DOCSLIB.ORG

Dutch Sonorants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dutch Sonorants Dutch sonorants The role of place of articulation in phonotactics Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Trans 10 fax: +31 30 253 6000 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.let.uu.nl/LOT/ Cover photograph: Ben Harris ISBN 90-76864-42-X NUR 632 Copyright © 2003 by Erik Jan van der Torre. All rights reserved. Dutch sonorants The role of place of articulation in phonotactics PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Dr. D.D. Breimer, hoogleraar in de faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen en die der Geneeskunde, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op donderdag 25 september 2003 klokke 16.15 uur door Erik Jan van der Torre geboren te Dordrecht in 1975 Promotiecommissie promotor: Prof. dr. C.J. Ewen co-promotor: Dr. M. van Oostendorp (Meertens Instituut) referent: Prof. dr. K.D. Rice (University of Toronto) overige leden: Prof. dr. G.E. Booij (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Prof. dr. J.G. Kooij Dr. J.M. van de Weijer Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Manner-based frameworks.............................................................................. 1 1.2. A role for place in phonotactics ...................................................................... 2 1.3. Organisation of this dissertation...................................................................... 2 2 Segmental structure................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Privative vs. equipollent features .................................................................... 5 2.2. Phonetic interpretability.................................................................................. 7 2.3. Vowels ............................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1. |I|, |U|, |A| .......................................................................................... 8 2.3.2. |@|................................................................................................... 11 2.3.2.1. Schwa ...................................................................................... 11 2.3.2.2. Tense vs. lax vowels................................................................ 12 2.4. Consonants.................................................................................................... 13 2.4.1. “Manner” ........................................................................................ 13 2.4.2. The consonantal baselines............................................................... 14 2.4.2.1. Obstruents................................................................................ 14 2.4.2.2. Sonorants ................................................................................. 15 2.4.3. Place: |I|, |U| and |A| revisited ......................................................... 16 2.4.4. Laryngeal contrast........................................................................... 18 2.5. The segments of Dutch.................................................................................. 21 2.5.1. The Dutch vowels ........................................................................... 21 2.5.1.1. Monophthongs......................................................................... 21 2.5.1.2. Diphthongs............................................................................... 24 2.5.2. The Dutch consonants..................................................................... 25 2.6. Summary....................................................................................................... 26 3 Phonotactics............................................................................................................ 27 3.1. Suprasegmental structure .............................................................................. 27 3.1.1. Constituency ................................................................................... 28 vi 3.1.2. Binarity ........................................................................................... 31 3.1.3. Licensing......................................................................................... 32 3.1.3.1. The nucleus.............................................................................. 33 3.1.3.2. The rhyme................................................................................ 34 3.1.3.3. The onset.................................................................................. 38 3.1.4. The prosodic hierarchy ................................................................... 41 3.1.5. Government .................................................................................... 42 3.1.6. Licensing constraints ...................................................................... 43 3.2. Constituent well-formedness......................................................................... 44 3.2.1. Sonority and complexity................................................................. 44 3.2.2. Manner driven syllabification......................................................... 46 3.2.3. The interaction between manner and place..................................... 49 3.2.3.1. “Strong” manner and “strong” positions.................................. 49 3.2.3.2. “Weak” manner ....................................................................... 50 3.2.4. |I|, |U|, |A| revisited.......................................................................... 51 3.2.4.1. |A|: The vocalic element .......................................................... 51 3.2.4.2. |U|: The consonantal element................................................... 55 3.2.4.3. |I|: The unmarked element ....................................................... 56 3.2.5. Markedness hierarchies................................................................... 58 3.2.5.1. Coronal unmarkedness............................................................. 58 3.2.5.2. The consonantal/vocalic hierarchy .......................................... 59 3.2.5.3. The interaction of the place hierarchies and language typologies ................................................................. 61 3.2.6. Summary......................................................................................... 63 3.3. Dutch phonotactics........................................................................................ 63 3.3.1. Nuclei.............................................................................................. 64 3.3.2. Rhymes ........................................................................................... 65 3.3.3. Coda-onset sequences ..................................................................... 67 3.3.4. Onsets ............................................................................................. 71 3.3.4.1. Obstruent-liquid clusters.......................................................... 72 3.3.4.2. Obstruent-glide clusters........................................................... 74 3.3.4.3. Obstruent-nasal clusters........................................................... 77 3.3.4.4. sC clusters................................................................................ 78 3.3.4.5. Loan clusters............................................................................ 81 3.3.4.6. “Bogus” clusters and prosodic domains .................................. 83 3.3.5. Licensing inheritance: constituent structure in strong vs. weak positions........................... 85 3.4. Summary....................................................................................................... 90 vii 4 Nasals ...................................................................................................................... 93 4.1. The Dutch nasals........................................................................................... 93 4.1.1. The nasal segments of Dutch .......................................................... 93 4.1.2. Natural class behaviour................................................................... 95 4.2. Place-sensitive distribution ........................................................................... 98 4.3. The distribution and behaviour of the Dutch nasals...................................... 99 4.3.1. Dutch /N/ ....................................................................................... 100 4.3.1.1. |A|-driven distribution............................................................ 100 4.3.1.2. Velar nasals in the rhyme ...................................................... 102 4.3.1.3. Maasbracht tones ................................................................... 115 4.3.1.4. Cross-linguistic support......................................................... 116 4.3.2. Dutch /m/ ...................................................................................... 120 4.3.2.1. The best nasal licensor........................................................... 120 4.3.2.2. Dutch /m/ patterns with obstruents........................................ 124 4.3.2.3. Cross-linguistic support......................................................... 127 4.3.3. Dutch /n/ ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection
    i Vowel Quality and Phonological Pro jection Marc van Oostendorp PhD Thesis Tilburg University September Acknowledgements The following p eople have help ed me prepare and write this dissertation John Alderete Elena Anagnostop oulou Sjef Barbiers Outi BatEl Dorothee Beermann Clemens Bennink Adams Bo domo Geert Bo oij Hans Bro ekhuis Norb ert Corver Martine Dhondt Ruud and Henny Dhondt Jo e Emonds Dicky Gilb ers Janet Grijzenhout Carlos Gussenhoven Gert jan Hakkenb erg Marco Haverkort Lars Hellan Ben Hermans Bart Holle brandse Hannekevan Ho of Angeliek van Hout Ro eland van Hout Harry van der Hulst Riny Huybregts Rene Kager HansPeter Kolb Emiel Krah mer David Leblanc Winnie Lechner Klarien van der Linde John Mc Carthy Dominique Nouveau Rolf Noyer Jaap and Hannyvan Oosten dorp Paola Monachesi Krisztina Polgardi Alan Prince Curt Rice Henk van Riemsdijk Iggy Ro ca Sam Rosenthall Grazyna Rowicka Lisa Selkirk Chris Sijtsma Craig Thiersch MiekeTrommelen Rub en van der Vijver Janneke Visser Riet Vos Jero en van de Weijer Wim Zonneveld Iwant to thank them all They have made the past four years for what it was the most interesting and happiest p erio d in mylife until now ii Contents Intro duction The Headedness of Syllables The Headedness Hyp othesis HH Theoretical Background Syllable Structure Feature geometry Sp ecication and Undersp ecicati on Skeletal tier Mo del of the grammar Optimality Theory Data Organisation of the thesis Chapter Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Using 'North Wind and the Sun' Texts to Sample Phoneme Inventories
    Blowing in the wind: Using ‘North Wind and the Sun’ texts to sample phoneme inventories Louise Baird ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, The Australian National University [email protected] Nicholas Evans ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, The Australian National University [email protected] Simon J. Greenhill ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, The Australian National University & Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History [email protected] Language documentation faces a persistent and pervasive problem: How much material is enough to represent a language fully? How much text would we need to sample the full phoneme inventory of a language? In the phonetic/phonemic domain, what proportion of the phoneme inventory can we expect to sample in a text of a given length? Answering these questions in a quantifiable way is tricky, but asking them is necessary. The cumulative col- lection of Illustrative Texts published in the Illustration series in this journal over more than four decades (mostly renditions of the ‘North Wind and the Sun’) gives us an ideal dataset for pursuing these questions. Here we investigate a tractable subset of the above questions, namely: What proportion of a language’s phoneme inventory do these texts enable us to recover, in the minimal sense of having at least one allophone of each phoneme? We find that, even with this low bar, only three languages (Modern Greek, Shipibo and the Treger dialect of Breton) attest all phonemes in these texts.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract: Crossing Morpheme Boundaries in Dutch
    Abstract: Crossing morpheme boundaries in Dutch On the basis of Dutch data, this article argues that many differences between types of affixes which are usually described by arbitrary morphological diacritics in the literature, can be made to follow from the phonological shape of affixes. Two cases are studied in some detail: the difference between prefixes and suffixes, and differences between 'cohering' and 'noncohering' suffixes. Prefixes in many languages of the world behave as prosodically more independent than suffixes with respect to syllabification: the former usually do not integrate with the stem, whereas the latter do. Dutch is an example of a language to which this applies. It is argued that this asymmetry does not have to be stipulated, but can be made to follow from the fact that the phonotactic reason for crossing a morpheme boundary usually involves the creation of an onset, which is on the left-hand side of a vowel and not on its right-hand side, plus some general (symmetric) conditions on the interface between phonology and morphology. The differences between 'cohering' and 'noncohering' suffixes with respect to syllable structure and stress in Dutch is argued to similarly follow from the phonological shape of these affixes. Once we have set up an appropriately sophisticated structure for every affix, there is no need any more to stipulate arbitrary morphological markings: differences in phonological behaviour follow from differences in phonological shape alone, given a sufficiently precise theory of universal constraint and their interactions. Keywords: Dutch phonology, phonology-morphology interface, prosody 1 Crossing Morpheme Boundaries in Dutch 1. Introduction Asymmetries in phonological behaviour between types of affixes are not uncommon in languages of the world.1 For instance, prefixes in a given language may behave quite differently from suffixes.
    [Show full text]
  • Laryngeal Features in German* Michael Jessen Bundeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden Catherine Ringen University of Iowa
    Phonology 19 (2002) 189–218. f 2002 Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S0952675702004311 Printed in the United Kingdom Laryngeal features in German* Michael Jessen Bundeskriminalamt, Wiesbaden Catherine Ringen University of Iowa It is well known that initially and when preceded by a word that ends with a voiceless sound, German so-called ‘voiced’ stops are usually voiceless, that intervocalically both voiced and voiceless stops occur and that syllable-final (obstruent) stops are voiceless. Such a distribution is consistent with an analysis in which the contrast is one of [voice] and syllable-final stops are devoiced. It is also consistent with the view that in German the contrast is between stops that are [spread glottis] and those that are not. On such a view, the intervocalic voiced stops arise because of passive voicing of the non-[spread glottis] stops. The purpose of this paper is to present experimental results that support the view that German has underlying [spread glottis] stops, not [voice] stops. 1 Introduction In spite of the fact that voiced (obstruent) stops in German (and many other Germanic languages) are markedly different from voiced stops in languages like Spanish, Russian and Hungarian, all of these languages are usually claimed to have stops that contrast in voicing. For example, Wurzel (1970), Rubach (1990), Hall (1993) and Wiese (1996) assume that German has underlying voiced stops in their different accounts of Ger- man syllable-final devoicing in various rule-based frameworks. Similarly, Lombardi (1999) assumes that German has underlying voiced obstruents in her optimality-theoretic (OT) account of syllable-final laryngeal neutralisation and assimilation in obstruent clusters.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Key Terms
    Glossary of Key Terms accent: a pronunciation variety used by a specific group of people. allophone: different phonetic realizations of a phoneme. allophonic variation: variations in how a phoneme is pronounced which do not create a meaning difference in words. alveolar: a sound produced near or on the alveolar ridge. alveolar ridge: the small bony ridge behind the upper front teeth. approximants: obstruct the air flow so little that they could almost be classed as vowels if they were in a different context (e.g. /w/ or /j/). articulatory organs – (or articulators): are the different parts of the vocal tract that can change the shape of the air flow. articulatory settings or ‘voice quality’: refers to the characteristic or long-term positioning of articulators by individual or groups of speakers of a particular language. aspirated: phonemes involve an auditory plosion (‘puff of air’) where the air can be heard passing through the glottis after the release phase. assimilation: a process where one sound is influenced by the characteristics of an adjacent sound. back vowels: vowels where the back part of the tongue is raised (like ‘two’ and ‘tar’) bilabial: a sound that involves contact between the two lips. breathy voice: voice quality where whisper is combined with voicing. cardinal vowels: a set of phonetic vowels used as reference points which do not relate to any specific language. central vowels: vowels where the central part of the tongue is raised (like ‘fur’ and ‘sun’) centring diphthongs: glide towards /ə/. citation form: the way we say a word on its own. close vowel: where the tongue is raised as close as possible to the roof of the mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • Portuguese Syllables Through the Lenses of English Language Loanwords
    2º CICLO DE ESTUDOS ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ MESTRADO EM LINGUÍSTICA ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Portuguese Syllables Through the Lenses of English Language Loanwords Clara Calado do Nascimento M 2020 Clara Calado do Nascimento Portuguese Syllables Through the Lenses of English Language Loanwords Dissertação realizada no âmbito do Mestrado em Linguística, orientada pelo Professor Doutor João Manuel Pires da Silva e Almeida Veloso. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto Setembro de 2020 Clara Calado do Nascimento Portuguese Syllables Through the Lenses of English Language Loanwords Dissertação realizada no âmbito do Mestrado em Linguística, orientada pelo Professor Doutor João Manuel Pires da Silva e Almeida Veloso. Membros do Júri Professor Doutor (escreva o nome do/a Professor/a) Faculdade (nome da faculdade) - Universidade (nome da universidade) Professor Doutor (escreva o nome do/a Professor/a) Faculdade (nome da faculdade) - Universidade (nome da universidade) Professor Doutor (escreva o nome do/a Professor/a) Faculdade (nome da faculdade) - Universidade (nome da universidade) Classificação obtida: (escreva o valor) Valores Aos meus pais e minha irmã List of Contents Declaração de honra 4 Acknowledgement 5 Resumo 6 Abstract 7 List of Figures 8 ​ List of Tables 9 List of Graphs 10 List of Abbreviations 10 ​ Introduction 12 ​ 1. Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 19 ​ 1.1.The Syllable Within Phonology 22 ​ 1.1.1.Syllable Structure 24 1.1.1.1.Onsets 26 ​ 1.1.1.2.Codas 27 ​ 1.2.Phonotactics 28 ​ 1.2.1.The Sonority Principle 28 1.2.2 Consonant Clusters. 29 ​ 1.3.Loanwords 31 2. Chapter 2: The Research 34 ​ 2.1.Design 34 ​ 2.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Palatalization in Brazilian Portuguese/English Interphonology
    BETTONI-TECHIO, Melissa; KOERICH, Rosana Denise. Palatalization in Brazilian Portuguese/English interphonology. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem – ReVEL . V. 4, n. 7, agosto de 2006. ISSN 1678-8931 [www.revel.inf.br]. PALATALIZATION IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE /E NGLISH INTERPHONOLOGY Melissa Bettoni-Techio 1 Rosana Denise Koerich 2 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT: This research focuses on palatalization of final alveolar stops by Brazilian learners of English. Thirty learners from the pre-intermediate level of an English course read a sentence list in English, containing word-final alveolar stops, and a sentence list in BP, containing word-final te and de . Considering L1 transfer, it was expected that the production of English final alveolar stops would be problematic. This production was examined according to two hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that absence of palatalization in BP would indicate absence of palatalization in BP/English interphonology and the second hypothesis was that the phonological environments which trigger palatalization in BP/English interphonology would not coincide with those environments which trigger palatalization in BP. Both hypotheses were supported. KEYWORDS: Alveolar stops; coda; interphonology; palatalization; phonological environment. INTRODUCTION In the last decades, studies on interlanguage (IL) phonology have gradually gained considerable space and respect in the field of Applied Linguistics (Major 1998; Baptista 2000). In Brazil, a growing but still limited body of research has been conducted on IL phonology of Brazilian learners of English concerning the process of vowel epenthesis (e.g. Tarone 1980/1987; Baptista & Silva Filho 1997; Fernandes 1997; Rebello 1997; Koerich 2002; Rauber 2002; and Silveira 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • From "RP" to "Estuary English"
    From "RP" to "Estuary English": The concept 'received' and the debate about British pronunciation standards Hamburg 1998 Author: Gudrun Parsons Beckstrasse 8 D-20357 Hamburg e-mail: [email protected] Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................i List of Abbreviations............................................................................... ii 0. Introduction ....................................................................................1 1. Received Pronunciation .................................................................5 1.1. The History of 'RP' ..................................................................5 1.2. The History of RP....................................................................9 1.3. Descriptions of RP ...............................................................14 1.4. Summary...............................................................................17 2. Change and Variation in RP.............................................................18 2.1. The Vowel System ................................................................18 2.1.1. Diphthongisation of Long Vowels ..................................18 2.1.2. Fronting of /!/ and Lowering of /"/................................21 2.2. The Consonant System ........................................................23 2.2.1. The Glottal Stop.............................................................23 2.2.2. Vocalisation of [#]...........................................................26
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Segmental and Suprasegmental Features of the Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GAM)
    Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-5766 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0484 (Online) Vol.8, No.24, 2018 A Comparative Analysis of Segmental and Suprasegmental Features of the Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GAM) NWABUEZE, Ejike E. Department of English Language, Faculty of Arts and the Use of English Language, School of General Studies, University of Nigeria Nsukka OKOYE, Mercy The use of English unit, School of General Studies, Department of English and Literary Studies, University of Nigeria Nsukka OLUCHI CHRIS OKEUGO Ph.D. The use of English unit, School of General Studies, Department of English and Literary Studies, University of Nigeria Nsukka Abstract: This is a comparative analysis of the Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GAM). The researcher adopted a theoretical approach. Two dialects: the RP and CAM are adequately and specifically considered. They represent widely two standard dialects of English language used in the United Kingdom and the North America. They are equally the dialects taught to non-native learner of English outside the United Kingdom and the North America. In order to arrive at comprehensive findings, the researcher examines the segmental and suprasegmental features of the RP and CAM. The segmentals are vowels and consonants, while the segmentals are stress, rhythm and intonation. Also, in order to adequate information for this research, books, articles and (from the World Wide Web) on the RP and GAM are consulted. The findings reveal that there are similarities and differences in segmental and suprasegmental features of the RP. The study concluded that Keywords: Comparative Analysis, Segmental and Suprasegmental, Received Pronunciation, General American Gam Introduction Phonology etymologically is a Greek word coined from phono logy .
    [Show full text]
  • Singing in English in the 21St Century: a Study Comparing
    SINGING IN ENGLISH IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A STUDY COMPARING AND APPLYING THE TENETS OF MADELEINE MARSHALL AND KATHRYN LABOUFF Helen Dewey Reikofski Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2015 APPROVED:….……………….. Jeffrey Snider, Major Professor Stephen Dubberly, Committee Member Benjamin Brand, Committee Member Stephen Austin, Committee Member and Chair of the Department of Vocal Studies … James C. Scott, Dean of the College of Music Costas Tsatsoulis, Interim Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Reikofski, Helen Dewey. Singing in English in the 21st Century: A Study Comparing and Applying the Tenets of Madeleine Marshall and Kathryn LaBouff. Doctor of Musical Arts (Performance), August 2015, 171 pp., 6 tables, 21 figures, bibliography, 141 titles. The English diction texts by Madeleine Marshall and Kathryn LaBouff are two of the most acclaimed manuals on singing in this language. Differences in style between the two have separated proponents to be primarily devoted to one or the other. An in- depth study, comparing the precepts of both authors, and applying their principles, has resulted in an understanding of their common ground, as well as the need for the more comprehensive information, included by LaBouff, on singing in the dialect of American Standard, and changes in current Received Pronunciation, for British works, and Mid- Atlantic dialect, for English language works not specifically North American or British. Chapter 1 introduces Marshall and The Singer’s Manual of English Diction, and LaBouff and Singing and Communicating in English. An overview of selected works from Opera America’s resources exemplifies the need for three dialects in standardized English training.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound and Fury: English Phonology 2
    Sound and Fury: English Phonology 2 Sound and Fury: English Phonology /'sawnd @n 'fjU®ij: 'IèglIS f@'nAl@Aij/ In this chapter, we look at English sound patterns. We learn about the distinct sounds that make up words (phonemes), and the mech- anisms in the vocal tract that are employed to produce them. We learn a system of writing that can be used to accurately represent pronunciation, the International Phonetic Alphabet. We think about how sounds group into families, and consider one example of sound change from the prehistory of English. This groundwork will allow us, in future chapters, to understand restrictions on phonological words in English, to look at other historical changes that have altered the pronunciation of English words in the past, and to discuss differences between dialects of English spoken today. It will also enable us to analyze other kinds of processes in English words, when we look at morphology. 2.1 English Spelling and English Pronunciation The first thing we have to do, when considering the pronunciation of English words, is find a way to represent their pronunciation accurately in print (since you can’t hear me talking). English spelling is notoriously bad at this: probably, at least once in your life as a literate English speaker, you have mispronounced a word in speech that you learned from a book; that is, you’ve probably used a spelling pronunciation. (I certainly have.) The mismatch between spelling and pronunciation is the reason that English spelling is a hard thing to master. 21 EWC02 21 17/10/05, 11:13 AM Sound and Fury: English Phonology orthography, n.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossopoeia a Contrastive Phonological Study Of
    DEPARTAMENT DE FILOLOGIA ANGLESA I DE GERMANÍSTICA Glossopoeia A Contrastive Phonological Study of Sindarin and Klingon Treball de Fi de Grau Author: Mónica Malvárez Ocaña Supervisor: Hortènsia Curell Gotor Grau d’Estudis Anglesos June 2020 jyE qhE5 `B 7r$`B6E tiT16E lE5 Law pain i reviar mistar aen. Not all those who wander are lost. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Hortènsia Curell, not only for her help and support during these difficult months that I have been abroad, but also for giving me the opportunity and the freedom to explore other fascinating linguistic areas, such as glossopoeia. I would also like to thank my friends and family for always pushing me to go one step further and to think outside the box. I discovered the universe of Middle-Earth during my childhood, and for that reason, it will always have a special place in my heart. Before going to bed, my father used to read The Hobbit to me. I remember being mesmerized by the story and the characters, and even now, as an adult, I am still mesmerized by what J.R.R. Tolkien created. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2 2. Constructed Languages ............................................................................................... 3 2.1. Classification of Conlangs ................................................................................ 3 2.1.1. Historical Classification ....................................................................
    [Show full text]