1 / 42

Phonology → Phonetics

Phonology → Phonetics. Understanding Features. Richness of the Base.

ozzy
Télécharger la présentation

Phonology → Phonetics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Phonology → Phonetics Understanding Features

  2. Richness of the Base The source of all systematic cross-linguistic variation is constraint reranking. In particular, the set of inputs to the grammars of all languages is the same. The grammatical inventories of a language are the outputs which emerge from the grammar when it is fed the universal set of all possible inputs (Smolensky 1996).

  3. ROTB • Constraint ranking is everything! • Simplistic view of features • Have specific phonetic definitions. • Features mapped to phonetics.

  4. What about variability? • Views on variability • Multiple grammars • Variable/unranked constraints/rules • Stochastic OT/processes

  5. Enter features • View from the world of phonological contrast. • Some featural alternation could be feature interpretation, i.e., phonology →phonetics mapping. • Not all variation is in the phonology. • Some might be allophonic (in the phonology). • Example: Voicing assimilation in English • Others might be allo-phonetic (in the phonetics). • Jeff and I coined the second term. . • Example: onset [ s ] might be diff. from a coda [ s ].

  6. Laryngeal Features • Classic view • [+/- voiced] • Any voicing distinction is to be interpreted in terms of this feature. English/German - b - [+voiced] ph - [-voiced] French/Spanish - b - [+voiced] p - [-voiced]

  7. Simplified Phonetic Facts 1 English/German a. /orthographic-b/ [b] - fully voiced (or) [p] - voiceless unaspirated (utterance initially, variably) b. /orthographic-p/ [ph] - aspirated voiceless (or) [p] - voiceless unaspirated (after ‘s’, other v.less. frics?)

  8. Simplified Phonetic Facts 2 French/Spanish a. /orthographic-b/ [b] - fully voiced b. /orthographic-p/ [p] - voiceless unaspirated (after ‘s’, other v.less. frics?) - variable voicing

  9. Further simplified facts English/German - /b/ is variable /ph/ is consistent French/Spanish - /b/ is consistent /p/ is variable

  10. Laryngeal Realism • English/German • /orthographic-p/ is specified for aspiration. • /orthographic-b/ is unspecified, so it varies (to some extent). • French/Spanish • /orthographic-b/ is specified for voicing. • /orthographic-p/ is unspecified, so it varies (to some extent).

  11. Laryngeal Realism • English/German • ph vs. Ø • French/Spanish • b vs. Ø

  12. Assumption in Laryngeal Realism • Couched in underspecification theory • Unspecified features do not play a role in phonology. • No processes use them as triggers (in structural descriptions). • Testable statement • Seems to be true of laryngeal features.

  13. However, we haven’t talked about features yet! • English/German • ph vs. Ø • If consistently aspirated, then must be specified for aspiration – [+ spread glottis]

  14. However, we haven’t talked about features yet! • French/Spanish • bvs. Ø • If consistently voiced, then must be specified for voicing – [+ voiced]

  15. What can be a possible feature? • Theory of features • Avery-Idsardi (2001) Innovation • Articulators, Dimensions, Gestures. • Articulators group dimensions. • Dimensions group antagonistic gestures.

  16. 3D Larynx • 3D Larynx

  17. Dimensional Theory

  18. Essence of Dimensional Theory • Phonology looks as far as Dimensions, no lower. • To be honest, there are exceptions to do with ‘headhood’ – we won’t go into that part of their theory.

  19. Dimensional Theory Phonological Features

  20. However, we haven’t talked about features yet! • English/German • ph vs. Ø X vs. X | | GW Ø • If consistently aspirated, then must be specified for Glottal Width. • Phonetics takes care of ‘aspiration’ or ‘glottal constriction’.

  21. Dimesional Invariance Consistently “Glottal Width” or GW

  22. Dimensional Theory

  23. French/Spanish – quick look • French/Spanish • bvs. Ø X vs. X | | GT Ø • If consistently voiced, then must be specified for voicing – [Glottal Tension]

  24. Dimensional Theory

  25. Grand Vision for phonological features

  26. What does this mean for nasality? • [+/nasal] are under the dimension of ‘soft palate’.

  27. Grand Vision for phonological features

  28. SP and its gestures Nasal segment Oral segment Antagonistic gestures. One Dimension – Soft Palate (SP)

  29. The Dimension SP • Soft Palate. Root: X | Dimension: SP / \ Gesture: [nasal] [oral]

  30. However • Phonology (usually) looks as low as dimensions, and no lower!

  31. The Dimension SP • Soft Palate in the phonology. Root: X | Dimension: SP / \ Gesture: [nasal] [oral] Purview of Phonology

  32. Implications • A segment can be marked for the dimension SP in the phonology, but no more! X | SP ([nasal] or [oral] gestures are part of the phonetic implementation)

  33. The Dimension SP • You can’t mark [nasal] or [oral] in the phonology! • Coolest prediction ever! • If specified for ‘phonological nasality’, segments can surface with (phonetic) non-nasal variants cos the phonetic gesture isn’t specified! • Because: X → X (or) X (or) X | | | | SP SP SP SP | | | [nasal] [oral] Ø

  34. Partially-nasal stops • What are they? • Segments with both a nasal and an oral portion. • Recording Whole phrase Word kapan: sounds like [kapadn]

  35. Partially-nasal stops • At least 2 kinds • Nasal-based • No different from simple nasals in the phonology. • Behave like nasals; spread nasality… • Voiced-based • Simple voiced stops in the phonology, unmarked for phonological nasality. • Nasal on the surface for phonetic reasons (enhancement…).

  36. Categorical Phonology • All types of Partially Nasal Stops (can) show surface variability. • Nasal-based - [m] or [mb] or [b] • Voice-based - [mb] or [b] (or [m] ??) • But, they NEVER trigger nasalization variably.

  37. Logical Possibilities • Because Nasal-based PNS show surface variation, it is logically possible that • If the surface alternant is [m], • aham  ãh̃ãm (nasalization occurs) • If the surface alternant is [b], • aham  ahab (no nasalization occurs) • If the surface alternant is [bm], • aham  ahabm (no nasalization)

  38. Therefore, expected variation for the same word • aham  ãh̃ãm (or) ahab (or) ahabm

  39. Observed fact: • There is NEVER any such variation. • (If they nasalize adjacent segments, they always do!) • Jambi Malay (Tadmor & Yanti 2004) (i) ayam  aya(b)m ‘chicken’ (ii) ayam-e  ayamẽ ‘his chicken’

  40. In the phonology • In the phonology, a nasal-based PNS is a simple nasal. • So, it always triggers nasalisation, if the language has a nasalisation process. • Surface variation is a result of the phonetic mapping, NOT phonology.

  41. What about Voice-based PNS? • Observed Variation [mb] or [b] (or [m] ??) • However, in the phonology, they are not specified for nasality. • They NEVER spread nasality.

  42. Conclusion • Contra the claims of Classic OT architecture (ROTB), not all the predictable facts are in the phonology! • At least some are to be captured at the phonology-phonetics interface.

More Related