Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:09:27.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reductive sound change and the perception/production interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Randall Gess
Randall Gess*
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I propose a phonetically-oriented constraint-based model of speech production that differs from recent approaches in assuming preservation constraints that refer directly to articulatory gestures rather than to perceptual cues. Articulatory gesture preservation constraints interact with a constraint that penalizes the expenditure of articulatory effort. Specific constraints and rankings are projected from a static perceptual knowledge source. Before exploring the model in detail, I address evidence that has been used to argue against precisely this type of “Articulatory Phonology-inspired” approach. The evidence, used to justify the claim that lenition cannot be modeled as gestural reduction alone, is shown to be problematic.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, je propose un modèle de la production de parole qui est basé sur des contraintes et des principes phonétiques, et qui, contrairement à des approches récentes, fait référence directe aux gestes articulatoires et non pas aux traits perceptuels. Les contraintes de préservation des gestes articulatoires interagissent avec une contrainte qui pénalise la dépense d’efforts articulatoires. Les contraintes spécifiques et leurs classements sont projetés d’une source de connaissances perceptuelles statiques. Avant d’explorer le modèle en détail, je discute des données qui ont été avancées pour disputer l’adéquation de cette sorte d’approche, dite inspirée de la phonologie articulatoire. Je montre que ces données, avancées pour soutenir l’affirmation que la lénition ne peut pas être modelée comme la simple réduction des gestes, sont problématiques.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 229 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1990. Three recurrent changes in Oceanic languages. In Pacific Island languages: Essays in honour ofG.B. Milner, ed. Davidson, J.H.C.S., 7–28. London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis. 2002. Gestural timing and derived-environment effects in Norwegian clusters. In WCCFL 21 Proceedings, ed. Mikkelsen, L. and Potts, C., 43–56. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis. 2004. Gestural timing and rhotic variation in Spanish codas. In Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, ed. Face, Timothy L., 195–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis. 2005. Systemic markedness and phonetic detail in phonology. In Experimental and theoretical approaches to Romance linguistics, ed. Gess, Randall and Rubin, Edward J., 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bradley, Travis. 2007. Morphological derived-environment effects in gestural coordination: A case study of Norwegian clusters. Lingua 117:950–985.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6:201–251.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1990. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. Kingston, John C. and Beckman, Mary E., 341–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49:155–180.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Costa, D.J. 1991. The historical phonology of Miami-Illinois consonants. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:365–393.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2003. The atoms of phonological representation: Gestures, coordination, and perceptual features in consonant cluster phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Demolin, Didier. 2001. Some phonetic and phonological observations concerning /R/in Belgian French. In Sociolinguistic, Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics of/r/. Special issue of Études et Travaux 4, ed. Velde, Hans van de and Hout, Roeland van, 63–73.Google Scholar
Denning, Keith. 1989. The diachronic development of phonological voice quality, with special reference to Dinka and the other Nilotic languages. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J., Foulkes, Paul, Milroy, James, Milroy, Lesley, and Walshaw, David. 1997. Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics 33:275–310.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1987. A grammar ofLimbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Feng, Gang and Castelli, Eric. 1996. Some acoustic features of nasal and nasalized vowels: Target for vowel nasalization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99:3694–3706.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:269–337.Google Scholar
Gerdel, Florence L. 1985. Páez: Pitch and stress in the phonological word and phrase. In From phonology to discourse: Studies in six Colombian languages. Language data, Amerindian series, 9, ed. Brand, Ruth M., 31–42. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall. 1998. Phonetics versus phonology in sound change: An Optimality Theoretic perspective. Texas Linguistic Forum 41:71–86.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall. 1999a. Rethinking the dating of Old French syllable-final consonant loss. Diachronica 16:261–296.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall. 1999b. Positional faithfulness vs. cue preservation: The case of nasal sequence resolution in Gallo-Romance. In Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics, ed. Authier, Jean-Marc, Bullock, Barbara E., and Reed, Lisa A., 121–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall. 2003. On re-ranking and explanatory adequacy in a constraint-based theory of phonological change. In Optimality theory and language change, ed. Holt, D. Eric, 67–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall. 2004. Phonetics, phonology and phonological change in Optimality Theory: Another look at the reduction of three-consonant sequences in Late Latin. Probus 16:21–41.Google Scholar
Ghazeli, Salem. 1977. Back consonants and backing coarticulation in Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano and Savoia, Leonardo. 1978. Indebolimento consonantico in Toscana. Revista Italiana di Diallettologia 2:23–58.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy. 2003. Gestures and segments: Vowel intrusion as overlap. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic materials in Warndarang: Grammar, texts and dictionary. Pacific Linguistics Series B 72. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan A., Wayland, Ratree, and Wong, Serena. 1998. Acoustic properties of English fricatives. In Joint Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Acoustics and the 135th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, ed. Kuhl, Patricia K. and Crum, Lawrence A., 2935–2936.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 2004. Place assimilation. In Perceptually based phonology, ed. Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 58–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kari, James. 1976. Navajo verb prefix phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2001. An effort-based approach to lenition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2004. Consonant lenition. In Perceptually based phonology, ed. Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 113–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurowski, Kathleen and Blumstein, Sheila E.. 1984. Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76:383–390.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laufer, Asher and Condax, Iovanna D.. 1979. The epiglottis as an articulator. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 9:50–56.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa. 1996. Consonant strength: Results of a data base development project. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 11:269–316.Google Scholar
Lipski, John. 1984. On the weakening of /s/ in Latin American Spanish. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51:31–43.Google Scholar
Lozano, Maria del Carmen. 1979. Stop and spirant alternations: Fortition and spirantization processes in Spanish phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. 1956. Acoustic cues for nasal consonants: An experimental study involving a tape-splicing technique. Language 32:274–284.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Laboratory phonology 111: Phonological structure and phonetic form, ed. Keating, Patricia, 191–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April and Foulkes, Paul. 1995. Sound change, phonological rules, and articulatory phonology. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 9:1–20.Google Scholar
Nakata, Kazuo. 1959. Synthesis and perception of nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31:661–666.Google Scholar
Newman, Daniel L. 2002. The phonetic status of Arabic within the world’s languages: The uniqueness of the lughat al-daad. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 100:63–75.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1974. The Kanakuru language. Leeds: Institute of Modern English Studies, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Nivens, Richard. 1992. A lexical phonology of West Tarangan. In Phonological studies in four languages of Maluku, ed. Burquest, Donald A. and Laidig, Wyn D., 127–227. Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In The Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, Vol. 2: Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Ziolkowski, Michael, Noske, , and Deaton, Karen, 319–338. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ourso, Meterwa A. and Ulrich, Charles H.. 1990. Sonorant-strengthening in Lama. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 20:135–147.Google Scholar
Passy, Paul. 1891. Étude sur les changements phonétiques et leurs caractères généraux. Paris: Librairie Firmin-Didot.Google Scholar
Pope, Mildred K. 1952. From Latin to Modern French with especial consideration of Anglo-Norman. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Popjes, Jack and Popjes, Jo. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. I, ed. Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 128–199. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E.G. 1984. Middle Chinese: A study in historical phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Romero, J. 1995. Gestural organization in Spanish: An experimental study of spirantization and aspiration. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Andrée F. 1963. Uzbek structural grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. 1973. The sound pattern of Ancient Greek. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: Perceptual account. In The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith, 219–250. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2009. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. Hanson, Kristin and Inkelas, Sharon, 151–179. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Story, Gillian. 1984. Babine and Carrier phonology: A historically oriented study. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1985. Nkore-Kiga. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 1998. The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29:497–511.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2002. The Armenian dialects of Jerusalem. In Armenians in the Holy Land, ed. Stone, Michael, 1–19. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1987. Italian. In The world’s major languages, ed. Comrie, Bernard, 279–302. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In Phonetically based phonology, ed. Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 34–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar