Paraphonemic Clicks: A Language Universal?Betsy Pillion & Jason Riggle University of Chicago
Workshop on the Emergence of Language Universals 18 February 2018
1 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
2 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Introduction
Introduction
1 Are paraphonemic clicks widespread enough in language to be considered a spoken language universal?
2 Roles that clicks play in conversation and why they are well-suited for those roles
3 Preliminary results of an ongoing survey asking speakers about clicks in their languages
4 Paraphonemes and paralanguage
Play along at home: How many times will I click during this presentation?
3 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories
- English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories
- English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
Spoken language learners acquire phonemic categories for consonants and vowels in their language
Learners must also be aware of paraphonemic categories - English tsk-tsk or tut-tut (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 2006)
- African diaspora suck teeth, kiss teeth, tchip, tcham la (Patrick & Figueroa,
2002; Pillion, et al., 2017)
- Hebrew dental click - no (Gil, 2013)
- San’ani Arabic dental click - yes (Gil, 2013)
Typically not considered part of the phonemic inventory of the language
Clicks have language specific meanings and uses
What would it mean for these clicks to be universal?
4 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages
5 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages
5 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages
5 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity X
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language ???
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages 7
6 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity X
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language ???
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages 7
6 / 34
What does it mean for clicks to be “universal”?
Hypothesis A: Click sounds are used by every spoken language in a paraphonemic capacity X
Hypothesis B: Click sounds are used in roles that have universal meanings that are used in every spoken language ???
Hypothesis C: Click sounds have universal-form meaning mappings that are shared and used among all spoken languages 7
6 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
7 / 34
What roles do these clicks play?
Verbal Gestures and Interjections: Stance display (Ogden, 2013), Negative affect (Pillion, et al. 2017; Grenoble, et al. 2014; Patrick & Figueroa, 2002; Rickford & Rickford,
1976), Back channel (Pillion, et al., 2017), ‘yes,’ ‘no’ (Grenoble, et al. 2014, Gil, 2013)
Discourse Roles: Turn-holding during word search, signaling topic change, call closing sequences (Wright, 2005, 2007), incipient speakership, sequence management (Ogden, 2013)
Other: Percussives (Ogden, 2013; Pike, 1943)
8 / 34
What roles do these clicks play?
Verbal Gestures and Interjections: Stance display (Ogden, 2013), Negative affect (Pillion, et al. 2017; Grenoble, et al. 2014; Patrick & Figueroa, 2002; Rickford & Rickford,
1976), Back channel (Pillion, et al., 2017), ‘yes,’ ‘no’ (Grenoble, et al. 2014, Gil, 2013)
Discourse Roles: Turn-holding during word search, signaling topic change, call closing sequences (Wright, 2005, 2007), incipient speakership, sequence management (Ogden, 2013)
Other: Percussives (Ogden, 2013; Pike, 1943)
8 / 34
What roles do these clicks play?
Verbal Gestures and Interjections: Stance display (Ogden, 2013), Negative affect (Pillion, et al. 2017; Grenoble, et al. 2014; Patrick & Figueroa, 2002; Rickford & Rickford,
1976), Back channel (Pillion, et al., 2017), ‘yes,’ ‘no’ (Grenoble, et al. 2014, Gil, 2013)
Discourse Roles: Turn-holding during word search, signaling topic change, call closing sequences (Wright, 2005, 2007), incipient speakership, sequence management (Ogden, 2013)
Other: Percussives (Ogden, 2013; Pike, 1943)
8 / 34
Certain clicks have particular properties across large groups of speakers, considered “language-free” or “primitive” (Poyatos 1993: 383)
Gil (2013)’s fieldworker survey offers 143 languages, 118 languages said to have paralinguistic clicks, 25 said to have ‘other’ clicks
Table: Affective clicks in pink, logical clicks in red, ‘other’ clicks in white.
9 / 34
Certain clicks have particular properties across large groups of speakers, considered “language-free” or “primitive” (Poyatos 1993: 383)
Gil (2013)’s fieldworker survey offers 143 languages, 118 languages said to have paralinguistic clicks, 25 said to have ‘other’ clicks
Table: Affective clicks in pink, logical clicks in red, ‘other’ clicks in white.
9 / 34
Certain clicks have particular properties across large groups of speakers, considered “language-free” or “primitive” (Poyatos 1993: 383)
Gil (2013)’s fieldworker survey offers 143 languages, 118 languages said to have paralinguistic clicks, 25 said to have ‘other’ clicks
Table: Affective clicks in pink, logical clicks in red, ‘other’ clicks in white.
9 / 34
Certain clicks have particular properties across large groups of speakers, considered “language-free” or “primitive” (Poyatos 1993: 383)
Gil (2013)’s fieldworker survey offers 143 languages, 118 languages said to have paralinguistic clicks, 25 said to have ‘other’ clicks
Table: Affective clicks in pink, logical clicks in red, ‘other’ clicks in white.
9 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
10 / 34
Based on previous research, these clicks are widespread
Bennett (2017) asserts that non-phonemic clicks are so widespread as to “verge on universal”
Carefully balanced sample can help tell us how widespread
1 Do speakers of any given spoken language use clicks? 2 Do they use them for discourse management? To convey affect or
logical meaning?
11 / 34
Based on previous research, these clicks are widespread
Bennett (2017) asserts that non-phonemic clicks are so widespread as to “verge on universal”
Carefully balanced sample can help tell us how widespread
1 Do speakers of any given spoken language use clicks? 2 Do they use them for discourse management? To convey affect or
logical meaning?
11 / 34
Based on previous research, these clicks are widespread
Bennett (2017) asserts that non-phonemic clicks are so widespread as to “verge on universal”
Carefully balanced sample can help tell us how widespread
1 Do speakers of any given spoken language use clicks? 2 Do they use them for discourse management? To convey affect or
logical meaning?
11 / 34
Based on previous research, these clicks are widespread
Bennett (2017) asserts that non-phonemic clicks are so widespread as to “verge on universal”
Carefully balanced sample can help tell us how widespread 1 Do speakers of any given spoken language use clicks?
2 Do they use them for discourse management? To convey affect or logical meaning?
11 / 34
Based on previous research, these clicks are widespread
Bennett (2017) asserts that non-phonemic clicks are so widespread as to “verge on universal”
Carefully balanced sample can help tell us how widespread 1 Do speakers of any given spoken language use clicks? 2 Do they use them for discourse management? To convey affect or
logical meaning?
11 / 34
Short informal interviews with speakers (interviews ongoing)
Sample taken from World Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS), 100 languages (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013)
(http://wals.info/languoid/samples/100) Genetically and geographically balanced
Statistical methods can help us ascertain the likelihood that clicks are used in every language
12 / 34
Short informal interviews with speakers (interviews ongoing) Sample taken from World Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS), 100 languages (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013)
(http://wals.info/languoid/samples/100)
Genetically and geographically balanced
Statistical methods can help us ascertain the likelihood that clicks are used in every language
12 / 34
Short informal interviews with speakers (interviews ongoing) Sample taken from World Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS), 100 languages (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013)
(http://wals.info/languoid/samples/100) Genetically and geographically balanced
Statistical methods can help us ascertain the likelihood that clicks are used in every language
12 / 34
Short informal interviews with speakers (interviews ongoing) Sample taken from World Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS), 100 languages (Dryer & Haspelmath, 2013)
(http://wals.info/languoid/samples/100) Genetically and geographically balanced
Statistical methods can help us ascertain the likelihood that clicks are used in every language
12 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Ask speakers about how they might say things “without words”
Interviews conducted by undergrad research assistants
Not comprehensive
13 / 34
Preliminary Results
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
14 / 34
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Results
11 languages have been surveyed out of eventual 100
All speakers have provided examples of clicks with particular meanings in their interviews
15 / 34
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Results
11 languages have been surveyed out of eventual 100
All speakers have provided examples of clicks with particular meanings in their interviews
15 / 34
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Results
Language Articulation Meaning
Turkish alv (1), alv (many) No or ‘I don’t know’, disapproval Egyptian Arabic alv (many) No, negative Korean alv (3) Shame, pity English dent, labiodent Disapproval, negative affect French Reluctance, calling dogs Russian alv (3), lat Disapproval, disagreement Spanish bilabial Frustration, negative affect Basque alv (5) Disapproval, dismissal Persian labidodent Disagreement Indonesian lat Displeasure West Greenlandic labiodent calling dogs
16 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
17 / 34
Analysis
Analysis
Assumptions
Assuming this typologically/geographically balanced sample is representative of the world’s languages Assuming that we are sampling randomly from this set of languages
How likely is it that all spoken languages make use of clicks?
Languages binarily coded as having clicks or not having clicks
18 / 34
Assumptions Assuming this typologically/geographically balanced sample is representative of the world’s languages
Assuming that we are sampling randomly from this set of languages
How likely is it that all spoken languages make use of clicks?
Languages binarily coded as having clicks or not having clicks
18 / 34
Assumptions Assuming this typologically/geographically balanced sample is representative of the world’s languages Assuming that we are sampling randomly from this set of languages
How likely is it that all spoken languages make use of clicks?
Languages binarily coded as having clicks or not having clicks
18 / 34
Assumptions Assuming this typologically/geographically balanced sample is representative of the world’s languages Assuming that we are sampling randomly from this set of languages
How likely is it that all spoken languages make use of clicks?
Languages binarily coded as having clicks or not having clicks
18 / 34
Assumptions Assuming this typologically/geographically balanced sample is representative of the world’s languages Assuming that we are sampling randomly from this set of languages
How likely is it that all spoken languages make use of clicks? Languages binarily coded as having clicks or not having clicks
18 / 34
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36%
3 36.84% 4 47.28% 5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36%
3 36.84% 4 47.28% 5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36%
3 36.84% 4 47.28% 5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36% 3 36.84%
4 47.28% 5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36% 3 36.84% 4 47.28%
5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
Take a random sample of n draws from the set of all languages
95% confidence interval - calculate the estimated upper bound for languages that don’t possess clicks
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
2 22.36% 3 36.84% 4 47.28% 5 54.92% 6 60.69% 7 65.18% 8 68.76% 9 71.68%
10 74.11% 11 76.15%
Analysis
Analysis
No. Lgs Sampled with Clicks Expected Percentage of Lgs with Clicks
90 0.9672 91 0.9676 92 0.9679 93 0.9683 94 0.9686 95 0.9689 96 0.9692 97 0.9695 98 0.9698 99 0.9701
100 0.9704
20 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
“Affective Meaning” vs. “Logical Meaning” vs. neither (Gil, 2013)
Clicks offered are all affective, logical, functional, none related to discourse management
Survey-collected clicks by definition will only contain clicks that speakers have awareness of
May exclude clicks that may be used in discourse
Interviews conducted in a shared language, discourse clicks often used by speakers during interviews in English
Unclear if discourse management clicks are reflective of shared or primary language
Several examples may be percussives (Ogden, 2013)
22 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
23 / 34
Role in discourse
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds
Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short
Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow)
Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools
Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Role in discourse Acoustically distinct from primary phonemic sounds Temporally short Potentially low effort (no engaging of pulmonary airflow) Recognizable (Best, et al. 2001)
Role as affect conveyors, functional tools Salient
!Xoo clicks are twice as intense as the following vowel (Ladefoged & Traill,
1994)
Known for being loud, although variable (Miller & Elsner, 2017)
Clicks may be more expressive by virtue of being outside of the phonemic inventory of a language (Dingemanse & Akita, 2016)
24 / 34
Why are clicks used in these roles?
Click articulation may result from other forms of human behavior alongside speech
Made as the tongue moves away from the position that is held during a swallow (Ogden, 2013: 311)
Result from separating of the articulators, and before intake of breath (Scobbie, et al. 2013)
Common, possibly incidental result of using the articulators
Clicks similarity to percussives make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
25 / 34
Why are clicks used in these roles?
Click articulation may result from other forms of human behavior alongside speech
Made as the tongue moves away from the position that is held during a swallow (Ogden, 2013: 311)
Result from separating of the articulators, and before intake of breath (Scobbie, et al. 2013)
Common, possibly incidental result of using the articulators
Clicks similarity to percussives make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
25 / 34
Why are clicks used in these roles?
Click articulation may result from other forms of human behavior alongside speech
Made as the tongue moves away from the position that is held during a swallow (Ogden, 2013: 311)
Result from separating of the articulators, and before intake of breath (Scobbie, et al. 2013)
Common, possibly incidental result of using the articulators
Clicks similarity to percussives make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
25 / 34
Why are clicks used in these roles?
Click articulation may result from other forms of human behavior alongside speech
Made as the tongue moves away from the position that is held during a swallow (Ogden, 2013: 311)
Result from separating of the articulators, and before intake of breath (Scobbie, et al. 2013)
Common, possibly incidental result of using the articulators
Clicks similarity to percussives make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
25 / 34
Why are clicks used in these roles?
Click articulation may result from other forms of human behavior alongside speech
Made as the tongue moves away from the position that is held during a swallow (Ogden, 2013: 311)
Result from separating of the articulators, and before intake of breath (Scobbie, et al. 2013)
Common, possibly incidental result of using the articulators
Clicks similarity to percussives make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
25 / 34
Paralanguage (Poyatos, 1993) or paralinguistic (Gil, 2013)
Paralanguage: “the nonverbal voice qualities, voice modifier and independent utterances produced or conditioned in the areas covered by the supraglottal cavities (from the lips and the nares to the pharynx), the laryngeal cavity and the infraglottal cavities (lungs and esophagus), down to the abdominal muscles, as well as the intervening momentary silences, which we use consciously or unconsiously supporting or contradicting the verbal, kinesic, chemical, dermal and thermal or proxemic messages, either simultaneously or alternating with them, in both interaction and noninteraction.” (Poyatos, 1993: 6)
Gil (2013) excludes discourse management clicks from paralanguage
26 / 34
Paralanguage (Poyatos, 1993) or paralinguistic (Gil, 2013)
Paralanguage: “the nonverbal voice qualities, voice modifier and independent utterances produced or conditioned in the areas covered by the supraglottal cavities (from the lips and the nares to the pharynx), the laryngeal cavity and the infraglottal cavities (lungs and esophagus), down to the abdominal muscles, as well as the intervening momentary silences, which we use consciously or unconsiously supporting or contradicting the verbal, kinesic, chemical, dermal and thermal or proxemic messages, either simultaneously or alternating with them, in both interaction and noninteraction.” (Poyatos, 1993: 6)
Gil (2013) excludes discourse management clicks from paralanguage
26 / 34
Paralanguage (Poyatos, 1993) or paralinguistic (Gil, 2013)
Paralanguage: “the nonverbal voice qualities, voice modifier and independent utterances produced or conditioned in the areas covered by the supraglottal cavities (from the lips and the nares to the pharynx), the laryngeal cavity and the infraglottal cavities (lungs and esophagus), down to the abdominal muscles, as well as the intervening momentary silences, which we use consciously or unconsiously supporting or contradicting the verbal, kinesic, chemical, dermal and thermal or proxemic messages, either simultaneously or alternating with them, in both interaction and noninteraction.” (Poyatos, 1993: 6)
Gil (2013) excludes discourse management clicks from paralanguage
26 / 34
Paralanguage (Poyatos, 1993) or paralinguistic (Gil, 2013)
Paralanguage: “the nonverbal voice qualities, voice modifier and independent utterances produced or conditioned in the areas covered by the supraglottal cavities (from the lips and the nares to the pharynx), the laryngeal cavity and the infraglottal cavities (lungs and esophagus), down to the abdominal muscles, as well as the intervening momentary silences, which we use consciously or unconsiously supporting or contradicting the verbal, kinesic, chemical, dermal and thermal or proxemic messages, either simultaneously or alternating with them, in both interaction and noninteraction.” (Poyatos, 1993: 6)
Gil (2013) excludes discourse management clicks from paralanguage
26 / 34
Paralanguage (Poyatos, 1993) or paralinguistic (Gil, 2013)
Paralanguage: “the nonverbal voice qualities, voice modifier and independent utterances produced or conditioned in the areas covered by the supraglottal cavities (from the lips and the nares to the pharynx), the laryngeal cavity and the infraglottal cavities (lungs and esophagus), down to the abdominal muscles, as well as the intervening momentary silences, which we use consciously or unconsiously supporting or contradicting the verbal, kinesic, chemical, dermal and thermal or proxemic messages, either simultaneously or alternating with them, in both interaction and noninteraction.” (Poyatos, 1993: 6)
Gil (2013) excludes discourse management clicks from paralanguage
26 / 34
‘Normal’ within conversation (Ogden, 2013)
Clicks are an essential part of conversation and work systematically in conjunction with other parts of speech like intonation and voice quality (Wright, 2011)
Considered marginal (Dingemanse, 2018)
Term “paraphonemic” is used to highlight their lack of integration into the sounds of the phonemic inventory
27 / 34
‘Normal’ within conversation (Ogden, 2013)
Clicks are an essential part of conversation and work systematically in conjunction with other parts of speech like intonation and voice quality (Wright, 2011)
Considered marginal (Dingemanse, 2018)
Term “paraphonemic” is used to highlight their lack of integration into the sounds of the phonemic inventory
27 / 34
‘Normal’ within conversation (Ogden, 2013)
Clicks are an essential part of conversation and work systematically in conjunction with other parts of speech like intonation and voice quality (Wright, 2011)
Considered marginal (Dingemanse, 2018)
Term “paraphonemic” is used to highlight their lack of integration into the sounds of the phonemic inventory
27 / 34
‘Normal’ within conversation (Ogden, 2013)
Clicks are an essential part of conversation and work systematically in conjunction with other parts of speech like intonation and voice quality (Wright, 2011)
Considered marginal (Dingemanse, 2018)
Term “paraphonemic” is used to highlight their lack of integration into the sounds of the phonemic inventory
27 / 34
‘Normal’ within conversation (Ogden, 2013)
Clicks are an essential part of conversation and work systematically in conjunction with other parts of speech like intonation and voice quality (Wright, 2011)
Considered marginal (Dingemanse, 2018)
Term “paraphonemic” is used to highlight their lack of integration into the sounds of the phonemic inventory
27 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
28 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
Highly restricted phonotactics Exception: Digo interjections use click-vowel sequences, but have historical connections to languages with click consonants (Walsh, 2006)
Paraphonemic click sounds are recognized as having language specific meaning, contrastive in some systems (Grenoble, et al. 2014)
Paraphonemic system contains other sounds that are also used as discourse markers, interjections, etc. but are not found in the primary phonemic system
Ideophones (Childs, 1994; Nuckolls, et al. 2016)
Interjections (Ameka, 1992)
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Existence of these clicks point to awareness of a larger repertoire of sounds beyond the primary phonemic inventory, paraphonemes
29 / 34
7 Paraphonology
8 Conclusions
30 / 34
Conclusions
Conclusion
Click articulations and sounds are commonly used across many different languages
Sampling will give us better insight to their range
Paraphonemic clicks are systematic, language-specific, used in the speech stream
Clicks may emerge from human behaviors unrelated to speech, or side effects of speech
Their forms make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
31 / 34
Conclusions
Conclusion
Click articulations and sounds are commonly used across many different languages
Sampling will give us better insight to their range
Paraphonemic clicks are systematic, language-specific, used in the speech stream
Clicks may emerge from human behaviors unrelated to speech, or side effects of speech
Their forms make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
31 / 34
Conclusions
Conclusion
Click articulations and sounds are commonly used across many different languages
Sampling will give us better insight to their range
Paraphonemic clicks are systematic, language-specific, used in the speech stream
Clicks may emerge from human behaviors unrelated to speech, or side effects of speech
Their forms make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
31 / 34
Conclusions
Conclusion
Click articulations and sounds are commonly used across many different languages
Sampling will give us better insight to their range
Paraphonemic clicks are systematic, language-specific, used in the speech stream
Clicks may emerge from human behaviors unrelated to speech, or side effects of speech
Their forms make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
31 / 34
Conclusions
Conclusion
Click articulations and sounds are commonly used across many different languages
Sampling will give us better insight to their range
Paraphonemic clicks are systematic, language-specific, used in the speech stream
Clicks may emerge from human behaviors unrelated to speech, or side effects of speech
Their forms make them likely to be used during the speech stream and therefore easily available to have meaning assigned to them
31 / 34
Petrussen, Nayoung Kim, Saied Barati, Matahari Kesadaran, Ekin Zorer, Noha Forster
32 / 34
Conclusions
References
Ameka, F. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics.
Beckman, Mary, and Atsuko Shoji. 1984. “Spectral and perceptual evidence for CV coarticulation in devoiced/si/and/syu/in Japanese.” Phonetica 41.2: 61-71.
Bennett, W. G. 2017. Pulmonic venting and the typology of click nasality. Unpublished manuscript.
Childs, G. T. 1994. Sound Symbolism, chapter African Ideophones. Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (Eds.) Cambridge University Press.
Dingemanse, M. and Akita, K., 2017. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics, 53(3), pp.501-532.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 4. 1?30, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444
Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info, Accessed on 2018-02-18.)
Gil, D. 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online., chapter Paralinguistic Usages of Clicks. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Grenoble, L., M. Martinovic, and R. Baglini. 2014. Verbal gestures in wolof. In Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Cascadilla Press Somerville, MA.
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. ”The sounds of the world?s languages.” Malden, MA (USA): Blackwell Publishing (1996).
Ladefoged, P. and A. Traill. 1994. Clicks and their accompaniments. Journal of Phonetics, 22:33?64.
Maddieson, I. and K. Precoda 1990. Updating UPSID. In UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, volume 74, Pp. 104?111.
Maddieson, I. 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, chapter Presence of Uncommon Consonants. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Mayer, C., Roewer-Despres, F., Stavness, I. and Gick, B., 2016. Does swallowing bootstrap speech learning? Canadian Acoustics, 44(3).
Miller, A. 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, chapter The Representation of Clicks, Pp. 416?439. Blackwell.
33 / 34
Conclusions
References
Miller, A. and M. Elsner. 2017. Click reduction in fluent speech: a semi-automated analysis of Mangetti Dune !Xung. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on the Use of Computational Methods in the Study of Endangered Languages, pages 107?115, Honolulu, Hawai?i, USA, March 6?7, 2017.
Nuckolls, J.B., Nielsen, E., Stanley, J.A. and Hopper, R., 2016. The systematic stretching and contracting of ideophonic phonology in Pastaza Quichua. International Journal of American Linguistics, 82(1), pp.95-116.
Ogden, R. 2013. Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3):299?320.
Patrick, Peter L. and Figueroa, Esther. 2002. “Kiss-Teeth” American Speech 77.4: 383-397.
Pike, K. 1943. Phonetics: A critical analysis of phonetic theory and a technic for the practical description of sounds. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Pillion, B., L. Grenoble, E. Ngue Um, and S. Kopper. 2017. Verbal gestures in Cameroon. In the Proceedings of ACAL 47.
Poyatos, F., 1993. Paralanguage: A linguistic and interdisciplinary approach to interactive speech and sounds. John Benjamins Publishing.
Scobbie, J. M., S. Schaeffler, and I. Mennen. 2011. Audible aspects of speech preparation. In International Congress of Phonetic Sciences XVII, Pp. 1782?1785.
Rickford, J. R. and A. E. Rickford. 1976. Cut-eye and suck-teeth: African words and gestures in new world guise. The Journal of American Folklore, 89(353):294?309.
Walsh, Martin T. 2006. A click in Digo and its historical interpretation. AZANIA: Journal of the British Institute in Eastern Africa, 41:1, 158-166, DOI: 10.1080/00672700609480440
Ward, N. 2006. Non-lexical conversation sounds in American English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(1):129?182.
Wright, M. 2005. Studies of the phonetics-interaction interface: clicks and interactional structures in English conversation. PhD thesis, University of York.
Wright, M. 2007. Clicks as markers of new sequences in english conversation. In International Congress of Phonetic Sciences XVI, Pp. 1069?1072.
Wright, M. 2011a. On clicks in english talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Wright, M. 2011b. The phonetics-interaction interface in the initiation of closings in everyday English telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics, 43:1080?1099.
34 / 34
What are clicks?
A sound produced with an ingressive lingual airstream mechanism, trapping air between a lingual or linguo-labial cavity formed between two oral constrictions. (Miller, 2011)
35 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage
May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Methodological Shortcomings
Speakers may wish to answer questions “correctly” - overreporting
Idiosyncratic usage is still usage May have to revise our notion of clicks being associated with particular languages, look at lower levels (dialect, idiolect)
Sampling is not truly random, speakers and languages are being sampled based on ease of access
Cannot erase the possibility of contact influence
36 / 34
Contact and Clicks
Clicks and other verbal gestures are claimed to travel easily (Pillion, et al. 2017)
We can’t fully account for the possibility that clicks come from a common source and have been adopted by speakers of many languages
37 / 34
Contact and Clicks
Clicks and other verbal gestures are claimed to travel easily (Pillion, et al. 2017)
We can’t fully account for the possibility that clicks come from a common source and have been adopted by speakers of many languages
37 / 34
Phonemic Rarity
UPSID: clicks occur as consonants in 1.1% of languages in a sample of 451 languages (Maddieson & Precoda, 1990)
WALS: clicks occurs as consonants in 1.8% of languages in a sample of 566 (Maddieson, 2013)
Restricted mainly to Southern African languages (Maddieson, 2005; Guldemann & Stoneking, 2008) with few exceptions (Damin speech register of Lardil and Dahalo a Cushitic language spoken in Kenya (Sands & Guldemann, 2009))
38 / 34
Phonemic Rarity
UPSID: clicks occur as consonants in 1.1% of languages in a sample of 451 languages (Maddieson & Precoda, 1990)
WALS: clicks occurs as consonants in 1.8% of languages in a sample of 566 (Maddieson, 2013)
Restricted mainly to Southern African languages (Maddieson, 2005; Guldemann & Stoneking, 2008) with few exceptions (Damin speech register of Lardil and Dahalo a Cushitic language spoken in Kenya (Sands & Guldemann, 2009))
38 / 34
Phonemic Rarity
UPSID: clicks occur as consonants in 1.1% of languages in a sample of 451 languages (Maddieson & Precoda, 1990)
WALS: clicks occurs as consonants in 1.8% of languages in a sample of 566 (Maddieson, 2013)
Restricted mainly to Southern African languages (Maddieson, 2005; Guldemann & Stoneking, 2008) with few exceptions (Damin speech register of Lardil and Dahalo a Cushitic language spoken in Kenya (Sands & Guldemann, 2009))
38 / 34
Paraphonemic ubiquity
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Discourse roles (Wright, 2005, 2007; Ogden, 2013)
Affective roles, logical roles (Gil, 2013)
If sounds are this common within these roles, why are they so uncommon within phonemic inventories?
39 / 34
Paraphonemic ubiquity
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Discourse roles (Wright, 2005, 2007; Ogden, 2013)
Affective roles, logical roles (Gil, 2013)
If sounds are this common within these roles, why are they so uncommon within phonemic inventories?
39 / 34
Paraphonemic ubiquity
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Discourse roles (Wright, 2005, 2007; Ogden, 2013)
Affective roles, logical roles (Gil, 2013)
If sounds are this common within these roles, why are they so uncommon within phonemic inventories?
39 / 34
Paraphonemic ubiquity
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Discourse roles (Wright, 2005, 2007; Ogden, 2013)
Affective roles, logical roles (Gil, 2013)
If sounds are this common within these roles, why are they so uncommon within phonemic inventories?
39 / 34
Paraphonemic ubiquity
Verbal Gestures (Grenoble, et al. 2014; Pillion, et al. 2017)
Discourse roles (Wright, 2005, 2007; Ogden, 2013)
Affective roles, logical roles (Gil, 2013)
If sounds are this common within these roles, why are they so uncommon within phonemic inventories?
39 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3)
Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow
Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Widespread paraphonemic clicks contrast with a lack of phonemic clicks
Phonemic clicks must interact with pulmonic airflow, whereas paraphonemic clicks are typically isolated without surrounding segments requiring pulmonic airflow (with few exceptions, Digo (Walsh, 2006))
Bennett (2017) proposes an articulatory explanation for the limits of click consonants
Nasal venting is a “phonetic consequence of routing pulmonic airflow around the two oral closures necessary to produce a click” (Bennett, 2017: 3) Paraphonemic clicks require no such nasal venting
If clicks are everywhere, why do we not see more languages incorporate clicks into their phonemic systems?
Click articulation requires more effort to interact with pulmonic airflow Even if a language is able to incorporate them, nasality may interfere
40 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Some languages use paraphonemic clicks in interjections alongside other sounds like in Digo (Walsh, 2006)
Digo’s clicks are thought to result from contact or historical click consonants in the language
Differences between paraphonemic and phonemic click articulation may help account for the contrast in their typology
41 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Some languages use paraphonemic clicks in interjections alongside other sounds like in Digo (Walsh, 2006)
Digo’s clicks are thought to result from contact or historical click consonants in the language
Differences between paraphonemic and phonemic click articulation may help account for the contrast in their typology
41 / 34
Click Ubiquity
Some languages use paraphonemic clicks in interjections alongside other sounds like in Digo (Walsh, 2006)
Digo’s clicks are thought to result from contact or historical click consonants in the language
Differences between paraphonemic and phonemic click articulation may help account for the contrast in their typology
41 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all.
But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows. If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049. There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks. Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all. But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows.
If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049. There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks. Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all. But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows. If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks. Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all. But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows. If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049. There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks.
Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all. But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows. If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049. There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks. Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Reasoning
The only way we can be certain there are no languages that don’t possess clicks is to check them all. But if we take a random sample of n draws from the bag of languages and all the languages have clicks then we can estimate a maximum upper bound on the portion of languages without clicks as follows. If the fraction of languages without clicks were any higher than .777 then 95% of the time we would see at least one language that didn’t have clicks when drawing twice because the chance of ‘accidentally missing’ all languages without clicks based on a single draw is at most .233, and the change of doing that twice is at most .233*.233=0.049. There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed all languages without clicks. Similarly, if we draw three languages with clicks then we can assume that at least 36.8% of all languages have clicks, as the chance of accidentally getting only languages with clicks is at most 0.368*0.368*0.368 = 0.049.
There is at most a 4.9% chance that we accidentally missed the languages without clicks
42 / 34
Language Specific Terminology
Terms for click sounds often have a term within the language
May refer to a set of sounds that include non-click articulations
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/tchip
Language Name Language Name
Guinee-Bissau Creole cia Kimbundu mushosu, muxoxu, kuxoxa Efik asiama Krio tSipu Ewe tsoo Ndjuka tjuu Fon cea Dutch tjoerier, tyuri Gullah pshaw Papiamento chupa Haitian Creole bichi (many more) Portuguese muxoxo Hausa tsaki Saramaccan koon Ibibio siOOp Sranan chupa, tyuri, tjoerie Igbo ima osu, ima oso Twi tweaa, two Kikongo tsiona Wolof cipu Yansi nswea:b Yoruba kpoSe
43 / 34
Terms for click sounds often have a term within the language
May refer to a set of sounds that include non-click articulations
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/tchip
Language Name Language Name
Guinee-Bissau Creole cia Kimbundu mushosu, muxoxu, kuxoxa Efik asiama Krio tSipu Ewe tsoo Ndjuka tjuu Fon cea Dutch tjoerier, tyuri Gullah pshaw Papiamento chupa Haitian Creole bichi (many more) Portuguese muxoxo Hausa tsaki Saramaccan koon Ibibio siOOp Sranan chupa, tyuri, tjoerie Igbo ima osu, ima oso Twi tweaa, two Kikongo tsiona Wolof cipu Yansi nswea:b Yoruba kpoSe
43 / 34
Terms for click sounds often have a term within the language
May refer to a set of sounds that include non-click articulations
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/tchip
Language Name Language Name
Guinee-Bissau Creole cia Kimbundu mushosu, muxoxu, kuxoxa Efik asiama Krio tSipu Ewe tsoo Ndjuka tjuu Fon cea Dutch tjoerier, tyuri Gullah pshaw Papiamento chupa Haitian Creole bichi (many more) Portuguese muxoxo Hausa tsaki Saramaccan koon Ibibio siOOp Sranan chupa, tyuri, tjoerie Igbo ima osu, ima oso Twi tweaa, two Kikongo tsiona Wolof cipu Yansi nswea:b Yoruba kpoSe
43 / 34