Prenasalized and postoralized consonants: The diverse functions of enhancement

Abstract

We propose that contour nasals come from two principal sources. One source, articulatorily driven, comes from underlying voiced stops, as nasal venting in order to sustain voicing. The other, perceptually driven, comes from underlying nasal consonants, as shielding next to contrastively oral vowels. Although both processes are phonetically well motivated, we argue that the contoured allophones specifically arise in languages in which systemic or phonotactic restrictions allow for easy recoverability of the corresponding underlying segment. Finally, we present a few cases of contour nasals in preconsonantal contexts that seem to be neither venting nor shielding, and suggest that these arise due to place-of-articulation enhancement in clusters. We offer diagnostics for distinguishing nasal venting from shielding and present case studies from South American languages in which understanding such phenomena as enhancement involves analytical commitments to what is contrastive in the language.

Coarticulation in Phonology

“…For instance, rather than regressive nasal consonant to vowel coarticulation, hyperarticulation can also be realized as progressive oral-vowel to nasal consonant coarticulation. A related type of variation in the timing of nasalization has been observed on partially nasalized consonants; for instance, Wetzels and Nevins (2018) report on cases where partially nasalized stops (e.g., [m b a]) might have arisen diachronically from situations where the orality of the adjacent vowel is enhanced and overlaps on a nasal segment, leading to a partially nasalized allophone as observed in languages such as Kaingang (Southern Jê, Brazil) and Negarotê (Northern Nambikwara).…”

Nasal allophony and nasalization in Xochistlahuaca Amuzgo

“…Similar nasal phonemes with complex nasal allophones arising in oral environments are attested in the Austronesian languages of Acehnese (Durie 1985) and Jambi Malay (though only in coda positions according to Durvasula 2010); Jê languages of the Brazilian Amazon like Kaingang (Anderson 1976) or Panará (Lapierre, forthcoming); Harakmbut (an isolate of Peru; Van Linden forthcoming); Tupí-Guarani languages like Chiriguano (Dietrich 1986, Lapierre & Michael 2018, and Kaiwa (Bridgeman 1961). A survey of data is found in Stanton (2018) and review of similar phenomena is found in Wetzels & Nevins (2018). These accounts follow Haudricourt (1970), Hyman (1975), Herbert (1986), Michaud et al (2012) and others, to characterize these allophonic alternations as a form of protection of oral-nasal vowel contrast.…”

“…nasal-based. The lack of contrastive voicing typical of Durvasula's first type is recruited to enhance oral-nasal contrast by shielding(Stanton 2018, Wetzels & Nevins 2018.…”

“…Surface voice contrast of the plosive in [N͡ DV] is actually a feature of nasal sonorants rather than the plosives themselves, an example of how noncontrastive features, here plosive voicing, can be employed to augment contrast of nasality-orality(Stanton 2018, Wetzels & Nevins 2018, as previously discussed. Thus, [N͡ DV] can only come from /NV/, and [NTV] from /NTV/.…”

A Diachronic Account of Exceptional Progressive Nasalization Patterns in Guarani Causatives

“…Preserving the /V/∼/Ṽ/ contrast in this environment requires a mechanism to prevent the nasal coarticulation of the vowel and maintain its oral character (Stanton 2018). 27 This is accomplished in PTG (and other Amazonian non-TG languages) by oralizing the release phase of the consonant (environmental shielding : Stanton 2018;Wetzels and Nevins 2018). This yields postoralized (not "prenasalized") contour consonants first in the onset of stressed syllables with an oral nucleus where the contrast is phonological.…”