ ɔ ɒ ʌ ɒ: ʌʊ ɑ ʌɪ ʊ ɜ ɔɪ i/. See
Gilner (2020) for details on methodology and results.
ᢌᢛ
As a result of ᬚ‫ ܯ‬ththe gained FL of APPs formed by /ɑɪ/ is 3.93 + 1.02 + 0.82 from acquiredୣᢛ
non-shared phonemes and 1.49 from shared phonemes, the sum of which is greater than 5.97.

References
Archila-Meléndez, M. E., Valente, G., Correia, J. M., Rouhl, R. P. W., Kranen-Mastenbroek, V. H.
van, & Jansma, B. M. (2018). Sensorimotor representation of speech perception. Cross-decodingof place of articulation features during selective attention to syllables in 7t fMRI. ENeuro, 5(2),ENEURO.0252–17.2018. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0252-17.201820

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems
Baird, R., Baker, W., & Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 3(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2014-0007
Biber, D. (1999). A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form
and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies, 1(2), 131–150. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1461445699001002001
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English
for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
Bičan, A. (2005). Phoneme in functional and structural phonology. Linguistica ONLINE, 1–15.
Boberg, C. (2004). English in Canada: Phonology. In E. W. Schneider & B. Kortmann (Eds.),
Handbook of varieties of English (Vol. 1, pp. 351–365). Mouton de Gruyter.
Brdar, M., Gries, S. T., & Žic-Fuchs, M. (Eds.). (2011). Cognitive linguistics: Convergence andexpansion. John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Breeze, R. (2013). Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
Bybee, J. (1994). A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics, 5(44), 285–305.
Bybee, J. (2000). Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In M. B. Broe & J.
M. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 250–268).
Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.
Caldwell-Harris, C., Berant, J., & Edelman, S. (2012). Measuring mental entrenchment of phrases
with perceptual identification, familiarity ratings, and corpus frequency statistics. In D. Divjak& S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Frequency effects in language representation. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9783110274073.165
Chang, E. (2015, April 24). Neuroscience of speech perception and speech production: Exploring theneural circuitry of speech. The Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny(CARTA), University of California.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 31(05). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004998
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation andacademic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.
Correia, J. M., Jansma, B. M. B., & Bonte, M. (2015). Decoding articulatory features from fMRI
responses in dorsal speech regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(45), 15015–15025. https://doi.
org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0977-15.2015
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from
history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esp.2003.12.001
De Boer, B. (1999). Evolution and self-organisation in vowel systems. Evolution of Communication,

21

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 463(1), 79–102.
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In D. Divjak & E.
Dabrowska (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 53–75). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-004
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). (2013). WALS Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology. http://wals.info/
Ellis, N. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive creed. AILA Review, 19,
100–121.
Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2011). Corpora and Exemplars in Phonology. In J. Goldsmith, J.
Riggle, & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 374–400). WileyBlackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch12
Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A. (2004). Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representationsin the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4),577–583. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904323057308
Frisch, S. A., Large, N. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment
probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4),481–496. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2692
Gilner, L. (2020). Functional load rankings of the vowel systems of 10 varieties of English (pp. 1–32).
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18174.00320
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological
Review, 105(2), 251–279.
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Marcario, J. K. (1992). Form-based priming in spoken
word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(6), 1211–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1211
Gries, S. Th. (2011). Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What’s the right degree of granularity
for the analysis of argument structure constructions? In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Žic
Fuchs (Eds.), Human Cognitive Processing (Vol. 32, pp. 237–256). John Benjamins Publishing
Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.15gri
Gries, S. Th. (2013). Sources of variability relevant to the cognitive sociolinguist, and corpus- as well
as psycholinguistic methods and notions to handle them. Journal of Pragmatics, 52, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.011
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning,
65(S1), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119
Hockett, C. F. (1966). The quantification of functional load: A linguistic problem. Rand Corp.
Hruschka, D. J., Christiansen, M. H., Blythe, R. A., Croft, W., Heggarty, P., Mufwene, S., Pierrehumbert,
J. B., & Poplack, S. (2009). Building social cognitive models of language change. TICS Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 464–469.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for SpecificPurposes, 27(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse English in a global context. Continuum. http://public.eblib.

22

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems
com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=601786
International Phonetic Association (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association:
A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge University Press.
International Phonetic Association. (2010). The Principles of the International Phonetic Association(1949). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 40(3), 299–358. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0025100311000089
Kang, S. (2015). Relationship between perceptual accuracy and information measures: A crosslinguistic study. University of California, Berkeley. http://search.proquest.com/openview/0c2f90
8256ea49009d8df56541662c63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=yKessler, B., & Treiman, R. (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English
syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.
1997.2522
Kortmann, B., & Schneider, E. W. (2004). A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference
tool. Mouton de Gruyter.
Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Blackwell Publishers.
Ladefoged, P., & Roach, P. (1986). Revising the International Phonetic Alphabet: A plan. Journal of
the International Phonetic Association, 16(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300003078
Lakoff, G. (1993). Cognitive phonology. UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45n1m8xk
Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role ofperceptual contrast. Language, 48(4), 839–862.
Lindblom, B., & Maddieson, I. (1988). Phonetic Universals in Consonant Systems. In Language,
Speech and Mind (pp. 62–78). Routledge.
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model.
Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, I. (2011). Phonological complexity in linguistic patterning. Proceedings of the 17th
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 28–34.
Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The Dynamics of Lexical
Competition During Spoken Word Recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133–156. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03640210709336987
Mathesius, V. (1929). Functional linguistics. In J. Vachek & L. Dušová (Eds.), Praguiana (pp. 121–
142). John Benjamins.
Mauranen, A. (2018). Second language acquisition, world Englishes, and English as a lingua franca(ELF). World Englishes, 37(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12306
McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1999). The time course of lexical involvement in phonetic
categorization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(2), 1398–1398. https://doi.
org/10.1121/1.426604
McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (2006). The dynamic nature of speech perception. Language
and Speech, 49(1), 101–112.
Mufwene, S., & Vigouroux, C. B. (2012). Individuals, populations, and timespace: Perspectives on the

23

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 46ecology of language. Linguistique Cahiers de Linguistique, 38(2), 111–137.
Newman, J., & Columbus, G. (2015). The ICE-Canada Corpus. Version 2. http://ice-corpora.net/ice/
download.htm
Norris, D. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9
Oh, Y. M., Coupé, C., Marsico, E., & Pellegrino, F. (2015). Bridging phonological system and lexicon:
Insights from a corpus study of functional load. Journal of Phonetics, 53, 153–176. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.08.003
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee &P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Typological studies in language (Vol. 45, p. 137). John Benjamins Publishing
Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology.
Language and Speech, 46(2–3), 115–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020501
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2012). The dynamic lexicon. In A. Cohn, M. Huffman, & C. Fougeron (Eds.),
Handbook of laboratory phonology (pp. 173–183). Oxford University Press. https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/4750/37939b762aba5ba38d1220aa5980519cd1ae.pdf
Pitt, M. A. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization
to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jml.2009.02.005
Schwartz, J.-L., Basirat, A., Ménard, L., & Sato, M. (2012). The Perception-for-Action-Control
Theory (PACT): A perceptuo-motor theory of speech perception. Journal of Neurolinguistics,
25(5), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.12.004
Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Vallée, N., & Abry, C. (1997). The dispersion-focalization theory of vowel
systems. Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 255–286.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of
Illinois Press.
Silverman, D. (2013). Usage-based phonology. In N. C. Kula, E. D. Botma, & K. Nasukawa (Eds.),
Bloomsbury companion to phonology (pp. 369–394).
Surendran, D., & Niyogi, P. (2003). Measuring the functional load of phonological contrasts (TR2003–2012). University of Chicago. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0311036
Surendran, D., & Niyogi, P. (2006). Quantifying the functional load of phonemic oppositions,distinctive features, and suprasegmentals. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing modelsof linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (pp. 43–58). J. Benjamins Pub.
Taylor, J. R. (2009). Where do phonemes come form? A view from the bottom. International Journalof English Studies, 6(2), 19–54.
The Five Graces Group, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N.,
Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex
adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679922.2009.00533.x
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie.

24

Usage-based visual representation of phonological systems
Vachek, J., & Dušová, L. (1983). Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague
Linguistic School. John Benjamins Publishing.
van Gerven, M. (2013, 2014). WebCelex. Https://Catalog.Ldc.Upenn.Edu/Docs/LDC96L14/Celex.
Readme.Html. http://celex.mpi.nl
Wedel, A. (2012). Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems.
Language and Cognition, 4(04), 319–355. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2012-0018
Wedel, A., Jackson, S., & Kaplan, A. (2013). Functional load and the lexicon: Evidence thatsyntactic category and frequency relationships in minimal lemma pairs predict the loss ofphoneme contrasts in language change. Language and Speech, 56(3), 395–417. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0023830913489096
Wedel, A., Kaplan, A., & Jackson, S. (2013). High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss:
A corpus study. Cognition, 128(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002

25