Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:20:59.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A re-examination of phonological neutralization1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Daniel A. Dinnsen
Daniel A. Dinnsen
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most fundamental constructs of phonological theory past and present is ‘neutralization’, i.e. the merger of a contrast in certain contexts. It is as basic as such other constructs as ‘contrast’, ‘distinctive feature’, and ‘segment’. While there exists a substantial body of literature on the phonetics of various phonological constructs (e.g. acoustic correlates for features, acoustic invariance, descriptive phonetics of particular languages, instrumental measurement techniques and segmentation criteria), the phonetics of neutralization has largely been assumed on the basis of casual impressionistic phonetics. The assumption is that forms which are distinguishable phonetically and phonologically in certain contexts and/or levels of representation (e.g. intervocalic voiced and voiceless obstruents in German) are under certain other well-defined circumstances totally indistinguishable at the level of phonetics (e.g. only voiceless obstruents occur word-finally in German).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , September 1985 , pp. 265 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Abramson, A. & Lisker, L. (1970). Discriminability along the voicing continum: Cross language tests. Proceedings of the VIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1975). On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. JL 11. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica 22. 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Connell, P. J. & Eckman, F. (1982). A study of comprehension and production of the /p/ – /b/ contrast by Arabic learners of English. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Connell, P. J. & Parks-Reinick, L. R. (1982). Perception of anti-neutralization devices by misarticulating children. Presented at the National Convention of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
Costa, P. J. & Mattingly, I. G. (1981). Production and perception of phonetic contrast during phonetic change. Status Report on Speech Research SR-67/68, Haskins Laboratories. 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (1978). Neutralization and archiphoneme: two phonological concepts and their history. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (1983) Phonological neutralization. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo. Tokyo: Gakushuin University. 598–601.Google Scholar
DeCesaris, J. (1980). Consonant alternations in Catalan. Innovations in Linguistics Education 1. 65–84.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1980). Phonological rules and phonetic explanation. JL 16. 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1982a). On the phonetics of phonological neutralization. Presented at the Working Group on Language/Speech Behaviour. XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo. Abstract in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists. Tokyo: Gakushuin University, 1983 p. 1294.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1982b). Abstract phonetic implementation rules and word-final devoicing in Catalan. Presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. (1984). Methods and empirical issues in analyzing functional misarticulation. In Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Weismer, G. (eds.) Phonological theory and the misarticulating child. Washington, D.C.: ASHA Monographs. 5–17.Google Scholar
Dinssen, D. A. & Charles-Luce, J. (1984). Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics 12. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., Elbert, M. & Weismer, G. (1979). On the characterization of functional misarticulation. Presented at the National Convention of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A., Elbert, M. & Weismer, G. (1980). Some typological properties of functional misarticulation systems. In Dressler, W. U. (ed.) Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft. 83–88.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Garcia-Zamor, M. (1971). The three degrees of vowel length in German. Papers in Linguistics 4. 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dissosway-Huff, P. (1981). Japanese difficulty with English /l/ and /r/: Importance of both perception and production research in second-language acquisition. Research in Phonetics 2. 227–260.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. & Stampe, D. (1979). The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–173.Google Scholar
Fisher, W. & Hirsh, I. (1976). Intervocalic flapping in English. Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 183–198.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M. (1980). A phonetic study of sonorant-fricative clusters in two dialects of English. Research in Phonetics 1. 167–200.Google Scholar
Fox, R. A. & Terbeek, D. (1977). Dental flaps, vowel duration and rule ordering in American English. Journal of Phonetics 5. 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannini, A. & Cinque, U. (1978). Phonetic status and phonemic function of the final devoiced stops in Polish. Speech Laboratory Report. Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. (1978). Contrastive Polish-English consonantal phonology. Warsaw, Poland: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. (1973). Some non-rules of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Also appears in Jazayery, M., Polome, E. C. & Winter, W. (eds.) Linguistic studies in honor of A. A. Hill. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. R., Stager, S., & Daniloff, R. (1983). Perception and production of misarticulated /r/. JSHD 48. 210–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houlihan, K. & Iverson, G. (1979). Functionally-constrained phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 50–73.Google Scholar
Huff, C. (1980). Voicing and flap neutralization in New York City English. Research in Phonetics 1. 233–256.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (1983). Sound change in perception and production. Lg 59. 18–34.Google Scholar
Janson, T. & Schulman, R. (1983). Non-distinctive features and their use. JL 19. 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, M. (1942). A phonological dilemma in Canadian English. Lg 18. 141–144.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. D. (1974). Opacity and recoverability in phonology. CJL 19. 134–149.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. D. (1975). A functional explanation for rule ordering in phonology. Funclionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 244–252.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. (1979). Generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1976). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.) The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague; Mouton. 160–186.Google Scholar
Kornfield, J. & Goehl, H. (1974). A new twist to an old observation: Kids know more than they say. Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 210–219.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. (1980). The question of rule ordering: Some common fallacies. JL 16. 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Lg 57. 267–308.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: NSF Report.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. & Abramson, A. (1967). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics. Proceedings of the VIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Mascaro, J. (1978). Catalan phonology and the transformational cycle. MIT Doctoral Dissertation. (Also Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.)Google Scholar
O'Dell, M. & Port, R. (1983). Discrimination of word-final voicing in German. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981). Speech timing as a tool in phonology. Phonetica 38. 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paliwal, K. K., Lindsay, D., & Ainsworth, W. A. (1983). Correlation between production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 11. 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, D. B., Aslin, R. N., Percy, A. J. & Hennessy, B. L. (1982). Some effects of laboratory training on identification and discrimination of voicing contrasts in stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8. 297–314.Google ScholarPubMed
Port, R. (1976). The influence of speaking tempo on the duration of stressed vowel and medial stop in English trochee words. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Port, R. & Mitleb, F. (1980). Phonetic and phonological manifestations of the voicing contrast in Arabic-accented English. Research in Phonetics 1. 137–162.Google Scholar
Port, R., Mitleb, F. & O'Dell, M. (1981). Neutralization of obstruent voicing in German is incomplete. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America, Miami.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, C. (1980). Phonetic evidence for a phonological rule: G-deletion in Turkish. Research in Phonetics 1. 217–232.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1972). Natural rules in phonology. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 199–229.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. & Strange, W. (1982). The acquisition of r and l by Japanese learners of English: evidence that speech production can precede speech perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 3. 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slowiaczek, L. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1984). Neutralization and word-final devoicing in Polish. Research on Speech Perception 10, 197–220.Google Scholar
Waldman, F. R., Singh, S. & Hayden, M. E. (1978). A comparison of speech-sound production and discrimination in children with functional articulation disorders. Lang Speech 21. 205–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, T. (1977). On the necessity of rule ordering in Natural Generative Phonology. Presented at the VIIth Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Weismer, G. (1984). Acoustic analysis strategies for the refinement of phonological analysis. In Elbert, M., Dinnsen, D. A. & Weismer, G. (eds.) Phonological theory and the misarticulating child. Washington, D.C.: ASHA Monographs. 30–52.Google Scholar
Weismer, G., Dinnsen, D. A. & Elbert, M. (1981). A study of the voicing distinction associated with omitted word-final stops. JSHD 46. 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M. (1979). Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (1983). Catalan in recent phonological theory. Estudis en honor de Josep Roca-Pons. Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat. 53–66.Google Scholar
Zue, V. & Laferriere, M. (1979). Acoustic study of medial /t, d/ in American English. JAcS 66. 1039–1050.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1972). Note on a phonological hierarchy in English. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 275–301.Google Scholar