Glides, vowels, and features Padgett, Jaye
Lingua,
12/2008, Letnik:
118, Številka:
12
Journal Article, Conference Proceeding
Recenzirano
Generative phonologists usually take high vowels like i,u and glides like j,w to be identical (respectively) in terms of distinctive features. The main argument for this assumption comes from ...theoretical economy: since syllable theory independently provides us with a means of distinguishing between vowels and glides – as syllable nuclei and margins respectively – there is no need for a featural distinction. This paper shows that in fact vowels must be featurally distinct from glides. Evidence for this comes from phonological processes that distinguish between the segment types, in a way that specifically diagnoses a difference of
constriction degree. I further show that the vowel vs. glide distinction is part of a larger hierarchy of segmental distinctions based on constriction degree, as indicated by cross-linguistic generalizations. The implications of these conclusions for cases of high vowel vs. glide contrast are explored.
Many languages have restrictions on word-final segments, such as a requirement
that any word-final obstruent be voiceless. There is a phonetic basis for such
restrictions at the ends of utterances, ...but not the ends of words. Historical
linguists have long noted this mismatch, and have attributed it to an analogical
generalisation of such restrictions from utterance-final to word-final position.
To test whether language learners actually generalise in this way, two
artificial language learning experiments were conducted. Participants heard
nonsense utterances in which there was a restriction on utterance-final
obstruents, but in which no information was available about word-final
utterance-medial obstruents. They were then tested on utterances that included
obstruents in both positions. They learned the pattern and generalised it to
word-final utterance-medial position, confirming that learners are biased toward
word-based distributional patterns.
Recent literature contrasts two approaches to phonological adaptation, so-called 'phonological' and 'perceptual' approaches. Paradis and Thibeault (2004) and Paradis (2006) argue for the ...'phonological' approach based on a pattern of phonological adaptation employed by Russian in which non-native y is rendered as u with palatalization of the preceding consonant. The argument depends on the assumptions that /Cju/ is rare in Russian and unnatural. In this reply I show that neither assumption is correct and that this pattern of adaptation does not (at least yet) distinguish between the two approaches to the phenomenon. More generally, it is suggested that progress on this debate will require that the two approaches are further developed so as to make better informed and clearly distinct predictions. Copyright Elsevier B.V.
Recent literature contrasts two approaches to phonological adaptation, so-called “phonological” and “perceptual” approaches. Paradis and Thibeault (2004) and Paradis (2006) argue for the ...“phonological” approach based on a pattern of phonological adaptation employed by Russian in which non-native y is rendered as u with palatalization of the preceding consonant. The argument depends on the assumptions that /C
ju/ is rare in Russian and unnatural. In this reply I show that neither assumption is correct and that this pattern of adaptation does not (at least yet) distinguish between the two approaches to the phenomenon. More generally, it is suggested that progress on this debate will require that the two approaches are further developed so as to make better informed and clearly distinct predictions.
There is a well-known rule of Russian whereby /i/ is said to be realized as ī after non-palatalized consonants. Somewhat less well known is another allophonic rule of Russian whereby only i, and not ...ī, can follow velars within a morphological word. This latter rule came about due to a sound change in East Slavic called post- velar fronting here: ki̵ >$k^{j}{}_{i}$(and similarly for the other velars). This paper examines this sound change in depth, and argues that it can be adequately explained only by appeal to the functional notions of perceptual distinctiveness of contrast and neutralization avoidance. Further, these notions crucially require a systemic approach to phonology, in which the wellformedness of any form must be evaluated with reference to the larger system of contrasts it enters into. These notions are formalized in a modified version of Dispersion Theory (Flemming 1995a), a systemic theory that incorporates these functional notions into Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993).
The present study probes perception of place of articulation distinctions among Polish sibilants using an AX discrimination task, and compares results from 13 Polish-speaking and 10 English-speaking ...subjects. Besides providing information on the relative discriminability of the sibilants, the perceptual study is designed to investigate the claim that a particular kind of diachronic change which has taken place in Polish and other languages, as well as related facts about sibilant inventories, could be perceptually motivated. The results lend support to this claim and to the general view that a principle of dispersion plays a role in explaining sound change tendencies, and therefore in shaping phonological tendencies, for consonants, not only vowels.
Feature Classes in Phonology Padgett, Jaye
Language (Baltimore),
03/2002, Letnik:
78, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
This article argues for a particular understanding of feature class behavior-the recurrent patterning together of certain phonological features, such as place of articulation and laryngeal features. ...The proposals build on the well-known work of feature geometry in assuming the importance of feature classes in phonology, but differ in that features of a class are targeted directly and individually by constraints (or rules), even when a feature class such as Place is mentioned. Further, constraints mentioning feature classes are gradiently violable. Evidence for this view of feature classes comes from two sources. First, assimilation involving feature classes is sometimes only partially successful; an adequate understanding of such cases requires the proposed view of feature classes. Second, there are broad categories of feature class generalization that require it, including dissimilatory effects usually handled by the obligatory contour principle. Overall, the proposals broaden the explanatory potential of the feature class idea due to feature geometry. At a more general level, the results here suggest that linguistic representations sometimes need to be reconsidered in the context of optimality theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993), since they can effectively function as inviolable constraints and so hinder our understanding of the more subtle kind of phenomena revealed by analyses employing gradiently violable constraints.
Russian exhibits a rich pattern of phonological vowel reduction, by which some vowel contrasts are neutralized in unstressed syllables. Recent work in phonology suggests a mechanism by which phonetic ...vowel reduction--compression of the overall vowel space due to target undershoot--might lead to patterns like Russian. Presenting acoustic data from 9 speakers of Russian, we use Euclidean distance measures, measures of F1-F0 and F2-F1, and Bayesian classification to provide a basic picture of how the overall vowel space, as well as the distribution of vowels, change as stress is reduced. We are particularly interested in whether contraction of the vowel space in unstressed positions is primarily due to raising, and in whether contrasting pairs of vowels are evenly spaced within and across contexts. Our results provide qualified support for the first hypothesis, but largely do not support the hypothesis of equal spacing, in particular across contexts. Of additional interest, we find that some impressionistically described neutralizations are incomplete.
Palatalization contrasts are subject to certain asymmetries across languages (Takatori 1997, Kochetov 2002). For example, they are preferred at the beginning of words or syllables rather than at the ...end, and they are preferred in coronals rather than labials. Kochetov (2002, 2004) argues that these asymmetries are perceptually motivated, and he provides supporting evidence from Russian. We report on results of an acoustic and perceptual study of palatalization in Connemara Irish. Our acoustic analysis documents a range of properties distinguishing palatalized from non-palatalized consonants in Irish, though our acoustic data come from only one speaker. Based on a speeded AX discrimination task, our perceptual results in some ways parallel Kochetov's for Russian (listeners show degraded performance for the coda contrast compared to the onset contrast), and in some ways do not (they do not perform better on coronals than on labials).
PDF
