Peering Into the Obstruent-Sonorant Divide: the View from /V

Peering into the obstruent-sonorant divide: The view from /v/

Christina Bjorndahl May 04, 2018

Cornell University, PhD Candidate Carnegie Mellon University, Visiting Scholar

1 Why /v/? Final Devoicing: /v/ → [f] / __# 4) [prava] [praf] ‘right (fem./masc.)’

Russian /v/: Final Devoicing

Final Devoicing: /D/ → [T] /__# 1) [sleda] [slet] ‘track (gen./nom.sg)’ 2) [soka] [sok] ‘juice (gen./nom.sg)’ 3) [mil] *[mil] ‘dear’ ˚

2 Russian /v/: Final Devoicing

Final Devoicing: /D/ → [T] /__# 1) [sleda] [slet] ‘track (gen./nom.sg)’ 2) [soka] [sok] ‘juice (gen./nom.sg)’ 3) [mil] *[mil] ‘dear’ ˚ Final Devoicing: /v/ → [f] / __# 4) [prava] [praf] ‘right (fem./masc.)’

2 Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /v/ → [f] / __T 9) /v ruke/ [v ruke] ‘in one’s hand’ 10) /v gorode/ [v gorode] ‘in the city’ 11) /v supe/ [f supe] ‘in the soup’

Russian /v/: Regressive Voicing Assimilation

3 Russian /v/: Regressive Voicing Assimilation

Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /D/ → [T] / __T 5) /pod-nesti/ [podnesti] ‘to bring (to)’ 6) /pod-ZetS/ [podZetS] ‘to set ﬁre to’ 7) /pod-pisatj/ [potpisatj] ‘to sign’ 8) [volk] *[volk] ‘wolf’ ˚ Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /v/ → [f] / __T 9) /v ruke/ [v ruke] ‘in one’s hand’ 10) /v gorode/ [v gorode] ‘in the city’ 11) /v supe/ [f supe] ‘in the soup’

3 Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /T/ 9 [D] / __v 15) /ot-vesti/ [otvesti] ‘lead away’ *[odvesti]

Russian /v/: Regressive Voicing Assimilation

Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /T/ → [D] / __D 12) /ot-jexatj/ [otjexatj] ‘to ride oﬀ’ 13) /ot-stupitj/ [otstupitj] ‘to step back’ 14) /ot-brositj/ [odbrositj] ‘to throw aside’

4 Russian /v/: Regressive Voicing Assimilation

Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /T/ → [D] / __D 12) /ot-jexatj/ [otjexatj] ‘to ride oﬀ’ 13) /ot-stupitj/ [otstupitj] ‘to step back’ 14) /ot-brositj/ [odbrositj] ‘to throw aside’

Regressive Voicing Assimilation: /T/ 9 [D] / __v 15) /ot-vesti/ [otvesti] ‘lead away’ *[odvesti]

4 Summary: Russian /v/

Like voiced obstruents, unlike sonorants: /v/ ⇒ [f] / {__#, __T} A target for ﬁnal devoicing • [prav-a] ∼ [praf], ‘right (fem./masc.)’ A target for regressive voicing assimilation • /v supe/ > [f supe], ‘in the soup’

Unlike voiced obstruents, like sonorants:

/T/ 9 [D] / __v Does not trigger regressive voicing assimilation • /ot-vesti/ > [otvesti], ‘lead away’ *[odvesti]

5 The intermediacy of Russian /v/

Jakobson (1978) “. . . the Standard Russian v . . . occupies an obviously intermediate position between the obstruents and the sonorants”

6 Languages with ambiguous patterning of /v/ (non-exhaustive)

RVA Final Devoicing Target Trigger Russian Bulgarian Slovak /v/ ¨ [w] Hungarian N/A Hebrew N/A

Russian /v/ in a (cross-)linguistic context

Linguists on /v/ (non-exhaustive) Halle (1959), Lightner (1965), Andersen (1969), Coats and Harshenin (1971), Daniels (1972), Barkai and Horvath (1978), Jakobson (1978), Vago (1980), Hayes (1984), Burton and Robblee (1997), Kavitskaya (1998), Padgett (2002), Petrova and Szentgyörgyi (2004) Lulich (2004), Kiss and Bárkányi (2006), Reiss (2018) and many others. . .

7 Russian /v/ in a (cross-)linguistic context

Languages with ambiguous patterning of /v/ (non-exhaustive)

RVA Final Devoicing Target Trigger Russian Bulgarian Slovak /v/ ¨ [w] Hungarian N/A Hebrew N/A

7 Cross-linguistic comparison of [v] Question

Does the phonological classiﬁcation of /v/ correlate with the acoustic properties of [v] tokens in a given language?

8 Padgett (2002) on ambiguous /v/

Patterning of ambiguous /v/ derives from its intermediate phonetic nature together with a cue-based approach to phonology. Hypothesis

obstruent ambiguous sonorant v Vﬁ V

/Vﬁ/ “unstable” prone to devoicing • only realized as [V] in positions of perceptual salience • ﬁ (i.e., pre-sonorant)

9 Linguistic controls

Languages

Greek: obstruent /v/ • Serbian: sonorant /v/ •

Segments

/f/ ⇐ voiceless member of “pair” • /s, z/ ⇐ uncontroversial obstruent fricative pair •

Other factors voicing languages • no labial approximant (e.g., /w, V/) •

10 Greek: Consonant inventory

Labial Interdental Alveolar Velar Stop p b t d k g Fricative f v TD s z x G Aﬀricates ts dZ Nasal m n Lateral l Rhotic r

11 Greek: Word-initial clusters

p b t d k g f v T D x G s z r l m n p pt (ps) pr pl pn b br bl t ts tr tm d dz dr k kt (ks) kr kl kn g gr gl f ft fT fx fr fl v vD vG vr vl T Tr Tl Tn D Dr x xt xT xr xl G GD Gr Gl Gn s sp st sk sf sx sm z zv zG r l m mn n

12 Greek: Phonological processes

No ﬁnal devoicing. Little evidence of voicing assimilation as an active process; words can only end in vowels, [s, n] Regressive Voicing Assimilation 16) /tis Dino/ [tiz Dino] ‘I give her’ 17) /tis varvaras/ [tiz varvaras] ‘Barbara’s’ 18) /tous barbaDes/ [touz barbaDes] ‘the uncles, acc.’ 19) /tis mamas/ [tiz mamas] ‘the mother’s’

20) [evGlotos] ‘eloquent’ 21) [efstaTia] ‘steadiness’ (same preﬁx)

13 Serbian: Consonant inventory

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Stop p b t d k g Fricative f v s z „S „Z x Aﬀricates ts« tS« dZ« tS„ dZ„ Nasal m n ñ Lateral l L Rhotic r Approximant j

14 Serbian: Word-initial clusters

p b t d f s v z x m n l r j p pl pr (pj) b bl br (bj) t tv tl tr (tj) d dv dl dr (dj) k kv kl kr g gv gl gr f fl fr (fj) v vl vr (vj) s sp st sf sv sx sm sn sl sr (sj) z zb zd zv zm zn zl zr (zj) x xv xl xr m ml mr (mj) n (nj) l (lj) r j 15 Serbian: Phonological processes

No ﬁnal devoicing. Regressive Voicing Assimilation 22) /s-paziti/ [spaziti] ‘observe’ 23) /s-gaziti/ [zgaziti] ‘trample’ 24) /s-loˇziti/ [sloˇziti] ‘put together’ 25) /s-variti/ [svariti] ‘digest’

26) [ovca] ‘sheep’

16 Russian: Inventory

Labial Dental Palato-Alveolar Velar Stop p b t d k g pj bj tj dj (kj)(gj) Aﬀricates ts tSj Fricative f v s z SZ x fj vj sj zj (xj) Nasal m n mj nj Lateral l lj Rhotic r rj Approximant j 17 Russian: Word-initial clusters

p b t d k g f v s z S Z x m n l r j p ps pS pn pl pr pj b bl br bj t tk tv tl tr tj d dv pn dl dr dj k kp kt kv ks km kn kl kr g gb gd gv gz gn gl gr f ft fk fs fl fr fj v vd vz vZ vm vn vl vr vj s sp st sf sv sx sm sn sl sr sj z zb zd zg zv zm zn zl zr zj S Z x xv xl xr m Sm ml mr mj n nj l lj r j

18 Languages: Summary

Summary of phonological identity of /v/

Greek Russian Serbian Undergoes FD? N/A yes N/A Undergoes RVA? yes yes no Triggers RVA? yes no no obstruent ambiguous sonorant Predicted realization: [v] [Vﬁ] [V]

19 Methodology: Stimuli

Environments

word-initial stressed (WIS) • word-medial unstressed (WMU) • ﬂanking vowels /a, o/ • (no palatalization, spirantization)

C1VC2V(C) • real words •

20 Recording details

7 speakers Greek • Cornell University or [eGrapsa ____tris fores] • University of Toronto Serbian SD722 digital recorder; • [kaZe jetsa ____opet] 44100 Hz, 16-bit Hand-segmented in Praat Russian • [sveta skazala ____opet] Resampled to 22050 Hz & • analysed in Praat

21 Acoustic measures

1. Harmonicity 2. Spectral centroid

22 Acoustic measures: Harmonicity

Measure of the relative contribution of voicing and frication in the acoustic signal; measure of the degree of acoustic periodicity. Computed over middle 80% of consonant to avoid vowel transitions. Motivation Hamann and Sennema (2005) used harmonicity to distinguish German and Dutch labiodentals.

23 Acoustic measures: Spectral centroid

Measure of the average frequency of spectrum, weighted by energy; concentration of energy in frequency domain.

Figure 1: [f] Figure 2: [s]

24 Acoustic measures: Spectral centroid

Calculated on 1500Hz high-pass filtered signal to remove effect of voicing and first several harmonics, so a measure of noise portion of the spectrum.

Modulo the eﬀect of voicing, is the frication of voiced and voiceless members the same?

25 1. Harmonicity: lmer(Harmonicity ∼ Language + (1|Sp)) Only compared /v/ tokens. 2. Spectral centroid: lmer(CoG ∼ Seg*Lang + (1|Sp)) Implemented deviation coding; compares mean of dependent variable to overall mean

26 Hypotheses

Within a given environment: Harmonicity Serbian > Russian > Greek

Spectral centroid Serbian < Russian < Greek

27 Results: Harmonicity

WIS WMU β SE t-value p-value β SE t-value p-value Se − Ru -0.63 2.03 -0.31 .95 -0.59 1.77 -0.33 .94 Se − Gr 0.84 2.03 0.41 .91 -2.11 1.77 -1.19 .46 Ru − Gr 1.47 2.03 0.72 .75 -1.52 1.77 0.86 .67 Table 1: Post-hoc Tukey tests comparing harmonicity values of [v] between languages

28 Results: Harmonicity

Se − Ru ● Se − Ru ●

Se − Gr ● Se − Gr ●

Ru − Gr ● Ru − Gr ●

−3 0 3 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4

Figure 3: WIS Figure 4: WMU

29 Dutch [v] is known to be mostly voiceless (Gussenhoven and Bremmer Jr., 1983)

Acoustic differences between German and Dutch labiodentals

and a similar centre of gravity. German /v/ is different from Dutch /v/ in these parameters. With respect to the acoustic parameter of duration, German /v/ lies in-between the two Dutch sounds /v/ and //. A summary of these findings is given with the comparison of the three Dutch and the two German labiodentals along three scales in Figure 4.

What’s going on with harmonicity

Duration: vfGerman vfDutch 100 120 140 160 180 (ms)

Harmonicity median: f v German f v Dutch –5 0 5 10 15 20 (dB)

Centre of gravity: Figure 5: Harmonicity valuesvf of German and Dutch labiodentals,German vf Dutch reproduced from Hamann and Sennema (2005) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (kHz)

Figure 4: Scales comparing the realisations of the two German and the three Dutch labiodentals with respect to the acoustic parameters of duration, harmonicity median, and centre of gravity.

These results can be interpreted as indication that the German voiced labiodental 3 sound is more a glide than a fricative from a phonetical point of view. In the 30 phonetic literature on German, the voiced labiodental sound is usually described as a fricative (see e.g. Jessen 1998, Kohler 1999, Wängler 1974). However, some notable exceptions exist. Kohler (1995: 154), for instance, mentions that German /v/ can turn into an approximant, especially in initial position. This phrasing implies that the default pronunciation of German /v/ is nevertheless a fricative. A picture more in line with the present findings emerges from Scherer & Wollmann (1985) who write that German speakers produce little contact for labiodentals, which might cause an approximant-like articulation that does not exist in English (p.93).

3 The present study does not consider phonological arguments in favour of a fricative status of the German voiced labiodental sound.

39 Acoustic differences between German and Dutch labiodentals

What’s going on with harmonicity

Duration: vfGerman vfDutch 100 120 140 160 180 (ms)

Harmonicity median: f v German f v Dutch –5 0 5 10 15 20 (dB)

Centre of gravity: Figure 5: Harmonicity valuesvf of German and Dutch labiodentals,German vf Dutch reproduced from Hamann and Sennema (2005) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (kHz)

Figure 4: Scales comparing the realisations of the two Dutch [v] is knownGerman to and be the mostly three Dutch voiceless labiodentals with respect to (Gussenhoven andthe acoustic Bremmer parameters Jr., of 1983) duration, harmonicity median, and centre of gravity.

3 The present study does not consider phonological arguments in favour of a fricative status of the German voiced labiodental sound.

39 s z f v

Serbian WIS Russian

Greek

Serbian WMU Russian

Greek

0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90 Percentage unvoiced (%)

Figure 6: Voicing percentage

31 Results: Spectral Centroid

β SE z-value p-value Ru − Se 1144.7 149.2 7.674 < .0001 Gr − Se 1612.3 235.9 6.836 < .0001 Gr − Ru 467.6 235.9 1.982 .142

Ru − Se ●

Gr − Se ●

Gr − Ru ●

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Figure 7: Post-hoc tests (WIS) 32 Results: Spectral Centroid

β SE z-value p-value Ru − Se 303.6 146.0 2.080 0.113 Gr − Se 1673.7 234.2 7.147 < .0001 Gr − Ru 1370.1 235.8 5.812 < .0001

Ru − Se ●

Gr − Se ●

Gr − Ru ●

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Figure 8: Post-hoc tests (WMU) 33 Acoustic study: Conclusion

These results suggest that, to the extent that Russian [v] is special, it is due to the variability in its realization, not due to inherent intermediacy.

34 Phonetics: Relationship between voicing and frication Research question

Assumption: voiced fricatives are a uniﬁed class

/v/ : /f/ :: /z/ : /s/.

Question Does the acoustic relationship between [v] and [f] parallel the acoustic relationship between [z] and [s]?

35 Methodology

Same data, but within-language investigation • English: • 8 speakers • nonce words •

36 Statistical analysis

Linear mixed model; lme4 package • Random effect: Speaker; random slopes not fit (convergence) • Fixed effects: • Environment • Voicing type (voiced vs. voiceless) • Frication type (spirant vs. sibilant) • Model selection: based on BIC • AIC used when BIC was not definitive

37 Interaction plots: Greek harmonicity

20 [v] 15 c ●

10 [z] Frication type ● ● spirant b ● sibilant 5 [s] [f] a ● 0 ● a Harmonicity estimates (dB) −5 vcl vcd Voicing 38 Harmonicity results: summary

English Greek

WIS WMU 20 20 15 c ● 15

● f 10 10 e ● Frication type ● Frication type ● spirant de ● ● d ● spirant b ● sibilant ● 5 sibilant 5 ● ● ab a a ● c ● ● bc ● 0 0 a Harmonicity estimates (dB) Harmonicity estimates (dB) −5 −5 vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing Voicing Serbian Russian

WIS WMU WIS WMU 20 20

e ● 15 g ● 15 ● f d ●

10 10 ● ● e Frication type c Frication type ● c ● d ● spirant ● spirant ● ● 5 sibilant 5 sibilant c ● ●bc ● a ● a ab ● ● a 0 0 b ● b ● Harmonicity estimates (dB) Harmonicity estimates (dB) −5 −5 vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd 39 Voicing Voicing Harmonicity results: summary

Question Does the acoustic relationship between [v] and [f] parallel the acoustic relationship between [z] and [s]?

Answer No, according to harmonicity.

40 Spectral centroid results: English

10000

8000

● c ● c [s, z] > [f, v] Frication type • ● spirant ● sibilant [s] = [z] 6000 •

● [v] < [f] b • 4000 ● a Env. N/A • Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd Voicing

41 Spectral centroid results: Greek

WIS WMU 10000

8000

Frication type c ● ● spirant [f] > [s, z, v] ● ● sibilant b ● 6000 b ● b b ● • ● a ● ● WIS > WMU a a • 4000 Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing

42 Spectral centroid results: Serbian

WIS WMU 10000

● g ● fg [s, z] > [f, v] 8000 ● ef ● e • Frication type [s] = [z] ● spirant • 6000 d ● ● sibilant ● [v] < [f] c • ● b WIS > WMU 4000 ● a • [v, z] only Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing

43 Spectral centroid results: Russian

WIS WMU 10000

8000 c ● c ● [s, z] > [f, v] ● c ● c Frication type • ● spirant [s] = [z] ● b ● sibilant 6000 ● b b ● • WIS: [v] = [f] • ● 4000 a WMU: [v] < [f] • Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing

44 Spectral centroid results: summary

English Greek 10000 WIS WMU 10000

8000

● c ● c 8000 Frication type ● spirant Frication type ● sibilant c ● ● spirant 6000 ● ● sibilant b ● 6000 b ● b b ● ● ● a ● b a ● a ● a 4000 4000 Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing Voicing Serbian Russian WIS WMU WIS WMU 10000 10000

● g ● fg 8000 ● 8000 ● ● ef ● c c e ● c ● c Frication type Frication type ● spirant ● spirant ● d ● ● sibilant b ● sibilant 6000 6000 ● b b ● c ●

● b ● a 4000 ● a 4000 Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral centroid estimates (Hz) Spectral vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd vcl vcd Voicing Voicing 45 Relationship between voicing and frication type

Question Does the acoustic relationship between [v] and [f] parallel the acoustic relationship between [z] and [s]?

Answer

English, Greek, Russian WIS • Serbian, Russian WMU •

46 /v/ as a voiced spirant Typology: Violate implicational relations of voicing • Phonetics: Weak (possibly absent) frication • Phonology: Can pattern with sonorants • Terminology Voiced, non-sibilant fricatives /B, v, D, G/: voiced spirants. Fricatives: spirants and sibilants together.

Situating /v/

Non-sibilant voiced fricatives /B, v, D, G/ make bad obstruents:

47 Terminology Voiced, non-sibilant fricatives /B, v, D, G/: voiced spirants. Fricatives: spirants and sibilants together.

Situating /v/

Non-sibilant voiced fricatives /B, v, D, G/ make bad obstruents:

Typology: Violate implicational relations of voicing • Phonetics: Weak (possibly absent) frication • Phonology: Can pattern with sonorants •

47 Situating /v/

Non-sibilant voiced fricatives /B, v, D, G/ make bad obstruents:

Typology: Violate implicational relations of voicing • Phonetics: Weak (possibly absent) frication • Phonology: Can pattern with sonorants • Terminology Voiced, non-sibilant fricatives /B, v, D, G/: voiced spirants. Fricatives: spirants and sibilants together.

47 Typology: Implicational relations

Implicational relations of voicing (Maddieson, 1984) 1. Voiceless sonorants ⇒ voiced sonorants 2. Voiced stops ⇒ voiceless stops 3. Voiced fricatives ⇒ voiceless fricatives

48 Voiced stops ⇒ voiceless stops

Implicational relation for stops is robust

Number of series 1 2 3 4 Plain voiceless 98.0% 90.1% 89.5% 96.0% Plain voiced 2.0% 81.5% 69.7% 88.0% Aspirated voiceless 0.0% 16.0% 63.2% 52.0% Voiceless ejective or voiceless laryngealized 0.0% 3.7% 42.1% 56.0% Voiced implosive or voiced laryngealized 0.0% 1.2% 27.6% 48.0%

Table 2: Frequency of stop series by number of series (Maddieson, 1984)

only 2% of languages violate implicational relation (as series) • gaps most common for /p/ and /g/ •

49 Voiced fricatives ⇒ voiceless fricatives

Fricative pair Unpaired voiced fricative / Exceptions as % total voiced fricative of cases /s, z/ 0/96 0.0% /S, Z/ 2/51 3.9% /f, v/ 11/51 21.5% /x, G/ 15/40 37.5% /T, D/ 12/21 57.1% /F, B/ 24/32 75.0%

Table 3: Voiced fricatives without corresponding voiceless fricatives, adapted from (Maddieson, 1984)

50 obs. yes no yes 15 13

son. no 8 (3) 34 Table 4: Number of languages where unpaired voiced spirants pattern with sonorants/obstruents; n = 70, data from Botma and van’t Veer (2014)

Explaining violations

Jumping over the divide Maybe voiced spirants that incur violations are in fact sonorants (cf. Botma and van’t Veer (2013, 2014))

51 Explaining violations

Jumping over the divide Maybe voiced spirants that incur violations are in fact sonorants (cf. Botma and van’t Veer (2013, 2014))

obs. yes no yes 15 13

son. no 8 (3) 34 Table 4: Number of languages where unpaired voiced spirants pattern with sonorants/obstruents; n = 70, data from Botma and van’t Veer (2014)

51 Explaining violations

Jumping over the divide Maybe voiced spirants that incur violations are in fact sonorants (cf. Botma and van’t Veer (2013, 2014))

obs. yes no yes 15 13

son. no 8 (3) 34 Table 4: Number of languages where unpaired voiced spirants pattern with sonorants/obstruents; n = 70, data from Botma and van’t Veer (2014)

51 Reclassiﬁcation won’t solve the problem of Russian /v/.

Plunging into the divide

Voiced spirants make iﬀy sonorants:

Are rarely syllabic • Descriptions often include both fricative and approximant • allophones Often have voiceless counterparts • Obstruent and sonorant versions rarely (if ever) contrast • strictly in terms of manner

52 Plunging into the divide

Voiced spirants make iﬀy sonorants:

Reclassiﬁcation won’t solve the problem of Russian /v/.

52 Features of voiced spirants Russian /v/ as [+sonorant, +obstruent]

Clements and Osu (2003): both [obstruent] and [sonorant] are required.

Me: Russian /v/ is [+sonorant, +obstruent]

53 [sonorant] vs. [obstruent]

[sonorant] Deﬁned acoustically: sounds with periodic, well-deﬁned formant structure

[obstruent] Deﬁned articulatorily: presence of pressure increase due to constriction

/p, t, k, b, d, g, f, s, z/ [−sonorant, +obstruent] /m, n, l, r, j, w/ [+sonorant, −obstruent]

54 Nasal harmony in Ikwere 169 harmony can be observed in most of the examples presented in this paper and will not be further commented on here. In addition, Ikwere has a system of “horizontal” (front/back) harmony, according to which nonlow vowels of the same height must all be either front or back. This means that the sequences iCu, uCi, eCo,andoCe and their [ ATR] counterparts are excluded. As a consequence, consecutive vowels are− either identical or of different heights, as in ámùkÒrÒ ‘cassava’. (Further examples can be seen in (14) and (18) below.) This˜ type of harmony is restricted to a domain which we term the phonological root,whichcontainsallelementsin a(morphological)rootexceptfornoun-initialV and rV syllables. Most ap- parent exceptions to horizontal harmony involve vowels in such syllables, as in the nouns ífú ‘laziness’, E´fÓ ‘race, run’, and (áká-)rìkwúgà ‘right hand’. Other exceptions occur in ideophones such as hwU` pÍ hwU` p´˜I (denoting thick darkness).

2.2. Oral and nasal consonants

Surface consonants (3) occur in three sets, all of which occur initially and in- tervocalically. Two of these are oral and one nasal. The consonants listed in (3) have their IPA values, except that yand y˜ designate palatal semivowels, c and j palato-alveolar affricates, and b and ’b nonexplosive stops, as described just below. r is usually produced as˙ a tap, though˙ it is occasionally realized as an approximant.Ikwere surfaceG is always consonants an approximant.

(3) Set A: obstruents voicelessexplosivestops p t c k kw voicedexplosivestops b d j ggw voicelessfricatives f s voiced fricatives v z Set B: oral nonobstruents voicednonexplosivestop b glottalized nonexplosive stop ’b˙ lateral approximant˙ l central approximants r y G w aspirates h hw Set C: nasal nonobstruents plain nasal stops m n glottalized nasal stop ’m central approximants r y˜˜ G w aspirates˜ ˜ h hw ˜ ˜

55 Clements and Osu (2003)

Ikwere nonexplosive stops [b, ’b] are [−sonorant, −obstruent]. ˙ ˙

Stop classiﬁcation (Clements and Osu, 2003, pg. 89) explosive stops nonexplosive stops sonorant stops [obstruent] + − − [sonorant] − − +

56 Russian /v/

Analysis 1 Analysis 2 /v/ [−sonorant, −obstruent] [+sonorant, +obstruent] /p, t, k, b, d, g, s, z/ [−sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, +obstruent] /m, n, l, r/ [+sonorant, −obstruent] [+sonorant, −obstruent] Triggers of RVA [+obstruent] [−sonorant, +obstruent] Targets of RVA & FD [−sonorant] [+obstruent]

57 Analysis 2

Deﬁnitions of [sonorant] and [obstruent] consistent with Analysis 2

Russian voicing phenomena rules RVA: [+obstruent] → [αvoice] / ____ [−sonorant, +obstruent, αvoice]

FD: [+obstruent] → [−voice] / ____ #

Claim is that RVA is inherently asymmetric.

58 Glitches

Russian /v/ as a trigger for RVA a) /pod vsemi/ [potfsemi] ‘underneath everyone’ b) /ot vdov1/ [odvdov1] ‘from the window’ c) /k vzdoxam/ [gvzdoxam] ‘to the sighs’ Variable non-feeding of FD when /v/-ﬁnal [trjesf] ∼ [trjezf] ‘sober (short adj.)’

59 Glitch #1

a) /pod vsemi/ [potfsemi] ‘underneath everyone’ b) /ot vdov1/ [odvdov1] ‘from the window’ ?? Kulikov (2012) “Voicing in /tvd/ clusters was observed less often, but it was a regular pattern for speakers 3, 6, and 11 even when reading the list. The other speakers did not assimilate /t/s before /v/ followed by a voiced obstruent in the list condition. Speakers 8 and 13 produced half of underlying /t/s in /tvd/ clusters as voiced and half as voiceless.”

60 To hear my speculations on this, let’s talk over beer.

Inherent tensions?

Variability is unique to /v/, and is a result of its dual speciﬁcation and positional tensions.

61 Inherent tensions?

Variability is unique to /v/, and is a result of its dual speciﬁcation and positional tensions.

To hear my speculations on this, let’s talk over beer.

61 Other languages with ambiguous /v/

/vt/ /tv/ (rus) Russian [ft] [tv] / [tv] Padgett (2002) ˚ (bul) Bulgarian [ft] [tv] / [tf] Scatton (1993) (mkd) Macedonian [ft] [tv] / [tf] Friedman (1993) (ces) Czech [ft] [tv] / [tf] Hall (2003) (hun) Hungarian [ft] [tv] / [tf] Kiss and Bárkányi (2006) (heb) Hebrew [ft] [tv] / [tf] Barkai and Horvath (1978) Table 5: Ambiguous /v/ languages. Variable and/or gradient devoicing of /v/ after voiceless obstruents is attested in all cases.

62 Typology of /v/

[+sonorant][−sonorant] [+obstruent] Russian Maltese [−obstruent] Serbian N/A

63 Ambiguous /v/ in other places

German • very sonorous realization • [kvitS@n] ‘squeaks’ • /aktiv/ → [aktif] ‘active’ • distributional data often shows dual speciﬁcation: • Icelandic • Swedish • Georgian •

64 /v/ as [−sonorant, +obstruent]

Polish is often used as example of language with true obstruent /v/, but realization variable (Gussmann, 2007, pg. 308). Polish alternations a) [SEvEk] ‘seam, dim.’ [Sf1] ∼ [Sv1] ‘seam, nom. sg.’ b) [tsErcEvn1] ‘Orthodox, n.sg.’ [tsErkfji] ∼ [tsErkvji] ‘Orthodox church, g.sg.’ Polish distributions c) [dva] ‘two’ [tfuj] ∼ [tvuj] ‘your (nom. sg. m.)’ d) [dz¸vjik] ‘crane’ [tSfartEk] ∼ [tSvartEk] ‘Thursday’

65 Polish /v/ triggering RVA

RVA triggered by /v/ in Warsaw Polish across boundaries a) [gOtuf pjisaC] ‘ready to write’ [gOtuv drukOva] ‘ready to print’ b) [smag vjina] ‘taste of wine’ [lOz v1gran1] ‘winning number’ (Gussmann, 2007, pg. 309)

66 Maltese

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Stop p b t d k g P Aﬀricate ts dz tS dZ Fricative f v s z S Z h Nasal m n Lateral l Rhotic r Approximant w j Table 6: Maltese consonant inventory

67 Maltese Romance quadrilateral plurals a) ber[r]ítta brí:ret ‘cap’ b) furkétta frí:ket ‘fork’ c) čavétta čwí:vet ‘key’ d) kappéll kpí:pel ‘hat’ e) bastún bsa:ten ‘walking stick’

Maltese

Maltese RVA a) /S + v5nn [Zv5nn] ‘what van’ b) /S + vErs/ [ZvErs] ‘what a verse’

68 Maltese

Maltese RVA a) /S + v5nn [Zv5nn] ‘what van’ b) /S + vErs/ [ZvErs] ‘what a verse’ Maltese Romance quadrilateral plurals a) ber[r]ítta brí:ret ‘cap’ b) furkétta frí:ket ‘fork’ c) čavétta čwí:vet ‘key’ d) kappéll kpí:pel ‘hat’ e) bastún bsa:ten ‘walking stick’

68 Obstruent /v/

Attested • Not as common as tacitly assumed • Contrast with ipa/w, V/ may bias [−sonorant, +obstruent], • but: not necessary: Polish word-internal forms • not suﬃcient: Greek •

69 /v/ as [+sonorant, −obstruent]

/v/# /vt/ /tv/ (hbs) Serbo-Croatian N/A ([v]) [vt] [tv] Browne (1993) (ukr) Ukrainian N/A ([w]) [wt] [tV] Shevelov (1993) (bel) Belarusian [w] [wt] [tv] Mayo (1993) (slv) Slovene [u] [ût] [tw] Herrity (2000) “ (lav) Latvian [w] [wt] [tv] Karin, š (1996) (lit) Lithuanian [w] [wt] [tV] Mathiassen (1996) Table 7: Sonorant /v/ realizations.

70 /v/ as [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Nope.

Inconsistent with deﬁnitions of [sonorant], [obstruent]

71 Advantages: disunity of voiced fricatives

Implicational relations of FD/RVA No languages group spirants and stops to the exclusion of sibilants with respect to RVA/FD:

Turkish, Dutch: stops vs. {sibilants, spirants} • Most Slavic languages: {stops, sibilants} vs. spirants • Unattested: {stops, spirants} vs. sibilants •

72 What is [+sonorant, +obstruent]? Lack of exclusivity

Russian /v/ is both an obstruent and a sonorant, and in virtue of this, it is neither an exclusive obstruent nor an exclusive sonorant. Exclusive obstruents and sonorants give the illusion of a divide.

73 Exclusive nature of non-exclusivity?

Figure 9: Tsou onset clusters (Kehrein and Golston, 2004)

74 ARTICLE IN PRESS K.N. Stevens, S.J. Keyser / Journal of Phonetics 38 (2010) 10–19 11

an articulatory parameter is varied continuously through a descriptions of the vocal tract and the position of its range of values. For this idealized articulatory/acoustic articulators. Examples include observations that the velum relation, there is a range of values of the articulatory is lowered to produce nasal sounds, that the tongue tip is parameter, designated I, over which there is only a small used to produce coronal sounds, that the tongue body variation in the acoustic parameter in the sound. Over an is used to produce dorsal sounds and the like. adjacent range II, there is a relatively abrupt change in Quantal theory can be seen as an independent corro- the parameter describing the acoustic result. Over this boration of the features that phonologists have made use range the acoustic parameter is quite sensitive to variations of over the years. That is to say, these features were in articulation. In the adjacent region III the acoustic not chosen because of the footprint that Fig. 1 suggests parameter, once again, becomes relatively insensitive to they have. Rather, they were chosen because of their articulatory changes. It is hypothesized that an articula- efficacy in describing phonological processes like the ones tory/acoustic relation of this type defines a distinctive adumbrated in the previous paragraph. That these same feature. In region I the articulatory and relatively stable features all seem to share a common footprint we take not acoustic attributes are associated with the minus value for to be an accident. Quantal theory provides acoustic and the feature, i.e., [ F], and region III defines [+F]. articulatory evidence for the phonological features, and, It is importantÀ to note that the feature-defining in some cases, could suggest adjustments to some of those articulatory/acoustic relation in Fig. 1 is the result of features. a hypothetical experiment in which just one articulatory parameter is manipulated, with all other articulatory parameters remaining constant. For example, if the articulatory parameter represents the degree of vocal-tract 2.2. Two sources of quantal relations constriction formed by the tongue blade, it is assumed that all other parameters, such as glottal opening, vocal-fold As already noted, a quantal relation emerges when a stiffness, stiffness of vocal-tract walls, sub-glottal pressure, particular articulatory parameter is manipulated along a etc. remain constant. An articulatory/acoustic relation may continuum, and the resulting acoustic parameter exhibits be difficult to measure experimentally under such con- a stable property along one or two ranges of articulation, straints. Consequently, the exploring of defining articu- and more rapid changes along ranges in between these latory/acoustic relations is usually done by modeling the stable regions. The quantal relations that define the acoustic consequences of various articulatory parameters. distinctive features appear to arise from two physical principles.1 The first physical principle involves acoustic coupling 2.1. Some phonological remarks between resonating vocal-tract airways. In general, the quantal aspect is a consequence of the movement of zeros A word needs to be said about our conception of in the vocal-tract transfer functions. In English, most ‘‘defining’’ features. Phonologists have long made use of of these movements involve features that apply to vowels, the notion of ‘‘distinctive feature’’ in describing processes place contrasts for obstruent consonants and nasal of natural language—processes like the pronunciation consonants, and some sonorant consonants such as laterals of the plural in English, or vowel deletion in Russian or, and rhotics. The place features also include [round], [atr] diachronically, phenomena as central to Indo-European (also called [tense]), and [nasal]. The defining attributes of Whereand do Germanic[obstruent phonology] and [sonorant as Grimm’s] come and from? Verner’s Laws. these features are frequently observed between abrupt These features have been embedded in rather gross landmarks. This class of features has been called articulator-bound features (Halle, 1992). The second physical principle involves an aerodynami- I II cally based articulator parameter that creates airflows and III acoustic sources, and these interact with compliant vocal- tract surfaces. This interaction creates different types of acoustic sources such as (i) quasi-periodic pulses, (ii) turbulence noise or (iii) transients. The acoustic sources can be at the glottis or at narrow constrictions within the vocal

Acoustic Parameter tract. The features that are deﬁned by these principles include [stiff vocal folds], [slack vocal folds], [continuant], [sonorant] and [strident]. This class of features has been Articulatory Parameter called articulator-free (Halle, 1992).

Fig. 1. Hypothetical articulatory/acoustic relation showing two relatively 1In Stevens (2003) three principles were stated as involved in quantal Figure 10: Schematization of relation between articulatory and acoustic stable regions (I and III) and a region where there is a rapid change in an generation. Here we have simpliﬁed the matter by merging two of the parameters,acoustic parameter from Stevens for aand relatively Keyser (2010) small change in the articulatory principles into one. We will assume this merger without justiﬁcation here parameter. 75since nothing about the present argument hangs on it. voiceless stops [+obstruent], [−sonorant] • exclusive sonorants [−obstruent], [+sonorant] •

Instead: regions of stability universally correspond to certain • feature-segment combinations

[obstruent]6= [sonorant] • regions of disagreement induced by the learner • [+sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Quantal Theory

QT proposes that distinctive features are universal and • correspond to regions of stability

76 voiceless stops [+obstruent], [−sonorant] • exclusive sonorants [−obstruent], [+sonorant] • [obstruent]6= [sonorant] • regions of disagreement induced by the learner • [+sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Quantal Theory

QT proposes that distinctive features are universal and • correspond to regions of stability Instead: regions of stability universally correspond to certain • feature-segment combinations

76 exclusive sonorants [−obstruent], [+sonorant] • [obstruent]6= [sonorant] • regions of disagreement induced by the learner • [+sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Quantal Theory

76 [obstruent]6= [sonorant] • regions of disagreement induced by the learner • [+sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Quantal Theory

76 regions of disagreement induced by the learner • [+sonorant, +obstruent] [−sonorant, −obstruent]

Quantal Theory

QT proposes that distinctive features are universal and • correspond to regions of stability Instead: regions of stability universally correspond to certain • feature-segment combinations voiceless stops [+obstruent], [−sonorant] • exclusive sonorants [−obstruent], [+sonorant] • [obstruent]6= [sonorant] •

76 Quantal Theory

76 [sonorant] vs. [obstruent]

Where are the regions of stability? [sonorant] Deﬁned acoustically: sounds with periodic, well-deﬁned formant structure ⇒ articulatory-acoustic / acoustic-perceptual?

[obstruent] Deﬁned articulatorily: presence of pressure increase due to constriction ⇒ articulatory-aerodynamic?

Future research: disentangling articulatory, aerodynamic, acoustic, perceptual relationships

77 Featural speciﬁcations induced by learner

Regions of stability are universal and delineate boundary cases for features. Learner induces featural speciﬁcations.

Greek, Serbian: consistent cues, distribution/patterning • Russian: variable cues, distribution/patterning •

78 2. /v/ vs. /B, D, G/ 3. Timing of laryngeal and supralaryngeal gestures

Unresolved issues

1. Contrast

79 3. Timing of laryngeal and supralaryngeal gestures

Unresolved issues

1. Contrast 2. /v/ vs. /B, D, G/

79 Unresolved issues

1. Contrast 2. /v/ vs. /B, D, G/ 3. Timing of laryngeal and supralaryngeal gestures

79 /v/ represents fault lines of phonology, which cross right over the obstruent-sonorant divide

Conclusion

Russian /v/: “Idiosyncratic behaviour of a single segment in a single language” –Me, when I started this project

80 Conclusion

Russian /v/: “Idiosyncratic behaviour of a single segment in a single language” –Me, when I started this project

/v/ represents fault lines of phonology, which cross right over the obstruent-sonorant divide

80 Thank you! Referencesi

References

Andersen, Henning. 1969. The phonological status of the Russian ‘labial fricatives’. Journal of Linguistics 5:121–127. Barkai, Malachi, and Julia Horvath. 1978. Voicing assimilation and the sonority hierarchy: evidence from Russian, Hebrew and Hungarian. Linguistics 212:77–88. Botma, E.D., and B.M. van’t Veer. 2014. Voiced fricatives as a phonological borderline disorder. Phonological Studies 111–114. Botma, E.D., and M. van’t Veer. 2013. A fraction too much friction: The phonological status of voiced fricatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 30:46–60. Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The slavonic languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, chapter 7, 306–387. London and New York: Routledge. Burton, Martha W., and Karen E. Robblee. 1997. A phonetic analysis of voicing assimilation in Russian. Journal of Phonetics 25:97–114. Clements, G. Nick, and Sylvester Osu. 2003. Ikwere nasal harmony in typological perspective. In Typologie des langues d’Afrique et universaux de la grammaire, ed. Patrick Sauzet and Anne Zribi-Hertz, volume II, chapter Ikwere Nasal Harmony in Typological Perspective, 70–95. L’Harmattan. Coats, Herbert S., and Alex P. Harshenin. 1971. On the phonological properties of Russian U. The Slavic and East European Journal 15:466–478. Daniels, W. J. 1972. Assimilation in Russian consonant clusters: I. Papers in 5:366–380.

81 References ii

Friedman, Victor A. 1993. Macedonian. In Scatton (1993), chapter 6, 249–305. Gussenhoven, Carlos, and R. H. Bremmer Jr. 1983. Voiced fricatives in Dutch: Sources and present-day usage. Nowele 2. Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford University Press. Hall, Daniel Currie. 2003. Laryngeal feature speciﬁcations in West Slavic languages. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20:93–114. Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of russian. Mouton & Co.’s-Grevenhage. Hamann, Silke, and Anke Sennema. 2005. Acoustic diﬀerences between German and Dutch labiodentals. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 42:33–41. Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Language sound structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Jakobson, Roman. 1978. Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica 32:107–110.

Karin, š, A. Krišj¯anis. 1996. The prosodic structure of Latvian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Kavitskaya, Darya. 1998. Voicing assimilation and the schizophrenic behaviour of /v/ in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting, 1998, ed. Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia M. Vakareliyska, 225–244. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Kehrein, Wolfgang, and Chris Golston. 2004. A prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts. Phonology 21:325–357. Kiss, Zoltán, and Zsuzsanna Bárkányi. 2006. A phonetically-based approach to the phonology of [v] in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53:175–226. Kulikov, Vladimir. 2012. Voicing and voice assimilation in Russian stops. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa.

82 References iii

Lightner, Theodore. 1965. Segmental phonology of Modern Standard Russian. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Lulich, Steven. 2004. Russian [v]: An acoustic study. Folia Linguistica 38:63–85. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge Studies in Speech Science and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mathiassen, Terje. 1996. A short grammar of Lithuanian. Slavica Publishers, Inc. Mayo, Peter. 1993. Belarusan. In The Slavonic languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett, chapter 16, 887–946. London / New York: Routledge. Padgett, Jaye. 2002. Russian voicing assimilation, ﬁnal devoicing, and the problem of [v](or, The mouse that squeaked). Unpublished paper. Petrova, Olga, and Szilárd Szentgyörgyi. 2004. /v/ and voice assimilation in hungarian and russian. Folia Linguistica 38:87–116. Reiss, Charles. 2018. Contrast is irrelevant in phonology: A simple account of Russian /v/ as /v/. In Beyond markedness in formal phonology, ed. Bridget D. Samuels, 23–46. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Scatton, Ernest A. 1993. Bulgarian. In The Slavonic languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett, chapter 5, 188–248. London / New York: Routledge. Shevelov, Y., George. 1993. Ukrainian. In The slavonic languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett. Routledge. Stevens, Kenneth N., and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2010. Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics 38:10–19. Vago, Robert. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.