BBNANG243 Phonological analysis 34. Contrast in English consonants - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

laryngeal contrast voicing the vocal folds + glottis in the larynx z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 34 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing states of the vocal folds z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 35 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing cross-section of the larynx z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 36 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing vocal fold vibration: the Bernoulli e = ect z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 37 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing steps of vocal fold vibration vocal 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 sucked together ( 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 produce a voiceless sound) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 38 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing types of voicing 1. passive/modal/spontaneous voicing: open oral cavity – this helps to start and maintain voicing because air pressure will be low in the mouth but high below vocal folds; sonorants 2. passive devoicing: closure/constriction in mouth – this creates high air pressure above vocal folds, which inhibits vocal fold vibration; obstruents 3. active voicing: extra articulatory e = ort is needed to maintain voicing in obstruents, e.g., lower larynx to enlarge oral cavity 4. active devoicing: extra articulatory e = ort to maintain voicelessness z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 39 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing phonetic di ; culty of voicing in obstruents ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 40 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing classic English literature: Jones 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 of 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 voiceless plosives consonants. z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 41 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing classic English literature: Gimson 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. z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 42 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT laryngeal contrast in stops/plosives: Voice Onset Time definition the time between the release of the stop and the start of vocal fold vibration of the vowel or sonorant 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 43 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT positive, long-lag VOT: aspiration (# paces ) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 44 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT aspiration in closeup z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 45 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 46 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 47 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT positive VOT: aspirated, voiceless stop = fortis z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 48 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT positive VOT: aspirated, voiceless stop = fortis z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 49 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop = neutral z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 50 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop = neutral z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 51 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop = neutral z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 52 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT summary VOT typology: summary – contrast based on VOT: 2 main types of languages 1. voicing languages: zero VOT ⇔ − VOT = voiceless-unaspirated ⇔ voiced-unaspirated e.g., Spanish, Hungarian, French, Dutch. . . 2. aspirating languages: zero VOT ⇔ + VOT = voiceless-unaspirated (lenis) ⇔ voiceless-aspirated (fortis) e.g., English, German, Danish. . . z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 53 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT summary comparing English & Hungarian ENG HUN p ig b ig p ig(ment) b ig(ott) aspirated? + − − − voiced? + − − − z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 54 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT summary warning! ◮ 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: E. pig � = H. pigment ; E. big � = H. bigott z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 55 / 98

laryngeal contrast VOT summary contrast in English vs. Hungarian /p h / — /p/ E pig—big : H pig(ment)—big(ott) : /p/ — /b/ z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 56 / 98

laryngeal contrast positions laryngeal contrast of stops/plosives vs. positions ◮ so far two phonetic features have been used for the laryngeal contrast: voicing & aspiration ◮ they are not equally active in all phonetic positions 1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel: repél – rebél 2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel: tíe – díe 3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel: wríter – ríder z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 57 / 98

laryngeal contrast positions 1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel repél rebél voiced? − + aspirated? + − – both features are active in this position for the contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 58 / 98

laryngeal contrast positions 2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel tíe díe voiced? − − aspirated? + − – only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 59 / 98

laryngeal contrast positions 3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel wríter ríder + voiced? − aspirated? − − ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 60 / 98

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 61 / 98

laryngeal contrast word-final no contrast in beat – bead ? beat bead voiced? − − aspirated? − − ◮ 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. . . z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 62 / 98

laryngeal contrast word-final halfway summary ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 63 / 98

laryngeal contrast word-final 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 64 / 98

laryngeal contrast word-final no contrast in beat – bead ? beat bead voiced? − − aspirated? − − ◮ 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. . . z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 65 / 98

laryngeal contrast neutralization neutralization: the beer goggle e = ect z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 66 / 98

laryngeal contrast neutralization neutralization The disappearance of contrast under a given condition. (= The local suspension of a phonological opposition between two or more contrastive sound segments.) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 67 / 98

laryngeal contrast neutralization neutralization examples: vowel reduction ◮ 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) ◮ sent é ntial ∼ sént e nce ∼ @ e syst é mic ∼ sýst e m e ∼ @ mor á lity ∼ mór a l æ ∼ @ symb ó lic ∼ sýmb o l 6 ∼ @ at ó mic ∼ át o m ∼ @ 6 harm ó nious ∼ hárm o ny oU ∼ @ myst é rious ∼ mýst e ry I@ ∼ @ dr á ma ∼ dr a mátic A: ∼ @ sulph ú rious ∼ súlph u r jU@ ∼ @ ◮ opposition: full vowels, condition: unstressed syllable, output: /@/ z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 68 / 98

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/ 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, output: either /Sr/ or /s/ + C (where C � = /r/ ) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 69 / 98

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 following stop ◮ e.g., print /nt/ , but no /m/ or /N/ before /t/ Stops Nasal /p/ /t/ /k/ limp /m/ — — tent /n/ — — link /Nk/ /N/ — — ◮ opposition: /n/ – /m/ – /N/ , condition: before a stop, output: only one nasal can occur, the contrast is suspended before a given stop z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 70 / 98

laryngeal contrast neutralization 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! z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 71 / 98

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 ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 72 / 98

laryngeal contrast vowel length relative length of preceding vowel ◮ vowels are shorter (clipped) before fortis obstruents than before lenis obstruents: Pre-Fortis Clipping ◮ sp ea k – speed, m a te – made, r o pe – robe, wr i te – ride, r oo t – rude, c a p – cab l oo se – lose, l ea f – leave ◮ clipping is redundant/predictable but it cues the contrast here z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 73 / 98

laryngeal contrast glottalization pre-glottalization/glottal reinforcement ◮ 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 of pre-fortis clipping: the vowel is cut by glottal closure z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 74 / 98

laryngeal contrast glottalization contrast is salvaged in beat – bead beat bead voiced? − − aspirated? − − preceding V shorter? + − glottalization? + − z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 75 / 98

laryngeal contrast glottalization redundancy is actually important ◮ 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 other features safely signal the contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 76 / 98

laryngeal contrast other features other features? ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 77 / 98

laryngeal contrast other features release noise ◮ 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 @ ] ) z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 78 / 98

laryngeal contrast other features articulatory e = ort? ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 79 / 98

laryngeal contrast other features Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) on articulatory strength 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.” z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 80 / 98

laryngeal contrast other features articulatory e = ort? ◮ 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: f eel – v eal, f ile – v ile, s ip – z ip, lea f – lea v e, bu s – bu zz , etc. z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 81 / 98

laryngeal contrast fricatives correlates of laryngeal contrast for 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 82 / 98

laryngeal contrast fricatives 1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V ◮ con f éction – con v éction, de f íed – di v íde ◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 83 / 98

laryngeal contrast fricatives 2. word-initial, before a V ◮ s ip – z ip, c ellar – Z ellar, f ain – v ein, f ault – v ault, f eel – v eal, sh eet /Si:t/ – g ite /Zi:t/ , th igh /TaI/ – th y /DaI/ ◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue: initial fricatives seem to be actively voiced in English (unlike the stops), no danger for contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 84 / 98

laryngeal contrast fricatives 3. medial, between sonorants, after a stressed V ◮ mí ss le – mí zz le, grí s tle – grí zz le, rí f le – rí v al, Ó ph ir /"@Uf@/ – ó v er /"@Uv@/ , Ái sh a – Á s ia, Á sh er – á z ure, tré ss ure – tréa s ure, Confú c ian – confú s ion ◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 85 / 98

laryngeal contrast fricatives 4. absolute word-final position ◮ lea f – lea v e, brie f – bre v e, cal f – cal v e, sa f e – sa v e, bu s – bu zz , ra c e – rai s e, hi ss – hi s , ru ch e /ru:S/ – rou g e /ru:Z/ , tee th /ti:T/ – tee th e /ti:D/ , loa th – loa th e ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 86 / 98

laryngeal contrast fric + stop fortis fricative + stop clusters ◮ 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 z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 87 / 98

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 88 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation regressive voicing assimilation (RVA) ◮ when two (or more) obstruents with di = erent laryngeal specifications stand next to each other: C 1 C 2 ◮ within the same word (C 1 C 2 ) or across a word boundary (C 1 # C 2 ) ◮ laryngeal specification of C 2 influences/spreads to/is assimilated by C 1 : he wa s s ent /z/ + /s/ → [ss] , goo d t ime /d/ + /t/ → [tt] ◮ if either only fortis+fortis or lenis+lenis clusters are possible, then this would be laryngeal neutralization of obstruents before another obstruent z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 89 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation RVA in Hungarian is neutralizing ◮ háztól ‘from house’ /z/ + /t/ → [st] ◮ népzene ‘into the flour’ /p/ + /z/ → [bz] ◮ Koszos lettem a mé [st] ˝ ol. ‘I became dirty from the ?lime / ?honey ’ mész /me:s/ ‘line’ ↔ méz /me:z/ ‘honey’ mészt˝ ol = mézt˝ ol : complete neutralization z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 90 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation sonorants do not cause RVA ◮ mé szn ek ‘for the lime’ /s/ + /n/ → * [zn] ◮ mésznek does not become méznek : no laryngeal neutralization ◮ ké pn ek ‘for picture’ [pn] * [bn] , törö kn él [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: ba tm an [tm] * [dm] , pu tn ey [tn] * [dn] , re pl ay [pl] * [bl] ◮ Slovak is exceptional: Krásny kve t m á pät’ malých lupienkov. [dm] ‘The beautiful flower has 5 petals.’ Položili kve t a . . . . [da] ‘They laid the flower and. . . ’ z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 91 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation laryngeal properties of word-initial obstruents in English 1. /p t k T f s S/ : contain active devoicing/fortisness, prediction: they can cause devoicing in preceding obstruents 2. /D v z Z/ : seem to contain active voicing, prediction: they may cause voicing in preceding obstruents 3. /b d g/ : do not contain a voicing feature, prediction: they do not cause voicing in preceding obstruents z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 92 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation fortisness of /p t k T f s S/ can spread in English ◮ i s P ete going? [sp] , li ve sh ow [fS] , gra de f our [tf] , bea d sh ow [ts] ◮ devoicing can spread (C 1 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 C 1 is a stop, there is no glottalization either)! ◮ thus: bead show will not become beat show even though both final consonants are voiceless z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 93 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation contrast in beat show vs. bead show beat show bead show voiced? − − aspirated? − − preceding V shorter? + − + glottalization? − z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 94 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation /D v z Z/ may spread (some) voicing in English ◮ wor k z ebra ? [gz] , wha t’s th is? ? [zD] , beat Zoë ? [dz] ◮ voicing from the lenis fricatives may spread to C 1 ◮ even though voicing may spread, the contrast is not neutralized as other correlates of the contrast do not change: the vowel will stay shorter and there may be glottalization, too! ◮ thus: beat Zoë will not become bead Zoë even if both final consonants are (partially) voiced z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 95 / 98

laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation contrast in beat Zoë vs. bead Zoë beat Zoë bead Zoë voiced? ( + ) (+) aspirated? − − preceding V shorter? + − + glottalization? − z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 96 / 98