UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Robert Martin Kirchner 1998 © Copyright by Robert Martin Kirchner 1998 The dissertation of Robert Martin Kirchner is approved. _________________________________ Bruce Hayes _________________________________ Patricia Keating _________________________________ Donka Minkova _________________________________ Donca Steriade, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 1998 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1. Overview of the Survey 3 2. Previous Approaches 11 3. An Effort-Based Approach to Lenition 23 4. Structure of the Dissertation 33 Chapter 2: Articulatory Effort 35 1. The Neuromuscular Basis of Effort 37 2. A Biomechanical Approach to Effort 39 3. Precision 51 4. Effort Minimization and Voicing Lenition 54 5. Summary 58 Chapter 3: Representational Issues 59 1. Smolensky’s Challenge to the Standard Model 65 2. A Definition of Contrastiveness 67 3. Faithfulness 73 4. A Language-Specific Predictable Property: Aspiration in English 75 5. Universally Non-Contrastive Properties: Vowel Duration 78 6. Generalizing the Result: the Contrastiveness Theorem 84 7. Categorical Effects with Continuous Representations 87 8. Lenition or Fortition with Indeterminate UR’s 93 9. Summary 96 Chapter 4: Spirantization and Stridency 99 1. Documenting the Generalization 99 2. An Effort-Based Explanation 110 3. Formal Capture of the Phonetic Explanation 114 4. Lenition of Affricates 116 5. Analysis of Assibilation 117 6. Summary and Discussion 118 Chapter 5: Geminates 125 1. Previous Treatments of Geminate Inalterability 127 2. Generalizations 133 3. An Effort-Based Account of the Generalizations 155 4. Heteromorphemic Geminates 170 5. Summary and Alternative Approaches 176 Chapter 6: Effort-Based Contexts 179 1. Aperture-Conditioned Lenition 180 2. Speech Rate and Register 214 3. Alternative Approaches 222 Chapter 7: Tümpisa Shoshone 229 1. Data 229 2. Analysis of Spirantization and Flapping 234 iii 3. Analysis of (De)voicing 240 4. Analysis of Nasal Weakening 244 5. Analysis of Laryngeal Elision 247 6. Summary 248 Chapter 8: Florentine Italian 251 1. Data 252 2. Effort Values 270 3. Analysis 274 4. Conclusion 291 Chapter 9: Conclusion: Stabilization of Lenition Patterns 292 1. The Stabilization Problem: Tigrinya Spirantization 293 2. Selection of Phonetic Variants 296 3. Effort under Canonical Conditions 299 4. Remaining Questions 301 Appendix: Survey of Lenition Patterns 303 References 315 iv LIST OF FIGURES 1-1. Possible lenition changes (from Hock 1991:83) 19 1-2. Opposition between LAZY and lenition-blocking constraints 26 2-1. Schema of force of a gesture 41 2-2. Inferences from equation of effort with force 42 2-3. Schema of computational mass-spring model of consonant constriction 44 2-4. “Impulse” restriction on mass-spring model 49 2-5. Force and displacement vs. time graphs for a singleton stop and 50 fricative 2-6. Force and displacement vs. time graph for a geminate fricative 54 2-7. Total force of gesture with positive and negative force impulses 54 2-8. Gestural score for voiceless vs. voiced medial stops 55 3-1. The standard (representational) treatment of contrastiveness 60 3-2. A constraint-ranking treatment of contrastiveness 63 3-3. Relation between auditory and articulatory representations in this 64 approach. 3-4. Constrastive and non-contrastive PRs 68 3-5. Free variation 72 3-6. Vowel height continuum subdivided using two binary features 87 3-7. Vowel height continuum subdivided using 100 binary features 88 4-1. Schematic displacement-vs.-time graphs for a stop and non-strident 110 fricative 4-2. Schematic displacement-vs.-time graphs for a strident fricative 111 4-3. Schematic: sustained constriction achieved by isometric tension 111 4-4. Outputs of the mass-spring model, for a stop, and strident and non- 113 strident fricative 4-5. Output of mass-spring model for affricate 116 5-1. Icelandic geminate preaspiration as shortening of oral closure gesture 144 5-2. Outputs of mass-spring model for singleton and geminate stops 156 5-3. Schemata of displacement-vs.-time, for singleton and geminate 157 fricatives 5-4. Output of mass-spring model for geminate fricative and affricate 158 5-5. Output of mass-spring model for half-spirantized geminate 159 5-6. Output of mass-spring model for stop with attenuated transition 160 5-7. Gestural scores for full and partial geminates 161 5-8. Aerodynamic considerations in fricative voicing and glottal aperture 163 5-9. Hasse diagram of previously inferred effort relations among geminate 165 and singleton consonant types 5-10. Reduction of magnitude and duration 169 5-11. Reduction to a prolonged close constriction 173 6-1. Comparison of displacement in consonants of differing constriction 191 degrees 6-2. Comparison of displacement in consonants of the same constriction 192 degree, but different starting/ending points v 6-3. Schemata of strategies of jaw/articulator displacement in intervocalic 188 stops 6-4. Comparison of fortis and lenis stops, with different starting/ending 199 points 6-5. Syllabic apportionment of effort cost of consonants in [akka] vs. [aka]. 204 6-6. Schemata of fast-speech shortening strategies 218 6-7. Register lowering as demotion of lenition-blocking constraints relative 220 to effort thresholds 7-1. Flapping as coarticulatory retraction of the tongue tip 239 7-2. Schemata of tongue tip/tongue body ensemble dispacement vs. time, 243 without and with compensatorily attenuated transition 7-3. Hasse diagram of constraint hierarchy for Tümpisa Shoshone 249 8-1. Stridency scale 285 8-2. Crucial ranking ranges of lenition-blocking constraints, relative to 288 LAZY, for Florentine lenition variation vi LIST OF TABLES 1-1. Places of articulation targeted by lenition processes 7 1-2. Cases of lenition in word-final position 8 1-3. Cases of lenition in coda position 9 1-4. Fortition / blocking of lenition in word-initial position 10 1-5. Phrase- or utterance-initial blocking of lenition 11 1-6. Fortition / blocking of lenition in onset of stressed syllable 11 3-1. Values for feature F, in URs and PRs 85 4-1. Frequency of fricatives in Maddieson's (1984) segment inventory 100 database 4-2. Spirantization of coronal stops to non-strident fricatives or 102 approximants 4-3. Lenition of coronal stops to flaps 103 4-4. Assibilatory spirantizations, from Lavoie 1996 104 4-5. Spirantization of labials to non-strident fricatives or approximants 107 4-6. Fricative debuccalization outcomes 122 5-1. Blocking of spirantization in geminates 138 5-2. Blocking of voicing in geminates 145 5-3. Blocking of spirantization, flapping in partial geminates 149 5-4. Segment inventories: geminate stops and fricatives 152 5-5. Segment inventories: geminate voiced and voiceless obstruents 154 5-6. Point of passive devoicing, medial geminate fricative, in msec 164 6-1. Lenition in Intervocalic Position 182 6-2. Lenition in post- and prevocalic position 184 6-3. Lenition in laxer-than-vocalic contexts 186 6-4. Lenition in stricter-than-vocalic contexts 188 7-1. Consonant "phonemes" of Tümpisa Shoshone 230 8-1. Consonant "phonemes" of Florentine Italian 252 8-2. Lenition variation according to rate/register 266 8-3. Lenition variation according to rate/register, younger speakers. 266 8-4. Hypothetical effort values (in abstract units) for consonant allophones 271 in weak position 8.5. Hypothetical effort values (in abstract units) for consonant allophones 272 in strong position 8-6. Weak position chart (repeated from Table 8-2) 277 8-7. Lenition variation in strong position 290 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though few who work with me may have discerned it, beneath my mild- mannered, taciturn exterior lie innards of quivering gelatinous mush; and here's where I put them on public display. Brace yourselves. First, to Donca Steriade: In making it possible for me to come to UCLA, in giving me all manner of vital professional and personal advice and support, in addition to your role as my thesis advisor, my debt to you is profound, as is my admiration for you. Though we agree on many theoretical issues, I've had more fun arguing with you about the areas of disagreement than I could derive from successfully persuading nearly anyone else. I hope our arguments continue. To Bruce Hayes: For the same range of advice and support (not to mention help with the programming of the mass-spring model), and the same profundity of debt and admiration, ditto. In particular, I want to express my appreciation for your uncanny ability to take in my often half-baked ideas, figure out what I mean to say, and offer insightful comments on the rephrased ideas. This is a rare skill, which I hope I can develop in my own teaching. To Pat Keating and Donka Minkova, thanks for helpful feedback on this dissertation. Thanks in particular to Pat for recognizing that I'm not an experimentalist (but who knows what the future may bring?). Thanks also to Ian Maddieson, who helped me as much as my official committee members, offering many suggestions and viii corrections that (I hope) have saved me from appearing a complete ignoramus to any phonetician who reads this work. My fellow students at UCLA all helped create an atmosphere of creativity and discovery, for which I am grateful. But in particular, I wish to thank Edward Flemming, one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, without whose pioneering work this dissertation would be inconceivable; Richard Wright, whose brain I have shamelessly and repeatedly picked (I hope I can somehow eventually repay the debt); Rod Casali, for helping me pretend to know something about physics; and Peggy (sorry, Margaret) MacEachern, for general camaraderie, thought-provoking discussions on a variety of linguistic and philosophical issues, and drawings of horses for Miriam.