Upload
others
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis
Laryngeal contrast in English consonants
Zoltán G. Kiss, Attila Starcevic, Péter Szigetvári, Miklós Törkenczy
Dept. of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 1 / 97
aims
lecture outline
◮ contrast among English consonants (obstruents)
◮ laryngeal (“voicing”) contrast
◮ phonological modelling and phonetic implementation of the contrast
◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization
◮ voicing assimilation
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 2 / 97
revision
revision of some basic concepts
◮ phonology = mapping between sounds and contrastive words
◮ the generative model of phonology
◮ phonemes, allophones, features
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 3 / 97
revision
when you know a language, you have this ability:
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 4 / 97
revision
phonology = mapping between sounds & contrastive units
◮ when you know a language, you can isolate di=erent meaningful unitsin the speech signal
◮ = you can recognise and produce contrastive words, morphemes
◮ = you can map between chunks of sound sequences and meaningfulunits (in both directions)
◮ this is your phonological competence, or simply your phonology
◮ phonological competence is closely linked to the notion of contrast
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 5 / 97
revision
how can we model this competence?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 6 / 97
revision
the generative model of language
phonology is one of the modules of linguistic competence (“grammar”)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 7 / 97
revision
the typical generative model of language
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 8 / 97
revision
the lexicon
◮ stores a list of contrastive words/morphemes
◮ they are made up of abstract contrasting segments which we callphonemes
◮ plus any information about them which needs to be memorized(e.g., meaning)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 9 / 97
revision
the phoneme principle
Every language has a limited set of phonemes;and every word in the language is built up from those phonemes.
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 10 / 97
revision
an extract from an English speaker’s lexicon
◮ /kat/ – ‘a small domesticated carnivorous mammal’, . . .
◮ /dIp/ – ‘put something into liquid’, . . .
◮ /sal@d/ – ‘a cold dish of raw or cooked vegetables’, . . .
◮ . . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 11 / 97
revision
an example for phonological mapping
/ s a l @ d /
[ s a l @ d ]
◮ the top level is called the underlying/phonological/phonemicrepresentation (UR), it contains the contrastive phonemes that makeup the di=erent words in the lexicon
◮ the bottom level is called the surface/phonetic representation (SR), itcontains the phoneme-realizations: the allophones
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 12 / 97
revision
an example for phonological mapping
/ s a l @ d /| | | | |
[ s a l @ d ]
◮ what phonology does is map each phoneme to a speech sound, andeach speech sound to a phoneme
◮ it defines how a phoneme has to be articulated (“derivation”), and ittells which meaningful unit a sound belongs to
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 13 / 97
revision
positional variation
◮ sometimes 2 or more allophones belong to the same phoneme
◮ in this case mapping to the appropriate allophone is decided by aphonological rule
◮ e.g.: “if /l/ is followed by a V, map it to clear L [l]”
◮ “elsewhere, map it to dark L [ë]”
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 14 / 97
revision
mapping of the Ls in eleven films
UR: /IlEv@n fIlmz/
L-Darkening Rule: l ë
SR: [IlEv@n fIëmz]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 15 / 97
features
what is it exactly that makes the di=erence between /d/ and /s/, etc,possible?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 16 / 97
features
features
◮ /d/ and /s/ are phonemes because e.g., dine ⇐⇒ sign
◮ we can explicitly express why they contrast with the distinctive features
they contain
/d/ ⇐⇒ /s/voicing: [+voice] [–voice]
nasality: [–nasal] [–nasal]place: [+alveolar] [+alveolar]manner: [+stop] [–stop]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 17 / 97
features
features
◮ a phoneme = a sum of these features
◮ e.g., /d/ = voiced + oral + alveolar + stop
◮ features are usually defined based on articulation (phonetics)
◮ they can be thought of as the instructions the brain sends to thespeech organs to implement sounds
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 18 / 97
features
phonetic implementation of distinctive features
you want to say the word sign:
Phonological representation =⇒ Phonetic implementation
[−voice] ‘do not vibrate vocal folds’ +[−nasal] ‘do not lower the velum’ +
/s/ =[+alveolar] ‘raise tongue to alveolar ridge’ +[−stop] ‘do not create complete closure’
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 19 / 97
consonant contrasts
consonant contrasts in English
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 20 / 97
consonant contrasts
the consonant inventory (contrastive consonants)
Bil. Lab-den. Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
P p | b t | d k | gO 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 | laryngeal contrast 21 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 22 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 23 / 97
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
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 24 / 97
laryngeal contrast
laryngeal contrast in obstruents
◮ let’s call the phonological contrast between tie–die, writer–rider,bus–buzz, etc. laryngeal contrast
◮ voicing is a narrowly used phonetic term: vocal fold vibration(also called: phonation)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 25 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 26 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
larynx: vocal folds + glottis
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 27 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
vocal folds: periodic vibration
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 28 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
states of the vocal folds
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 29 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
cross-section of the larynx
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 30 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
vocal fold vibration: the Bernoulli e=ect
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 31 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
the aerodynamics of voicing: steps of vocal fold vibrationvocal fold vibration happens because of air pressure changes
(aerodynamic reasons):
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 | laryngeal contrast 32 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
types of voicing & devoicing based on aerodynamics
1. spontaneous (“modal”) voicing: open oral cavity – this helps to startand maintain 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 | laryngeal contrast 33 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
voicing in obstruents
◮ obstruents easily get devoiced
◮ but there exist voiced obstruents, how?
◮ passive voicing
◮ active voicing
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 34 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
passive voicing
◮ when obstruents are between two vowels or sonorants, voicing fromthe preceding vowel/sonorant continues throughout the obstruent
◮ this is what we call passive (“lenis”) voicing
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 35 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 36 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 37 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
passive voicing
◮ English “voiced” obstruents are passively voiced: “lenis”
◮ examples: rider,bandit,rabid,gamble,begin,English,gadget,nostalgia,fuzzy,palsy,Magda,exam /Igzam/. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 38 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
active voicing
◮ additional, “extra” voicing articulation-strategies are used to delaydevoicing in obstruents
◮ e.g., lower the larynx, enlarge the oral cavity
◮ Hungarian, French, Russian, etc. obstruents are like this: activelyvoiced
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 39 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
active devoicing
◮ between vowels/sonorants, obstruents are passively voiced
◮ to produce voiceless obstruents in such positions, extra articulatorye=ort is needed
◮ this is called active devoicing
◮ examples from English: city, lucky, tempo, etc.
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 40 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 41 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
some important consequences of voicing types
◮ vowels and sonorants are usually only voiced (no voiceless pair)
◮ if an obstruent is passively voiced (as in English), its voicing isdependent on its environment
◮ passively voiced obstruents are only fully voiced betweenvowels/sonorants or another passively voiced obstruent
◮ elsewhere they are usually devoiced, e.g.:
◮ word-initial position: back, demon, game, juice. . .◮ word-final position: rob, lead, vague, bridge. . .◮ next to a non-lenis obstruent:
anecdote, Afghan, Agfa, Aztec. . .
◮ in Hungarian: “voiced” obstruents are typically voiced in all positions(initially and word-finally, too): bab, babos, méz, rúzs. . .(except in voicing assimilation position: méztol [st] – see later)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 42 / 97
laryngeal contrast voicing
some important consequences of voicing types
◮ Hungarian obstruents contain the feature [±voice] in their underlyingrepresentation
◮ English obstruent do not contain the feature [±voice] in theirunderlying representation
◮ so what feature makes the contrast possible between Englishobstruents? for example: tip – dip?
◮ VOT to the rescue!
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 43 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 44 / 97
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)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 45 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
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 categoriesof stops
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 46 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
three Voice Onset Time options
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 47 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
three Voice Onset Time options
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 48 / 97
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]Cl. Greek: βας /bas/ – πας /pas/ – ϕας /phas/
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 49 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
voicing and aspirating 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
aspirating (+VOT ⇔ zero VOT) languages
most Germanic (English, German, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish,etc.) but also some Turkic languages
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 50 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
voicing and aspirating languages
voicing (zero VOT ⇔−VOT) languages: [±voice]
– di=erence between obstruents is due to voicing
– e.g., /p/ = voiceless, [−voice]; /b/ = voiced, [+voice]
aspirating (+VOT ⇔ zero VOT) languages: [±fortis]
– di=erence between obstruents is due to fortisness
– e.g., /p/ = fortis, [+fortis]; /b/ = lenis, [−fortis]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 51 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
fortis vs. lenis obstruents
Fortis [+fortis] Lenis [−fortis]
never voiced have passive voicing, only voicedbetween Vs/sonorants/lenis obst.’s
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
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 52 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
fortis vs. lenis obstruent contrast in English
English obstruent phonemes
Stops A=r. FricativesFortis [+fortis] /p t k/ /Ù/ /f T s S/Lenis [−fortis] /b d g/ /Ã/ /v D z 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]
◮ fortis phonemes have various allophones (aspirated, unaspirated,glottalized), as we will see (also see your previous studies!)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 53 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
phonetic implementation of [±fortis] in Englishexample: tip – dip:
Phonological representation =⇒ Phonetic implementation
[+fortis] ‘aspirate/+VOT’ +[−nasal] ‘don’t lower the velum’ +
/t/ =[+alveolar] ‘raise tongue to alveolar ridge’ +[+stop] ‘create complete closure’
= [th]
[−fortis] ‘don’t do anything/∅VOT’ +[−nasal] ‘don’t lower the velum’ +
/d/ =[+alveolar] ‘raise tongue to alveolar ridge’ +[+stop] ‘create complete closure’
= [d˚
] = [t]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 54 / 97
laryngeal contrast VOT
phonetic implementation of [±voice] in Hungarianexample: tél ‘winter’ – dél ‘noon’:
Phonological representation =⇒ Phonetic implementation
[−voice] ‘don’t vibrate vocal folds/∅VOT’ +[−nasal] ‘do’nt lower the velum’ +
/t/ =[+alveolar] ‘raise tongue to alveolar ridge’ +[+stop] ‘create complete closure’
= [t]
[+voice] ‘vibrate vocal folds/−VOT +[−nasal] ‘don’t lower the velum’ +
/d/ =[+alveolar] ‘raise tongue to alveolar ridge’ +[+stop] ‘create complete closure’
= [d]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 55 / 97
laryngeal contrast positions
laryngeal contrast of English stops in various positions
◮ as we saw, there can be various phonetic implementations of [+fortis]and [−fortis]
◮ they depend on the position of the obstruent
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 | laryngeal contrast 56 / 97
laryngeal contrast positions
1. between Vs/sonorants, before a stressed vowel
Word in spelling: repél rebélUnderlying repr.: /p/ /b/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
aspirated/+VOT unaspirated/∅VOTplus: passive voicing
= [ph] = [b]
– on the surface, both aspiration and phonetic voicing make the contrastpossible, we can call it a strong position for the obstruent contrast
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 57 / 97
laryngeal contrast positions
2. word-initial, before vowel (stressed or unstressed)
Word in spelling: tíe díeUnderlying repr.: /t/ /d/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
aspirated/+VOT unaspirated/∅VOT= [th] = [d
˚] or [t]
– only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast on the surface
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 58 / 97
laryngeal contrast positions
3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel
Word in spelling: wríter ríderUnderlying repr.: /t/ /d/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
unaspirated/∅VOT unaspirated/∅VOTplus: passive voicing
= [t] = [d]
◮ only voicing is active in this position for the contrast on the surface
◮ note: 1. fortis stops may be weakly aspirated in this position, too2. 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 | laryngeal contrast 59 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 60 / 97
laryngeal contrast word-final
no contrast in beat – bead?
Word in spelling: beat beadUnderlying repr.: /t/ /d/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
unaspirated/∅VOT unaspirated/∅VOTNO passive voicing here!
= [t] = [d˚
] or [t]
◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position? = neutralization
◮ or maybe there are features other than aspiration or voicing that getactivated here to maintain the contrast. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 61 / 97
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization: the beer goggle e=ect
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 62 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 63 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 64 / 97
laryngeal contrast neutralization
neutralization example: 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 | laryngeal contrast 65 / 97
laryngeal contrast neutralization
laryngeal neutralization for word-final obstruents?
◮ beat – bead, back – bag, loose – lose, leaf – leave, etc.
◮ opposition: laryngeal contrast of obstruents,condition: word-final position,output: only voiceless-unaspirated obstruents
◮ based on this, beat and bead are supposed to be pronounced the sameway:
◮ BUT this does not seem to be the case!
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 66 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 67 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
relative length of preceding vowel
◮ experimental evidence: relative length of vowel to the length of theobstruent is an important factor for categorizing the obstruent as‘fortis/voiceless’ or ‘lenis/voiced’, especially in word-final position
◮ generally: short vowel + longer obstr. ⇒ ‘fortis/voiceless’long vowel + shorter obstr. ⇒ ‘lenis/voiced’
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 68 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
experiments: manipulating voicing & length
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 69 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
relation of voicing categorization and voicing
amount+vowel length in word-final position
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 70 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
conclusions
◮ if there is little or no voicing in the obstruent, the preceding vowel hasto be around twice as long as the obstruent for it to be categorized as‘lenis/voiced’
◮ if this vowel is not this long, the obstruent is categorized as‘fortis/voiceless’ = Pre-Fortis Clipping
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 71 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
Pre-Fortis Clipping in English in word-final position
◮ in English vowels (+ sonorants) are significantly shorter (clipped)before fortis obstruents than before lenis obstruents, where they aresignificantly longer
◮ Vowel (+ son.) is shorter Vowel (+ son.) is longerbefore fortis obstr. before lenis obstr.
mate maderope robewrite rideroot rudecap cab
speak speedloose loseleaf leavefont fond
dense dens
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 72 / 97
laryngeal contrast vowel length
contrast in beat – bead
Word in spelling: beat beadUnderlying repr.: /t/ /d/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
unaspirated/∅VOT unaspirated/∅VOT+ shorter/clipped vowel + longer vowel
= [Vclippedt] = [Vlongerd˚
]or [Vlongert]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 73 / 97
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
◮ 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 (word-finally)
◮ 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 | laryngeal contrast 74 / 97
laryngeal contrast glottalization
contrast in beat – bead
Word in spelling: beat beadUnderlying repr.: /t/ /d/
[+fortis] [−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
unaspirated/∅VOT unaspirated/∅VOT+ shorter/clipped vowel + longer vowel
+ glottalization + no glottalizaton= [VclippedPt] = [Vlongerd
˚]
or [Vlongert]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 75 / 97
laryngeal contrast glottalization
summary
phonetic implementation of [+fortis] in stops
Phonetic implementation In which position?
[+fortis] =⇒ (strong) aspiration word-initiallyor before a stressed vowel
=⇒ vowel clipping word-finally=⇒ glottalization word-finally=⇒ weak/no aspiration word-medially
before an unstressed vowel
phonetic implementation of [−fortis] in stops
Phonetic implementation In which position?
[−fortis] =⇒ voicing between vowels/son.=⇒ no aspiration, no voicing elsewhere
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 76 / 97
laryngeal contrast fricatives
correlates of laryngeal contrast for English 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 or glottalizatione do not play a role
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 77 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 78 / 97
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/
◮ the lenis fricatives in this position have lower intensity
◮ 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)
◮ /T f s S/: voiceless, higher intensity
◮ /D v z Z/: partially or fully voiceless, lower intensity
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 79 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 80 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 81 / 97
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:only an unvoiced-unaspirated stop may occur here
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 82 / 97
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
the traditional analysis: exception!
◮ spelling suggests that the stop in speak, discover, etc. is fortis, just likein peak, recover, etc.
◮ but then all stops after fortis fricatives and before a (stressed) vowelare exceptionally unaspirated
◮ Aspirated Not aspirated
péak spéakrecóver discóverattáin sustáinmátter áster
◮ why?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 83 / 97
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
analysis 1: syllable structure
◮ ‘fortis stops are only aspirated at the beginning of a syllable’
◮ so: /p/ in peak is aspirated but not in speak, and /k/ in re.co.ver isaspirated but not in di.sco.ver (. signals syllable boundary)
◮ problem: putting the fricative and the stop in the same syllable isquestionable: a.fter, ca.ftan, fi.fteen, ge.stalt. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 84 / 97
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
analysis 2: articulation of vocelessness
◮ ‘the fortisness/voicelessness of the fricative (open vocal folds)“expires” by the time we reach the end of the stop (= it cannot involvemore than two sounds)’
◮ so peak /phIjk/ (one sound) but not in speak /spIjk/
◮ problem: why does this not happen when there is only one sound?
◮ this idea implicitly suggests that the stop after the fricative is actuallynot fortis but lenis. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 85 / 97
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
perception of stops after fortis fricatives
– what do native speakers hear when the /s/ of school is deleted?
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 86 / 97
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 | laryngeal contrast 87 / 97
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
analysis 3: the stop is lenis, not fortis
◮ stops after fortis fricatives seem to be lenis and NOT fortis
◮ they are not aspirated because they are never aspirated
◮ they are not voiced either because they are only (passively) voicedbetween vowels/sonorants/other lenis obstruents but not next to fortisobstruents
◮ if transcription was following this phonological fact, then:stop = /sdOp/, discover = /dIsg@v@/, etc.
◮ why don’t we use this transcription then? – probably because it wouldbe very misleading for language learners coming from voicinglanguages. . ./sbo:t/, /s@sdEjn/, /asb@:g@z/. . .
◮ = sport, sustain, Asperger’s. . .
◮ note Welsh spelling: sbecto ‘spectacles’, sgyrt ‘skirt’, Sbaen ‘Spain’,sblasio ‘splash’. . .
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 88 / 97
RVA
regressive voicing assimilation (RVA) in Hungarian
◮ a phonotactic and morpho-phonological pattern: two adjacentobstruents 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”)
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 89 / 97
RVA
regressive voicing assimilation (RVA) in Hungarian
◮ méz [z] ‘honey’ méz-ig [z] méz-tol [st] méz-bol [zb]‘to h.’ ‘from h.’ ‘of h.’
mész [s] ‘lime’ mész-ig [s] mész-tol [st] mész-bol [zb]‘to l.’ ‘from l.’ ‘of l.’
dob [b] ‘throw’ dob-ás [b] dob-tam [pt] dob-d [bd]‘throwing’ ‘I threw’ ‘you throw (imp.)’
kap [p] ‘get’ kap-ás [p] kap-tam [pt] kap-d [bd]‘getting’ ‘I got’ ‘you got (imp.)’
◮ notice that Hungarian is a voicing language, voicing spreads, makingvoiceless obstruents voiced; and voicelessness spreads the same way
◮ RVA is neutralizing: the voicing contrast between obstruentsdisappears
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 90 / 97
RVA
voicing assimilation can be modelled as feature-spreading
– mész+bol ‘of lime’ /s/+/b/ → /zb/:
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 91 / 97
RVA
spontaneously voiced sounds do not cause RVA
◮ mésznek ‘for the lime’ /s/ + /n/ → *[zn]
◮ 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
◮ these sounds do NOT contain a [+voice] feature in their underlyingrepresentation that could spread
◮ in English too: batman [tm] *[dm], putney [tn] *[dn], replay [pl] *[bl]
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 92 / 97
RVA
passively voiced sounds do not cause RVA either
◮ 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 | laryngeal contrast 93 / 97
RVA
no RVA from fortis /p t k T f s S Ù/ obstruents to lenis
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
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 94 / 97
RVA
no RVA from lenis /b d g D v z Z Ã/ to fortis 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
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 95 / 97
PVA?
progressive voicing assimilation?!
◮ traditional analysis of the regular past tense: 3 allomorphs:/t/, /d/, /Id/
◮ /Id/ after /t/ or /d/: vomited
◮ “voiceless” /t/ after “voiceless” sound: locked /kt/, laughed /ft/
◮ “voiced” /d/ after “voiced” sound: logged /gd/, carved /vd/
◮ “progressive voicing assimilation”
◮ but there is NO voicing assimilation in English!
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 96 / 97
PVA?
analysis of the regular past tensethere is just one past tense morpheme: /d/ (look at the spelling!)and 2 (not 3) allomorphs: /Id/ (after /t d/, and /d/ elsewhere:
Word in spelling: locked loggedUnderlying repr.: /k/+/d/ /g/+/d/
[+fortis]+[−fortis] [−fortis]+[−fortis]
Phonetic implem.:w
w
�
w
w
�
both: unasp.& voiceless both: unasp.& voiceless+ shorter/clipped vowel + longer vowel
= [Vclippedkd˚
] = [Vlongerg˚
d˚
]
= [Vclippedkt] = [Vlongerkt]
– same analysis for the regular plural/genitive/3Sg; do the analysis at homefor: locks vs. logs!
z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis | laryngeal contrast 97 / 97