The double identity of linguistic doubling

Abstract

Does knowledge of language consist of abstract principles, or is it fully embodied in the sensorimotor system? To address this question, we investigate the double identity of doubling (e.g., slaflaf, or generally, XX; where X stands for a phonological constituent). Across languages, doubling is known to elicit conflicting preferences at different levels of linguistic analysis (phonology vs. morphology). Here, we show that these preferences are active in the brains of individual speakers, and they are demonstrably distinct from sensorimotor pressures. We first demonstrate that doubling in novel English words elicits divergent percepts: Viewed as meaningless (phonological) forms, doubling is disliked (e.g., slaflaf < slafmak), but once doubling in form is systematically linked to meaning (e.g., slaf = ball, slaflaf = balls), the doubling aversion shifts into a reliable (morphological) preference. We next show that sign-naive speakers spontaneously project these principles to novel signs in American Sign Language, and their capacity to do so depends on the structure of their spoken language (English vs. Hebrew). These results demonstrate that linguistic preferences doubly dissociate from sensorimotor demands: A single stimulus can elicit diverse percepts, yet these percepts are invariant across stimulus modality--for speech and signs. These conclusions are in line with the possibility that some linguistic principles are abstract, and they apply broadly across language modality.language universals | embodiment | phonology | morphology | sign language A cross languages, certain linguistic patterns are systematically preferred to others. English, for instance, allows pots and pans but not boxs and buss (from box and bus). Indeed, boxs and buss doubly engage the tongue blade, and doubling, generally, XX (where X stands for a phonological constituent) is avoided in the sound patterns of many languages (1, 2). Such (statistical) language universals are well documented (2). Their basis, however, is controversial.One possibility is that language universals reflect abstract linguistic principles that are shared across languages (3). Alternatively, the restrictions on language structure could be fully embodied in the sensory and motor pressures on speech perception and production (4). The former "abstraction hypothesis" states that forms like boxs are banned because they violate abstract linguistic principles, whereas the alternative "embodiment hypothesis" asserts that boxs is avoided because it is difficult to perceive and articulate.We note that these two alternatives represent extreme positions. And indeed, abstraction and embodiment could each play (distinct) roles at different components of the language system. For the sake of clarity, here, we deliberately focus on two extreme views that, by definition, are mutually exclusive, but we note that some forms of abstraction and embodiment could well coexist-a possibility we revisit in the General Discussion.These rival hypotheses generate conflicting predictions concerning...

Knowledge of Language Transfers From Speech to Sign: Evidence From Doubling

“…When presented with signs alone (i.e., bare phonological forms, in Experiment 4, see Fig. 5), Malayalam speakers exhibited a reliable doubling aversion, akin to the responses of English speakers to bare words (Experiment 1) and to signs (Berent et al, 2016). These results suggest that Malayalam speakers spontaneously project phonological identity to signs; signs with identical syllables are systematically dispreferred.…”

“…Our recent experimental findings show that people apply the restrictions on doubling across linguistic modalities-speech and sign (Berent, Bat-El, Brentari, Dupuis, & Vaknin-Nusbaum, 2016).…”

“…5), Malayalam speakers exhibited a reliable doubling aversion, akin to the responses of English speakers to bare words (Experiment 1) and to signs (Berent et al, 2016). 5), Malayalam speakers exhibited a reliable doubling aversion, akin to the responses of English speakers to bare words (Experiment 1) and to signs (Berent et al, 2016).…”

“…Like spoken languages, reduplication is frequent in ASL (Wilbur, 2009), and signers freely generalize it to novel forms (Andan, Bat-El, Brentari, & Berent, 2018;Berent, Dupuis, & Brentari, 2014). In past research, we have demonstrated that speakers with no command of a sign language systematically constrain the reduplicative structure of signs (Berent et al, 2016). We thus begin by reviewing our previous evidence for cross modal projection.…”

“…The materials were the 32 pairs of novel disyllabic XX/XY ASL signs from Berent et al (2016). XX signs featured two identical syllables; the matched XY signs paired the same X syllable with another syllable Y, which contrasted with the X syllable on its movement and handshape.…”