In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • The Indeterminacy/Attestation Model of Metathesis
  • Elizabeth Hume

This paper addresses three key observations relating to crosslinguistic patterns of metathesis. First, the order of sounds resulting from metathesis can differ from language to language such that a similar combination of sounds can be realized in one order in one language, but in the reverse order in another language. Second, for some sound combinations, only one order is commonly attested as the result of metathesis, while for other combinations, either order can be observed. Third, the acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the sequence resulting from metathesis are often better than those of the expected, yet nonoccurring, order. These patterns receive a straightforward explanation when we consider the phonetic nature of the sounds involved as well as the speaker/hearer’s knowledge of native sound patterns and their frequency of occurrence. Neither factor alone is sufficient to provide a predictive account of metathesis. This study shows, however, that by taking into account both factors, we are able to understand why certain sound combinations tend to undergo metathesis, why others are common results of metathesis, why patterns of metathesis differ across languages, and, importantly, why metathesis occurs in the first place.*

1. Introduction

Metathesis is the process whereby in certain languages the expected linear ordering of sounds is reversed under certain conditions. Thus, in a string of sounds where we would expect the ordering to be . . . xy . . . , we find instead . . . yx. . . . In the verbal system of the Dravidian language Kui (Winfield 1928), for example, the expected ordering of a stem-final consonant and suffix-initial labial is reversed just in case the stem ends in a velar stop (e.g. /bluk + pa/ [blupka] ‘to break’, cf. /gas + pa/ [gaspa] ‘to hang’). While variation in the linear ordering of elements is typical in the domain of syntax, it is comparatively striking in phonology and differs in nature from most other processes which are typically defined in terms of a single sound, or target, that undergoes a change in a specified context.

The apparently distinct nature of metathesis has resulted in the perpetuation of what one might refer to as the metathesis myth, the commonly held view of metathesis as sporadic and irregular, restricted to performance errors, child language, or sound change. This view is regularly expressed in the linguistic literature, including the most up-to-date instructional texts and dictionaries (e.g. Crystal 1997, Spencer 1996). [End Page 203]

An important factor underlying this view relates to data.1 Despite the fact that numerous cases of metathesis are reported in the literature, basic knowledge has been lacking concerning the full range of metatheses that are possible in language, under what conditions metathesis applies, why metathesis happens, and how metathesis interacts with other processes affecting sound structure. This information is critical to providing an accurate picture of the nature of metathesis. It is also of crucial importance for advancing our knowledge of language since developing an explanatory model of language is impossible without a clear understanding of the fundamental processes possible.

It is therefore significant that more recent studies are bolstering the previously existing literature to create a solid empirical foundation for the study of metathesis.2 These works include crosslinguistic surveys (e.g. Bailey 1970, Blevins & Garrett 1998, Grammont 1933, Hock 1985, Hume 1998, 2001, Janda 1984, Langdon 1976, McCarthy 1989, Mielke & Hume 2001, Semiloff-Zelasko 1973, Silva 1973, Ultan 1978, Wanner 1989), in-depth studies of metathesis in individual languages or language families (e.g. Alexander 1985, Besnier 1987, Black 1974, Butskhrikidze & van de Weijer 2001, Delancey 1989, Duménil 1983, 1987, Hume 1997b, Hume & Seo 2004, Isebaert 1988, Keyser 1975, Laycock 1982, Lyche 1995, Malone 1971, 1985, McCarthy 2000, Montreuil 1981, Powell 1985, Shaver & Shaver 1989, Smith 1984, Sohn 1980, Thompson & Thompson 1969, Timberlake 1985), and experimental work exploring psycholinguistic influences on metathesis (e.g. Fay 1966, Makashay 2001, Winters 2001). An online database of metathesis cases is also being developed and will ultimately contain information on all reported cases of metathesis.3 It is clear from these studies that while metathesis is less common than processes such as assimilation and deletion, it can nonetheless occur productively in a...

pdf

Share