Phonotactic Constraints on the Distribution of Palatalized Consonants* Alexei Kochetov University of Toronto
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Phonotactic constraints on the distribution of palatalized consonants* Alexei Kochetov University of Toronto This paper investigates the neutralization of plain-palatalized contrasts in Russian. It argues that the attested distribution patterns and phonotactic restrictions on clusters can be adequately explained only if we consider acoustic and articulatory properties of palatalized consonants, and particularly, the cues available in release, burst, and approach. It shows that the analysis based on Russian extends straightforwardly to the patterns attested in other languages. The paper supports the view that phonetic detail plays an important role in phonology, and particularly, in preserving and neutralizing phonological contrasts. What are the crucial factors that condition neutralization of phonological contrasts? The view that is common in current phonological theory holds that the distribution of features is controlled by their syllabic position, whether it is an onset or a coda (Licensing by Syllable Position). The phonological constraint CONTRASTIVECODA, or Coda Condition (Prince&Smolensky 1993, Pulleyblank 1997, etc.) requires codas to be minimally specified. The motivation for this universal constraint is based on an observation that "codas make poor hosts for a number of features: voicing, place distinctions, articulations involving more than one articulator and so on" (Pulleyblank 1997:81). An alternative approach derives neutralization from phonetic perceptual and articulatory factors (Steriade 1997, Flemming 1995, Hamilton 1996, Silverman 1997, etc.). In this view phonological contrasts are neutralized in environments poor in terms of phonetic cues and are licensed in positions that are high on a scale of perceptibility (Licensing by Cue). The latter is determined by the relative number of cues, their relative duration and perceptual salience. The acoustic factors interact with articulatory constraints specifying gestural magnitude and overlap timing. What follows from this view is that phonetic detail, and particularly, knowledge of phonetic implementation, plays an important role in distribution of phonological contrasts. This approach has been successfully tested on the distribution of laryngeal and retroflex contrasts (Steriade 1997) and phonotactic patterns in Australian aboriginal languages (Hamilton 1997). This paper investigates the distribution and neutralization of palatalized stops in Standard Russian. It argues that the attested distribution patterns and phonotactic restrictions on clusters can be adequately explained only if we consider phonetic *I am grateful to Keren Rice, Elan Dresher, and Naomi Cull for their multiple comments and suggestions which have hopefully led to some improvement of the paper. I also benefited from the discussion of the paper at the University of Toronto Phonology Group. Special thanks to Nila Friedberg for being an informant in an acoustic experiment.. All errors are my own. This research was funded by SSHRC research grant number 410-96-0842. 172 TORONTO WORKING PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS acoustic and articulatory properties of palatalized consonants, and particularly, the cues available in release, burst, and approach. I propose a harmonic contextual markedness hierarchy based on the availability of perceptual cues to palatalized segments. If the contrast is maintained in a less favourable environment, it will be also preserved in all more informative contexts of the hierarchy. I further demonstrate that the analysis based on Russian extends straightforwardly to the patterns attested in other languages. I illustrate this by the types of palatality neutralization attested in some Slavic, Uralic, and Celtic languages. The typology follows directly from the proposed harmonic constraint hierarchy. The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 outlines the theoretical assumptions of Licensing by Cue, providing some phonetic background, as well as articulatory and perceptual description of palatalized consonants (based on Russian). In this section I discuss specific predictions about more and less likely environments for plain-palatalized contrasts. In section 2 I test the predictions analyzing the distribution patterns of Russian palatalized consonants. Section 3 extends the conclusions to several other languages determining the distribution of the contrast in a typological aspect. 1. Phonetic cues to palatalized consonants 1.1 Auditory representations: Background I will begin with a brief introduction to phonetic cues and their properties. Here I follow Flemming 1995. The main point is that sounds have auditory properties that are perceptually significant and thus make a particular sound distinctive to the human ear. Among these properties are frequencies of formants of the sound spectre, noise frequency and noise intensity. These properties consist of a number of acoustic dimensions. The first two formants of the spectre are the primary dimensions of the quality of a vowel. The first formant, F1, corresponds to vowel height, the second formant, F2, correlates with the front-back dimension (roundness lowers F2). Front unrounded vowels have the highest F2, back rounded vowels have the lowest value. F3 is high for high, front unrounded vowels, and low for front rounded vowels back and low vowels. The formant frequency adjacent to a stop is characteristic of that stop and provides important cues to its place of articulation. Dentals and alveolars have high F2. In general labials have lower F2 and F3 than the following vowel. Velars tend to have an F2 close to that of the following vowel. Relative values of F2 for some vowels and consonants are presented in Table 1 (based on Flemming 1995). ALEXEI KOCHETOV 173 Table 1. Formant frequency (F2): vowels and consonant release vowels release of consonants i ´ aouptkêƒsçx highest F2 + - - - - - - - + - - + - high F2 + + - - - - + - + - + + - low F2 - - - + + + - - - + - - - lowest F2 - - - - + - - - - - - - - Fricatives differ in the frequencies where energy is concentrated in the spectrum, or noise frequency. It is high for strident fricatives, especially for [s]. It is zero for stops (during closure) (Table 2). Table 2. Noise frequency stops fricatives ptkêƒ sçx high - - - - - + - - low - - - - + - + + Noise intensity distinguishes sibilants from other fricatives. Sibilants, e.g. /s/, have high intensity, while /ç/, /x/, /ƒ/ are characterized by lower intensity (Table 3). Table 3. Noise intensity stops fricatives ptkêƒ sçx fricative - - - + + + + + strident - - - + - + - - Since the focus of this paper is on plain-palatalized contrasts in stops, it is relevant to discuss the acoustic and perceptual features that characterize these segments. If we consider an intervocalic consonant, acoustically it consists of four parts: approach, closure, burst, release. APPROACH is the final interval of the preceding vowel that contains V-C transitions. RELEASE is the beginning of the following vowel that has C-V transitions. The CLOSURE is the main part of the consonant, which is silent for stops. It is followed by a shorter period of BURST, a short interval of frication noise, similar to a fricative of the same place of articulation. Thus, an intervocalic [t] can be presented as in (1) (after Flemming 1995). Short intervals of approach and the release of the alveolar/dental [t] are characterized by [+high F2] and [-low F3] (see Table 1). The closure is [silent], and a short period of burst after it has the feature of [+high] Noise Frequency, which is similar to a sibilant [s] (see Table 2). This sequence of acoustic events is perceived by a listener as an intervocalic stop [t] (1b). 174 TORONTO WORKING PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS 1. Sequence [ata] a. Acoustics [a] transition silence noise transition [a] |---------------------------|--|-------------------------------|---|---|----------------------------------| ↑↑ ↑↑ approach closure burst release [+high F2] [+silent] [+high NF] [+high F2] [-low F3] [-low F3] b. Percept at a |------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| Note that closure, while being silent, cannot perceptually differentiate stops. The cues to their place of articulation are in the other three components: approach, burst, and release. Thus having a [+low F2] in the approach and release will signal a labial place of articulation. It follows that with the removal of any of the three significant cues to a stop (no following vowel, no burst, or no preceding vowel) the perception of a stop will deteriorate. 1.2 Articulatory implementation and acoustic cues 1.2.1 Inventory and palatalized contrasts: Russian In this section I will show what phonetic cues are employed in the differentiation of palatalized consonants from the plain ones and what the best environments for their realization are. Standard Russian can be considered as fully representative of the typology of palatalization: it makes extensive use of the plain-palatalized phonemic distinction involving all places of articulation: labials, coronals and velars (Halle 1959, Jones&Ward 1969, etc.).1 Postalveolar fricatives and dental /ts/ are not paired and always pattern as plain consonants. The postalveolars /ê/ and /ß:/ always behave as palatalized segments. Among velars only /kj/ is considered to be phonemically independent. The sounds [gj], [xj] are traditionally treated as phonetically conditioned, and, thus, will not be considered here. The inventory is given in Table 4.2 1The term ‘plain’ is used here for convenience.