Phonology isn't as fun at Subway

One test of the structure of a phoneme is the behavior. And one place we can observe the behaviour is in language games and errors.

I've mentioned my friends' Horse Latin speech disguise. The rules are simple you follow the first consonant of every syllable with -ibe (rhyming with bribe). So hot is hibe-ot; cold is kibe-old. banana is bribe-a-nibe-a-nibe-a.*

Let me back up. It's not fair to say that the -ibe follows the first consonant. It actually follows any onset cluster. So TRee becomes TRibe-ee instead of Tibe-Ree.

This hasn't told us anything about phonemic structure. But imagine a similar game that doesn't take the onset cluster but just the first consonant sound. In that language game tree would be tibe-ree and fly would by fibe-ly. And if we were analyzing the data when this game is applied to an unknown language we might find an clue to phonemic structure if we heard the disguised form of a made-up word like choom. Our question would be about that ch onset. Assuming that the pronunciation is appropriate to an Anglicised spelling convention we would know that the word is pronounced ʧum (rhyming with room).

But what of that affricate onset? Is it a single phoneme or two? Well if we know the rules of the language game we simply ask a speaker to disguise the word. And we know that the speaker will break apart any onset clusters. So if the disguise is chibe-oom [ʧaɪbum] we have some evidence that the ʧ is a single consonant sound because it's being treated that way. If the disguise is tibe-shoom [taɪb.ʃum] we see that the t and ʃ are being split which is evidence that they are seen as separate sounds and not a single phonemic affricate. Evidence. Not proof. More testing is required.

Now speech errors:

We look for similar effects. When someone offers up a spoonerism we see some evidence of how segments are organized. Sometimes whole clusters get switched so FLank STeak becomes STank FLake (I dated one once). But sometimes the speech error effects a change of only the first segment of a cluster. So Brew Clubber becomes Crew Blubber. One thing you might expect to notice in English is that an affricate isn't split because it's a single consonant sound. It should behave like one and not split into the two segments: t and ʃ.

But don't count on such clean data. Language is performed by people. And people hate to be contained.

My nieces love to eat at Schlotzsky's. But they have trouble pronouncing it. One of the slogans: "Funny Name. Serious Sandwich." How funny is the name? [ʃlatskiz]: That onset cluster ʃl is rare in English. It's usually found in words borrowed from Yiddish (or a few from German). One of my friends simply solved the phonotactic dilemma by epenthesis. "Sha-lote-skees" he said.

My nieces are much more impressive. They replace the ʃl cluster with a more comfortable cluster: sl. So what happens to the ʃ? They just move it over to the place formerly occupied by the s. Between the t and the k.

That complicates things. Because this makes for an odd repair. They've replaced a somewhat awkward (in English) cluster ʃl with an easier one sl. But they've completely mucked up the other cluster. The next cluster would normally be an easy onset sk on the 2nd syllable following a coda t closing off the first syllable.** But their repair makes it an almost unheard of onset ʃk. Ah but wait: there's no problem if the ʃ attaches to the preceding coda instead. So now you have a coda ʧ and a simplified onset k. And there's no constraint violation and you didn't have to resort to such an inelegant repair as epenthesis. These kids have thought about this carefully.***

[ʃlat.skiz] → [slaʧ.kiz] when you let kids work their magic.

---

* A word about stress and vowels: typically the stress of the original form changes and the new form gets penultimate stress: i.e. on the the last '-ibe'. Vowels tend to get neutralized to ə. Some high vowels like i or u might retain their quality. But others like æ and o are neutralized unless it's the final vowel. So you get bibe-oat for boat but bibe-a-tiber for boater.

** I propose this is a coda t and onset sk because I like onset maximization.

*** Not really. That's what makes phonology so interesting.

Language Games

Click on the picture to see it larger. (Click here to visit the excellent site that is the source of the cartoon: PartiallyClips.com.
I found out about this site through Purdue's very worthwile SycamoreReview.com.)

Some of us were lucky enough to learn at some point that Pig Latin could be our secret language. We learned the rule and for a while felt like we had found a cloak of invisibility - or more appropriately, a Maxwell Smartian cone of silence. This cipher enabled us to share our most incriminating thoughts with that one friend. You popular people might have known 2 or even 3 friends who were in on the cabal.

Let me explain it for the masses who never got in on this most select of the very secret societies. It's very complex. Take the first sound of the word and put it at the end of the word then add the "ay" sound.

Did you catch that? Let me give some free examples. The word 'too' becomes oo-tay. The word 'much' becomes uch-may. Now you can read the cartoon and see what that crazy talk is all about.

Please don't abuse this new power.

But before we mastered this language we had to establish a few rules that weren't initially explained. What do you do if the beginning of the word has two letters? Take for instance 'FLake.' In my circle we took both letters and put them at the end. "Ake-flay." And what about three letters? "STRike." Same idea - preserve the onset. "Ike-stray." And what about words that had no consonant in the onset position? Just add the "ay" to the end. "Aim" became "aim-ay." "Idea" - "idea-ay." I've often wondered if there were many variations to these rules - and if they might be regional.

One friend told me about his "ong" language. Take every consonant and add "ong." Spell out the vowels. So the word "car" would be "Cong-ay-Rong." And the word "BoaT" would be "Bong-oh-ay-Tong." "In" -> "eye-Nong." This language took too long to speak. Such a slow language also affords the enemy too much time to add up the code. No matter how quickly you're speaking it's only as fast as spelling every word. A good crypto-langue is difficult for a non-speaker even once they receive the code. Speak it fast enough and they start falling behind.

My friends Keith and Andrea taught me what they called Horse Latin. Like Pig Latin it works with complete onsets and an added syllable (-ibe). It does not however switch anything around. Instead it confuses by adding the syllable after the onset consonant (or cluster) of EACH syllable. So "car" becomes "kibe-ar." "Buggy" becomes "bibe-uh-gibe-ee." If there is no word-initial onset the -ibe is simply tacked on before the first syllable - so "eye" becomes "ibe-eye."

(It doesn't get any more interesting here unless you like reading recipes. Just move to the end of the essay if I've started sounding like Ben Stein -- "[T]he Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone? . . . the Great Depression, passed the . . . Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which . . . anyone? Raised or lowered? . . . raised tariffs." . . . "Bueller . . . Bueller . . . ?")

These games don't require too much of a theoretical background in language theory to explain. And from the little description we've given we could predict just about any word. Some language games help to illustrate how much the brain is capable of formulating and producing without explicated knowledge of a language's underlying structure. The Kall speech disguise is simple enough to observe on the surface. Most easily put - the first syllable (onset and vowel) of the word moves to the back. "Buggy" would become "geebuh." "ballyhoo" would become "leehoobaa." One extra detail - when there is no 2nd syllable a schwa is inserted. So "car" becomes "reh-ca."

Here's where it gets tricky. The speakers will also pay attention to the length of a sound. Actual timing length. So if the word is "bananaaaa" normally, the disguise will be "nanabaaaa." In both words the last sound is lengthened. And even a consonant can be longer (or geminate). So imagine pausing on the final /t/ of "bat." "Batttt" - the disguise would add the schwa and lengthen the last sound. Even though it's no longer a /t/. The disguise would be "teh-baaaa."

Now move to the Bakwiri language game and throw in one more detail like tone, and the sophistication of language games starts to reveal itself. The vowels and consonants can move around - add some here - delete some here - make consonants longer and have a few words that can even begin with ng-, mb-, or nd-, and do this while leaving the tonal contour of the word intact - and remember that it's mostly kids that teach each other these games. This is a good counter to refute the feelgood argument of Koko-the-gorilla's language skills. No animal can approach this facility with speech sounds - or symbols.

So let's forget about all the theories and abstract representations. Any variations on these language games that you learned? Any completely new ones? Instead of going through the rules a decent data set would suffice. Simply give the alternate for each of these:

scrap
fling
alley
banana
sit
bee
babble
able
eat