bbn–ang–243 phonological analysis 3–4. contrast in english...
TRANSCRIPT
BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis
3–4. Contrast in English consonants
Zoltán G. Kiss, Péter Szigetvári, Miklós Törkenczy
Dept. of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 1 / 74
aims
lecture outline
◮ contrast among English consonants (obstruents)
◮ laryngeal (“voicing”) contrast: phonetics and distribution
◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization
◮ voicing assimilation
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 74
consonant contrasts
consonant contrasts in English
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 3 / 74
consonant contrasts
the consonant inventory (contrastive consonants)
Bil. Lab-den. Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
P p | b t | d k | g (P)O F f | v T | D s | z S | Z
A Ù Ã
N | m | n | NS L | l | r
G | w | j h |
Bil. = bilabial, Lab-den. = labio-dentalP = stop/plosive, F = fricative, A = a=ricate, N = nasal, L = liquid, G = glideO = obstruent, S = sonorant| = left of line: “voiceless”, right of line: “voiced”
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 4 / 74
consonant contrasts
obstruent contrasts
◮ place contrast: e.g., /t/ vs. /p/: tin–pin; /t/ vs. /k/: tan–can
◮ manner contrast: e.g., /t/ vs. /s/: tin–sin
◮ “voicing” contrast: /t/ vs. /d/: time–dime
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 5 / 74
laryngeal contrast
“voicing” contrast in obstruents
OBSTRUENTS
STOPS FRICATIVES
/t/ – /d/ /s/ – /z/
tie – die sip – zipwriter – rider missle – mizzlebeat – bead bus – buzz
‘voiceless’ ‘voiced’ ‘voiceless’ ‘voiced’
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 6 / 74
laryngeal contrast
laryngeal contrast in obstruents
◮ the phonological contrast of “voicing” is signalled (= cued)by a complex of features: there are several correlates of this contrast =there are many “concomitant” features for the contrast
◮ vocal fold vibration is only one of them
◮ let’s refer to the phonological contrast as laryngeal contrast
◮ voicing is a narrowly used phonetic term: vocal fold vibration (alsocalled: phonation)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 7 / 74
laryngeal contrast
some phonetic correlates of laryngeal contrast in
obstruents
◮ voicing/phonation: vocal fold vibration
◮ Voice Onset Time (VOT)
◮ relative length of preceding vowel
◮ glottalization
◮ release noise/burst: intensity & length
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 8 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
larynx: vocal folds + glottis
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 9 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
vocal folds: periodic vibration
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 10 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
states of the vocal folds
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 11 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
cross-section of the larynx
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 12 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
vocal fold vibration: the Bernoulli e=ect
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 13 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
steps of vocal fold vibrationvocal fold vibration happens because of air pressure changes (aerodynamicreasons):
1. vocal folds loosely close
2. air pressure increases below vocal folds
3. air pressure blows vocal folds apart (glottis opens)
4. speed of air particles increases through narrow glottis
5. air pressure decreases below/within vocal folds ⇒ vocal folds suckedtogether (Bernoulli e=ect)
6. vocal folds are closed again, a cycle like this repeats itself approx.100–300 times/second
7. the cycles last until the state of glottis changes (e.g., opens to producea voiceless sound)
– phonation can start and can continue when air pressure is higher below
the vocal folds than above it
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 14 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
types of voicing
1. spontaneous voicing: open oral cavity – this helps to start andmaintain voicing because air pressure will be low in the mouth buthigh below vocal folds ⇒ vowels, sonorants
2. passive devoicing: closure/constriction in mouth – this creates highair pressure above vocal folds, which inhibits vocal fold vibration⇒ obstruents
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 15 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
types of voicing
◮ thus, obstruents easily get devoiced unless
1. they are between to vowels or sonorants, voicing from thepreceding vowel/sonorant continues throughout the obstruent⇒ passively voiced (lenis) obstruentse.g., English: rider, bandit, rabid, gamble, begin, English, gadget,nostalgia, fuzzy, palsy, . . .
2. active voicing articulation-strategies are used to delay devoicing:e.g., lower the larynx, enlarge the oral cavity⇒ actively voiced obstruents (Hungarian, French, Russian. . . )
◮ active devoicing: extra articulatory e=ort to maintain voicelessness(e.g., between two vowels, city, lucky, etc.)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 16 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
types of voicing
summary
Type A=ected sounds
spontaneous voicing vowels, sonorant consonants
passive devoicing obstruents
passive voicing obstruents between Vs/son. (English, etc.)
active voicing obstruents (Hungarian, etc.)
active devoicing voiceless obstruents between Vs/son.
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 17 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
some consequences of voicing types
◮ vowels and sonorants are usually only voiced (no voiceless pair)
◮ obstruents come in voiceless–voiced pairs in most languages, somelanguages only have voiceless obstruents
◮ if an obstruent is passively voiced (as in English), its voicing isdependent on its environment
◮ passively voiced obstruents are only fully voiced betweenvowels/sonorants
◮ elsewhere they are usually devoiced, e.g.:
◮ word-initial position: back, demon, game, juice. . .◮ word-final position: rob, lead, vague, bridge. . .
◮ in Hungarian: “voiced” obstruents are typically voiced in all positions(initially and word-finally, too): bab, babos, méz, rúzs. . . ;
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 18 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
conclusion so far
◮ English “voiced” obstruents are not truly voiced:they are passively voiced = voiced only between vowels and sonorants
◮ categorizing them as ‘voiced’ would be misleading
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 19 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
articulation phases of stops
◮ for example: repel /rIpEl/
1. vowel/sonorant2. closure and hold3. release4. transition into the vowel5. vowel
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 20 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
Voice Onset Time, VOT
◮ voicing of stops can be characterized by the timing between the release
and the beginning (“onset”) of voicing of the next vowel/approximant– we call this timing relationship Voice Onset Time (VOT)
◮ three major VOT possibilities:
1. voicing begins right after or only shortly after the release:zero VOT/short lag VOT
2. voicing begins later than the release, there is a relatively long lagof voicing after the release: positive/long lag VOT
3. voicing is already underway during the closure and release:negative VOT/VOT lead
◮ these three VOT options give three phonetic laryngeal categories ofstops
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 21 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
three Voice Onset Time options
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 22 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
three Voice Onset Time options
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 23 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
voicing and aspirating languages
“voicing” “aspirating”
voiced voiceless voiceless
unaspirated aspirated
[d] [t] [th]
Hawaiian [t]Hungarian ⇐⇒[d] [t]English ⇐⇒[t] [th]Thai ⇐⇒ ⇐⇒[d] [t] [th]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 24 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
aspirating and voicing languages
aspirating (zero VOT ⇔ +VOT) languages
most Germanic (English, German, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish,etc.) but also some Turkic languages
voicing (zero VOT ⇔−VOT) languages
most Romance and Slavic languages (Spanish, Italian, French, Russian,Polish, Slovak, etc.) but also Dutch, Yiddish, Scottish English, andHungarian
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 25 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
positive, long-lag VOT: aspiration (paces)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 26 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
aspiration in closeup
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 27 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 28 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 29 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 30 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 31 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
Spanish p = English b (zero VOT)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 32 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
English vs. Hungarian obstruents
English Hungarian
pat bat 6= pár bár
rapid rabid ≈ apa Aba
lap lab 6= láp láb
◮ spelling is misleading, it expresses the phonological contrast ofobstruents in the two languages but the phonetic realizations are
di=erent (except between Vs/sonorants)
◮ German borrowings into Hungarian: Beck > pék, Bilde > példa,Brösel > prézli, bitte > piti(zik), Dinkel > tönköly, Dübel > tipli,Gucker > kukker. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 33 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
fortis vs. lenis obstruents
◮ Hungarian, Spanish, etc.: di=erence between obstruents(e.g., “p”–“b”) is due to voicing: “p” = voiceless, “b” = voiced
◮ English: di=erence between obstruents (e.g., “p”–“b”) is due toaspiration: “p” = aspirated, “b” = unaspirated
◮ we call the contrasting obstruents in English fortis vs. lenis
(and not “voiceles” vs. “voiced”)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 34 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
classic English literature: Jones
Jones (1918: 154)
In voiced plosive consonants the amount of voice heard during the stopmay vary. [. . . ] When a voiced plosive [. . . ] occurs between two vowels (asin about), voice sounds throughout the whole of the stop.
In English when /b d/ and /g/ occur initially [. . . ], they are partially devoiced
[. . . ] i.e. voice is not heard during the whole of the stop but only during partof it, generally the latter part. With some speakers the voice disappears
altogether [. . . ].
With many speakers [. . . ] final voiced plosives [are] partially or even
completely devoiced [. . . ]. [These] consonants are very weak voicelessplosives consonants.
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 35 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
classic English literature: Gimson
Gimson (1962: 32; 152)
A voiceless/voiced pair such as [s, z] are distinguished not only by thepresence or absence of voice but also by the degree of breath and musculare=ort involved in the articulation. Indeed, [. . . ] in certain situations, thevoice opposition may be lost, so that the energy of articulation becomes asignificant factor. Those English consonants which are usually voiced tendto be articulated with relatively weak energy, whereas those which arealways voiceless are relatively strong. Thus, it may be important to define[s] as strong or fortis and [z] as weak or lenis.
The lenis series /b d g/ may have full voicing [. . . ] when they occur [. . . ]between voiced sounds e.g. labour, leader, eager [. . . ]. In initial andespecially in final positions, [. . . ] while remaining lenis, may be partiallyvoiced or completely voiceless.
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 36 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
fortis vs. lenis obstruents
Fortis Lenis
never voiced have passive voicing, only voicedbetween vowels/sonorants
can be aspirated never aspirated
can shorten the preceding vowel(“Pre-Fortis Clipping”)
never shorten preceding vowel
can be glottalized can never be glottalized
“stronger” articulation “weaker” articulation
fortis voiceless fortis & voiceless everywhere: pal, rapid, leap
lenis & voiceless not between Vs/son.: bat, lap
lenis voiced lenis & voiced between Vs/son.: rabid, random
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 37 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
fortis vs. lenis obstruent contrast in English
English obstruent phonemes
Stops A=r. FricativesFortis /p t k/ /Ù/ /f T s S/Lenis /b d g/ /Ã/ /v D S Z/
◮ lenis phonemes have two allophones: (partially) voiceless and voiced,the voiced allophone is the most limited
◮ for example: /b/
[b]between Vs/son.
[p] or [b˚
]elsewhere
◮ bin /bIn/ phonetically: [pIn] or [b˚
In]
Robin /rObIn/ phonetically: [rObIn]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 38 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
laryngeal contrast of stops in various positions
◮ so far two phonetic features have been used for the laryngeal contrast:aspiration & passive voicing
◮ they are not equally active in all phonetic positions
1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel: repél – rebél2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel: tíe – díe,
políte – Bolívia3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel: wríter – ríder
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 39 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel
repél rebélvoiced? − +
aspirated? + −
– both features are active in this position for the contrast
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 40 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel
tíe díevoiced? − −
aspirated? + −
– only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 41 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel
wríter rídervoiced? − +
aspirated? − −
◮ only voicing is active in this position for the contrast◮ note: 1. it is sometimes claimed that there is weak aspiration of fortis
stops here2. length of stops is relatively short here, and voicing may continuethroughout the stop: /t/ and /d/ may become a flap [R] in AmericanEnglish, but not /p/–/b/ or /k/–/g/: rápid – rábid still contrast
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 42 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
ranking of positions based on laryngeal contrast
preservation in stops
1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V (repél – rebél) >2. word-initial, before a stressed/unstr. V (tíe – díe) >
3. medial, between sonorants, before an unstressed V (wríter – ríder)
X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’(where X and Y are positions)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 43 / 74
laryngeal contrast word-final
absolute word final position: beat – bead
◮ in this position, voicing is di;cult to maintain
◮ since nothing follows the stop, aspiration is also impossible
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 44 / 74
laryngeal contrast word-final
no contrast in beat – bead?
beat beadvoiced? − −
aspirated? − −
◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position? = neutralization
◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated hereto maintain the contrast. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 45 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization: the beer goggle e=ect
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 46 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization
The disappearance of contrast under a given condition.
= The local suspension of a phonological oppositionbetween two or more contrastive sound segments; only one segmentcan appear in that position (but not its contrastive counterpart(s)).
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 47 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization: the beer goggle e=ect
◮ opposition: the attractiveness of people is perceived di=erently
◮ condition: being drunk
◮ output: the di=erence in attractiveness disappears (all people areperceived as attractive)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 48 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization examples: vowel reduction
◮ a wide range of vowels can appear in a stressed syllable but inunstressed syllables, vowel contrast is reduced to a handful of vowels(primarily the schwa)
◮ senténtial ∼ séntence E ∼ @
systémic ∼ sýstem E ∼ @
morálity ∼móral a ∼ @
symbólic ∼ sýmbol O ∼ @
atómic ∼ átom O ∼ @
harmónious∼ hármony @w∼ @
mystérious ∼mýstery I: ∼ @
dráma ∼ dramátic A: ∼ @
sulphúrious ∼ súlphur j0:∼ @
◮ opposition: full vowels, condition: unstressed syllable, output: /@/
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 49 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization examples: /s/ and /S/
◮ /s/ is in contrast with /S/
◮ so – show, mass – mash, parcel – partial, universal – controversial, etc.
◮ word-inital, pre-consonantal position: /S/ only before /r/, and /s/ isbefore any other consonant
◮ /Sr/: shrub, shrivel, shrink, shrug. . . but never */St/, */Sp/, */Sk/, etc.
◮ /s/ + C: steam, sport, sky, etc.
◮ opposition: /s/ – /S/, condition: word-inital, pre-consonantal position,output: either /Sr/ or /s/ + C (where C 6= /r/)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 50 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization examples: nasal + stop clusters
◮ nasals contrast with respect to place of articulation
◮ sin – SIM – sing: /n/ – /m/ – /N/
◮ before a stop: only one can occur, whose place depends on followingstop (labial with labial, coronal with coronal, velar with velar)
◮ e.g., print /nt/, but no /m/ or /N/ before /t/ *primt, *primk, etc.:
StopsNasal /p/ /t/ /k/
/m/ limp — —/n/ — tent —/N/ — — link /Nk/
◮ opposition: /n/ – /m/ – /N/, condition: before a stop, output: onlyone nasal can occur, the contrast is suspended before a given stop
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 51 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
laryngeal neutralization for word-final obstruents?
◮ beat – bead, back – bag, loose – lose, leaf – leave, etc.
◮ obstruents are unaspirated and voiceless in this position
◮ opposition: laryngeal contrast of obstruents, condition: word-finalposition, output: only voiceless-unaspirated obstruents
◮ based on this, beat and bead are supposed to be pronounced the sameway: beat [b
˚Ijt] = bead [b
˚Ijd
˚] = [pIjt] (homophones)
◮ BUT this does not seem to be the case!
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 52 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
“redundant” features to the help
◮ correlates of laryngeal contrast so far: voicing and aspiration
– but they are not active in word-final position
◮ however, there are other correlates of the laryngeal contrast
◮ they do not seem to play a role in other positions (e.g., word-medially),they are “redundant”
◮ but they seem to emerge more saliently when contrast is in danger (asin word-final position):
◮ relative length of preceding vowel◮ glottalization◮ other features: release noise, articulatory strength/e=ort/force
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 53 / 74
laryngeal contrast vowel length
relative length of preceding vowel
◮ vowels are shorter (clipped) before fortis obstruents than before lenisobstruents: Pre-Fortis Clipping
◮ speak – speed,mate – made,rope – robe,write – ride,root – rude,cap – cabloose – lose,leaf – leave
◮ clipping is redundant/predictable but it cues the contrast here
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 54 / 74
laryngeal contrast glottalization
pre-glottalization/glottal reinforcement
◮ glottal closure quickly closes down the voicing of the vowel, followedby the oral closure of the fortis stops & a=ricate
◮ happens word-finally or when they are followed by another consonant
◮ right [rAjPt], shop [SOPp], shot [SOPt], shock [SOPk], April [EjPprl], fatness[faPtn@s], football [f0Ptpo:l], reach [rIjPÙ], etc.
◮ it only happens for the fortis consonants:mate [mEjPt] – made [mEjt],seat [sIjPt] – seed [sIjt]
◮ it is another indicator of the fortis – lenis contrast!
◮ it happens where the contrast between fortis & lenis stops couldpotentially disappear
◮ note: glottalization may well be just a more salient/forceful versionof pre-fortis clipping: the vowel is cut by glottal closure
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 55 / 74
laryngeal contrast glottalization
contrast is salvaged in beat – bead, no neutralization
beat beadvoiced? − −
aspirated? − −
preceding V shorter? + −
glottalization? + −
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 56 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
correlates of laryngeal contrast for fricatives
◮ examples for the laryngeal contrast of fricatives: thigh – thy, feel – veal,file – vile, sip – zip, leaf – leave, bus – buzz, etc.
◮ /T/ – /D/, /f/ – /v/, /s/ – /z/, /S/ – /Z/
◮ voicing/phonation, length di=erences (preceding vowel length, lengthof the fricative), and intensity signal the contrast
◮ aspiration, glottalization, release do not play a role
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 57 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V
◮ conféction – convéction, defíed – divíde
◮ absence/presence of voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no dangerfor contrast
◮ /T f s S/: voiceless
◮ /D v z Z/: voiced/phonated
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 58 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
2. word-initial, before a V
◮ sip – zip, cellar – Zellar, fain – vein, fault – vault, feel – veal,sheet /SIjt/ – gite /ZIjt/, thigh /TAj/ – thy /DAj/
◮ some research suggests that lenis fricatives /D v z Z/ in initialposition are relatively voiced, unlike lenis stops, the contrasts aboveare due to voicing/phonation (e.g., sip is voiceless, zip is voiced)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 59 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
3. medial, between sonorants, after a stressed V
◮ míssle – mízzle, grístle – grízzle, rífle – ríval, Óphir /@wf@/ – óver /@wv@/,Áisha – Ásia, Ásher – ázure, tréssure – tréasure, Confúcian – confúsion
◮ absence/presence of voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no dangerfor contrast
◮ /T f s S/: voiceless
◮ /D v z Z/: voiced/phonated
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 60 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
4. absolute word-final position
◮ leaf – leave, brief – breve, calf – calve, safe – save, bus – buzz, race – raise,hiss – his, ruche /r0wS/ – rouge /r0wZ/, teeth /tIjT/ – teethe /tIjD/,loath – loathe
◮ for similar reasons as for stops, vocal fold vibration in this position isdi;cult to maintain
◮ relative vowel and consonant length emerge to maintain the contrast
◮ /T f s S/: have a shorter vowel before them and they are articulatedlonger with more intensity than
◮ /D v z Z/: preceding vowel is relatively longer and they are articulatedrelatively shorter and with less intensity
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 61 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
fortis fricative + stop clusters
◮ so far we have not seen neutralization of the laryngeal contrast foreither stops or fricatives
◮ fortis fricative + stop clusters:
◮ /s/ + stop: speak, sport, spring, stéreo, stúpid, string, school,scheme, sketch, discóver, displáy, expláin. . .
◮ /f/ + stop: caftán, fiftéen◮ /S/ + stop: gestált
◮ the laryngeal contrast is completely neutralized in this position: onlyan unvoiced-unaspirated stop may occur here
◮ is this stop fortis or lenis?
◮ note if we analyse the stop as fortis, this would be an exception to
aspiration! – because fortis stops are otherwise aspirated beforestressed vowels: e.g., recóver [kh] but discóver [k]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 62 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
stops after /s/ are perceived as lenis
– what do native speakers hear when the /s/ of school is deleted?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 63 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
stops after /s/ are perceived as lenis
– what do native speakers hear when the /s/ of school is deleted?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 64 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
fortis fricative + stop clusters
◮ stops after fortis fricatives seem to be lenis
◮ they are not aspirated because they are never aspirated
◮ they are not voiced either because they are only (passively) voicedbetween vowels/sonorants
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 65 / 74
laryngeal contrast ranking
ranking of positions based on laryngeal contrast
preservation in stops
1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V (repél – rebél) >2. word-initial, before a stressed/unstr. V (tíe – díe) >
3. medial, between sonorants, before an unstressed V (wríter – ríder) >4. absolute word-final (beat – bead) >
5. after fortis fricatives (sport/stop/school)
X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’(where X and Y are positions)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 66 / 74
RVA
regressive voicing assimilation (RVA) in Hungarian
◮ a phonotactic and morpho-phonological pattern: two adjacent
obstruents must have the same voicing (compulsory rule)
◮ the voicelessness or voicing of the second obstruent governs thevoicelessness or voicing of the preceding obstruent (= “voicingspreads backward”)
◮ méz [z] ‘honey’ méz-tol [st] méz-bol [zb]mész [s] ‘lime’ mész-tol [st] mész-bol [zb]
dob [b] ‘throw’ dob-tam [pt] dob-d [bd]kap [p] ‘get’ kap-tam [pt] kap-d [bd]
◮ notice that Hungarian is a voicing language, voicing spreads, makingvoiceless obstruents voiced
◮ RVA is neutralizing: the voicing contrast between obstruentsdisappears
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 67 / 74
RVA
voicing assimilation can be modelled as feature-spreading
– ház+tól ‘from house’ /z/+/t/ → /st/:
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 68 / 74
RVA
spontaneously & passively voiced sounds
do not cause RVA
◮ mésznek ‘for the lime’ /s/ + /n/ → *[zn]
◮ mésznek does not become méznek: no laryngeal neutralization
◮ képnek ‘for picture’ [pn] *[bn], töröknél [kn] *[gn] ‘at Turk(ish)’,zokni ‘socks’ [kn] *[gn]
◮ reason: sonorants are spontaneously voiced, not actively, this kind ofvoicing cannot spread to other sounds
◮ only actively voiced and actively devoiced sounds can spread theirvoicing and devoicing feature to other sounds – as in Hungarian forexample
◮ in English too: batman [tm] *[dm], putney [tn] *[dn], replay [pl] *[bl]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 69 / 74
RVA
is there RVA in English?
◮ since English is an aspirating language, neither fortis nor lenisobstruents have a phonologically active voiceless or voiced feature thatcould spread
◮ therefore we predict that English does not have RVA
◮ the pronunciation of words before obstruents does not change
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 70 / 74
RVA
no RVA from fortis /p t k T f s S Ù/ obstruents in English
◮ is /z/ [z˚
] is Tom going? /zt/ [z˚
th]live /v/ [v
˚] live show /vS/ [v
˚S]
grade /d/ [d˚
] grade four /df/ [d˚
f]bead /d/ [d
˚] bead pack /dp/ [d
˚ph]
◮ the first words do not change at all, no spreading of voicelessness,hence no voicing neutralization either
◮ thus: bead pack will not become beat pack even though both finalobstruents are voiceless
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 71 / 74
RVA
contrast in beat pack vs. bead pack
beat pack bead packvoiced? − −
aspirated? − −
preceding V shorter? + −
glottalization? + −
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 72 / 74
RVA
no RVA from lenis /b d g D v z Z Ã/ obstruents in English
◮ up /p/ [p] update /pd/ [pd˚
] (not *[bd]!)beat /t/ [t] beat band /tb/ [tb
˚] (not *[db]!)
beat /t/ [t] beat Zoë /tz/ [tz˚
] (not *[dz]!)birth /T/ [T] birthday /Td/ [Td
˚] (not *[Dd] or *[zd]!)
base /s/ [s] baseball /sb/ [sb˚
] (not *[zb]!)match /Ù/ [Ù] matchbox /Ùb/ [Ùb
˚] (not *[Ãb]!)
anec /k/ [k] anecdote /kd/ [kd˚
] (not *[gd]!)
◮ again, the first words do not change at all, no spreading of voicing,hence no voicing neutralization either
◮ thus: beat band will not become bead band
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 73 / 74
RVA
contrast in beat band vs. bead band
beat band bead bandvoiced? − −
aspirated? − −
preceding V shorter? + −
glottalization? + −
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 74 / 74