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 / 98
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 98
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants ◮ di=erent models/analyses of contrasts
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 98
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants ◮ di=erent models/analyses of contrasts ◮ laryngeal contrast: phonetics and distribution
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 98
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants ◮ di=erent models/analyses of contrasts ◮ laryngeal contrast: phonetics and distribution ◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 98
aims
◮ contrast among English consonants ◮ di=erent models/analyses of contrasts ◮ laryngeal contrast: phonetics and distribution ◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization ◮ voicing assimilation
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 2 / 98
models
to reality, use this model to predict future events in the real world
in the real world
◮ ... support hypothesis: retain it ◮ ... do not support hypothesis: reject it, look for new explanations
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 3 / 98
models
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 4 / 98
models
modelling language is di;cult: we don’t have access to ‘reality’ = the brain
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 5 / 98
models
the model of language needs to be built based on the input and the output
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 6 / 98
models
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 7 / 98
contrast
◮ we can think about speech sounds as a bundle of phonetic features ◮ these features can be related to articulation: articulatory gestures in
the vocal tract
◮ lips, teeth, tongue position, position of the velum, manner of
articulation, vocal fold vibration, etc.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 8 / 98
contrast
What phonetic features are needed to produce the word base?
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 9 / 98
contrast
classical phonemic & generative approach
◮ only those features are part of language that are unpredictable and
contrastive
◮ predictable features are introduced by phonological rules ◮ simpler model
phonetically-grounded approach
◮ even predictable (“redundant”) features are part of language (not just
speech)
◮ phonetically “richer” model ◮ one given contrast can be aided (“cued”) by several features, not just
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 10 / 98
contrast
For language, only those phonetic features are “relevant” which can be used to express contrast between words and which are unpredictable.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 11 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 12 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 13 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 14 / 98
contrast
◮ vowel height causes contrast: pale = pile ◮ vowel clipping and nasality never cause contrast, no minimal pairs ◮ vowel height: part of language (part of the inventory), contrastive,
phonemes
◮ vowel clipping and nasality: not part of language (not part of the
inventory), redundant, allophones
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 15 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 16 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 17 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 18 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 19 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 20 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 21 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 22 / 98
contrast
◮ underlying/lexical representation (input): only those sound properties
that are contrastive (= phonemes)
◮ phonological rules that derive the surface representation from the
underlying representation
◮ surface representation (output = speech): contrastive + predictable
sound properties
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 23 / 98
contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 24 / 98
consonant contrasts
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 25 / 98
consonant contrasts
the consonant inventory (contrastive consonants)
◮ sonorants
◮ glides: /j w/ ◮ liquids: /l r/ ◮ nasals: /m n N/
◮ obstruents
◮ stops: /p b
t d k g/
◮ fricatives: /f v
T D s z S Z h/
◮ a=ricates: /Ù Ã/
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 26 / 98
consonant contrasts
what’s the contrastive feature in these?:
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 27 / 98
consonant contrasts
◮ what features make the contrast possible? ◮ do these features “survive” in all position? ◮ are they the same in other languages, like HUN & GER?
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 28 / 98
consonant contrasts
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 29 / 98
laryngeal contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 30 / 98
laryngeal contrast
◮ the phonological contrast of “voicing” is signalled (“cued”)
by a complex of features: there are several correlates of this 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 31 / 98
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 32 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 33 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 34 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 35 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 36 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 37 / 98
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)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 38 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
start and maintain voicing because air pressure will be low in the mouth but high below vocal folds; sonorants
air pressure above vocal folds, which inhibits vocal fold vibration;
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 39 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
◮ voicing is di;cult to maintain in obstruents: they prefer to be devoiced
(every language has voiceless stops, there are languages that only have voiceless stops, but none that have only voiced stops)
◮ languages use 2 strategies:
◮ additional articulatory gestures (active voicing): Hungarian, Spanish,
Polish, Dutch...
◮ partial or full devoicing (passive devoicing): English, German, Swedish,
Norwegian, Danish...
◮ lenis stops: ‘weakly voiced’, ‘not voiced in all positions’ ◮ in English: ‘voiced’ obstruents are typically devoiced, except between 2
sonorants: ready, bandit. . .
◮ in Hungarian: “voiced” obstruents are typically voiced in all positions
(initially and word-finally, too): bab, babos. . . ; cf. voicing assimilation though
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 40 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
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 41 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing
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 42 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
definition
the time between the release of the stop and the start of vocal fold vibration
direction of VOT
◮ positive (aspiration, fortis stops = voiceless aspirated) ◮ zero (neutral/lenis = voiceless unaspirated) ◮ negative (truly voiced stops (unaspirated))
length of VOT
– in the case of positive and negative VOT: short or long
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 43 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 44 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 45 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 46 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 47 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 48 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 49 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 50 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 51 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 52 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT summary
– contrast based on VOT: 2 main types of languages
zero VOT ⇔ − VOT = voiceless-unaspirated ⇔ voiced-unaspirated e.g., Spanish, Hungarian, French, Dutch. . .
= voiceless-unaspirated (lenis) ⇔ voiceless-aspirated (fortis) e.g., English, German, Danish. . .
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 53 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT summary
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 54 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT summary
◮ be careful: don’t be mislead by spelling ◮ spelling uses arbitrary symbols to indicate contrast ◮ if two languages use the same letter, it does not necessarily mean that
the contrast is based on the same phonetic feature!
◮ the p letters are the same, but the phonetic content is very di=erent:
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 55 / 98
laryngeal contrast VOT summary
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 56 / 98
laryngeal contrast positions
◮ so far two phonetic features have been used for the laryngeal contrast:
voicing & aspiration
◮ they are not equally active in all phonetic positions
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 57 / 98
laryngeal contrast positions
– both features are active in this position for the contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 58 / 98
laryngeal contrast positions
– only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 59 / 98
laryngeal contrast positions
◮ only voicing is active in this position for the contrast ◮ note: length of stops is relatively short here, and voicing may continue
throughout the stop: /t/ may become a flap [R] in American English, but not /p/ or /k/: rápid – rábid still contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 60 / 98
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 61 / 98
laryngeal contrast word-final
◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position? ◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated here
to maintain the contrast. . .
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 62 / 98
laryngeal contrast word-final
◮ overall topic: how to model phonological contrast ◮ focus: laryngeal contrast in consonants (obstruents) ◮ 2 models: classical generative vs. phonetically-grounded ◮ laryngeal contrast is signalled/“cued” by several phonetic features ◮ features so far: voicing/phonation, VOT ◮ these features are not equally active in all positions
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 63 / 98
laryngeal contrast word-final
X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’ (where X and Y are positions)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 64 / 98
laryngeal contrast word-final
◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position? ◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated here
to maintain the contrast. . .
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 65 / 98
laryngeal contrast neutralization
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 66 / 98
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.)
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 67 / 98
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 æ ∼ @ symbólic ∼ sýmbol 6 ∼ @ atómic ∼ átom 6 ∼ @ harmónious ∼ hármony
mystérious ∼ mýstery I@ ∼ @ dráma ∼ dramátic A: ∼ @ sulphúrious ∼ súlphur jU@ ∼ @
◮ opposition: full vowels, condition: unstressed syllable, output: /@/
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 68 / 98
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 69 / 98
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
◮ e.g., print /nt/, but no /m/ or /N/ before /t/
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 70 / 98
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ laryngeal contrast in word-final position ◮ beat – bead, back – bag, loose – lose, leaf – leave, etc. ◮ opposition: 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 [bi:t] = bead [bi:t] (homophones)
◮ this does not seem to be the case!
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 71 / 98
laryngeal contrast neutralization
◮ correlates of laryngeal contrast so far: voicing and aspiration – but
they are not active in word-final position
◮ there are other correlates of the laryngeal contrast ◮ 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 72 / 98
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 73 / 98
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 [raIPt], shop [S6Pp], shot [S6Pt], shock [S6Pk], April ["eIPprl],
fatness ["fæPtn@s], football ["fUPtbO:l], reach [ri:PÙ], etc.
◮ it only happens for the fortis consonants:
mate [meIPt] – made [meIt], seat [siPt]– seed [si:t]
◮ 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 74 / 98
laryngeal contrast glottalization
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 75 / 98
laryngeal contrast glottalization
◮ remember: classical phonemic/generative model claims that whatever
is predictable has no “information value”, it’s noncontrastive, hence not part of language (only part of speech)
◮ contrary to the classical phonemic/generative model,
predictable-redundant features may actually be important to maintain contrast in certain situations
◮ vowel-clipping is predictable, yet it is crucial in preserving contrast
word-finally (beat – bead, bit – bid, rope – robe, etc.)
◮ it is only sporadically present in other contexts like repél – rebél, where
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 76 / 98
laryngeal contrast
◮ research is ongoing whether other features play a role in laryngeal
contrast preservation or not
◮ release noise: length and intensity seem to be only present in fortis
stops
◮ articulatory strength: lenis stops are claimed to be articulated with less
e=ort
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 77 / 98
laryngeal contrast
◮ can be a cue of laryngeal contrast for stops in English ◮ the tongue is more saliently released after the fortis stops than after
the lenis stops
◮ /t/ seems to have the noisiest release, it is often a=ricate-like /ts/ ◮ “voicing” languages often use this cue for the contrast: voiced stops
may have a voiced release, which may evolve into a schwa-like vowel sound (as in French, bag [bag@], buzz [b2z@])
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 78 / 98
laryngeal contrast
◮ traditional literature (Gimson) often cite this as a cue for laryngeal
contrast
◮ fortis obstruents: more energy, articulatory e=ort, stronger contact of
the articulators lenis obstruents: relatively weak energy, less articulatory e=ort
◮ this e=ort di=erence is supposed to remain active in all positions,
including word-finally
◮ problem: no reliable phonetic definition of ‘energy’, ‘e=ort’, ‘strength’
exists, and experiments have failed to show its relevance in laryngeal contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 79 / 98
laryngeal contrast
The Sounds of the World’s languages, pp. 96, 98:
“Measures of the force of contact between the articulators [. . .] generally failed to show that pairs such as /p/ and /b/ di=ered in the expected way, and the idea of articulatory strength was widely considered among phoneticians to be discredited. [. . .] There does not seem to be an independent use of articulatory strength as a contrastive parameter.”
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 80 / 98
laryngeal contrast
◮ traditional fortis may simply mean ‘voiceless strongly aspirated stop’,
lenis: ‘a voiceless stop without aspiration’, and so fortisness/lenisness is simply a synonym for + vs. zero VOT (aspiration vs. no aspiration)
◮ articulatory strength is what may cause the length di=erence between
closure: fortis stops are longer (and the vowel before them is shorter) than lenis stops
◮ it may only be a relevant factor in the laryngeal contrast of fricatives:
feel – veal, file – vile, sip – zip, leaf – leave, bus – buzz, etc.
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 81 / 98
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ /T/ – /D/, /f/ – /v/, /s/ – /z/, /S/ – /Z/ ◮ voicing/phonation, preceding vowel length and intensity signal the
contrast
◮ aspiration, glottalization, release do not seem to play a role
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 82 / 98
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ conféction – convéction, defíed – divíde ◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 83 / 98
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ sip – zip, cellar – Zellar, fain – vein, fault – vault, feel – veal,
sheet /Si:t/ – gite /Zi:t/, thigh /TaI/ – thy /DaI/
◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue: initial fricatives seem to be
actively voiced in English (unlike the stops), no danger for contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 84 / 98
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ míssle – mízzle, grístle – grízzle, rífle – ríval, Óphir /"@Uf@/ – óver
/"@Uv@/, Áisha – Ásia, Ásher – ázure, tréssure – tréasure, Confúcian – confúsion
◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 85 / 98
laryngeal contrast fricatives
◮ leaf – leave, brief – breve, calf – calve, safe – save, bus – buzz, race – raise,
hiss – his, ruche /ru:S/ – rouge /ru:Z/, teeth /ti:T/ – teethe /ti:D/, 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 than
◮ /D v z Z/: preceding vowel is relatively longer and they are articulated
relatively shorter
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 86 / 98
laryngeal contrast fric + stop
◮ so far we have not seen neutralization of the laryngeal contrast ◮ fortis fricative + stop clusters:
◮ /s/ + C: speak, sport, spring, stéreo, stúpid, string, school, scheme, sketch,
discóver, displáy, expláin...
◮ /f/ + C: caftán, fiftéen
◮ the laryngeal contrast is completely neutralized in this position: only
an unvoiced-unaspirated stop (= lenis) may occur here (especially after /s/)
◮ this stop “sounds” like a usual lenis stop for native speakers when we
get rid of the fricative – DEMO
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 87 / 98
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 88 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ when two (or more) obstruents with di=erent laryngeal specifications
stand next to each other: C1C2
◮ within the same word (C1C2) or across a word boundary (C1# C2) ◮ laryngeal specification of C2 influences/spreads to/is assimilated by
C1: he was sent /z/ + /s/ → [ss], good time /d/ + /t/ → [tt]
◮ if either only fortis+fortis or lenis+lenis clusters are possible, then this
would be laryngeal neutralization of obstruents before another
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 89 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ háztól ‘from house’ /z/+/t/ → [st] ◮ népzene ‘into the flour’ /p/+/z/ → [bz] ◮ Koszos lettem a mé[st]˝
‘I became dirty from the ?lime / ?honey’ mész /me:s/ ‘line’ ↔ méz /me:z/ ‘honey’ mészt˝
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 90 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ 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 passively voiced, passive voicing cannot spread
to other sounds
◮ only actively voiced and actively devoiced/fortis sounds can spread
their voicing and devoicing/fortis feature to other sounds – as in Hungarian for example
◮ in English too: batman [tm] *[dm], putney [tn] *[dn], replay [pl] *[bl] ◮ Slovak is exceptional: Krásny kvet má pät’ malých lupienkov. [dm]
‘The beautiful flower has 5 petals.’ Položili kvet a . . . . [da] ‘They laid the flower and. . . ’
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 91 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
can cause devoicing in preceding obstruents
voicing in preceding obstruents
cause voicing in preceding obstruents
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 92 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ is Pete going? [sp], live show [fS], grade four [tf], bead show [ts] ◮ devoicing can spread (C1 becomes voiceless) ◮ but the contrast is not neutralized as other correlates of the contrast
do not change: the vowel will not become shorter (and if C1 is a stop, there is no glottalization either)!
◮ thus: bead show will not become beat show even though both final
consonants are voiceless
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 93 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 94 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ work zebra ?[gz], what’s this? ?[zD], beat Zoë ?[dz] ◮ voicing from the lenis fricatives may spread to C1 ◮ even though voicing may spread, the contrast is not neutralized as
shorter and there may be glottalization, too!
◮ thus: beat Zoë will not become bead Zoë even if both final consonants
are (partially) voiced
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 95 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 96 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
◮ pop group [pg], beat band [tb], black dress [kd], birthday [Td],
wishbone [Sb]
◮ there is no laryngeal neutralization in this context ◮ thus: beat band will not become bead band – C2 does not influence C1
at all: all laryngeal features will remain in beat, including its voicelessness
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 97 / 98
laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation
analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 98 / 98