BBNANG243 Phonological analysis 34. Contrast in English consonants - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
BBNANG243 Phonological analysis 34. Contrast in English consonants Zoltn G. Kiss, Pter Szigetvri, Mikls Trkenczy Dept. of English Linguistics, Etvs Lornd University z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 34 | consonant
Zoltán G. Kiss, Péter Szigetvári, Miklós Törkenczy
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 1 / 74
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants (obstruents) ◮ laryngeal (“voicing”) contrast: phonetics and distribution ◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization ◮ voicing assimilation
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 74
consonant contrasts
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 | N S L | l | r G | w | j h |
P = stop/plosive, F = fricative, A = a=ricate, N = nasal, L = liquid, G = glide O = obstruent, S = sonorant | = left of line: “voiceless”, right of line: “voiced”
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 4 / 74
consonant 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
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 5 / 74
laryngeal contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 6 / 74
laryngeal contrast
◮ 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 (also
called: phonation)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 7 / 74
laryngeal contrast
◮ voicing/phonation: vocal fold vibration ◮ Voice Onset Time (VOT) ◮ relative length of preceding vowel ◮ glottalization ◮ release noise/burst: intensity & length
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 8 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 9 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 10 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 11 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 12 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 13 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
vocal fold vibration happens because of air pressure changes (aerodynamic reasons):
together (Bernoulli e=ect)
100–300 times/second
a voiceless sound) – phonation can start and can continue when air pressure is higher below the vocal folds than above it
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 14 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
maintain voicing because air pressure will be low in the mouth but high below vocal folds ⇒ vowels, sonorants
air pressure above vocal folds, which inhibits vocal fold vibration ⇒ obstruents
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 15 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
◮ thus, obstruents easily get devoiced unless
preceding vowel/sonorant continues throughout the obstruent ⇒ passively voiced (lenis) obstruents e.g., English: rider, bandit, rabid, gamble, begin, English, gadget, nostalgia, fuzzy, palsy, . . .
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.)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 16 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
summary
Type A=ected sounds spontaneous voicing vowels, sonorant consonants passive devoicing
passive voicing
active voicing
active devoicing voiceless obstruents between Vs/son.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 17 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
◮ vowels and sonorants are usually only voiced (no voiceless pair) ◮ obstruents come in voiceless–voiced pairs in most languages, some
languages only have voiceless obstruents
◮ if an obstruent is passively voiced (as in English), its voicing is
dependent on its environment
◮ passively voiced obstruents are only fully voiced between
vowels/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. . . ;
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 18 / 74
laryngeal contrast voicing
◮ English “voiced” obstruents are not truly voiced:
they are passively voiced = voiced only between vowels and sonorants
◮ categorizing them as ‘voiced’ would be misleading
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 19 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
◮ for example: repel /rIp´
El/
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 20 / 74
laryngeal contrast 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:
zero VOT/short lag VOT
negative VOT/VOT lead
◮ these three VOT options give three phonetic laryngeal categories of
stops
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 21 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 22 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 23 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
“voicing” “aspirating” voiced voiceless voiceless unaspirated aspirated [d] [t] [th] Hawaiian [t] Hungarian ⇐ ⇒ [d] [t] English ⇐ ⇒ [t] [th] Thai ⇐ ⇒ ⇐ ⇒ [d] [t] [th]
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 24 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
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, and Hungarian
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 25 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 26 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 27 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 28 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 29 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 30 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 31 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 32 / 74
laryngeal contrast VOT
◮ spelling is misleading, it expresses the phonological contrast of
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. . .
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 33 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
◮ 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 to
aspiration: “p” = aspirated, “b” = unaspirated
◮ we call the contrasting obstruents in English fortis vs. lenis
(and not “voiceles” vs. “voiced”)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 34 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
Jones (1918: 154)
In voiced plosive consonants the amount of voice heard during the stop may vary. [. . . ] When a voiced plosive [. . . ] occurs between two vowels (as in 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 part
altogether [. . . ]. With many speakers [. . . ] final voiced plosives [are] partially or even completely devoiced [. . . ]. [These] consonants are very weak voiceless plosives consonants.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 35 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
Gimson (1962: 32; 152)
A voiceless/voiced pair such as [s, z] are distinguished not only by the presence or absence of voice but also by the degree of breath and muscular e=ort involved in the articulation. Indeed, [. . . ] in certain situations, the voice opposition may be lost, so that the energy of articulation becomes a significant factor. Those English consonants which are usually voiced tend to be articulated with relatively weak energy, whereas those which are always 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 and especially in final positions, [. . . ] while remaining lenis, may be partially voiced or completely voiceless.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 36 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
Fortis Lenis never voiced have passive voicing, only voiced between 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
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 37 / 74
laryngeal contrast fortis & lenis
English obstruent phonemes
Stops A=r. Fricatives Fortis /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 /r´ ObIn/ phonetically: [r´ ObIn]
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 38 / 74
laryngeal contrast 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
políte – Bolívia
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 39 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
– both features are active in this position for the contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 40 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
– only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 41 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
◮ only voicing is active in this position for the contrast ◮ note: 1. it is sometimes claimed that there is weak aspiration of fortis
stops here
throughout the stop: /t/ and /d/ may become a flap [R] in American English, but not /p/–/b/ or /k/–/g/: rápid – rábid still contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 42 / 74
laryngeal contrast positions
X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’ (where X and Y are positions)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 43 / 74
laryngeal contrast word-final
◮ in this position, voicing is di;cult to maintain ◮ since nothing follows the stop, aspiration is also impossible
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 44 / 74
laryngeal contrast word-final
◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position? = neutralization ◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated here
to maintain the contrast. . .
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 45 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 46 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
The disappearance of contrast under a given condition. = The local suspension of a phonological opposition between two or more contrastive sound segments; only one segment can appear in that position (but not its contrastive counterpart(s)).
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 47 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ opposition: the attractiveness of people is perceived di=erently ◮ condition: being drunk ◮ output: the di=erence in attractiveness disappears (all people are
perceived as attractive)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 48 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ a wide range of vowels can appear in a stressed syllable but in
unstressed 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: /@/
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 49 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ /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/ is
before 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,
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 50 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ 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 following
stop (labial with labial, coronal with coronal, velar with velar)
◮ e.g., print /nt/, but no /m/ or /N/ before /t/ *primt, *primk, etc.:
Stops Nasal /p/ /t/ /k/ /m/ limp — — /n/ — tent — /N/ — — link /Nk/
◮ opposition: /n/ – /m/ – /N/, condition: before a stop, output: only
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 51 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ beat – bead, back – bag, loose – lose, leaf – leave, etc. ◮ obstruents are unaspirated and voiceless in this position ◮ 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 same
way: beat [b ˚ Ijt] = bead [b ˚ Ijd ˚ ] = [pIjt] (homophones)
◮ BUT this does not seem to be the case!
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 52 / 74
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ 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 (as
in word-final position):
◮ relative length of preceding vowel ◮ glottalization ◮ other features: release noise, articulatory strength/e=ort/force
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 53 / 74
laryngeal contrast vowel length
◮ vowels are shorter (clipped) before fortis obstruents than before lenis
◮ speak – speed,
mate – made, rope – robe, write – ride, root – rude, cap – cab loose – lose, leaf – leave
◮ clipping is redundant/predictable but it cues the contrast here
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 54 / 74
laryngeal contrast glottalization
◮ glottal closure quickly closes down the voicing of the vowel, followed
by 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 [f´ aPtn@s], football [f´ 0Ptpo: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 could
potentially disappear
◮ note: glottalization may well be just a more salient/forceful version
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 55 / 74
laryngeal contrast glottalization
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 56 / 74
laryngeal contrast 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, length
◮ aspiration, glottalization, release do not play a role
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 57 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ conféction – convéction, defíed – divíde ◮ absence/presence of voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger
for contrast
◮ /T f s S/: voiceless ◮ /D v z Z/: voiced/phonated
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 58 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ 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 initial
position are relatively voiced, unlike lenis stops, the contrasts above are due to voicing/phonation (e.g., sip is voiceless, zip is voiced)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 59 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ 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 danger
for contrast
◮ /T f s S/: voiceless ◮ /D v z Z/: voiced/phonated
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 60 / 74
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ 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 is
di;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 articulated
longer with more intensity than
◮ /D v z Z/: preceding vowel is relatively longer and they are articulated
relatively shorter and with less intensity
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 61 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
◮ so far we have not seen neutralization of the laryngeal contrast for
either 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
◮ 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 before stressed vowels: e.g., recóver [kh] but discóver [k]
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 62 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
– what do native speakers hear when the /s/ of school is deleted?
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 63 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
– what do native speakers hear when the /s/ of school is deleted?
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 64 / 74
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
◮ 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) voiced
between vowels/sonorants
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 65 / 74
laryngeal contrast ranking
X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’ (where X and Y are positions)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 66 / 74
RVA
◮ a phonotactic and morpho-phonological pattern: two adjacent
◮ the voicelessness or voicing of the second obstruent governs the
voicelessness or voicing of the preceding obstruent (= “voicing spreads backward”)
◮ méz [z] ‘honey’
méz-t˝
méz-b˝
mész [s] ‘lime’ mész-t˝
mész-b˝
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, making
voiceless obstruents voiced
◮ RVA is neutralizing: the voicing contrast between obstruents
disappears
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 67 / 74
RVA
– ház+tól ‘from house’ /z/+/t/ → /st/:
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 68 / 74
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 of
voicing cannot spread to other sounds
◮ only actively voiced and actively devoiced sounds can spread their
voicing and devoicing feature to other sounds – as in Hungarian for example
◮ in English too: batman [tm] *[dm], putney [tn] *[dn], replay [pl] *[bl]
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 69 / 74
RVA
◮ since English is an aspirating language, neither fortis nor lenis
could spread
◮ therefore we predict that English does not have RVA ◮ the pronunciation of words before obstruents does not change
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 70 / 74
RVA
◮ 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 final
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 71 / 74
RVA
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 72 / 74
RVA
◮ 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
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 73 / 74
RVA
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 74 / 74