Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of obstruent laryngeal specifications

Honeybone, Patrick; Carr, Phil; Cohn, Abigail C.

doi:10.1515/9783110890402.317

Cited by 125 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Languages like Arabic (Flege & Port, 1981), Saraiki , Dutch (Simon, 2009(Simon, , 2011, Spanish (Flege & Eefting, 1988), Russian (Backley, 2011), Japanese (Shimizu, 2011), Hungarian (Lisker & Abramson, 1964, etc. are considered voicing languages but German (Hamann, 2011), English (Honeybone, 2005), Swedish, Korean, Icelandic (Backley, 2011), etc. are aspiration languages.…”

Section: The Voiced Plosives /B D G/mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception and Production of Consonants of English by Pakistani Speakers

Syed¹,

Ansari²,

Bux³

2017

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper depicts a comprehensive picture of consonants of Pakistani English (PakE). The study shows that PakE speakers neutralize aspiration contrast in English stops. In the PakE, /t/ in /st/ cluster on onset of a word (e.g., steal) is produced with more aspiration than that on syllable-initial position without preceding /s/ (e.g., in "teach"). Besides, /t d/ are produced with strong retroflexion but /t/ in tautosyllabic /st/ clusters on word-initial position is produced without retroflexion. Voiced stops are produced with pre-voicing. Dental fricatives /θ ð/ produced by native speakers of English are perceived as [f z] or [s v] by PakE speakers but they produce these fricatives as stop. PakE speakers can realize a difference between clear and dark lateral of English in perception although they do not maintain the same difference in production as they produce English lateral as a clear lateral on onset and coda of syllables. Coronal fricative /ʒ/ is perceived and produced as approximant /j/ and /v w/ as a labial approximant. In PakE [r] is produced with strong trilling and rhoticity on all word-positions.

show abstract

Section: The Voiced Plosives /B D G/mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception and Production of Consonants of English by Pakistani Speakers

Syed¹,

Ansari²,

Bux³

2017

IJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some researchers argue that the contrastive feature is [voice] in both voicing and aspirating languages and that the difference lies in the phonetic implementation of the contrast (Kingston & Diehl 1994), others argue that the contrastive phonological feature is [voice] in voicing languages like Dutch, but [spread glottis] in aspirating languages like English (Avery & Idsardi 2001, Kager et al 2007, Honeybone 2005, Iverson & Salmons 1995, 1999, 2003a, 2003b. The former approach has been called the 'Single Feature Hypothesis', the latter the 'Multiple Feature Hypothesis' (Kager et al 2007).…”

Section: Phonetics or Phonology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Honeybone's (2005) argument for this approach comes from the binnendeutsche Konsonantenschwächung, a lenition process through which voiceless /p, t, k/ and voiced /b, d, g/ merge into one category of stops, /b, d, g/. The process is thought to have occurred after Middle High German and its effects are still present in many Central and Upper German Dialects.…”

Section: Phonetics or Phonology?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laryngeal stop systems in contact

Simon

2011

DIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the linguistic forces at work in present-day second language and bilingual acquisition of laryngeal contrasts, and to what extent these can give us insight into the origin of laryngeal systems of Germanic voicing languages like Dutch, with its contrast between prevoiced and unaspirated stops. The results of present-day child and adults second language acquisition studies reveal that both imposition and borrowing may occur when the laryngeal systems of a voicing and an aspirating language come into contact with each other. A scenario is explored in which socially dominant Germanic-speaking people came into contact with a Romance-speaking population, and borrowed the Romance stop system.

show abstract

“…A large proportion of current work on laryngeal contrast takes the view that voicing distinctions are represented by a set of at least two privative primes (say for instance [spread glottis] and [voice]) rather than a single equipollent [±voice] prime (Halle & Stevens 1971;Itô & Mester 1986;Harris 1994;Iverson & Salmons 1995;Honeybone 2005; to name but a few). It is also well known that nasals are most commonly found only in the voiced series cross-linguistically, and that there is systematic interaction between nasal segments and voice in many languages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Melodic heads, saliency, and strength in voicing and nasality

Breit

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Melodic Heads in Element Theory (Kaye et al. 1985; Harris & Lindsey 1995; Backley 2011) have long been associated with higher acoustic saliency of the headed prime’s properties (Lindsey & Harris 1990; Backley 1995; Harris & Lindsey 1995; et alia) and with the relative strength (e.g. alignment of melodic heads with strong positions and robustness of headed expressions against lenition) of a melodic head compared to a dependent (e.g. Backley & Nasukawa 2009). Following substantial work on the interaction of voicing and nasality (Nasukawa 1997, 2005; Ploch 1999; Botma 2004) it is commonly assumed that voicing and nasality are both represented by the same prime |L|, with dependent |L| encoding nasality and headed |L| encoding voicing. In this paper I counter some of the arguments for the universality of this implementation, and develop an alternative view of a unified voicing–nasality prime, in which voicing is encoded by dependent |L| and nasality by headed |L|. I show how this analysis is more consistent with both the saliency and strength arguments by considering arguments based on the represented acoustic patterns, positional strength, nasal sharing (nasal harmony within onset–nucleus pairs), and cross-linguistic biases against loss of nasality. Finally, I show how this account is compatible with a more restrictive, recursive view of the phonological interpretation component following the set theoretic model of Element Theory in Breit (2013). Based on these arguments I conclude that we have good reason to doubt the universality of Nasukawa (1997, 2005) and Ploch’s (1999) implementation; instead we must give serious consideration to the reverse option with headed |L| for nasality and dependent |L| for voicing. I suggest that there are two possible responses to this situation: we can either make the attempt to radically adopt the alternative, or we can adopt a more relativistic position (in the sense of Cyran 2011, 2014) which allows a choice between both options. This article is part of the Special Collection: Headedness in Phonology

show abstract

Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of obstruent laryngeal specifications

Cited by 125 publications

References 52 publications

Perception and Production of Consonants of English by Pakistani Speakers

Perception and Production of Consonants of English by Pakistani Speakers

Laryngeal stop systems in contact

Melodic heads, saliency, and strength in voicing and nasality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About