Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:31:43.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is vowel nasalisation phonological in English? A systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

MARTIN KRÄMER
MARTIN KRÄMER*
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Culture, University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vowel nasalisation in American English has been the subject of a long discussion as to whether it is a phonological process or whether it should better be analysed as phonetic coarticulation. As a predictable allophonic process, vowel nasalisation also provides a testing ground for theories of lexical representation, since if it turns out that language users store this predictable information in long-term memory, there is no reason to assume any kind of phonological underspecification. In this article, experimental studies on this phenomenon are reviewed with these two questions in mind: is the phenomenon a phonological process at all and is this predictable information, i.e. vowel nasalisation, stored in the mental lexicon. The majority of studies provide evidence supporting the phonological view and underspecified lexical representations.

Keywords

American Englishphonologyphoneticsvowel nasalisationexperimental evidencelexiconunderspecification
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 405 - 437
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Patrick Honeybone for their helpful suggestions.

References

Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–207.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. & Ringen, Catherine O.. 2004. Contrast and redundancy in OT. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23, 101–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 1993. The perception of nasal vowels. In Huffman, M. K. & Krakow, R. A. (eds.), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 171–96. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2007. Nasals and nasalization: The relation between segmental and coarticulatory timing. In Trouvain, J. & Barry, W. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany. http://nasal.icphs.free.fr/biblio_nasal_icphs/article_pour_reviewer/nasalization_ICPhS_1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, McGowan, Kevin B., Boland, Julie E., Coetzee, Andries W. & Brasher, Anthony. 2013. The time course of perception of articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133 (4), 2350–66.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representations. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol. 1, 123–41. Salford: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI), University of Salford Publications.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 2002. Surface-to-surface morphology: When your representations turn into constraints. In Boucher, P. (ed.), Many morphologies, 142–77. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani, Tobin, Stephen, Bresch, Erik & Narayanan, Shrikanth. 2009. Timing effects of syllable structure and stress on nasals: A real-time MRI examination. Journal of Phonetics 37, 97–110.Google Scholar
Chen, Marilyn Y. 1997. Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102, 2360–70.Google Scholar
Chen, Nancy E., Slifka, Janet L. & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2007. Vowel nasalization in American English: Acoustic variability due to phonetic context. Paper presented at the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 1993. Nasalisation in English: Phonology or phonetics. Phonology 10, 43–81.Google Scholar
Davenport, Mike & Hannahs, S. J.. 1998. Introducing phonetics and phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Eulitz, Carsten. 2007. Representation of phonological features in the brain: Evidence from mismatch negativity. Paper presented at the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken. www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1744/1744.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1960. Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Flagg, Elissa J., Cardy, Janis E. Oram & Roberts, Timothy P. L.. 2006. MEG detects neural consequences of anomalous nasalization in vowel–consonant pairs. Neuroscience Letters 397, 263–8.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. & Brown, Julie M.. 2000. Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 21–32.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew. 2000. Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. Proceedings of NELS 30. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 1985. Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the nonnasal–nasal distinction for vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77, 1560–75.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2009. Introductory phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Henke, Eric, Kaisse, Ellen M. & Wright, Richard. 2012. Is the Sonority Sequencing Principle an epiphenomenon? In Parker, Steve (ed.), The sonority controversy, 65–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horiguchi, S. & Bell-Berti, F.. 1987. The Velotrace: A device for monitoring velar position. Cleft Palate Journal 24 (2), 104–11.Google Scholar
House, A. S. & Stevens, K. N.. 1956. Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 21, 218–32.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2015. Why underlying representations? UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, 210–26. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. 2007. Some MEG correlates for distinctive features. Paper presented at the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken. www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1745/1745.pdfGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. In Proceedings of NELS 25, 287–302. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2003. Acoustic & auditory phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, H. 1986. Phonetic explanation for phonological universals: the case of distinctive vowel nasalization. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, 81–103. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1990. The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, 451–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. 1989. The articulatory organization of syllables: A kinematic analysis of labial and velar gestures. PhD thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. 1993. Nonsegmental influences on velum movement patterns: Syllables, sentences, stress, and speaking rate. In Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology, vol. 5: Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 87–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2012. Underlying representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Marslen-Wilson, William. 1991. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245–94.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Reetz, Henning. 2002. Underspecified recognition. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, 637–75. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Reetz, Henning. 2010. Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics 38, 44–59.Google Scholar
Madison, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malécot, André. 1960. Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Language 36, 222–9.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce, Lenhert-LeHouiller, Heike & Bardham, Neil. 2009. The perception of nasalized vowels in American English: An investigation of on-line use of vowel nasalization in lexical access. Poster presented at Nasal 2009, 5 June, Montpellier, France. www.sas.rochester.edu/lin/people/faculty/mcdonough_joyce/assets/pdf/Nas09McDetal.pdfGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April. 2002. An introduction to English phonology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Nazarré & Tesar, Bruce. 2008. Learning underlying forms by searching restricted lexical subspaces. In Proceedings of the Forty-First Conference of the Chicago Linguistics Society (2005), vol. II, 33–48. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2009. An introduction to English phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 17, 178–203. Chicago.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari. 1995. Speech perception and lexical representation: The role of vowel nasalization in Hindi and Urdu. In Connell, Bruce & Arvaniti, Amalia (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV: Phonology and phonetic evidence, 41–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2008. Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua 118: 1362–74.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. In press. Faithfulness in phonological theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2004. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.), Optimality Theory: A reader, 271–89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peltola, Maija S. 2007. Speech sound perception and neural representations. Paper presented at the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI), Saarbrücken. www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1746/1746.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, 101–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. (First circulated in 1993 as a technical report. Rutgers University and University of Colorado.)Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 245–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Proctor, Michael, Goldstein, Louis, Lammert, Adam, Byrd, Dani, Toutios, Asterios, Narayanan, Shrikanth. 2013. Velic coordination in French nasals: A real-time magnetic resonance imaging study. Proceedings of Interspeech 14, 577–81.Google Scholar
Rogers, Henry. 2000. The sounds of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1972. The phrase phonology of English and French. Phd thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 2006. A critical introduction to phonology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 1992. Phonetic and phonological processes: The case of nasalization. Language and Speech 35, 29–43.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 1995. Spatio-temporal patterns of velo-pharyngeal action in phonetic and phonological nasalization. Language and Speech 38, 1–23.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Redundant values. In Bosch, A., Need, B. & Schiller, E. (eds.), CLS 23: Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, 339–62. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 114–74. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Andrade, A. & Céu Viana, M.. 1988. Perception of vowel nasalization in VC contexts: A cross-language study. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 82, S119.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce. 2014. Output-driven phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce, Alderete, John, Horwood, Graham, Nishitani, Koichi, Merchant, Nazarre & Prince, Alan. 2003. Surgery in language learning. In Garding, Gina & Tsujimura, Mimu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 477–90. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English, 3 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Press.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 2013. The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar