THE VOICED-VOICELESS DISTINCTION AND ASSIMILATION OF VOICE IN DUTCH I.H. SLIS THE VOICED-VOICELESS DISTINCTION AND ASSIMILATION OF VOICE IN DUTCH CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Slis, Iman Hans The voiced-voiceless distinction and assimilation of voice in Dutch / Iman Hans Slis. - CS.l. : s.n.3 (Helmond : W1BR0) Proefschrift Nqmegen. - Met lit. opg. - Met samenvatting in het Nederlands. ISBN 90-9000845-4 SISO * 837.2 UDC 803.931-4 Trefw.: Nederlandse taalkunde ; fonetiek. THE VOICED-VOICELESS DISTINCTION AND ASSIMILATION OF VOICE IN DUTCH PROEFSCHRIFT TER VERKRIJGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN AAN DE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT TE NIJMEGEN, OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS PROF. DR. J.H G.I. GIESBERS, VOLGENS BESLUIT VAN HET COLLEGE VAN DEKANEN IN HET OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN OP DONDERDAG 21 FEBRUARI 1985 DES NAMIDDAGS TE 4 00 UUR. DOOR IMAN HANS SUS GEBOREN TE BANDOENG Druk Dissertatie Drukken] Wibro, Helmond ISBN 90-9000845-4 Promotores: Prof. Dr. W.H. Vieregge Prof. Dr. A. Cohen CONTENTS Preface Prologue 1 1 Introduction 1 2 Methodological aspects 3 3 Analysis by synthesis 5 4 The voiced-voiceless distinction in intervocalic obstruents 8 5 Coarticulation of effort in clusters 10 6 Assimilation of voice 11 7 Influences on assimilation of voice 12 On the complex regulating the voiced-voiceless distinction I Language and Speech 12, 1969, 137-155 (article I) 15 On the complex regulating the voiced-voiceless distinction II Language and Speech 12, 1969, 193-210 (article 2) 39 Articulatory measurements on voiced, voiceless and nasal consonants: A test of a model Phonetica 21, 1970, 193-210 (article 3) 59 Articulatory effort and its durational and electromyographic correlates Phonetica 23, 1971, 171-188 (article 4) 79 Intermezzo: Discussion of the "effort" model of the voiced- voiceless distinction 99 1 Introduction 99 2 The voiced-voiceless distinction: Acoustic features 99 3 Additional remarks on pharyngeal volume control 101 4 Additional remarks on articulatory speed 103 5 Additional remarks on aspiration 103 6 Additional remarks on laryngeal control: Revision of the model of the voiced-voiceless distinction 104 Assimilation of voice in relation to voice quality in M. v.d. Broecke & W. Zonneveld (Eds.): Sound Structures, 1983, 245-257 (article 5) 107 Assimilation of voice in Dutch in R. Channon & L. Stockey (Eds.): In honour of Use Lehiste, 1985, accepted for publication (article 6) 121 Assimilation of voice as a function of stress and word boundaries Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetics Nijmegen 7, 1983, 74-82 (article 7) 137 10. Epilogue 147 10.1 Introduction 147 10.2 Time patterns in assimilation 147 10.3 Justification of measured assimilation in terms of coarticulation 149 10.4 One or two features? 153 10.5 Possible future plans for research on voicing 156 Summary 159 Samenvatting (summary in Dutch) 163 References 167 Curriculum vitae 175 PREFACE The work reported upon In this dissertation covers a long period of research (from 1962 till the present day) conducted In two different institutes. Consequently many people have influenced the course of this research, for which I am grateful. I took the first, hesitant, steps in the field of phonetics at the IPO (Instituut voor Perceptie Onderzoek, Eindhoven) under the guidance of Toon Cohen. To him I owe my basic knowledge of phonetics and my interest in fundamental research. His teaching consisted not of dealing out instructions but of asking why. Although I am indebted to nearly all the members of the IPO for their discussions, recommendations and corrections in their capacities of members of a publication committee or a group giving instrumental advice, or simply as Interested colleagues, nevertheless I should like to mention some of these people by name. Hans 't Hart, who was my room-mate in the first years at the IPO and who introduced me to the first synthesizer, the IPOVOX-I; Ab van Katwijk with whom I worked among other things on speech synthesis rules before his premature death; Sieb Nooteboom, with whom I collaborated in numerous timing experiments; Jan Eggermont, who functioned as a support in difficult situations; Herman Muller, who helped me in implementing my first synthesis by rule program; Lei Willems, whose knowledge of Instrumentation was unrivalled. In 1976 I left the IPO for the IFN (Instituut voor Fonetiek, Nijmegen). I also owe my IFN colleagues an enormous debt of gratitude for their help, Interest and support in my work. University regulations forbid me to mention names of members of the faculty in the acknowledgements; suffice it to say that what I have said above of the IPO-staff holds for my IFN colleagues too. Moreover I thank all the investigators who have inspired me in my work by their stimulating books, articles, papers and discussions. Only some of these people are mentioned in the reference lists of my articles and this dissertation. There are three names that deserve a special mention here: Professor Eli Fischer-Jdrgensen, who has supplied the phonetic world with an enormous amount of detailed information on many different languages, and Professors Arthur Abramson and Leigh Lisker, who I regard as my antipodes in the field of the voiced-voiceless distinction; without their experimental evidence, my understanding of the topic would have been far from complete. Last but not least, I want to mention my wife Jenny and my daughters Anneke and Margreet. Doing research and especially getting the right ideas at the right times, is highly dependent on the mental state of the investigator. For this, a suitable domestic background is a most important condition. - 1 - CHAPTER 1 PROLOGUE 1.1 INTRODUCTION Differences between the classes of speech sounds consisting of /p,t,k,s,f,x/ and of /b.d.g.v.z.Y/, which will be called voiceless and voiced obstruents respectively, are an old issue that plays an important role in phonetic research. With respect to the question what the essential features are that constitute this difference various possibilities have been proposed in the literature from the 17th century up to now. In the opinion of Petrus Montanus (1635), an early Dutch linguist, the presence or absence of activity of the vocal cords is essential in the opposition between voiced and voiceless obstruents; in his description he divides the plosives ("smoorvormen" » smothered forms) into those with a sound source ("stemgat" « voice opening) at the larynx ("clinkgat" = sonorous opening in the throat) and those with a noise source ("rulsgat" " noise opening) which can be positioned at the constriction ("scheideur" - dividing-door) in the vocal tract. The constriction is closed during plosives, but the noise source becomes evident in the adjoining segments ("cleefsele" - cling-ers) as a sucking or puffing sound. The fricatives are divided into those with one sound source, viz. a noise source and those with two sound sources, viz. a noise source and a sonorous source Montanus also observed that the voiced sounds require less effort than the voiceless ones. In voiced sounds the air can flow smoothly and fast through the constriction, while in voiceless sounds the air meets an obstruction so that the applied force Is broken. Petrus Montanus also described regressive assimilation of voice In stop-stop clusters; he observed that the English speech sound /g/, which does not exist in the sound system of Dutch ("... wiens plaets in mijn Letterorde ledich stont..."), was perceptable Instead of /k/ in words like "hekboot" and "slikboot", for the same reason as Iti changes in /d/ in "zitbank" and /p/ changes in /b/ in "loopbaan". About a century later, Lambert ten Kate (1723) described the plosives D, Τ, Β, Ρ and К as bluntly broken off, without any after sound, the five of which are called mute ("..· bot-af-brekende, zonder eenlg nageluid ... welke vijf men stomme noemt ..."). According to Ten Kate voiced and voiceless obstruents differ from each other with respect to their formation and pronunciation in no other aspect than in the sharpness of cut-off (which term would appear to refer to the oral closing of the preceding vowel); of these obstruents V, B, D, Z, G are the soft and F, P, T, S, CH the sharp ones ("...ten opzigte van hun vorming en uitspraak van den ander niet verder verschillen dan in de scherpte van afsnijding van welke de ...(V, В, D, Ζ, G)... de zagte en de ... (F, P, T, S, CH)... de scherpe zijn."). Obviously he did not notice the presence or absence of voice in the voiced or voiceless obstruents. Ten Kate also paid attention to assimilation of voice; he speaks of the inclination to an agreeable pronunciation (euphonia) ("... de trek tot - 2 - een gevallige uitspraak (euphonie) ..."). A sharp consonant will change an adjoining soft consonant Into a sharp one. He did not observe cases in which a sharp consonant became soft. It must be pointed out however that Ten Kate defined final obstruents to be "soft by nature"; nowadays, final obstruents are regarded to be voiceless (and ought therefore to be called sharp) because of a final devoicing rule. A more recent well-known Dutch precursor in phonetics is F.C.Donders. More than a century ago he already used oscillograms for phonetic research. Donders (1865) related different terminologies to each other; he spoke of obstruents which are "sonorant" ("luidend": produced with a narrow glottis, and consequently voiced) which can also be defined as "hard" ("hard"), and obstruents which are "whispery" ("fluisterend": produced with a wide glottis, and consequently voiceless) which can also be defined as "weak" ("week"). In the same period Cohen-Stuart (1872) warned for perceptual errors by stating: how writing may deceive our hearing!... and still nearly nobody notices that we write f and s over and over in places where we pronounce ν or z, and the reverse; yes, even if our attention is drawn to it, many a man will experience that it is difficult to free himself from the influence writing exercises on his conception ("..