Module 30: Distinctive Features-II

.

Objectives: • To carry over from the previous module and make the student familiar with some novel concepts relating to distinctive features, such as ambiguity and underspecification • To show the student the rationale of the proposals for distinctive features through exercises

Topics: 30.1 Introduction 30.2 Dorsal features 30.3 Contour features 30.4 Prosodic features 30.5 Ambiguous features 30.6 Contrastive and redundant features: Underspecification 30.7 Summary

30.1 Introduction

You were introduced to the notion of distinctive features in phonology in the preceding module. The need for the notion and the development of the theory of distinctive features arose, as we saw, on account of the problem of characterizing natural classes of sounds in structural phonology. As phonological processes involve natural classes of sounds, phonological analysis without the characterization of natural classes is unable to explain the naturalness of phonological processes as well as the distinction between a possible and impossible process. In the present module you will be further introduced to a discussion of some of the inadequacies of the best known account of distinctive features. Towards the end of the module, some aspects of uncertain interpretations of a few distinctive features will be taken up for caution. Finally the notion of Underspecification of features will be taken up for brief elaboration, as it relates to the theory in its earlier as well as later versions.

1

The main goal in presenting these topics is to have them put in one place because of their relevance to the topics that will be taken up for critical discussion in the course on Advanced Phonology. They may not be presented in a historically correct order, but from the point of view of an understanding of the theory the topics need to be discussed together.

30.1 Dorsal features

[DORSAL]

The dorsal specific features strengthen the argument for the universality of the distinctive features in constituting segments in that most of the features are common to consonants and vowels. The features contribute to the explanatory value of the formal processes of phonological features using distinctive features

[± high]: Segments that are [+high] are produced with the dorsum bunched up and moved towards the roof of the mouth. The vowels that are [+high] are [ɪ i y ʏ ɨ ʉ ɯ ʊ u] and their long counterparts. The consonants that are high are [ʧ ʤ ʧʰ ʤʱ k ɡ kʱ ɡʱ x ɣ ŋ], i.e. palatal and velar. Uvular consonants [ χ ʁ ɴ ʀ] are [-high].

[± low]: [+low] vowels are produced with the dorsum lying low in the oral cavity. The following vowels are [+low]: [æ a ɑ ɔ] and their long counterparts. Among the dorsal consonants, pharyngeals [ħ ʕ] are [+low]

Note that between the [+high] and the [+low] vowels, there are two more degrees of vowel height given in the IPA chart. For phonological purposes, it has been noted that most vowel systems have only three degrees of phonological height expressed by the feature combinations [+high, [-low] for high vowels, [-high, +low] for low vowels and [- high, -low] for mid vowels. It is quite likely that phonetically a language may have more than three degrees of height. I such a case, a feature [±mid] may be required or different degrees of vowel height may serve the purpose instead of the binary features [±high] and [±low].

[± back]: [+back sounds are produced with the rear part of the dorsum raised. The [+back vowels are [u ʊ ɯ o ɔ ɑ]. The [-back] vowels are [i ɪ e ɛ æ] and their long counterparts. The [+back] dorsal consonants are velars and uvulars. The [-back] dorsal consonants are palatals.

Note that on the backness parameter, there is only one distinctive feature, [±back]. The IPA chart however also has central vowels. The theory accounts for them by grouping them with either [+back] vowels or [-back] vowels. This decision is not arbitrary but based on the examination of the phonological behavior of the central vowels. As an example of central vowels, consider the behavior of central vowels in Marathi. Marathi has the front vowels /i e ɛ/,

2

the back vowels /u o / and the central vowels /ə a/. The standard variety has a process of advancement of the palatal affricates /ʧ ʤ/, which are pronounced as dental affricates [ʦ ʣ] following the back and the central vowels /u o ə a/. /ʧ ʤ/ remain palatal following the front vowels /ɪ e ɛ/. The process can easily be described with the distinctive feature [+back] for the context of the dental affricates, that includes both back and central vowels.

[± tense]: The feature [±tense] is needed for languages, such as English and German, in which vowels are distinguished in terms of being pronounced on the periphery and with the tongue closer to the roof of the mouth, such as /i u e o/ or closer to the centre and the tongue lower than the vowel at of the same height, such as /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ/. The former are [+tense], while the latter are [-tense].

Note that for languages like Hindi, in which there are short and long distinctions, e.g. /i i: u u: ə a:/, the feature [±tense] does not apply, as vowels are produced are produced at more or less close to each other on the front-back dimension. In these languages, the vowels are distinguished by means of the prosodic feature relating to length, discussed in the following module.

[± Advanced Tongue Root] and [± Retracted Tongue Root]: These features, as Gussenhoven & Jacobs point out, are phonetic variants of [±tense] in languages which distinguish between sounds pronounced with or without the tongue root advanced, [±ATR], or with or without the tongue root retracted, [±RTR].

These features apply to both vowels and consonants. For example, the feature [±ATR] is needed to distinguish vowels in African languages, e,g, Akan, and Australian languages, e.g. Lopit, among others. The feature is needed for distinguishing consonants for example in Armenian, among others.

Figure 30-1: X-ray tracings of Akan vowels with [±ATR] feature distinction

3

Source: http://phonetics.ucla.edu/appendix/languages/akan/akan.html

Figure 30-2: F1 and F2 values of vowels in Lopit, an Australian language, showing [±ATR] distinction

SOURCE: HTTP://ALS2013.ARTS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/2013/09/BILLINGTON_82.PDF

The feature [±RTR] is needed to distinguish vowels and consonants in Arabic and in Salish languages of North America.

Figure: X-ray tracings of Arabic consonants with [±RTR] distinction (cf. Ghazeli 1977)

Source: http://www.ucalgary.ca/dflynn/files/dflynn/rtr.pdf

4

The IPA uses the symbols ‘left track’ [ ̙ ] and ‘right track’ [ ̘ ] for [+] RTR and [+ATR] features, respectively.

30.2 Contour features for complex segments

“The Bantu languages are famous for their prenasalized stops (the "nt" in "Bantu" is an example), but similar sounds occur across Africa and around the world. Ghana's politician Kwame Nkrumah had a prenasalized stop in his name, as does the capital of Chad, N'Djamena (African prenasalized stops are often written with apostrophes in Latin script transcription although this may sometimes indicate syllabic nasals instead)….The Indo- Aryan languages Sinhala and Dhivehi too have prenasalized stops. The Sinhala alphabet has prenasalized versions of g, ḍ (voiced retroflex stop), d̪ (voiced dental stop) and b.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenasalized_consonant)

Prenasalized stops have been recognized from the start as complex segments requiring the need to account for them in terms of the movement of articulators. Prenasalized stops involve the movement of the lowering of the velum before the closure for an oral stop and raising the velum before the release of the stop within the timing of the articulation of a single stop.

If prenasalized stops are represented as complex segments, then affricates, too, can be seen as complex segments. Recall the description of the articulation of affricates with a complete closure and hold, as for a stop, and slow oral release as for a fricative.

Examples of prenasalized stops are found as allophones in . Examples of affricates are found in languages in all groups in India.

How do we represent contour segments? A simple way, for now, would be as follows:

30/1

Prenasalized stops: [[+nasal], [-nasal, -continuant]]

E.g. [mb] would be represented as [[+nasal], [-nasal, -continuant, Labial, +voice]]

Affricates: [[-continuant], [+continuant]]

E.g. [ ͡ts ] would be represented as: [[-continuant, -voice, +ant, -coronal, -voice], [+continuant, -voice, +ant, -coronal, -voice]]

The two square brackets, in place of one, show that the segment is a contour segment.

30.3 Prosodic features

5

Standard generative phonology, included two prosodic features for vowels- [±long] and [±stress] to represent length and stress. [+long] vowels have distinctly longer duration than [-long] segments, and [+stress] vowels have greater amplitude, pitch, breath force and duration than [-stress] vowels.

The features were found to be useful in formulating allophonic rules of lengthening and stressing, as can be seen below:

30/2

[+syllabic, -consonantal] → [+long] / ___ #

I.e., a vowel is lengthened word-finally.

[+syllabic, -consonantal] → [+stress] / ___ (C)V(C)V#

I.e., a vowel is stressed when followed by a sequence of a consonant and two short vowels with optional consonants before them.

Both the features, [±long] and [±stress], were later dropped from the list of distinctive features since the phenomena of length and stress could be explained as owing to a richer representation of phonological units than that conceived in structural phonology and standard generative phonology. We will look at them in greater detail in the course on Advanced Phonology.

An important phonological phenomenon that standard generative phonology didn’t take into account in the distinctive feature theory was that of tone. As is now generally acknowledged, the number of tonal languages exceeds the number of non-tonal languages, although the number of speakers of tonal languages may be about one-third of the total population. In the recent years tones and tonal languages have come to be studied in depth. Like length and stress they too are accounted for in terms of a richer understanding of phonological representation. Tones are seen as units that are independent on their own, rather than emerging from a set of distinctive features. We have looked at the major aspects of tones and tonal phenomena in Module 26. In the course on Advanced Phonology we will try to see how they are significantly explained.

Summary of feature values

Let us review the distinctive features that we have discussed so far. It is common practice today to discuss the features in terms of the main regions of articulation- labial, coronal, dorsal and glottal. We have looked at the features under those heads. For the benefit of students, it is useful to see which of the features crucially describe vowels and consonants and both.

Features for consonants

The following features relate specifically to the consonant classes listed against them, and they may also relate to some other segments.

30/3

Features Consonants

6

[± approximant] Semi-vowels-w, j, Frictionless continuants-ʋ, ɹ, and Lateral approximants- l ɭ ʎ.

[± spread glottis] Aspirated consonants

[± constricted glottis] Glottal stops and glottalized consonants

[±continuant] Fricatives

[±lateral] Lateral approximants- l, ɭ, ʎ, and Lateral fricatives- ɬ, ɮ.

Features for vowels

There is no distinctive feature that relates only to vowels as a binary feature (with ± values) or as a unary feature (e.g. Labial). Unlike the features listed in 30/3 above, all the features that are used for vowels can also be used for consonants. For example, the feature [± syllabic], used commonly for vowels in a majority of languages, also applies to syllabic consonants in languages that have them, such as Chokri and Liangmai .

Features for both consonants and vowels

The following features are assumed to relate to both consonants and vowels, as illustrated with each of the binary values:

30/4

Features All vowels and the listed type of consonants

[± syllabic]

[+syllabic] Vowels and Syllabic consonants

[-syllabic] Consonants and semi-vowels

[± consonantal]

[-consonantal] Vowels and Semivowels

[± sonorant] Vowels and consonants other than Plosives, Fricatives and

Affricates

[± voice]

7

[+voice] Voiced vowels and voiced consonants

[-voice] Voiceless vowels and voiceless consonants

[±nasal] Nasal vowels and Nasal consonants

In addition to these general features that relate to vowels and some of the consonants in general, the following features describe the places of articulation for specific consonants and vowels:

30/5

30.4 Ambiguous features

30.5 Contrastive and redundant features: Underspecification

Ever since the proposal of the distinctive feature theory in SPE, it has been whether in the specification of the morphemes of a language, it is necessary to specify all the features (that is, the morphemes have full feature specification) or leave out of specification (that is, underspecify) features that are predictable or non-contrastive. The main argument for Underspecification is the simplicity and economy of the theory of distinctive features- the smaller the number of feature specifications, the simpler the theory. The theory that advocates The underspecification of redundant features is known as Radical Underspecification, while the underspecification of non-contrastive features is known as Contrastive Underspecification.

Examples of the predictability of features are found in the case of there being an implicational relation between features. Thus, if the presence of X implies the presence of Y, Y is redundant. For example, in a language such as Tamil with a five vowel system /i e a u o/ (and their long counterparts), assuming that the vowels are grouped into [-back] /i e/ and [+back] /a u o/, the front vowels are unrounded. In that case, the feature [+round] is redundant for [-back] vowels. Similarly, in many languages, all the [+sonorant] sounds are voiced. In these languages, then, the feature-specification [+voice] is redundant for [+sonorant] sounds. In a language such as Nancowry Nicobarese (Radhakrishnan (1981) , the feature specifications of both [+voice] and [- voice] are redundant for obstruents and sonorant, respectively, as all the obstruents are voiceless and all the sonorants are voiced: /p t k ʔ ʧ f s h m n ɲ ŋ r l ʋ j/, 16 consonant phonemes in all.

Examples of contrastive underspecification are found in cases where a specific language does not have sounds that contrast in certain features. For example, the feature [± spread glottis] may not

8

be required in a language that does not have aspirated consonants, but only unaspirated consonants, as, for example, in a Tibeto-Burman language such as Dimasa or Lepcha. [±spread glottis] is rare among Dravidian languages, but common in Indo-Aryan and Austro-Asiatic languages in India. As pointed out by Gussenhoven and Jacobs, Turkish does not need the feature [±low] for vowels since, there are only two degrees of vowel height are found in the language- high and mid vowels.

What happens to morphemes in which some of the features are underspecified? The answer is that they the underspecified feature values are filled out at the end of the derivation of forms in the feature matrices, that is, at the stage before the articulation of the morphemes. What type of rule is a rule that fills out predictable or non-contrastive feature values in feature matrices? It is known as Redundancy Rule. Thus we have two types of rules in phonology-phonological rules and redundancy rules. Phonological rules change a segment to another segment (in a given context), while redundancy rules fill out redundant or con-contrastive feature values.

i. [-sonorant] à [-voice] / __# ii. [ ] à [+voice] / +son ____

Between the two rules, (i) is a phonological rule, while (ii) is a redundancy rule.

9