Phonology
In the great scheme of things, High Eldich has a simple phonological system. It has strict phonotactics and therefore only has basic phonological phenomena which are common in other languages. Despite its strictness, however, High Eldich maintains a rich lexicon which is unhindered by its limited number of clusters and codas, and is very expressive with the limiting restrictions it has. There are a number of processes which do occur and need to be described, such as assimilation and mutations, and also the phonological quality of many phonemes which makes it particularly unique in some respects. In order to capture the fullness of the phonological system, I have employed Element Theory to analyse the way in which segments interact with one another.
A Note on Element Theory
For those readers who are unaware of what Element Theory is, it is simply a subsegmental of a phonology of a given language. It is an alternative to Feature Theory, which breaks down segments into different features which define them, often shown in a binary. Element Theory, although still breaking down segments into smaller parts, does not work in a binary. Where features encode numerous traits with [+/−obstruent] or [+/−back], Element Theory encodes multiple related features into a single representation known as an element, which is notated between two bars ||. For instance, if we take the segment /u/, Feature Theory would define it as:
Of course, we have a lot going on here and the issue with features is that they tends to over-generate due to their nature of binarity. Element Theory reduces all of these features to a single element, in this case, |U|. What |U| represents is not necessarily all those features presented above, but rather some qualities of /u/-ness which are more abstract and can be applied to both vowels and consonants, such as labiality, roundedness and backness.
The Basics
There are six elements used to represent different traits which are found in all segments. Three of these, |I U A| are known as the vowel elements which indicate the resonance (or place) of articulation. The other three |ʔ H L| are the consonant elements which indicate manner of articulation. Here is a small table indicating the elements and their main traits:
There are six elements used to represent different traits which are found in all segments. Three of these, |I U A| are known as the vowel elements which indicate the resonance (or place) of articulation. The other three |ʔ H L| are the consonant elements which indicate manner of articulation. Here is a small table indicating the elements and their main traits:
The six elements are free to combine with one another to produce different segments. For example, where |I| alone often represents /i/, can be combined with the |A| element to form |I A| representing /e/. When a segment only has one element like |I| it is known as simplex, and when it has more than one, such as |I A|, it is known as complex. Complex segments are generally stronger (fortified) than simplex segments, which are weaker and found in weaker positions in a syllable (as the coda or unstressed).
Another factor which is added in order to give Element Theory more generative power is the ability to assign headedness to an element in the expression. For instance if we look again at |I A| for /e/, we have two elements, where |I| indicates the height of the vowel closer to [i] and |A| indicates its slightly lower quality. But what if we have another vowel like /ɛ/ which shares the same basic expression as /e/. In this case, we can make one of the elements headed to distinguish /e/ and another to distinguish /ɛ/. Since /e/ is closer to [i], we make the |I| headed: |I A|, whereas since /ɛ/ is closer to [a], we make |A| headed: |I A|. We indicate headedness by underlying the element.
A consonant is often created using a combination of the consonant elements and the vowel elements. For example, /p/ is a labial which means |U|, it is also a stop meaning |ʔ| and it is voiceless, requiring |H|. In this case, a full expression for /p/ would be |U ʔ H|. Another example, for /ɲ/ might be |L ʔ I| where the nasality is represented with |L| and the palatalness with |I|. Every language has a distinctive representation for each of its segments, and just because one representation of /g/ appears in one language, it might appear differently in another. The reason being for this is simply because Element Theory takes segmental behaviour across the entire phonology into account. In other words /g/ can act differently cross-linguistically and Element Theory knows this.
These are the fundamentals for Element Theory which allow us to analyse and visualise how segments interact on a subsegmental level. For instance, a relatively simple phonological sound change which occurs cross-linguistically is assimilation. This can be illustrated using elements thus:
Another factor which is added in order to give Element Theory more generative power is the ability to assign headedness to an element in the expression. For instance if we look again at |I A| for /e/, we have two elements, where |I| indicates the height of the vowel closer to [i] and |A| indicates its slightly lower quality. But what if we have another vowel like /ɛ/ which shares the same basic expression as /e/. In this case, we can make one of the elements headed to distinguish /e/ and another to distinguish /ɛ/. Since /e/ is closer to [i], we make the |I| headed: |I A|, whereas since /ɛ/ is closer to [a], we make |A| headed: |I A|. We indicate headedness by underlying the element.
A consonant is often created using a combination of the consonant elements and the vowel elements. For example, /p/ is a labial which means |U|, it is also a stop meaning |ʔ| and it is voiceless, requiring |H|. In this case, a full expression for /p/ would be |U ʔ H|. Another example, for /ɲ/ might be |L ʔ I| where the nasality is represented with |L| and the palatalness with |I|. Every language has a distinctive representation for each of its segments, and just because one representation of /g/ appears in one language, it might appear differently in another. The reason being for this is simply because Element Theory takes segmental behaviour across the entire phonology into account. In other words /g/ can act differently cross-linguistically and Element Theory knows this.
These are the fundamentals for Element Theory which allow us to analyse and visualise how segments interact on a subsegmental level. For instance, a relatively simple phonological sound change which occurs cross-linguistically is assimilation. This can be illustrated using elements thus:
In this example, from Spanish, regressive assimilation has taken place where the /n/ in un “a/an” has assimilated to [um] due to the labial consonant which comes after it. In this particular case described by Element Theory, we can say that the |U| element in /p/ has spread to /n/ realising it as [m] instead. This is just a small example of how Element Theory works.
L & H Languages
Another example of where Element theory has been employ is the distinction between L and H languages. In natural languages, a language is supposed to have either |L| or |H| as the chief element which is active. For example, an H language, where the |H| is more active, the neutral state of a plosive (for example) is as a “voiced” sound or as a distinction between fortis and tenuis. In this case, a /b/ is represented by |U ʔ| where phonetically it would be closer to [b̥] rather than a full [b].
Its voiceless counterpart, however, contains |U ʔ H| where the |H| element actively makes it voiceless. Since |H| is phonologically active, assimilation in H languages tend to be devoicing. Since |H| is headed, it is the case that all H languages have aspirated consonants. L languages, in contrast, have the |L| element as their active element, and all voiceless consonants are naturally voiceless. For instance, /p/ is represented by |U ʔ|, but /b/ by |U ʔ L|. The existence of an active |L| element means that voicing is the dominant form of assimilation, since the |L| spreads.
Another example of where Element theory has been employ is the distinction between L and H languages. In natural languages, a language is supposed to have either |L| or |H| as the chief element which is active. For example, an H language, where the |H| is more active, the neutral state of a plosive (for example) is as a “voiced” sound or as a distinction between fortis and tenuis. In this case, a /b/ is represented by |U ʔ| where phonetically it would be closer to [b̥] rather than a full [b].
Its voiceless counterpart, however, contains |U ʔ H| where the |H| element actively makes it voiceless. Since |H| is phonologically active, assimilation in H languages tend to be devoicing. Since |H| is headed, it is the case that all H languages have aspirated consonants. L languages, in contrast, have the |L| element as their active element, and all voiceless consonants are naturally voiceless. For instance, /p/ is represented by |U ʔ|, but /b/ by |U ʔ L|. The existence of an active |L| element means that voicing is the dominant form of assimilation, since the |L| spreads.
Why Elemental Theory?
There are linguistic, glossopoetic and personal reasons why I have chosen Element Theory to represent my languages’ phonologies instead of using Optimality Theory or Features. Firstly, I believe that Features, though phonetically and acoustically accurate, do not capture the way we regard subsegmental phonology as human beings. Despite the great strides which technology has made to allow us to define with sharp precision how a single phone might be formed, we as human beings do not cognitively regard phonology in the same way. We are blind to backness and roundedness whether consciously or unconsciously, and it is not how we regard sounds interacting when they do. Instead, I believe we regard them in more abstract terms, like the elements, which are based on our unconscious perception of phonology.
Secondly, Element Theory explains things in a more human way than, say, Optimality Theory. Although in most cases, both theories probably result in the same answer according to the environment, Optimality Theory relies on a more environmental and positivist approach to how certain phonemes interact with one another. This is fine and extremely efficient in keeping out any arbitrariness which so often occurs in our science. However, languages being a human construction, I believe that there is a subconscious part of our cognition which subjectively choses certain processes based on our preferences. Optimality Theory does not allow for this possibility of subjectivity and instead posits a determinism in a given environment based on constraints. In Element Theory however, rather than a sound change or phonological phenomenon arising passively, it arises actively. This might be open to a wider debate on how human beings regard languages and how languages come into being and change, but it is not a debate for this book. Here I am only highlighting one of the reason for my preference of the theory.
Lastly, the elements capture certain phonological features as according to their phonetics more accurately than traditional thought. Even with the description of L and H languages, a traditional phonologist would have described /p/ and /b/ as a “perfect” voiceless-voiced pair, but in Element Theory, the more subtle yet more scientific distinction of [ph] and [b̥] are taken into account, allowing for more precise analysis. As well as this, Element Theory bases the elements off proper acoustic analysis, making parities between [i] and [j] or [u] and [w] with their similarities on the spectrogram.
In conclusion, I recommend the use of Element Theory for most glossopoeists, partly based off of the reasons I have given above, but also for another more profound reason which I am currently working on: the possibility of a phonosemantic relationship between the elements and our association with certain sounds (for example, |I|, which indicates vowel height, might have some relationship with the diminutive cross- linguistically). This will be the subject of another book.
If any reader wishes to learn more about Element Theory from a purely linguistic perspective, please see An Introduction to Element Theory by Philip Backley.
There are linguistic, glossopoetic and personal reasons why I have chosen Element Theory to represent my languages’ phonologies instead of using Optimality Theory or Features. Firstly, I believe that Features, though phonetically and acoustically accurate, do not capture the way we regard subsegmental phonology as human beings. Despite the great strides which technology has made to allow us to define with sharp precision how a single phone might be formed, we as human beings do not cognitively regard phonology in the same way. We are blind to backness and roundedness whether consciously or unconsciously, and it is not how we regard sounds interacting when they do. Instead, I believe we regard them in more abstract terms, like the elements, which are based on our unconscious perception of phonology.
Secondly, Element Theory explains things in a more human way than, say, Optimality Theory. Although in most cases, both theories probably result in the same answer according to the environment, Optimality Theory relies on a more environmental and positivist approach to how certain phonemes interact with one another. This is fine and extremely efficient in keeping out any arbitrariness which so often occurs in our science. However, languages being a human construction, I believe that there is a subconscious part of our cognition which subjectively choses certain processes based on our preferences. Optimality Theory does not allow for this possibility of subjectivity and instead posits a determinism in a given environment based on constraints. In Element Theory however, rather than a sound change or phonological phenomenon arising passively, it arises actively. This might be open to a wider debate on how human beings regard languages and how languages come into being and change, but it is not a debate for this book. Here I am only highlighting one of the reason for my preference of the theory.
Lastly, the elements capture certain phonological features as according to their phonetics more accurately than traditional thought. Even with the description of L and H languages, a traditional phonologist would have described /p/ and /b/ as a “perfect” voiceless-voiced pair, but in Element Theory, the more subtle yet more scientific distinction of [ph] and [b̥] are taken into account, allowing for more precise analysis. As well as this, Element Theory bases the elements off proper acoustic analysis, making parities between [i] and [j] or [u] and [w] with their similarities on the spectrogram.
In conclusion, I recommend the use of Element Theory for most glossopoeists, partly based off of the reasons I have given above, but also for another more profound reason which I am currently working on: the possibility of a phonosemantic relationship between the elements and our association with certain sounds (for example, |I|, which indicates vowel height, might have some relationship with the diminutive cross- linguistically). This will be the subject of another book.
If any reader wishes to learn more about Element Theory from a purely linguistic perspective, please see An Introduction to Element Theory by Philip Backley.