|
How to create a language
|
Sounds are the way a language first becomes real in the physical world, so we'll start talking about them. Some people believe that a letter in their alphabet is the same as a sound, or that all sounds in all languages are the same (as the sounds in their own language), only with different 'accents'. Why this is false can be easily explained and understood by most people. I won't mix sound with representation or transliteration, here, and I'll give examples of sounds in languages that may be familiar to you just in order to simplify things. Other languages need not use the same sounds as one's own, or pronounce them the same way.
However, we'll have to stop at a fairly abstract topic first, in order to move on confidently then. We'll talk about phones (real sounds) and phonemes (the sounds in a language as seen by a linguist).
The immense (actually infinitely dense) range of possible sounds that a human being can produce are called phones. Each particular position of the lips, tongue, and other features in our organs of speech can be thought of a point in a multidimensional continuum. Given two positions of the tongue with respect to the interior of the mouth, there is always a position in the middle, and so on. Remember the real numbers from school?
However, we group sounds into prototypical examples of themselves, to study them better and more easily, and we call each of these a phone, a single sound that can be described by certain features (for example: the tongue touches the teeth, vocal chords are vibrating, etc.).
In a particular language, we'll find a lot of phones, but those are not the object of our study. We need to distinguish the sounds that are distinguishable by the speakers of the language, i. e. that they conceptualize as different sounds. These are called phonemes. A phoneme can be thought of as a family of related sounds which are regarded as the same phonetic unit by the speakers. The different sounds that are considered part of the same phoneme are called allophones or allophonic variants.
In phonetic symbols, phonemic transcriptions are surrounded by slashes (/X/
), while
phonetic transcriptions (those who distinguish the different phones that are allophones of
the phoneme) are surrounded by square brackets ([X]
). The standard phonetic symbols
that are used by most people nowadays belong to a set, the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet).
They are a lot, and you'd need a special font to see them if I used them here, so I (as
most people that have to handle IPA symbols in the Web or e-mail) use a transliteration
that allows IPA to be represented by 7-bit ASCII characters. There are several kinds
of ASCII-IPA renderings
(collected by Don Blaheta). If you want to listen to the sounds in the IPA, try IPAHelp (also online).
Back on topic... The allophones of a phoneme need not be similar sounds. They
may be, or they may not. For example, the Spanish phoneme /b/
has
two allophones, [b]
(like the English b) and [B]
(a bilabial fricative, similar to English v but with air blown between
the two lips). These are similar, related sounds. On the other hand, Japanese
/h/
has three allophones, [h]
, [C]
(more
or less like the sound in 'huge', or the German Ich-Laut), and [P]
(like /f/
, but blown between the two lips). These are quite
different sounds. What makes them allophones is that Japanese speakers treat
them as the same sound (phoneme). Note that in German, for example, [C]
and [h]
are allophones of different phonemes, so they can
distinguish words.
This brings us to the main feature of allophones: they are usually in complementary distribution.
This means that which allophone appears in a particular position depends on the position,
and position determines one and only one allophone to be present, and not any of the
others. Coming back to our examples, Spanish /b/
is [B]
in all positions
except after /m/
and when clearly starting a word (for example, at the beginning
of a sentence); it's [b]
otherwise. You can't have [mB]
or [ab]
,
because only [mb]
and [aB]
are possible.
This all boils down to a fact that defines what phonemes are: they are sounds that can make words different. If two sounds are allophones, you can't produce two words exchanging them, because they are in fact the same; if you pronounce one where the other should be, it'll sound bad to native speakers, but they won't hear a different word.
You'll see more of this afterwards, in other sections, since I'll keep repeating myself. If you don't understand the concept of phoneme, you'd better keep trying.
The sounds used in any language can be divided (generally) into consonants and vowels. This division is not necesarily universal; in many languages some "consonants" like r, m, n, l, are actually vowels (this is, they are treated as syllable nuclei, can be stressed, or lengthened, etc.). For example, Sanskrit has syllabic l and r (as in Rgveda); and Japanese syllable-final n is syllabic. The division between vowels and consonants is a matter of closure: the more closed the air passages are, the more consonantic a sound is. We will examine the different kinds of sounds using this scale.
Sounds vary along dimensions. These represent ranges of possible characteristics, or yes-no characteristics. Each language has a phonology with one or more dimensions within which sounds are placed and recognized. One important dimension is the degree of closure. According to this, consonants can be classified into:
Also an affricate is a stop plus a fricative occurring in the same place of articulation, like English ch (t + sh) or German z (pronounced /ts/
).
A click is a sound produced by placing the tongue in position for a stop while there's a second closure somewhere else, accumulating pressure and then releasing the closure (see below).
Then there's the place of articulation, this is, where the obstruction of the airflow occurs. According to this, consonants can be:
Some other dimensions are:
Let's examine these contrasts. I call them contrasts because that's what they are: things that may be distinguished. Linguistics is based on contrasts, on differences. If a language doesn't distinguish one sound from another, then it's the same sound for all practical purposes, and in that way it should be studied.
Voicing is a very usual contrast in Western Indoeuropean languages,
not so in many other language families, where this distinction is not made (so
in fact p and b, or t and d, are regarded as exactly
the same sound). In English you might say that /p/
is a phoneme,
with two phonetic realizations or allophones, [p_h]
(aspirated, at
the beginning of words) and [p]
(non-aspirated). In Hindi, where
aspirated and non-aspirated stops are regarded as different families, /p/
and /ph/
are two phonemes.
Nasalization is quite a common contrast in many languages. The most common nasals are voiced stops, but some languages do have voiceless nasals, and a few have nasalized fricatives. If you can't imagine how to pronounce a voiceless nasal, take into account that an m is actually a nasalized b, so a voiceless m is a nasalized p: pronounce a p while you let air through your nose, and you're done. Many people in fact nasalize consonants (and vowels) after a nasal, although they don't notice it: the distinction is usually not phonemic (it can't be used to distinguish a word from another one).
We have already talked about aspiration. A language can have aspirated stops, non-aspirated ones, or both; and it can make the distinction phonemic (like Hindi) or just phonetic (like English).
Palatalization is a common device in languages. A consonant is palatalized by raising the middle part of the tongue towards the top of the mouth. Normally the palatalized consonant should be alveolar in the first place. The result is something that sounds like the original consonant plus a /j/
sound (as in yet, new, pure). Russian has a distinct series of palatalized consonants, transliterated with an apostrophe (t', l', d'). Spanish has two palatalized consonants, ll (only pronounced this way in Spain, not in Latin America) and ñ /n^/
(as in año), also found in French, written gn (as in baigner).
Glottalization is performed by closing the glotis, and opening it at the same time you pronounce the sound. The glotis is at the back of the throat. Glottalized sounds are usually stops. You can produce a glottalization by producing a glottal stop in the middle of the pronunciation of the original consonant, and then releasing the air in the two closures at the same time. But what's a glottal stop? In English, a glottal stop is usually pronounced as a pause before a word that begins with a vowel, especially when the previous one ends in a vowel too, as in uh-oh. German always places a glottal stop before an initial vowel. The glottal stop is not phonemic in English or German, but it's quite a common phoneme in other languages, usually transliterated as an apostrophe (') or a question mark (?). Glottalized consonants are also called glottalic egressive or ejective. Georgian and Quechua have a complete series of glottalized/ejective voiceless stops.
There are also glottalic ingressive consonants, also known as implossives. Those are produced by making a sound, but just before opening the mouth also rapidly lowering the glottis to produce a hollow sounding effect. Some African languages, among others, have implossive consonants, which are also voiced stops.
There are also some contrasts I didn't mention before:
A lateral consonant is one in which the airflow doesn't go between the tongue and another spot, but instead leaves that space closed and lets air pass through the sides (lateral release). Some languages, like Welsh, have a voiceless lateral. The most common lateral we know is l (which is usually alveolar and voiced). However, English /l/
has two variants, one alveolar and one velar, the latter occurring in syllable-final position, especially in clusters, as in milk. This 'dark L' is an independent phoneme in other languages.
A retroflex consonant is produced by curling the tongue backwards into the mouth, often touching the top of the palate. Retroflexion exists and is phonemic in many languages, but I'm not sure if it can be considered a place of articulation or just another yes-no contrast. I've seen retroflex consonants called apico-palatal (that means that the apex, the tip of your tongue, touches the palate). Examples are not at hand, except for a remarkable one, American r, which is retroflex in some pronunciations. In Sanskrit, there's a complete series of retroflex consonants (which are called cerebral), which parallels the alveolar series (t, d, n, s). These are represented by a dot under the consonant.
If you use only the two main dimensions (degree of closure and place of articulation), you can show the distribution of consonants in English with a grid like this (in a common variation of Kirshenbaum IPA):
labial lab-dnt dental alv alv-pal velar glottal stop p b t d k g fricative f v T D s z S Z h affricate tS dZ approximant w r l j nasal m n N
How do you invent new consonants for your language? The first step should be deciding which contrasts you will use. English three places of articulation (POAs) for stops, which are usually the reference frame, and distinguishes voicing for most consonants and nasalization for stops.
The important thing is that the phonology of a language is a system. Consonants which are out of the system (because they use exceptional contrasts, for example) tend to be left out and disappear or are merged with similar consonants. For example, English couldn't possibly have a glottalized consonant, because it would use a contrast not found elsewhere in the language and wouldn't survive long. Exceptions are possible, of course, but try not to abuse them. If you have an exotic sound, you should have others of the same kind. On the other hand, you probably shouldn't invent many strange sounds; you must know how to pronounce each of them, and be able to read your language fluently. (This also involves a careful planning of the transliteration scheme.)
Once you have decided the contrasts you'll be using, set up the grid and fill in the gaps. You'll probably have to invent new symbols or digraphs for some letters (see Writing). If you decide there are too many consonants, delete a series, or just some members. You don't have to occupy all the places in the grid (English, as you may notice, leaves lots of empty spaces). For example, you might have voiced and voiceless stops, but only voiceless fricatives and voiced nasals.
English only has two affricate consonants, voiced j and voiceless ch, and on the same position. Your language could have affricates in all positions where there's a stop and a fricative; for example pf (found in German, as in Pferd), ts (also in German, written z as in zehn, and in Japanese, as in tsukuru, though it's just an allophonic variant of /t/
), tth (not in any language that I know, but possible), tsh (ch), kkh, etc.
You can complete a series of consonants, for example the English fricatives: there are no bilabial or velar fricatives (there's no reason why there should be any; but there's no reason why there couldn't, either). A bilabial fricative would sound like an f (or v) pronounced by letting air out between the lips; and a velar fricative /x/
is just the sound represented in Spanish by j (as in Juan, viejo), or the sound of Hebrew hhet. This is usually transliterated kh. Some languages have both voiceless kh and voiced gh. Spanish voiced stops between vowels become fricatives, though the distinction is not phonemic, so b, d, g in cabo, cada, soga are actually a bilabial fricative, a dental fricative (English soft th), and a velar fricative (gh).
If you want to go right into it, you can add a contrast not used in English, and create a series of palatalized consonants. Or use aspiration as a phonemic distinction. Or even lateralizing or retroflexing consonants. As Mark Rosenfelder says, the key to a naturalistic language is to add (or substract) dimensions. Being into the study of Quechua, he mentions that it has not one, but three series of stops: aspirated, non-aspirated, and glottalized; but it doesn't distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants. So, for a Quechua speaker, the p in pat and the b in bat would be the same sound (phoneme), but the p in pat and the one in spat would be clearly different.
Some sounds are more common than others. According to Mark Rosenfelder's sources, most languages have the simple stops p, t, k. From what I've been able to gather, the average language has twice as much consonants as vowels. The simplest systems belong to Hawaiian, with only eight consonants and five vowels, and Rotokas, with six consonants and five vowels. Quechua has a lot of consonants but it's only got three vowels (a, i, u, which are the most common). Two of the most complex systems are that of Khoisan, with 141 phonemes, and the one of !Xu~ (I just transliterate it, I don't know how to pronounce it), with 92 consonants (47 of them are clicks) [thanks Nik Taylor for the data]. Nik Taylor also informs that there's a tendency for the consonants to be about 30% sonorants (nasals and approximants), and 70% obstruents (others). Also, I've read statistics made over a set of Indoeuropean languages (European actually) that seem to show a 1:2 ratio between voiced and voiceless stops (i. e. /p/
is twice as much frequent as /b/
, etc.). This of course only applies to European languages.
Vowels are produced exactly the same way as consonants; they're not different in essential ways from consonants. The main thing is that the airflow is almost not disturbed while passing through the mouth; it's only modulated by the position of the tongue and other parts of the vocal organs. Also, vowels are usually voiced (some languages have voiceless vowels, especially at the end of words; they sound exactly as if you pronounce an h with the tongue and lips in position for the vowel).
Vowels can vary along these dimensions:
/h/
pronounced with the lips and tongue in position for the vowel). In Japanese, /u/
and /i/
are usually voiceless if they aren't high-pitch and stand between voiceless consonants (but they get voiced if for some reason there's need to emphasize them.)English has this vowel system:
--lax-- --tense-- front------back front------back high pit put peat poot mid pet putt pate boat low pat pot father bought
If you read a book on linguistics or phonetics, you'll probably find a recurrent diagram for vowels. It uses the two main contrasts (height and frontness) and places vowels in a triangle, like this (corresponding to Spanish or Latin):
i u e o awhere the i-u line are the high vowels, going down to the low vowel a, and the front of the mouth is equated to the left side of the triangle. You can place vowels anywhere in the triangle formed by i-a-u. The English schwa
/@/
(as in alive, rodent) is in the middle, right over the a; it's mid-central. There's a high central vowel in Russian, transliterated y, which would be located in the middle of the line i-u.
As with consonants, you can invent as many vowels as you like. You should take into account that vowels form a system, and one which can't be disbalanced. If you have a tense and a lax version of i, then you're using tenseness as a contrast, and it should be present in some other pair of vowels.
Roundedness is not disbalanced in English, or in Spanish. It seems that roundedness is more frequent in back vowels than it is on front vowels. Nevertheless, many languages have rounded front vowels, which English doesn't have (German and French have rounded i and e, represented ü, ö in German). On the other hand, you can have unrounded back vowels (like Japanese and Russian u).
You can have as many vowels as you want to. The simplest systems have three vowels, generally i, a, u (the vertices of the triangle, and not by chance). This means they distinguish three vowel sounds, not that its speakers do not know how to pronounce an e or an o. A Quechua speaker might say something that sounds e to an English speaker, but it's actually an i, of which English e is just a phonetic, not phonemic, variant. Spanish and Japanese have five vowels, i e a o u. British RP English has twelve vowels, German has fourteen, and Swedish (I think) eighteen. But perhaps you shouldn't go that far.
Nik Taylor claims that there's at least one language with only two vowels, although he doesn't know what they are; probably /a/
and /i/
, where /i/
would have variants (allophones) [i]
and [u]
(actually it might be any high sound, front, central or back, rounded or unrounded).