University of Babylon

College of Education for Human Sciences

Department of English

Naturalness and Natural Phonology

A Presentation for a Course

in

Phonetics and Phonology

Ph. D. Programme (2017-2018)

First Semester

By

Maha B. Mohammed

Supervised By

Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmed S. Mubarak

1
1. Introduction:

1.1 Natural Phonology: The Origin

Natural phonology (NP) is a modern development of the oldest explanatory

theory of phonology. The type of explanation offered by Natural Phonology had
originated in a variety of phonetic and phonological studies of the 19th and 20th
century. Its diverse elements evolved in the 19 th century studies of phonetics and
phonetic change, dialect variation, child speech, and synchronic alternation and
developed further in the 20th century studies of phonological perception. Its basic
thesis is that the living sound patterns of language are governed by forces implicit
in human vocalization and perception. That is to say, the basic thesis of NP is that
phonological systems are phonetically motivated. (Donegan & Stampe, 1979:
126).

In the modern version of the theory, the implicit phonetic forces are
manifested through processes which systematically but subconsciously adopt our
phonological intentions to our phonetic capacities and which enable us to
perceive in other’s speech intentions (ibid).

In the late 1960s David Stampe introduced the concept of “naturalness” with
a clear theoretical foundation into modern linguistic discussion. The
establishment of what has been termed Natural Morphology contributed
considerably to renew and reinforce discussion of the essentials and the concept
of naturalness (Hurch & Nathan, 1996: 231).

Phonologists have frequently addressed themselves to the naturalness of

phonological properties. Chomsky and Halle in their "Sound Pattern in English"
(SPE) point out that the use of features is intended to provide an inbuilt
evaluation of naturalness (Clark and Yallop, 1995: 154).

2
 In the 1970s the approach of Natural Phonology focused on the observation
that phonetically motivated (natural) processes are common in the phonologies of
the world’s languages, while phonetically unmotivated (unnatural) ones are
uncommon. The theory itself was founded by David Stampe (1969, 1973) and
expounded by Patricia Donegan and David Stampe (1979). NP was proposed as
an alternative to both structural and generative approaches to phonology current
at the time. Natural Phonology is a theory of phonological structure, acquisition
and change. The theory operates with phonological processes, which constitute
natural responses of the human vocal and perceptual systems to the difficulties
encountered in the production and perception of speech. For instance, it is more
difficult, on purely aerodynamic grounds, to produce a voiced stop than a
voiceless one, as well as a voiced velar stop than an alveolar one, while a bilabial
one is the easiest of the three ( Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 2004: 3).

1.2 Why Phonology is Natural?

Donegan and Stampe (1979: 127) advocate the idea that phonology is natural
in that it is a natural reflection of the needs, capacities and world of its users
rather than a merely conventional institution. NP is intended to explain its
subject matter to show that it follows naturally from the nature of things. The
notion of naturalness has been explained in terms of a number of other notions
like 'economy', simplicity', 'frequency', 'plausibility', 'markedness', as well as in
terms of psycholinguistics factor which is first language acquisition'.

A phonological property is more natural if it is more economical than

another. The notion of economy is one of the criteria often used as a guide in
phonemic analysis. A solution with fewer phonemes is judged more economical
than a solution recognizing more phonemes. Similarly, we might say that a
solution using fewer rules is more economical than a solution requiring more

3
rules, and so on. Economy, then, is a quantitative measure by which a given
solution can be evaluated as requiring fewer or more mechanisms (phonemes,
rules, conventions, etc.) than another solution (Hayman, 1975: 99).

Phonology has besides the concern with what is simple (i.e. general and
noncomplex) there is the focus in what is natural or plausible in a phonetic
sense (Hymen, 1975: 13). A phonological property is more natural if it is
simpler than another. In phonology, simplicity has been equated with feature
counting. As such a phonological description is said to be simple if it requires
fewer features than another (ibid: 103). Consequently, a natural class of sounds
will be characterized by relatively few features. Indeed the fewer features
needed, the more natural the class of sounds; hence obstruent consonants
(which can be characterized simply as [- sonorant]) constitute a more natural
class than, say, voiced consonants other than laterals (which might require the
specification [+voiced, +consonantal, -lateral]) (Clark and Yallop, 1995: 154).

Frequent combinations of features are said to be more natural than less

frequent ones. Nasalized vowels, though widespread, are still much less
frequent than their oral counterparts both in world's languages and in those
languages where they occur. As such oral vowels are more natural than
nasalized ones (Katamba, 1996: 99).

Naturalness has been explained in terms of plausibility. Certain

phonological rules are described to be plausible because they are found to occur
frequently and they do so in fairly predictable ways. Thus, a plausible
phonological rule is more natural than an implausible one (Hayman, 1975: 98).

Naturalness can be approached in terms of markedness. What is natural can

be said to be unmarked, and what is not natural can be said to be marked, i.e. in
some sense unusual. It has been observed that certain kinds of segments occur

4
in many languages, while others occur in only a few. This observation is
embodied in the study of markedness, which is the idea that not all segments or
sets of segments have equal status in phonological systems. For example, many
languages have the stop consonants [p, t, k], which are said to be unmarked, but
relatively few have the uvular [q], which is said to be marked. (Katamba, 1996:
98). The notion of markedness and its relation to naturalness has played an
important part in linguistic theory over the years. Stampe (1979) discusses the
acquisition of language as the suppression of ‘natural processes’ (unmarked
constructs) in the order to attain the contrasts occurring in adult grammar. In
outlining a theory he calls ‘Natural Phonology’, Stampe suggests that the
processes are, to some extent, physically motivated, in that ease of articulation
must have a part to play in determining the nature of early utterances. Adult
languages have, in effect, suppressed some of these processes in order to
introduce greater contrast into their inventories (Johnson & Britain, 2007: 4).

Universal Markedness

The Prague school's notion of markedness has been elaborated and applied
in a number of ways. To Praguians, markedness is defined in a language-
specific way. Differently, Greenberg (1966) assigns the marked and unmarked
values cross-linguistically to represent the universal tendencies. On the other
hand, the exact usage of the term marked has not been uniform (consistent and
constant). There are at least four interpretations assigned to the term marked:

1- The first view of markedness is that something which is marked is

characterized by the addition of something, for example, /kw/ carries lip-
rounding, while /k/ does not. In distinctive features it is [+round].

2- The second view is frequency. The unmarked member of an opposition

occurs more frequently than the marked member. Thus, it is suggested in a tone

5
language that high tone is unmarked if it is more frequent than the low tone and
vice versa.

3. The third view is neutrality. For example in French the inserted vowel, which
occurs non-etymologically as Arc de Triomphe [arke de trio ̌f] is the unmarked
or zero [neutral]. Schwa, another example is the [u] in Japanese:

English Japanese

paprika papurika

pulse parusu

4- The last view states that the unmarked member is the productive or regular.
In English, the unmarked (regular) pattern for disyllabic nouns is to have stress

on the first syllable (for example, climax /klai.mǽks/, serpent / 's ₔ:.pent/).
(Hayman, 1975: 145-146).

There are two characteristics of phonological naturalness: (1) it is based on

ease of articulation, and (2) it is relative:

1.We can point to good articulatory reason for natural process like assimilation
where adjacent sounds are made similar to each other so that one avoids using
any more effort than is required. What about perception? While assimilation
makes the task of speech production easier, it can make speech perception more
difficult. It is easier to discriminate between sounds if they are very different
from each other than it is to distinguish them when they are very alike. To
counterbalance assimilation, there are natural processes which have the effect of
enhancing differences between sounds. These facilitate the task of the hearer. A
natural process from the perception perspective would be 'dissimilation'
(Katamba, 1996: 108).

6
2. Naturalness is relative because what is natural in one phonological context
might be unnatural in another context. For instance, we said that oral vowels are
more natural than nasalized ones because the former are more frequent than the
later. Yet in the context where a vowel is nasalized is followed by a nasal
consonant, a nasalized vowel is more natural than the oral one (Ibid).

2. Natural Phonology

Natural phonology views the phonology of a language as a system of

subconscious mental processes that in real time mediate between intended but
unpronounceable lexical forms of utterances and pronounceable surface forms.
Natural phonology is a phonological model which represents a dramatic
departure from the main stream of generative phonology. It has its origins in
David Stampe's dissertation on natural phonology submitted to the University
of Chicago in 1973 and published in 1979. Stampe begins his dissertation in the
context of children's acquisition of phonology and draws attention to what he
calls 'phonological processes'. A phonological process is a ‘mental operation
that applies in speech to substitute, for a class of sounds or sound sequences
presenting a specific common difficulty to the speech capacity of the individual,
an alternative class identical but lacking difficult property’. The processes are
not rules of the language acquired as the child masters language, but reflections
of what we might call the child's inbuilt tendencies. Thus, by the very nature of
the human articulatory and perceptual organism, a child will prefer to articulate
plosives as voiceless rather than voiced because of the difficulty of maintaining
voicing while the supraglottal tract is closed or will prefer to nasalize vowels
next to nasal consonant. Stampe turns generative phonology upside down by
stating that what generative phonologists call rules constituting a phonological

7
system are seen by natural phonologists as processes motivated by the nature of
production and perception (Clark and Yallop, 1995: 404).

2-1 Natural Classes

In order to be able to define naturalness formally, it is necessary to

recognize the notion of natural class, in which the two questions of what is
natural class? And what is unnatural class? are supposed to be answered.

Akmajian et al. (1997: 113) mention informal definitions for both natural
class and unnatural class. They define natural class as a set of phonemes
uniquely defined by small number of distinctive features. Such set plays a
significant role in expressing the phonological regularities (arranged and
organized patterns) found in human language. An unnatural class, on the other
hand, is a collection of phonemes that cannot be uniquely specified by a small
number of distinctive features.

However, a set of segments is said to constitute a natural class if fewer

phonetic features are needed to specify the set as a whole than to specify any
one number of the set. For instance, the set of voiced plosive segments in
English is natural class. On this basis, [b], [d], and [g] all share the feature of
voicing, instantaneous (instant or immediate) release, and interruption, but to
specify any of them, further features would be required ([d] would be coronal,
produced with the blade of the tongue raised from its neutral position) (Crystal,
1997: 310).

Buckley (2000: 2) states that the natural class is a group of two or more
segments which share one or more phonetic properties. And the relationship
between the features which identify the natural class is always one conjunction.
Thus, the member of the class shows similar behavior in identical phonetic

8
environment. The voiceless stops in English [p, t, k] form a natural class. They
share two phonetic properties, that is, they are voiceless and they are all stops.
This class is defined by the feature [-voice, - continuant, - delayed release]. By
adding or removing features, we can reduce or enlarge this class. For example,
if we add the feature [-coronal], we are left with [p] and [k]. However, if we
remove the feature [-voice], the voiced stops are now included [p, b, t, d, k, and
g]. Moreover, if remove [delayed release] then the voiced and voiceless
affricatives [dƷ and tʃ] are included. The more features we use, the larger the
class will be. We can say that the size of natural class is in inverse proportion to
the number of features required to define that class.

It should be generally the case that classes which require fewer features to
specify them are more natural than classes which require more features. While
this sometimes turns out to be true, there are a number of cases where the
simplicity metric breaks down as in the following example where possible
natural classes are arranged vertically:

Class A Class B Class C Class D

b b b b
d d d d
g g g g
[+voice] v v v
[-cont] z z z
[-nas] [+voice] m m
---- [-son] n n
---- ---- l l
---- ---- r r
---- ---- w w

9
---- ---- y y
---- ---- [+voice] a
---- ---- [-syll] i
---- ---- ---- o
---- ---- ---- u
---- ---- ---- [+voice]

When one goes from left to right, the natural class gets simpler (or more
general). Thus, three features specify class A (the class of voiced stops), but
only feature to specify class D (the class of all voiced segments). Both B and C
require two features. As can be seen from the list of segments, class C (the class
of voiced non-vowels) is more general or inclusive than class B (the class
voiced obstruents). If we consider that the feature-counting is sufficient by itself
as a criterion for evaluating the naturalness of a class, the following will
conclude:

1- Class D is the most natural and class A is the least natural.

2- Class D should satisfy the four criteria, stated earlier, more readily than B
and C (Hayman, 1975: 140-141).

However, upon close examination, it becomes increasingly difficult to find

phonological rules referring to the class A through D as one goes from left to
right. That is, it is easier to find rules which refer to class A and class B but it is
less easy to find rules which refer to class C and most impossible to find rules
which refer to class D (Ibid).

Thus, the feature counting fails to provide an adequate hierarchy of natural

classes. The simplest class (that is requiring fewest features) is the least natural.

10
Another indication of the weaknesses of feature-counting approach to natural
classes is found in cases where opposite feature values define classes of
different degrees of naturalness. For example, the class of [+nasal] segments in

many languages includes [m, n, and ŋ]. This class is considerably more natural
than the class of [-nasal] segments, which includes non-nasal stops, fricatives,
affricatives, glides, liquids and vowels (ibid).

2.2 Natural Phonological Processes

The basic units of natural phonology are not phonemes or distinctive

features but natural phonological processes such as final devoicing,
nasalization, and labialization. As far as the natural phonological view point,
such (potentially universally valid) processes are not part of language
acquisition per se, but rather an integral part of the human capacity for
language. The acquisition of the phonological system takes place through
suppression and limitation of some articulatory and perspective processes; in
this way, final devoicing has been eliminated from English in the course of
language acquisition. Natural phonological processes are irreversible, thus there
is no such thing as 'denasalization' or 'final voicing' (Bussmann, 2007: 789).

Processes are used to derive a given surface variant of a second from a

specific phoneme, and then this phoneme must be an underlying intention of
this sound. This means that phonological representations are explicable in terms
of phonetically motivated processes. Processes manifest themselves in all types
of phonological behavior of language users: in normal performance, in child
language, in second language acquisition, in aphasia and other types of
disorders, in casual speech, in emphatic speech, in slips, errors, language
games, whispers and silent speech, as well as in the changing phonological

11
behavior resulting in sound change. The task of Natural Phonology, then, is the
constant search for processes in the languages of the world (Dziubalska-
Kolaczyk, 2004: 4).

Phonological processes are innate and universal in the sense that they are
natural responses to the phonetic difficulties encountered in speaking. They are
universal because the human vocal and perceptual apparatus is universal. They
may be discovered by the child in the process of using his vocal tract during
vocalization, crying, or babbling and still we call them "innate", since their
origin and motivations are innate. The innate elements in phonology are the
phonetic forces (processes, constrains, or preferences) that press toward
optimization and motivate substitutions (Donegan and Stampe, 2009: 136).

The universality of processes does not mean that they apply to all languages –
only that they are motivated in all speakers. Phonological processes determine
what a speaker can do, but not what they must do. Although processes are
universal in form and motivation, they do not apply universally. Each language
selects a set of processes which constitute its language-specific natural
phonology. In this way, some processes are allowed to apply while some
difficulty remain and have to be mastered by native speakers. For example,
Polish or German allow the process of word final obstruent, i.e. to maintain
voicing during the closure or obstruction. Still, the process of obstruent
devoicing itself does not lose its universal motivation (Dziubalska-Kolaczyk,
2004: 10).

2.2 Types of Natural Processes

12
1. Prosodically Based Processes

A first major class of phonological processes can be termed ‘prosodically

motivated processes’. Such processes have an effect on the structure of the
syllable, usually by inserting or deleting a consonant, or changing the status of a
segment from vowel to consonant or vice versa.

A. Vowel sequences: A very common set of prosodic processes is the class of

processes which eliminate V+V sequences. Many languages disallow
sequences of vowels, and when such sequences would arise by the
combination of morphemes, one of the vowels is often changed. One of the
most common such changes is Glide Formation, whereby a high vowel
becomes a glide before another vowel. Quite often, this process is
accompanied with a lengthening of the surviving vowel, a phenomenon
known as compensatory lengthening. For example, in Kimatuumbi, high
vowels become glides before other vowels.

E.g.// mi-kaa−te “loaves” my-oo−to “fires”

li-kuÏuu−nda “filtered beer” ly-oowa “beehive”

ki-ka−laaÏgo “frying pan” ky-uu−la “frog”

i-ka−laaÏgo “frying pans” y-uu−la “frogs”

lu-too−ndwa “star” lw-aate “banana hand”

B. Onset creation: Consonants can also be inserted. The main cause of

consonant insertion is the avoidance of initial vowels or vowel sequences. In
Arabic all syllables begin with a consonant, and if a word has no underlying
initial consonant a glottal stop is inserted, thus /al-walad/ • [?alwalad] “the
boy”(web source 1).

13
2. Paradigmatic or Fortition Processes: (also called Strengthening Processes)
they are identified with the individual segment and make it more perceptible and
sometimes also more pronounceable. These intensify the salient features of
individual segment and\or their contrast with adjacent segments. They invariably
have perceptual teleology and often incidentally make the segments they affect
more pronounceable as well as more perceptible. Dissimilation, diphthongization,
and syllabification are fortition processes. Some fortition processes may apply
regardless of context, but they are particularly favored in 'strong' position,
applying especially to vowels in syllable peaks and consonants in syllable onsets,
and to segments in positions of prosodic prominence and duration. Similarly,
they apply in situations and styles where perceptibility is highly valued: attentive,
formal, expressive, and lento speech (Ibid). Paradigmatic processes are especially
apparent in hyper articulated speech, like the aspiration in English of a voiceless
stop to clarify a word: "I said had, not ha [ t h
] ." This is a typical use for a
paradigmatic process, showing its value in augmenting a distinction (Goman,
1979: 6). One of the most prominent fortition processes is dissimilation:

a- Dissimilation is the systematic avoidance of two similar sound structures in

relatively close proximity to each other. It is exhibited in static generalizations
over the lexicon, where combinations of similar sounds are systematically
avoided in lexical items, like the avoidance of two homorganic consonants in
Arabic roots (Andelete and Frisch, 2007: 379).

3. Syntagmatic or Lenition Processes: (Also called weakening processes) They are

identified with sequenced speech and make it more easily pronounceable. These
have an exclusively articulatory teleology making segments and sequence of
segments easier to pronounce by decreasing the articulatory 'distance' between
features of the segment itself or its adjacent segments. Assimilation,
monophthongization, disyllabification, reductions, and deletion are lenition
14
processes. Lenition processes tend to be context-sensitive and\or prosody-
sensitive, applying especially in 'weak' positions, e.g. to consonant in 'blocked'
and syllable-final position, to short segments, unstressed vowels, etc. They apply
most widely in styles and situations which do not demand clarity (inattentive,
intimate, and 'inner' speech) or which make unusual demands on articulation (e.g.
rapid tempos). Syntagmatic processes are most apparent in hypoarticulate speech,
speech made without much attention being given to the individual sounds of the
utterance. An example is [wa je dun] What are you doing?

This is a possible utterance in idiolect, especially when one feels physically tired or
distracted, or have recently awakened. This utterance is obviously easier to
articulate than [wot a: ju duŋ ] (Goman, 1979: 7).

The most prominent lenition processes are assimilation and deletion (elision):

 Assimilation: refers to the influence exercised by one sound segment upon

the articulation of another, so that the sounds become more alike or
identical (Crystal, 2003: 38). Assimilation can be defined as the
modification of a sound in order to make it more similar to some other
sound in its neighborhood. The advantage of having assimilation is that it
produces a smoother, more effortless, more economical transitions from one
sound to another. It facilitates the task of speaking. The speaker usually
tries to conserve energy by using no more effort than is necessary to
produce an utterance (Katamba, 1996: 80).
 Deletion (Elision): refers to the process when a sound or a syllable is lost or
omitted. It particularly affects consonants clusters, weakly stressed syllables
that are not especially missed and words that end in an alveolar consonant
and that are immediately followed by a word beginning with a consonant.
The sounds that elided are those sounds that are so weakly articulated that

15
 they no longer have any auditory significance. Contracted forms of words
are caused by elision. Some elided syllables are represented in standard
pronunciation e. g., (I'm) should be (I am). In standard speech, the missing
vowel is understood and so meaning doesn't suffer from this contraction.
Elision is one of the reasons for the great mismatches found in English
between a word's spelling and its pronunciation e. g., (Wednesday) was
originally in contraction of (Odin'sday). Elision is most commonly used in
connected speech. The faster the speech, the more likely sounds and
syllables would be elided.

2.3 Rules and Processes

In NP, a sharp distinction is drawn between rules and processes. It is not the
case that all phonological alterations are governed by natural phonological
processes. The principles which underlie alterations which are not process-
governed, like velar softening, tri-syllabic laxing, etc., are referred to as
phonological rules. The nature of such rules is not entirely clear to us but it is clear
that they differ from natural processes in many important respects (Donegan and
Stampe, 1979: 143-4). These respects are:

1- A rule is learned, not innate. It does not represent limitations on the speaker's
capacity. It may make gross substitutions which have only accidental and
historical motivations. A process on the other hand, is automatic and innate
(reflects constraints of the inborn capacity for speech in human being). It
represents real limitations on the speaker’s articulations and perceptions. It makes
minimal substitutions which are motivated by considerations of optimal
perceptibility and pronounceability (Goman, 1979: 2) .

2- The term RULE is used to refer to phonologically wholly or partially

unmotivated alterations which were governed by the conventions of a particular
16
language. PROCESSES are alternations which are regulated by universal phonetic
or functional factors. Unlike processes, rules are idiosyncratic properties of
particular languages and do not form part of man's phonological inheritance.
Natural processes are more common than idiosyncratic rules (Katamba, 1996:
110).

3- Processes have synchronic phonetic motivation and represent real limitations on

speakers' production. Rules lack current phonetic motivation and sometimes they
are the historical result of 'fossilized' or conventionalized processes which have
lost such motivation. On the other hand, processes lack positive semantic or
grammatical functions which some rules do have (Donegan and Stampe, 1979:
144).

4- Processes apply involuntarily and subconsciously, whereas rules, though they

may become habitual and therefore involuntarily and subconscious in their
application, are formed through the observation of linguistic differences of which
the speaker is or was conscious (Ibid: 144).

5- Processes may be optional or obligatory. Rules, on the other hand, seem always
to be obligatory (Ibid, 145).

6- Processes are of the speaker, rules are of the language. Phonological processes
are universal and innate in that they are related to the human vocal and perceptual
apparatus; whereas rules are language specific and conventional and must be
learned by observing other speakers (Ibid: 4).

2.4 The Phoneme in NP

17
A phoneme in NP is an underlying intention shared by the speaker and the listener
(who are always "two in one"). The shared knowledge of intentions guarantees
communication between the speaker and the listener within a given language, even
if the actually pronounced forms diverge substantially from what is intended, for
example, in casual speech. In other words, phonemes are fully specified,
pronounceable percepts. NP's view of the phoneme is quite different from the
traditional structure and generative view. Differing from the stucturalist view,
phonemes are not defined by their opposition within the system but are rather
defined phonologically as a mode of perception storage and production of speech
by native speakers of a language. On the other hand, NP phonemes differ from
generative ones in that they are not just lists of features.

The NP phoneme is not an abstraction. It is not a "bundle of distinctive

features". Phonemes are not simply units that distinguish words or keep them
apart. In fact they are the units that words are made of. In NP, the phoneme is 'the
mental image of a sound' (Nathan, 2009: 7-8).

2.4.1 Phonemes are not Contrasts

Concepts such as 'contrast' can be used as discovery procedures as a way for a

linguist to get 'into' the system if the investigator is not a native speaker but
contrast and complementary distribution do not define phonemes. The rejection of
'discovery procedures' as definition of the phoneme which is not unique to NP
formed the basis of Chomsky and Halle's rejection of structuralist phonology in the
1960s. Because phonemes are not defined by contrast, therefore, concepts such as
'archiphonemes' sounds have no place in NP (Ibid: 6).

2.4.2 Phonemes are not Features

18
 Phonemes are not abstract specifications for sounds because they are the
sounds as perceived. This means that they are auditory\motor images of sounds per
se. Thus, phonemes are not underspecified lists of features which is contrary to
what is usually believed in most generative phonologies. In fact they are fully
specified and show how phonemes in NP work as real sounds. What makes them
phonemes rather than just records of how speakers actually speak is the existence
of processes. They are rarely pronounced as stored but are modified either to fit
their environment as in (lenitions) or contrast their environments as in (fortitition).
Phonemes are specific mental targets (Ibid).

Stampe argues that perception is not a mere recording of external events but
rather a perception of the intention of the other. A phoneme is an underlying
intention shared by the speaker and listener. The shared knowledge of intentions
guarantees communication between the speaker and the listener within a given
language even if actually pronounced forms diverge substantially from what is
intended. In other words, phonemes are fully specified and pronounceable percepts
which means that speakers automatically adjust their intentions to make them fit
their environments and hence allophones are generated (Balas, 2009:40).

3.Criticisms of NP

1- Natural Phonology has received a lot of criticism which targeted its reliance on
phonetics. Statements such as: the living sound patterns of language, in their
development in each individual as well as in their evolution over the centuries,
are governed by forces implicit in human vocalization and perception
(Donegan and Stampe, 1979: 126) gives rise to an opinion among phonologies that
NP was just phonetics, and thus could not aspire to be a theory of phonology.
Phonetics, on the other hand, would accuse it of pretending to be phonology and

19
thus not being technical enough, and thus not phonetics, either (Dziubalska-
Kolaczyk, 2004: 8-9).

2- Opponents of NP argue that the theory lacks any priori methodology or

formalization.

3- It has been objected that too little is known about phonological universals
processes and about phonetic capacity (especially in its neurological aspect) to
falsify the theory (Donegan and Stampe, 1979: 126).

4- Others have objected that the theory is too obvious true to be falsified (Ibid).

4. Conclusions

Here are some main important concluding remarks:

1. NP is a modern phonological model proposed by David Stampe in 1979.

2. The theory deals with child acquisition of phonology. It claims that in acquiring
the phonological system of its language, a child has to suppress in different ways
and to different language specific degrees, and various innate universal
phonological processes.

3. Naturalness has been explained in terms of a number of other notions like

'economy', simplicity', 'frequency', 'plausibility', 'markedness'.

4. The basic units in this model are natural phonological processes like
assimilation, deletion, reduction, devoicing, etc. These processes are mental
operations that apply in speech to substitute, for a class of sounds to sequences of
sounds that represent a specific difficulty to the articulator and perceptual capacity
of the individual, an alternative class identical but lacking the difficult property.

20
5. The basic units of natural phonology are not phonemes or distinctive features
but natural phonological processes such as final devoicing, nasalization, and
labialization.

6. There are three types of processes: prosodic, fortition, and lenition. Prosodic
processes are used to map words, phrases, and sentences in to a prosodic features
like stress, tone, intonation, rhythm, etc. Fortition processes are strengthening
processes that intensify the salient features of segments. Lenition processes are
weakening processes that reduce the articulatory distance between segments.

7. The phoneme in NP is defined psychologically as a mode of perception, storage,

and production of sounds by native speakers. NP defines a phoneme as an intention
that is shared by the speaker and hearer.

8. The theory has received some criticisms. Its opponents argue that it lacks prior
methodology and formalization. It has been criticized for its reliance on phonetics
only and hence it does not aspire to be a theory of phonology.

21
References

Akmajian, A., Richard A., Ann K., and Robert M. (1997), Linguistics:
An Introduction to Language And Communication. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: London, England.

Balas, A. 2009. "Natural Phonology as a Functional Theory", in Poznan Studies

in Contemporary English 45(1). Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.

Buckley, Eugene (2000). On the Naturalness of Unnatural Rules. In Working

Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 9. University of Pennsylvania.

Bussmann, H. 2006. Routledge. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.

London: Longman.

Clark, J. and Yallop, C. 1995. An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Crystal, David (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell

Publishing LTD.

Donegan, P. J. and Stampe, D. 1979. " The Study of Natural Phonology", in

Dinnsen, D. (ed.) Current Approaches to Phonological Theory. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Donegan, P. J. and Stampe, D. 2009. "Hypotheses of Natural Phonology", in

Poznan Studies in Contemporary English 45(1). Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz
University.

Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, K. 2004. "Modern Natural Phonology" The Theory for

Future". Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.

22
Goman, M. (1979). Naturalness in Phonology. Sprachtypol. Univ. Forsch.,
Berlin.

Hayman, L. 1975. Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.

Johnson, Wyn and David Britain (2007). L Vocalisation as a Natural

Phenomenon, Essex University.

Katamba, F. 1996. An Introduction to Phonology. London: Longman.

Nathan, H. S. 2009. "Where is the Natural Phoneme in 2009? Wayne State

University for The Department of English.

- Web Source

(1)http://www.courses.washington.edu/linglas1451dden/typology.

23