Week 5: Distinctive Feature Theory 1.1 Organized Phonemic Inventories SWU LI 711 Meagan Louie September 13th, 2016 • Consider the phonemic inventory of Rotokas: Consonants: Vowels: 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 language Consonants: 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 languages 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 Vowel 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” f g ! f g 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 f g 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? f g ! f g The set t, s, p, k T are all voiceless obstruents...this rule isn’t triggered 2. What phonological processes can explain the allomorphy? f g by voiced obstruents, or by sonorants 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 phonological rule like lub´au mb´au rib > > . !, t, ñ, D, F, m P/m]! ´ ´ f g ! ludZiiNgj´a ñdZiiNgj´a entered (Where segments n, N, p', k, T, ... are unaffected) lula´ala nda´ala pepper f g 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 f g 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 syllable 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 phonemes/phonemic inventories Sonorant: 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, approximants 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 continuant (cont), delayed release (del.rel), nasal (nas), . (eg., Greek, Dutch, Polish, ...) ± ± ± lateral (lat) – Contour tones often restricted to syllables 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 natural class ! 3 • Hayes 2011 also includes the feature [ approximate], in order to distin- ± Advanced Tongue Root (ATR): “produced by drawing the root of the guish between all steps on the sonority hierarchy 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] f g [+syllabic] [-syllabic] • Mid vowels like e, o,... are [-high, -low] f g [-consonantal] [+consonantal] • Low vowels like a, æ, A ... are [-high, +low] f g [+approximant] [-approximant] 2.3 Consonant 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 alveolar ridge” 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