Lenition, perception and neutralisation

Abstract

This paper argues that processes traditionally classified as lenition fall into at least two subsets, with distinct phonetic reflexes, formal properties and characteristic contexts. One type, referred to as loss lenition, frequently neutralises contrasts in positions where they are perceptually indistinct. The second type, referred to as continuity lenition, can target segments in perceptually robust positions, increases the intensity and/or decreases the duration of those segments, and very rarely results in positional neutralisation of contrasts. While loss lenition behaves much like other phonological processes, analysing continuity lenition is difficult or impossible in standard phonological approaches. The paper develops a phonetically based optimality-theoretic account that explains the typology of the two types of lenition. The crucial proposal is that, unlike loss lenition, continuity lenition is driven by constraints that reference multiple prosodic positions.

Schwa has an articulatory target in American English

“…The higher-than-expected F1 values associated with schwa could just be a vehicle for that contrast. This explanation parallels the explanation provided by Kingston (2008) and Katz (2016) for consonant lenition. Kingston and Katz argue that just as there are pressures signaling prosodic prominence, there could be pressures signaling prosodically weak positions as well.…”

“…Given that such differences may require the approaching of particular acoustic targets, a perceptually-neutral schwa may behave as if it does have an articulatory target (Hall, 2003). In this case, rather than merely serving as the best articulatory path between preceding and following contexts, schwa would do more, or serve additional functions, namely signaling that it is not some other vowel or that the syllable in which it occurs is not stressed (along the lines of an argument made for consonant lenition in Katz, 2016;Katz & Fricke, 2018). Therefore, it is necessary to determine (a) where the articulatorily-neutral position in American English is (in acoustic terms), and (b) whether that position is similar to that of American English schwa.…”

The phonetics and phonology of lenition: A Campidanese Sardinian case study

“…We refer to the set of characteristically intervocalic lenition processes including voicing and spirantization as continuity lenition, to distinguish them from processes such as debuccalization that are not characteristically favored in intervocalic contexts, and that arguably do not share the continuity/disruption profile of the processes investigated here (Ségéral & Scheer, 2008;Smith, 2008;Szigetvari, 2008;Katz, 2016). All of the generalizations in this study are limited in scope to continuity lenition and its complementary fortition.…”

“…Other approaches instead locate the functional motivation for lenition on the side of the listener. One such approach claims that lenition is fundamentally geared towards helping the listener recover prosodic constituents (Keating, 2006;Kingston, 2008;Katz, 2016). The idea is that lenited consonants are relatively vowel-like, fortified consonants less vowel-like.…”

Production planning and coronal stop deletion in spontaneous speech

“…In prosodic phonology, particular processes are associated with specific prosodic domains, and effectively serve the purpose of encoding phonological domains. Some processes have been characterized as 'fortition,' such as the strengthening observed at the beginning of prosodic domains and related phonological phenomena (see Keating, 2006, for a review), other have been characterized as 'lenition' within prosodic domains (Katz, 2016;Kingston et al, 2008).…”