sign in sign up
<<
Home , Distinctive feature

Week 5: Distinctive Theory 1.1 Organized Phonemic Inventories SWU LI 711 Meagan Louie September 13th, 2016 • Consider the phonemic inventory of Rotokas:

Consonants: : 1 Introduction: Motivation for Distinctive Features p t k i, i: u, u: b B d R g G e, e: o, o: ∼ ∼ ∼ A, A: Components of the Grammar (so far)

1.P honemic Inventory: • Consider the phonemic inventory of Dyirbal . The set of contrastive sound units in a : Vowels: 2.P honological Rules p t c k i u m n ñ N (a)C ontext-Free Rules.. X Y w r, ó, l j a Cantonese: /n/ [n, l] → → Northern Paiute: /b/ [B, b, p] → • Consider the phonemic inventory of Tagalog (b)C ontext-Sensitive Rules . X Y / W mmmZ English: → Consonants:> Vowels: p t tS k P i, i: u, u: . /n/ [ñ]/mmj (/n/ [n] elsewhere) > → → b d dZ g iw uj 3.R ule-Ordering s S h E, E: o, o: . Blackfoot: Glide-Deletion t-Affrication ... m n ñ N a, a: ≺ ≺ w R, l j aj, aw 4.1 + 2 Phonetic Inventory: → . The set of sound units in a language • Observation: These phonemic inventories are quite balanced in terms of their phonetic features, i.e., they involve

• Question: Where does the phonemic inventory come from? voice pairs of bilabial, alveolar, palatal, and nasal PoAs Are there any restrictions on the types of sounds that a language can ± → nasal pairs of bilabial, alveolar, palatal, and nasal PoAs have in its phonemic inventory? ± long pairs of high front, high back, mid, etc., vowels • Question: What determines which sounds undergo change in a phono- ± logical rule? Or which sounds trigger a change? • We don’t see with disorganized inventories like this:

Today: distinctive features and natural classes Consonants: Vowels: c k P y DÉ ø @ F æ a, a: ò ñ

1 • Q: Why don’t we see random phonemic inventories like this? Optional Deletion Rule • This is another pattern that we should be able to account for ni-b´alaaNgite m-b´alaaNgite “I counted” . in our phonological theory > > ni-dZ´iiNgiile ñ-dZ´iiNgiile “I entered” > > ni-g´ooñdZite N-g´ooñdZite 1.2 Natural Classes “I slept” mu-p´aalite m-p´aalite “You (pl) wanted” • Consider Japanese Palatalization: mu-t´eliike n-t´eliike “You (pl) cooked” > > > > . t, d, s, z tC, dý, C, ý /mi mu-tS´aawiile ñ-tS´aawiile “You (pl) ground” { } → { } mu-k´aatite N-k´aatite “You (pl) cut” The set t, d, s, z are all alveolar sounds...this rule doesn’t affect velar { } and labial consonants

. Why? Is this just a coincidence? STUDENT QUESTION

• Consider Canadian Raising 1. What allomorphs of the singular prefix do you observe? The . aj, aw / m t, s, p, k T plural prefix? The 1sg prefix? The 2pl prefix? { } → { } The set t, s, p, k T are all voiceless ...this rule isn’t triggered 2. What phonological processes can explain the allomorphy? { } by voiced obstruents, or by 3. Propose some phonological rules to account for the alternations . Why? Is this just a coincidence? - how many rules do you need?

• Consider Kimatuumbi Place Assimilation (Odden 2005) 4. Can you characterize all of the segments that undergo the as- similation process with a single phonetic property? Singular Plural Translation lwI´Imo ñ´Imo land being weeded lwa´ambo ña´ambo bead • Observation: Phonological rules tend to occur to sets of sounds that can lwe´embe ñe´embe shaving knife be characterized by common phonetic properties lugol´ok´a Ngol´ok´a straight • i.e., you never see a like lub´au mb´au rib > > . !, t, ñ, D, F, m P/m]ω ´ ´ { } → ludZiiNgj´a ñdZiiNgj´a entered (Where segments n, N, p’, k, T, ... are unaffected) lula´ala nda´ala pepper { } lupal´aa´i mbal´aa´i bald head • Idea: A language’s phonemic inventory - i.e., the contrastive segments, lut´eel´a nd´eel´a piece of wood are not primitives: they are composed of a bundle of distinctive features > > > > lutSwi´itSwi ñdZwi´itSwi tomato . /p/ = -syllabic, +consonantal, +anterior, -voice, -cont, -nas, -SG, ... luk´iligo Ng´iligo place for initiates { } luk´li Ng´li palm Rules target sets of sounds defined with particular feature specifications -sets of sounds that can be so defined are called natural classes

2 2 Distinctive Feature Theory (based on Odden 2005) • Each of these features is associated with

• Q: What sorts of natural classes are there? (i) a phonetic definition (either articulatory or acoustic), and . Only those that can be defined by a set of distinctive features (ii) a binary specification (i.e., + or -) → distinctive features • What are active in the world’s languages? 2.1 Major Class Features (Odden 2005:137-138) . ...the IPA articulatory features? Yes, but...

• Observation: We also need broader categories Syllabic: “forms a peak (and thus can be stressed)” • There are different ways to formalize distinctive features This is meant to distinguish vowels from consonants → • Different sets of features make for different predictions about the range of eg., Vowels are [+syl], as are so-called “syllabic” consonants [r], [l], [n] variation in language, in terms of " " " – possible /phonemic inventories : vocal tract configuration supports spontaneous voicing – possible phonological rules This is meant to distinguish sonorants from obstruents → • Odden 2005 gives the following distinctive features:1 eg., vowels, liquids, are [+son] because they lack the sort of constriction that causes voicing to be difficult 1.M ajor Class Features syllabic (syl), sonorant (son), consonantal (con) • Many phonological contrasts and processes only target the class of [+sono- ± ± ± rant] or [-sonorant] segments - i.e., obstruents (Hayes 2011:74) 2.V owel Place Features high, low, back, round, tense, ATR – Voicing contrasts commonly restricted to obstruents ± ± ± ± ± ± . (eg., Spanish, Japanese, Swahili, ...) 3.C onsonant Place Features – Voicing assimilation processes commonly apply only to obstruents coronal, anterior, strident, distributed ± ± ± ± . (eg., French, Catalan, Russian, ...) 4.M anner Features – Devoicing processes commonly apply only to obstruents (cont), delayed release (del.rel), nasal (nas), . (eg., Greek, Dutch, Polish, ...) ± ± ± lateral (lat) – Contour tones often restricted to closed with sonorants ± . (eg., Lithuanian, dialects of ancient Greek, ...) 5. laryngeal features spread glottis (SG), constricted glottis (CG), voice ± ± ± Consonantal: “major obstruction in the oral cavity” 6.P rosodic Features long, stress ± ± Sometimes vowels, glides and laryngeals (h, P) pattern together to the ex- clusion of the other sonorants 1Odden 2005’s features are based on Halle & Chomsky 1968’s SPE. This feature is used to group these as a →

3 • Hayes 2011 also includes the feature [ approximate], in order to distin- ± Advanced Root (ATR): “produced by drawing the root of the guish between all steps on the tongue forward” a

a[ ATR] is commonly used to characterize the vowels of sub-Saharan African lan- (1) The Sonority Hierarchy ± guages. There is debate over whether both ATR and [ tense] are required. ± . Vowels Glides Liquids Nasals Obstruents ≺ ≺ ≺ ≺ Vowels Glides Liquids Nasals Obstruents • High vowels like i, u, y, ... are [+high, -low] { } [+syllabic] [-syllabic] • Mid vowels like e, o,... are [-high, -low] { } [-consonantal] [+consonantal] • Low vowels like a, æ, A ... are [-high, +low] { } [+] [-approximant] 2.3 Place Features (Odden 2005:142) [+sonorant] [-sonorant]

The addition of this feature predicts that vowels, glides and liquids Coronal: “blade or tip of tongue raised from the neutral position” → pattern as a natural class, to the exclusion of nasals and obstruents • Hayes 2011 notes, however, that [ approx] would have to have an eg., dentals, alveolars, alveopalatals, retroflex consonants ± acoustically-defined, as opposed to articulatorily defined definition Anterior: “obstruction located at or in front of the ” 2.2 Vowel Place Features (Odden 2005:140) eg., labials, labiodentals, dentals, alveolars High: “body of tongue is raised from the neutral position” Distributed: “constriction...extends for a considerable distance along the direction of air flow” Low: ‘body of tongue is lowered from the neutral position” This is only relevant for coronal consonants it distinguishes between the traditional apical vs laminal distinction Back: ‘body of tongue is retracted from the neutral position” → - i.e., whether you use the tip or blade of the tongue respectively

Round: “lips are protruded” Strident: “produced with greater noisiness” - i.e., “greater turbulence”

This contrasts strident/noisy [f, v ,s] from non-strident [F, B, T]2 Tense: “requiring deliberate, accurate, maximally distinct gestures that → involve considerable muscular effort” 2Hayes 2011 adopts a different feature set, including a feature [+labiodental], which distigu- ishes these sounds. He also adopts a [+strident] feature, but he classifies [f,v] as [-strident].

4 • Can we account for these sorts of rules using the set of features from Halle STUDENT QUESTION & Chomsky 1968? Why or why not? What combination of the above features would you use to characterize • Many feature theorists have proposed the following: 1. Bilabial VS Dental VS Labiodental sounds? eg., [F] VS [T] vs [f] abial 2. Labial VS Alveolar VS Velar sounds? eg., [p] VS [t] VS [k] L : “produced with the lips” (Odden 2005:163)

3. Dental VS Alveolar sound? eg., [T] VS [s] 2.4 Manner Features (Odden 2005:145)

• Q: How do we distinguish between different dorsal PoAs? ontinuant eg., palatal, velar vs uvular vs pharyngeal vs glottal? C : primary constriction does not block airflow through the oral cavity • In addition to -ant, -cor , the vowel features [ high], [ low], [ back] : { } ± ± ± palatal: +high, -low, -back eg., vowels, glides, fricatives and [h] velar: +high, -low, +back Delayed Release: “release of total constriction is slowed so that a frica- uvular: -high -low, +back tive is formed after the stop portion” pharyngeal: -high, +low, +back glottal: -high, -low, -back eg., affricates • Note: Many consonants have secondary articulations - i.e., palatalized, velarized, labialized or pharyngealized consonants Nasal: “velum is lowered which allows air to escape through the nose”

• The vowel features [ high], [ low], [ back] and [ round] can also be ± ± ± ± used on [-syllabic] segments to indicate these secondary articulations Lateral: “mid section of the tongue is lowered at the side” – Labialized [pw] is [+round] – Palatalized [pj] is [+high] – Velarized [pG] is [+back] 2.5 Laryngeal Features (Odden 2005:146) – Pharyngealized [pQ] is [+low] Spread Glottis: “’vocal folds are spread far apart’ • Campbell 1974, Anderson 1974 (interalia) observed that rules like the following were common cross-linguistically: .b w/ mC eg., aspirated obstruents, breathy sonorants → .w b / C m → [+nasal] .w v Constricted Glottis: “vocal folds are tightly constricted” → .i u / p, b, m, w, u, o m → { }

5 eg., implosives, ejective obstruents, laryngealized/creaky sonorants 1. Using as few features as possible, characterize the following sets oice V : “vocal folds vibrate” (a) G . i . n { } { } { } (b) b, d . a, o . o, u , { } { } { } (c) G, f, s . p, t, k . m, n, l 2.6 Prosodic Features(Odden 2005:147) { } { } { }

long: “has greater duration” For the following questions, assume a language with the following phonemic inventory: . p, t, k, v, d, g, f, s, x, v, G, w, j, l, m, n, a, e, i, o, u, y stress: “has greater emphasis, higher amplitude and pitch, longer du- { } ration” 1. Produce a feature matrix for each of these segments, using the fea- tures syllabic, sonorant, consonantal, voice, continuant, nasal, lateral, anterior, coronal, high, back, low, and round • This SPE-based approach has no way to formalize tone3 . (Use the tables on the following page) • For now we can assume [ High Tone], [ Low Tone] ± ± 2. Use DFT specifications to define the following natural classes STUDENT QUESTION (a) p, t, k, f, s, x How can we use these two features to distinguish between three { } (b) p, t, b, d, f, s, v, l, m, n different levels of tone? { } (c) w, j, l, m n, a, e, i, o u, y How do you think we should account for contour tones? { } (d) p, k, b, g, f, x, v, G { } (e) j, l, m, n, a, e, i { } (f) v, G, w, j, a, e, i , o, u, y 3 Practice Using Distinctive Features { } 3.1 Defining Inventories and Natural Classes with DFT 1. How many of the distinctive features do you require to characterize the phonemic inventory of Rotokas? Which ones? STUDENT QUESTIONS (Odden 2005) For the following question, assume a language with the following What about Dyirbal and Tagalog? phonemic inventory: 2. How many distinctive features do you require to characterize the . p, t, k, b, d, m, n, G, F, f, s, l, a, i, o, u, j { } phonemic inventory of Thai? Do you need to propose more features than we’ve discussed here? 3Tone is usually analysed using an autosegmental approach. Before we can discuss that, we’d need to learn a bit more about phonotactics and larger phonological constituents like syllables (next week!)

6 Feature p t k b d g f s x v G 3.2 Formulating Rules with DFT syl son STUDENT QUESTIONS (Odden 2005) cons 1. For the following question, assume a language with the following voice phonemic inventory: . p, t, k, b, d, m, n, G, F, f, s, l, a, i, o, u, j cont { } nasal Which features are changed in the following rules? lateral (a) p f anterior → (b) t N coronal → (c) k s high → (d) s t back → (e) a i low → round 2. Formalize the rules on the left assuming the segmental inventories on the right Feature wjlmnaeiouy (a) b, d, g B, D, G/Vm ptkbdgBDGmnNriua@ syl → { } (b) p, k, q B, G, K/Vm son → > . p t tS ú k q B r Z G K m i ˜i e ˜eæ o u ˜u cons { } (c) j / i,e mo, u,a ptkbdnjwiyeæoua voice ∅ → { } (d)t s / mi ptkhvdsrlmnjiyeøaou cont → { } (e)s r / VmV ptkbdgsrlmnhwjeioua nasal → { } lateral anterior 4 Ways of Formalizing Distinctive Features coronal high 4.1 Feature Geometry back • The system we’ve been discussing treats segments as unstructured bun- low dles of features round • Another way of incorporating features is given in Clements 1985, where features are hierarchically arranged in a feature geometry

7 References This is meant to account for feature dependencies → Anderson, Stephen R. 1974. The organization of . JSTOR. Campbell, Lyle. 1974. Phonological features: problems and proposals. Language eg., [ distributed] being relevant only for [+coronal] segments ± 52–65. nodes • Features (or classes of features) are represented as Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2(01). 225–252. • Features that are only relevant to segments with some other feature are treated as dependent nodes4 Clements, George N. & Elizabeth V. Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds . ROOT Halle, Morris & Noam Chomsky. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row.

Hayes, Bruce. 2011. Introductory phonology, vol. 32. John Wiley & Sons. Consonantal Laryngeal Supralaryngeal Odden, David Arnold. 2005. Introducing Phonology. Cambridge university press.

SG CG Voice Manner C-Place

Sonorant Continuant Strident Lab Cor Dors Phar Vocalic

Nasal Anterior Distributed Lateral V-Place Aperture

Lab Cor Dors Phar Hi Mid Low

Anterior Distributed

• Of course, different arrangements of nodes makes different predictions

• Next Week: More about structure in phonology (syllable structure)

4The C-Place and V-Place nodes are adapted from theU nified Feature Theory approach (cf. Clements & Hume(1995))

8