1 / 30

Maria-Josep Solé Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain mariajosep.sole@uab.es

The stability of phonological features within and across segments. Maria-Josep Solé Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain mariajosep.sole@uab.es Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2005. INTRODUCTION. 1.

agrata
Download Presentation

Maria-Josep Solé Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain mariajosep.sole@uab.es

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. The stability of phonological features within and across segments Maria-Josep Solé Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain mariajosep.sole@uab.es Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2005

  2. INTRODUCTION 1 • how thearticulatory-acoustic stability of features may be endangered by their combination with other features within and across segments. WITHIN • feature co-occurrence restrictions (Ohala, 1983) • phonological universals (preferred combinations) • system gaps (disfavoured combinations) 1

  3. ACROSS SEGMENTS • sequential constraints (Kawasaki, 1982) • assimilation • sound change 2

  4. HYPOTHESIS: the stability of features may not only be affected by concurrent features, but also by features in adjacent segments which may coincide in time due to coarticulatory overlap.  features that do not combine well within a segment, are not likely to combine in adjacent segments. 3

  5. co-occurring & coarticulatory velopharyngeal opening for nasality on the stability of segments requiring a high pressure build-up in the oral cavity, such as fricatives. 4

  6. Background: Stevens’ (1972, 1989) Quantal Theory • gradual variation, may have a categorical acoustic-auditory result • the range of allowable variation will define the stability of the correlation • however, stable range will vary with co-occurring features in same segment and, we suggest, in adjacent segments. 5

  7. Background: Production constraintsof fricatives tight aerodynamic and articulatory constraints (DAC:4)(Recasens et al. 1997, Solé 2002) • Turbulence for fricatives • Sufficient pressure drop (P) across the lingual constriction • sufficient rate of flow • sufficient time • Critical cross-sectional area of constriction 6

  8. H: aerodynamic conditions for frication/trilling impaired by concurrent (whithin same segment) or coarticulatory (across segments) nasalization. an open velopharyngeal port for nasality would allow the air to escape through the nose venting the Po, and reducing or eliminating the required P across the oral constriction for frication or trilling. 7

  9. 1. Results on co-occurring nasality 2. Experiment on coarticulatory nasality 8

  10. CO-OCCURRING FEATURES Frication and trilling cannot combine with [+nasal] • no nasal fricatives • no nasal trills ‘The rarity of such segments [nasalized liquids, glides and fricatives] can be attributed to an antagonistic constraint NAS/CONT: A nasal must not be continuant' (Pulleyblank 1997: 76) 9

  11. Ohala, Solé & Ying 1998 • Varied oropharyngeal pressure with catheters of varying cross-sectional areas, simulating the effects of varyingdegrees of velopharyngeal opening, i.e., nasalization. • Amount of nasal leakage is determined by the impedance or resistance to exiting air. 10

  12. Ohala, Solé & Ying 1998 • Venting fricatives with catheters • 7-10mm2 (a higher impedance than that at VT)  frication unaffected • 18mm2 (similar impedance)  fricatives adversely affected • > 31,7mm2 (lower impedance) extinguished frication • Q: Would fricatives (or adjacent Vs) sound nasalized with the small VP openings (<18mm2) which do not impair frication? • A: At least 36-40mm2 of velopharyngeal opening needed to obtain a stable percept of nasalization in Vs (Whalen & Beddor, 1989; Maeda, 1993) 11

  13. Ohala, Solé & Ying 1998 • Frication & nasalization as physical phenomena are not binary • But there is a range within this continuum where a reliable id. of frication (or nasalization) can be obtained • The two ranges do not overlap. Hence, lack of nasal fricatives. 12

  14. FEATURES IN CONTIGUOUS SEGMENTS Question: Can the weakening/loss of fricatives before nasals be explained by the same principles? 13

  15. DATA (1) Historical change&dialectal variation Lat.mesnata‘kid’ > Catalanmainada Lat.rosmarinus‘rosemary’ > Spanishromero, Cat.romaní O.Fr. ae(s)mer,Stand.Cat. esma>Bal. Cat.ejma, Englishaim Stand.Cat. quaresma > Bal. Cat. [ko’rm] Burmese *sna > [na] (2) Phonological alternations Lat.dec(i)mare, dec(i)mu > Cat.. deumar,'reduce',deume 'tribute' BUTdesèé 'tenth‘ IE *gras-men > Latin gramen 'fodder', English gramineous BUTIE *gras-ter>Greekgaster,English gastric 14

  16. (3) Stylistic variation isn't [eInt], [Inn`t];doesn’t [dÃnn`t] (Gimson, 1962) something [sÃmn`], like them[laIkm],business [bIdnIs], [bInnIs] Spanish ovni ‘UFO’ [oni] ~ [omni] (4) Acquisition data snake [nneIk],snow [nno] (Smith 1979) Weakening: - independent articulators, e.g./zm/ • & same articulator, e.g./zn/ • - mostly voiced fricatives (less airflow due to glottal impedance). 15

  17. Conflicting requirements of contiguous fricatives and nasals Transitional frequency: fricative + N < fricative + C CELEX Lemma database for English, Dutch and German. 16

  18. n m t b p d l r s s 146 330 72 2653 34 679 617 47 z 122 40 18 z 15 17 38 46 14  32 10 13  88 8 9 78 12  0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  9 10 7  19 6 3 42 113  9 0 2  1 1 4 4 1 f 9 17 18 f 16 209 14 247 193 v 24 19 17 v 110* 14 13 222 28 ENGLISH C1 C2 fricative + C sequences > fricative + N sequences Table I. Number of combinations of sounds in the rows (C1) followed by sounds in the columns (C2) in word-medial position calculated in the CELEX ‘Lemma database’ for English, German and Dutch. Table II. No. of combinations of sounds in the rows followed by sounds in the columns in word medial position calculated in the CELEX ‘Lemma database’ for English, German and Dutch. In parenthesis rare sequences showing no voicing agreement. Shadowed cells indicate the cases where fricative +N sequences have a significantly lower frequency of occurrence than fricative +oral sequences, as expected. 17

  19. m n b t p d l r s s 1521 568 3400 3360 0 10 1770 570 z z 0 0 0 0 1537 976 1 0  1 0 4 3 6  11 4 9  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 x 181 2799 2 131 1232 x 16 107 1   185 191 0 0 259 529 388 1474 f 123 162 0 f 43 797 1 898 698 v 0 0 322 v 1 0 507 459 401 DUTCH fricative + C sequences > fricative + N sequences C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 18

  20. n m t b p d l r s s 495 55 370 2635 395 80 379 175 z 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 2 4  114 621 30  134 1826 3 445 235  0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 x 64 20 118 x 169 1193 41 139 50 f 49 47 113 f 78 478 24 489 515 v 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 8 GERMAN fricative + C sequences > fricative + N sequences C1 C2 19

  21. EXPERIMENT:CONTIGUOUS FEATURES HYPOTHESIS : anticipatory velopharyngeal opening for the N diminishes the oropharyngeal pressure required to achieve the P for frication. Method • Oropharyngeal pressure, oral flow & nasal airflow. PCquirer. • fricative+nasal (e.g., Fresno, Mesmer; Dessna, Missmer). • 3 speakers x 4 tokens x 5 repetitions x 2 speaking rates. • slow and fast speaking rates: • increased articulatory overlap and changes in the timing of oral and velic Gs on the pressure build-up for fricatives. 20

  22. Results: anticipatory velum lowering 1 2 3 4 5 onset oral closure onset velum lowering Drop in A0 of friction [ s e  m e z m  r  g e n] Fig.3. (1) Audio signal, (2) filtered oropharyngeal pressure (Po), (3) unfiltered Po, (4) oralairflow, (5) nasal airflow and 0-5KHz spectrogram of ‘Say Mesmer again’. 21

  23. patterns of velic coordination C1 s n C2 synchronous,nasal flow at 0 velum bleeding Po, oral & nasal flow before 0 epenthetic stop, no nasal & no oral flow +15 ms C2 epenthetic V, oral & nasal flow after 0 0 22

  24. = onset oral closure for N - = velum opening lead + = velum lowering lag patterns of velic coordination 23

  25. Velum may lower during the acoustic duration of the fricative, bleeding required P across the fricative constriction. • Drop in A0 of high frequency noise when velum starts to lower. • perceptual loss of the fricative • Comparable degree of anticipatory velum lowering in fast speech • a larger percentage change due shorter duration of segments at fast rates 24

  26. Prediction: • If nasal leakage due to anticipatory velopharyngeal opening extinguishes/attenuates frication for a few ms  fricatives preceding Ns should be phonetically shorter than preceding non-nasals. • Fricative duration measured on spectrogram for test & control tokens. 25

  27. Results: fricative duration • speaker DM speaker JO • Fig.4. Duration of voiced and voiceless fricatives preceding nasal [n, m], and • non-nasal [, l, d, r] consonants. • fricatives are shorter preceding nasal vs non-nasal Cs (p<0.0001) for the 2 speakers. • voiced fricatives are shorter than voiceless fricatives 26

  28. CONCLUSIONS • [+nasal] does not combine with frication, due to VPO venting the oropharyngeal pressure necessary for the generation of turbulence for fricatives within segments •  across segments • Relating constraints on the combination of features within and across segments illustrates the generality that can be achieved by a physically based explanation. 28

  29. CONCLUSIONS (…) The unstability of frication when combined with nasalization: • feature co-occurrence restrictions (e.g., lack of nasal trills and nasal fricatives) • phonological change • morphological alternations • transitional probabilities (lower lexical frequency of fricatives followed by nasals) and constraints on the sequencing of segments. 29

  30. REFERENCES Gimson, A.C. 1962. An intro. to the pronunciation of English. London: Arnold. Maeda, S. 1993. Acoustics of vowel nasalization and articulatory shifts in French nasal vowels. In M.K. Huffman & R.A. Krakow (eds), Nasals, nasalization and the velum.San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 147-167). Ohala, J.J.& Ohala, M. 1993. The phonetics of nasal phonology: theorems and data. In M.K. Huffman & R.A. Krakow (eds.), Nasals, nasalization and the velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 225-249. Ohala, J.J. & Kawasaki, H. (1984) Phonetics and prosodic phonology, Phonology Yearbook,1, 113- 127. Ohala, J.J., Solé, M.J. & Ying, G. (1998) The controversy of nasalized fricatives, Proceedings of the 135th Meeting of the ICA/ASA. Seattle, Washington, 2921-2922. Solé, M.J. , Ohala, J.J. & Ying, G. (1998) Aerodynamic characteristics of trills, Proceedings of the 135th Meeting of the ICA/ASA, Seattle, Washington, 2923-2924. Stevens, K.N.1972. The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articuatory-acoustic data. In P.B. Denes and E.E. David Jr. (eds), Human Communication, A Unified View (51-66). New York: McGraw-Hill. Stevens, K.N. 1989. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17. 3-46. Recasens, D. 2002. Weakening and strengthening in Romance revisited. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 14(2), 327-373. Smith,N.V. 1973. The acquisition of phonology: A case study.Cambridge:CUP Straka, G. 1964. Remarques sur la ‘desarticulation’ et l’amuïssement de l’s implosive. Mélanges de lingüistique Romane et de philologie médiévale offerts à Maurice Delbouille 1: 607-628, Glemboux.

More Related