DOCSLIB.ORG

Class 2: Contrast and Neutralization (Part 1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Class 2: Contrast and Neutralization (Part 1) Class 2: Contrast and neutralization (part 1) Adam Albright ([email protected]) LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky Goals for today I Address residual questions from last time (Constraints, Ranking, OT) I Recap: the function of phonology, illustrated I Arguing for rankings I Filling in some pieces I Phonological distributions, linking distributions to rankings I Warm-up problem: Navajo I Grounding markedness constraints in perceptual considerations Warm-up References 1/27 I Before vowels I Unaspirated, aspirated, ejective, affricates I Labial, coronal, dorsal I Not before vowels: t, ʔ Navajo ʔazit ‘liver’ ʃaːʒ ‘knot’ kʰélã́ːt ‘tips of toes’ sik’az ‘cold (object)’ páːx ‘bread’ tápãːx ‘shore’ péːʃ ‘flint, metal’ tʰáláɣoʃ ‘soap’ tʃátí ‘antelope’ ʔiːkex ‘wedding’ ʔaʒiʔ ‘torso’ níɣiz ‘round and slender’ xato ‘heat’ kax ‘rabbit’ ɣótax ‘up above’ k’at ‘now’ tʃeːʃóː ‘turkey buzzard’ tʃeːɬit ‘soot’ lók’aːʔ ‘reed’ ʔaʒí ‘voice’ ɬáːɬ ‘to raise hell’ ʔakot ‘knee’ t’ĩ́ːɬ ‘to act, do’ ʔats’oːs ‘blood vessel’ tɬ’iʃ ‘to soak, dampen’ t’átɬ’it ‘water moss’ Warm-up References 2/27 Navajo ʔazit ‘liver’ ʃaːʒ ‘knot’ kʰélã́ːt ‘tips of toes’ sik’az ‘cold (object)’ páːx ‘bread’ tápãːx ‘shore’ péːʃ ‘flint, metal’ tʰáláɣoʃ ‘soap’ tʃátí ‘antelope’ ʔiːkex ‘wedding’ ʔaʒiʔ ‘torso’ níɣiz ‘round and slender’ xato ‘heat’ kax ‘rabbit’ ɣótax ‘up above’ k’at ‘now’ tʃeːʃóː ‘turkey buzzard’ tʃeːɬit ‘soot’ lók’aːʔ ‘reed’ ʔaʒí ‘voice’ ɬáːɬ ‘to raise hell’ ʔakot ‘knee’ t’ĩ́ːɬ ‘to act, do’ ʔats’oːs ‘blood vessel’ tɬ’iʃ ‘to soak, dampen’ t’átɬ’it ‘water moss’ I Before vowels I Unaspirated, aspirated, ejective, affricates I Labial, coronal, dorsal I Not before vowels: t, ʔ Warm-up References 2/27 Contextual neutralization I Before vowels, stops may be: Contrast I Unaspirated, aspirated, ejective, affricates I Labial, coronal, dorsal, glottal I Not before vowels (i.e., word-finally), oral Neutralization stops must be: I Unaspirated, and coronal or glottal Neutralization = predictability Segments with a stop component are predictably I Coronal I Not aspirated, not ejective I Not affricates …when not before a vowel Warm-up References 3/27 Contextual neutralization: aspiration I Markedness constraints I *[+spread glottis]/ #: no aspirated segments word-finally I *[+spread glottis] I Faithfulness constraint I Ident([±spread glottis]) /kʰat/ *[+s.g.]/ # Ident([±s.g.]) *[+s.g.] + kʰat * kat *! /katʰ/ *[+s.g.]/ # Ident([±s.g.]) *[+s.g.] katʰ *! * + kat * I This ranking allows aspiration in the output when before a vowel, and changes it to unaspirated otherwise I Crucial: I Ident([±s.g.]) ≫ *[+s.g.] I *[±s.g.]/ # ≫ Ident([±s.g.]) Warm-up References 4/27 Formulating markedness constraints I Constraint *[+s.g.]/ # suffices to capture the Navajo distribution, but why this constraint, and not some other? I Why *[+s.g.], and not *[−s.g.]? I Why does neutralization target word-final position? I We could just stipulate: aspiration ([+s.g.]) is ‘marked’ I Markedness constraints penalize [+s.g.] segments, either in general, or in specific contexts I However, is not only unsatisfying, but also inadequate I Doesn’t explain why aspiration is especially marked in final position I We’ll see below: value that’s ‘marked’ in some contexts may be ‘unmarked’ in others The next example illustrates these points, with a restriction on voicing Warm-up References 5/27 Obstruents Sonorants Review/background: manner of articulation In increasing amount of airflow obstruction: Stops Affricates Fricatives Nasals Liquids Glides Warm-up References 6/27 Review/background: manner of articulation In increasing amount of airflow obstruction: Stops Affricates Obstruents Fricatives Nasals Liquids Sonorants Glides Warm-up References 6/27 Review/background: manner of articulation Bilab Lab Inter- Alv Alv- Retr Pal Vel Uvu Phar Glot dent Pal Stop p b t d k ɡ ʔ Fric Non-lat f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h ɦ Lat Affric tʃ dʒ Nas m ɱ n ŋ Tap/flap ɾ Approx Non-lat (w) ɹ j (w) Lat l Warm-up References 7/27 Lithuanian voicing (Steriade 1997) (Warning: data combines examples from Steriade and Lingea online dictionary) I Initial singletons (i.e., before vowels) I pulti ‘attack’, busti ‘wake up’ I Initial clusters (i.e., before sonorants and v) I praba ‘hallmark’, brandus ‘mature’ I platus ‘wide’, blaivus ‘sober’ sl, ʃl, ʒl, pl, bl, kl, ɡl sr, pr, br, tr, dr, kr, ɡr sm, ʃm, ʒm, sn, ʃn, ʒn, kn, ɡn sv, ʃv, ʒv, kv, ɡv, tv, dv I Final: I dauk ‘many, much’, kat ‘that’ I *b#, *d#, *g#, *z#, *ʒ# I Alternations: dauk ‘much (adj.)’ ∼ daug-elis ‘much (n.)’ I Similar to distribution of aspiration in Navajo: neutralized / # I Heightens the suspicion that we may not want to leave contexts of neutralization to coincidence Warm-up References 8/27 Lithuanian voicing I Constraints[ ] [ ] −sonorant −sonorant I * # (=*D#) (contextual), * +voice +voice (general) I Ident([±voice]) I Ranking for initial contrast,[ final neutralization] −sonorant I Ident([±voice]) ≫ * [ ] +voice −sonorant I * # ≫ Ident(±voice) +voice I Devoicing instead of epenthesis or deletion: additional faithfulness constraints I Dep: don’t epenthesize I Max: don’t delete I Ranking for Lithuanian: Dep, Max ≫ Ident([±voice]) Warm-up References 9/27 Lithuanian voicing Medial clusters: before sonorants and v Voiceless Voiced vikrùs ‘agile’ vedrus ‘glutton’ áukleː ‘nanny’ auglingas ‘fruitful’ nuknisti ‘swipe, steal’ dreːɡnas ‘damp brukneː ‘cowberry’ buːɡnas ‘drum’ riːtmetĩːs ‘morning’ bãdmetys ‘year of famine’ silpnas ‘weak’ skobnis ‘table’ akmuõ ‘stone’ augmuõ ‘growth’ àtminti ‘to remember’ liũdnas ‘sad’ asmuõ ‘person’ baʒnitʃʲa ‘church’ teʃmuõ ‘udder’ ʒʲeʒmuo (place name) Warm-up References 10/27 Lithuanian voicing Medial clusters: before obstruents Voiceless Voiced slaptas ‘secret’ — (*bt) aktas ‘act, deed’ — (*gt) kurapka ‘partridge’ — (*bk) agrastas ‘gooseberry’ — (*zt) aʃtrus ‘sharp’ — (*ʃd) — (*pd) stabdiːs ‘brake’ — (*kd) smaragdas ‘emerald’ — (*sd) barzda ‘beard’ — (*ʃd) iʒdas ‘exchequer’ Warm-up References 11/27 Lithuanian voicing Alternations lap-kotis ‘petiole’ lap-as ‘leaf’ dirp-ti ‘work’ dirb-antiːsis ‘worker’ lak-ta ‘perch’ lak-ioti ‘fly around’ dek-ti ‘burn’ deg-inti ‘burn (trans.)’ at-auga ‘outgrowth’ ad-bulas ‘reversed’ I Voicing contrast is tolerated before vowels and sonorants, neutralized before obstruents I Outcome of neutralization depends on context: sometimes voiceless, sometimes voiced I Voiceless value is unmarked in many contexts (finally, before voiceless) but marked before voiced obstruents I Value that’s ‘marked’ in some contexts may be ‘unmarked’ in others Warm-up References 12/27 The typology of laryneal neutralization Steriade (1997, p. 9) (O = obstruent, R = sonorant, including V) # O, O #R O R # R R R Totontepec Mixe no contrast no contrast no contrast no contrast contrast Lithuanian no contrast no contrast no contrast contrast contrast French no contrast no contrast contrast contrast contrast Shilha (Tašlḥiyt) no contrast contrast contrast contrast contrast Khasi contrast — contrast contrast contrast I Asymmetry: contrast before/after obstruents implies contrast before/after sonorants Warm-up References 13/27 Licensing by cue First step: differentiating contexts I Why are contrasts for voicing, aspiration (etc.) neutralized more readily in non-pre-sonorant position? I Hypothesis: sonorants provide an advantageous context for voicing and aspiration contrasts because they provide more/clearer perceptual cues I Voicing cues (from Wright 2004, p. 39) Warm-up References 14/27 Licensing by cue I Cues, by context Context Constraint Cues # O, O # (O O) *voice/[−son] [−son], closure voicing, closure dura- tion *voice/# [−son], *voice/[−son] # V [−son] *voice/V [−son] closure voicing, closure dura- tion, preceding V duration, F0 and F1 in preceding V V # *voice/V # closure voicing, closure dura- tion, preceding V duration, F0 and F1 in preceding V, burst duration and amplitude (if re- leased) V [+son] *voice/V [+son] closure voicing, closure dura- tion, preceding V duration, F0 and F1 in preceding V, burst duration and amplitude, F0 and F1 in following vowel I Fixed ranking: *voi/[−son] [−son] ≫ *voi/V [−son] ≫ *voi/V # ≫ *voi/V [+son] Warm-up References 15/27 Analysis of Lithuanian *voi/[−son] [−son] ≫ *voi/V [−son] ≫ *voi/V # j Ident([±voi]) j *voi/V [+son] I Top constraints all involve voicing before non-sonorants I Shorthand: *voi/ :[+son] I We compare here the distribution before obstruents vs. before Sonorants I *voi/ :[+son] ≫ *voi/ [+son] I Neutralized word-finally I Neutralized before obstruents Warm-up References 16/27 Lithuanian: voicing contrast before sonorants Contrast before sonorants I Before vowels /ta/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. ta b. da *! W *W /da/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] a. ta *! W L + b. da * I Before sonorant consonants /tra/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. tra b. dra *! W *W /dra/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] a. tra *! W L + b. dra * Warm-up References 17/27 Lithuanian: voicing neutralization elsewhere I Word-finally /rat/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. rat b. rad *! W *W /rad/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. rat * b. rad *! W L I Before obstruents /ratka/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. ratka b. radka *! W *W /radka/ *voi/ :[+son] Ident([±voi]) *voi/[+son] + a. ratka * b. radka *! W L Warm-up References 18/27 Voicing neutralization: [−voice] vs. [+voice] I Analysis so far correctly characterizes the contexts that favor neutralization, but it predicts that neutralization should also be to the voiceless value I *voice/V [−son] I Recall that output actually depends on the following context I Voiceless word-finally: /daug/ ! [dauk] I Voiceless before voiceless obstruent: /dirb-ti/ ! [dirpti] I Voiced before voiced obstruent: /at-bulas/ ! [adbulas] I Perhaps a higher-ranked constraint I Agree([±voice]): adjacent obstruents must agree in voicing I Steriade (1997): *voice means have no voicing value at all (underspecification) Warm-up References 19/27 Underspecified outputs I If outputs are sets of feature values, then there’s no logical necessity that a representation contain values for all features for all segments I In fact, subsets of feature values are often assumed I E.g., vowel features vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phonetic Enhancement and Three Patterns of English A-Tensing
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 23 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 40th Annual Penn Article 21 Linguistics Conference 2017 Phonetic Enhancement and Three Patterns of English a-Tensing Yining Nie New York University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Nie, Yining (2017) "Phonetic Enhancement and Three Patterns of English a-Tensing," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 21. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/21 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol23/iss1/21 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Phonetic Enhancement and Three Patterns of English a-Tensing Abstract English a-tensing has received numerous treatments in the phonological and sociolinguistic literature, but the question of why it occurs (i) at all and (ii) in seemingly unnatural disjunctive phonological environments has not been settled. This paper presents a novel phonetic enhancement account of a-tensing in Philadelphia, New York City and Belfast English. I propose that a-tensing is best understood as an allophonic process which facilitates the perceptual identity and articulatory ease of nasality, voicing and/or segment duration in the following consonant. This approach unifies the apparently unnatural phonological environments in which the two a variants surface and predicts the attested dialectal patterns. A synchronic account of a-tensing also provides
    [Show full text]
  • 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 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’ ˚ 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]
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Obstruents After High Vowels*
    John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Diachronica 29:4 © 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com The emergence of obstruents after high vowels* David R. Mortensen University of Pittsburgh While a few cases of the emergence of obstruents after high vowels are found in the literature (Burling 1966, 1967, Blust 1994), no attempt has been made to comprehensively collect instances of this sound change or give them a unified explanation. This paper attempts to resolve this gap in the literature by introduc- ing a post-vocalic obstruent emergence (POE) as a recurring sound change with a phonetic (aerodynamic) basis. Possible cases are identified in Tibeto-Burman, Austronesian, and Grassfields Bantu. Special attention is given to a novel case in the Tibeto-Burman language Huishu. Keywords: epenthesis, sound change, aerodynamics, exemplar theory, Tibeto- Burman, Austronesian, Niger-Congo 1.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL OBSTRUENT VOICING in LAKOTA: PHONETIC EVIDENCE and PHONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Juliette Blevins Ander Egurtzegi Jan Ullrich
    FINAL OBSTRUENT VOICING IN LAKOTA: PHONETIC EVIDENCE AND PHONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Juliette Blevins Ander Egurtzegi Jan Ullrich The Graduate Center, Centre National de la Recherche The Language City University of New York Scientifique / IKER (UMR5478) Conservancy Final obstruent devoicing is common in the world’s languages and constitutes a clear case of parallel phonological evolution. Final obstruent voicing, in contrast, is claimed to be rare or non - existent. Two distinct theoretical approaches crystalize around obstruent voicing patterns. Tradi - tional markedness accounts view these sound patterns as consequences of universal markedness constraints prohibiting voicing, or favoring voicelessness, in final position, and predict that final obstruent voicing does not exist. In contrast, phonetic-historical accounts explain skewed patterns of voicing in terms of common phonetically based devoicing tendencies, allowing for rare cases of final obstruent voicing under special conditions. In this article, phonetic and phonological evi - dence is offered for final obstruent voicing in Lakota, an indigenous Siouan language of the Great Plains of North America. In Lakota, oral stops /p/, /t/, and /k/ are regularly pronounced as [b], [l], and [ɡ] in word- and syllable-final position when phrase-final devoicing and preobstruent devoic - ing do not occur.* Keywords : final voicing, final devoicing, markedness, Lakota, rare sound patterns, laboratory phonology 1. Final obstruent devoicing and final obstruent voicing in phonological theory . There is wide agreement among phonologists and phoneticians that many of the world’s languages show evidence of final obstruent devoicing (Iverson & Salmons 2011). Like many common sound patterns, final obstruent devoicing has two basic in - stantiations: an active form, involving alternations, and a passive form, involving static distributional constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of Obstruent Consonants and Acoustic Landmarks to Speech Recognition in Noise
    The contribution of obstruent consonants and acoustic landmarks to speech recognition in noise ͒ Ning Li and Philipos C. Loizoua Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 ͑Received 14 April 2008; revised 8 September 2008; accepted 10 September 2008͒ The obstruent consonants ͑e.g., stops͒ are more susceptible to noise than vowels, raising the question whether the degradation of speech intelligibility in noise can be attributed, at least partially, to the loss of information carried by obstruent consonants. Experiment 1 assesses the contribution of obstruent consonants to speech recognition in noise by presenting sentences containing clean obstruent consonants but noise-corrupted voiced sounds ͑e.g., vowels͒. Results indicated substantial ͑threefold͒ improvement in speech recognition, particularly at low signal-to-noise ratio levels ͑−5 dB͒. Experiment 2 assessed the importance of providing partial information, within a frequency region, of the obstruent-consonant spectra while leaving the remaining spectral region unaltered ͑i.e., noise corrupted͒. Access to the low-frequency ͑0–1000 Hz͒ region of the clean obstruent-consonant spectra was found to be sufficient to realize significant improvements in performance and that was attributed to improvement in transmission of voicing information. The outcomes from the two experiments suggest that much of the improvement in performance must be due to the enhanced access to acoustic landmarks, evident in spectral discontinuities signaling the onsets of obstruent consonants. These landmarks, often blurred in noisy conditions, are critically important for understanding speech in noise for better determination of the syllable structure and word boundaries. © 2008 Acoustical Society of America.
    [Show full text]
  • Becoming Sonorant
    Becoming sonorant Master Thesis Leiden University Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics Tom de Boer – s0728020 Supervisor: C. C. Voeten, MA July 2017 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Sonority ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The usage of [sonorant] ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Influence of sonority ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Database study...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 Global Results .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Phonlab Annual Report
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report Title Turbulence & Phonology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4kp306rx Journal UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report, 4(4) ISSN 2768-5047 Authors Ohala, John J Solé, Maria-Josep Publication Date 2008 DOI 10.5070/P74kp306rx eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2008) Turbulence & Phonology John J. Ohala* & Maria-Josep Solé # *Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley [email protected] #Department of English, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain [email protected] In this paper we aim to provide an account of some of the phonological patterns involving turbulent sounds, summarizing material we have published previously and results from other investigators. In addition, we explore the ways in which sounds pattern, combine, and evolve in language and how these patterns can be derived from a few physical and perceptual principles which are independent from language itself (Lindblom 1984, 1990a) and which can be empirically verified (Ohala and Jaeger 1986). This approach should be contrasted with that of mainstream phonological theory (i.e., phonological theory within generative linguistics) which primarily considers sound structure as motivated by ‘formal’ principles or constraints that are specific to language, rather than relevant to other physical or cognitive domains. For this reason, the title of this paper is meant to be ambiguous. The primary sense of it refers to sound patterns in languages involving sounds with turbulence, e.g., fricatives and stops bursts, but a secondary meaning is the metaphorical turbulence in the practice of phonology over the past several decades.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sonority Sequencing Principle in Sanandaji/Erdelani Kurdish an Optimality Theoretical Perspective
    International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 2, No. 5; 2012 ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Sonority Sequencing Principle in Sanandaji/Erdelani Kurdish An Optimality Theoretical Perspective Muhamad Sediq Zahedi1, Batool Alinezhad1 & Vali Rezai1 1 Departement of General Linguistics, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran Correspondence: Muhamad Sediq Zahedi, Departement of General Linguistics, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. E-mail: [email protected] Received: June 27, 2012 Accepted: July 25, 2012 Online Published: September 26, 2012 doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n5p72 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n5p72 Abstract The aim of this article is to study Sanandaji consonant clusters in relation with their conformity to the principle of sonority sequencing. Analyzing the data provided in this paper, we found out that, of the three kinds of consonant clusters existing in all languages, only core clusters—clusters that conform to the sonority sequencing principle (SSP)—are found in Sanandaji, and therefore the arrangement and combination of segments to make syllables in this dialect of Kurdish is absolutely governed by the SSP. Applying principles of Optimality Theory on the data, the relative ranking of syllable structure constraints is determined, the outcome of which is deriving surface phonotactic patterns through the interaction of markedness and faithfulness constraints. Keywords: consonant cluster, sonority, optimality theory, Sanandaji/Erdelani Kurdish 1. Introduction Sonority has been subject to many studies for more than a century. Despite giving various, different definitions for it, most linguists agree on the important role of sonority in syllable structure (Morelli, 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics
    UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics Title WPP, No. 107: Acoustic Study of Georgian Stop Consonants Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/63t1324h Author Vicenik, Chad Publication Date 2008-09-30 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, No. 107, pp.1-30 An Acoustic Study of Georgian Stop Consonants Chad Vicenik [email protected] Abstract This study investigates the acoustic properties of ejective, voiced and voiceless aspirated stops in Georgian, a Caucasian language, and seeks to answer two questions: (1) which acoustic features discriminate the three stop manners and (2) do Georgian stops undergo initial strengthening, and if so, is it syntagmatic or paradigmatic strengthening? Five female speakers were recorded reading words embedded into carrier phrases and stories. Acoustic measures include closure duration, voicing during the closure, voicing lag, relative burst intensity, spectral moment of bursts, phonation (H1-H2) and f0. Of these, voicing lag, voicing during the closure, mean burst frequency, H1-H2 and f0 could all be used to discriminate stop manner, but stop manners did not differ in closure duration or relative burst intensity. Georgian stops did show initial strengthening and showed only syntagmatic enhancement, not paradigmatic enhancement. Stops showed longer closure durations, longer voicing lags, less voicing during the closure and higher H1-H2 values in higherprosodicpositions. 1. Introduction Georgian, a Caucasian language spoken in Georgia, has three stop manners: voiceless aspirated, voiced and ejective (Shosted & Chikovani2006). Its stop inventory is given below in Table 1. This study examines the stop consonants of Georgian and will look at a number of acoustic measures in order to describe the similarities and differences between ejectives and the other stop manners present in the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Compiling Sonority Scales with Obstruent Vowels Author(S): Matthew Faytak Proceedings of the 38Th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (2014), Pp
    Compiling sonority scales with obstruent vowels Author(s): Matthew Faytak Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (2014), pp. 151-162 General Session and Thematic Session on Language Contact Editors: Kayla Carpenter, Oana David, Florian Lionnet, Christine Sheil, Tammy Stark, Vivian Wauters Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. Compiling sonority scales with obstruent vowels Matthew Faytak University of California, Berkeley 1. Introduction It has been argued that languages systematically license syllabicity to all segment classes more sonorous than the least sonorous syllabic segment in that language (Blevins 1995).1 The syllabic segments found in American English, given in Fig. 1, exemplify this arrangement, which results in a contiguous zone of segment classes that can be licensed syllabicity (the permitted nuclei). Since sonority scales have been argued to be ranked with input from acoustic parameters such as intensity (Parker 2008), this could be taken to mean that all languages permit syllabicity in segments falling within a given range for an acoustic parameter. In this paper, I introduce obstruent vowels, phonetic obstruents that behave phonologically as per- mitted nuclei, and argue that they form a major exception to these generalizations, given their frequent separation from the contiguous range of other permitted nuclei in a given language. The permitted syllabic segments of Bai are also provided in Figure 1 as an example (Dell 1981) of this exceptional pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonority Sequencing Principle in Sabzevari Persian: a Constraint-Based Approach
    Open Linguistics 2019; 5: 434–465 Research Article Mufleh Salem M. Alqahtani* Sonority Sequencing Principle in Sabzevari Persian: A Constraint-Based Approach https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0024 Received October 11, 2018; accepted October 15, 2019 Abstract: This study sheds light on the relationship between the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) and syllable structure in Sabzevari, a Persian vernacular spoken in the Sabzevar area of Northeast Iran. Optimality Theory (OT), as a constraint-based approach, is utilized to scrutinize sonority violation and its repair strategies. The results suggest that obedience to the SSP is mandatory in Sabzevari, as shown through the treatment of word-final clusters in Standard Persian words which violate the SSP. These consonant clusters are avoided in Sabzevari by two phonological processes: vowel epenthesis and metathesis. Vowel epenthesis is motivated by final consonant clusters of the forms /fricative+coronal nasal/, /plosive+bilabial nasal/, /fricative+bilabial nasal/, /plosive+rhotic/, /fricative+rhotic/, and /plosive+lateral/. Metathesis, as another repair strategy for sonority sequencing violations, occurs when dealing with final consonant clusters of the forms /plosive+fricative/ and / fricative+lateral/. Keywords: Sabzevari syllable structure; SSP violation; vowel epenthesis; metathesis; Optimality Theory (OT) 1 Introduction Studies conducted on sonority demonstrate a significant role in the organization of syllables in natural languages (Clements 1990; Laks 1990; Klein 1990). Consonants and vowels in most languages are combined to form syllables while other sonorant consonants can represent nuclei in languages including English (Treiman et al., 1993; Ridouane 2008), German (Roach 2002; Ridouane 2008), Czech (Roach 2002; Ridouane 2008), and Barber (Ridouane 2008).1 Their arrangement is such that sonority is highest at the peak and drops from the peak towards the margins (Clements 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographicaily in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI* GROUNDING JUl’HOANSI ROOT PHONOTACTICS: THE PHONETICS OF THE GUTTURAL OCP AND OTHER ACOUSTIC MODULATIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Amanda Miller-Ockhuizen, M.A. The Ohio State University 2001 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Mary.
    [Show full text]