Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:38:36.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prenasalized stops and speech timing.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Ian Maddieson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Extract

Prenasalized stops, that is, homorganic nasal+stop elements that behave as single phonological segments, raise a number of interesting questions concerning the relationship between phonological units and timing in speech. Do complex phonetic elements of this kind occupy the same duration as simpler elements, such as plain stops or nasals? Do prenasalized stops have the same timing pattern as a phonological sequence of nasal plus stop? How do prenasalized stops act with respect to rules which adjust the duration of neighboring segments? For example, would a vowel before a prenasalized stop be shortened by the widespread rule which shortens a vowel in a closed syllable (Maddieson 1985)? It has been argued that the status of prenasalized stops as single segments is directly related to their duration. They have been defined as nasal+stop sequences with the duration typical of other single segments (Herbert 1986). He, and Sagey (1986), in her dissertation on complex segments, both indicate that they would expect phonological consonant sequences to have longer durations than single segments regardless of whether the single segments are phonetically simple or complex. On the other hand, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1986) suggest that there is no demonstrated phonetic difference in timing between nasal+stop sequences and prenasalized stops. Purported language-internal contrasts between these elements actually involve a difference between geminate and single nasals before stops (as in Sinhalese), or between syllabic and non-syllabic nasals before stops. They suggest that deciding if a nasal+stop element is a prenasalized stop is not a phonetic issue but one which concerns solely the phonology of the language in question.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1989

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

Browman, C. and Goldstein, L.M. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 219252.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1964). Sound duration and place of articulation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 17, 175207.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1979). Temporal relations in consonant-vowel syllables with stop consonants based on Danish materials. In Lindblom, B. & Öhman, S. (editors) Frontiers of Speech Communication Research. New York: Academic Press, 5168.Google Scholar
Fourakis, M.S. (1980). A phonetic study of sonorant-fricative clusters in two dialects of English. Research in Phonetics (Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington) 1, 167200.Google Scholar
Geraghty, P.A. (1983). A History of the Fijian Languages (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Stevens, K.N. (1967). On the mechanism of glottal vibration for vowels and consonants. Quarterly Progress Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT 85, 267270.Google Scholar
Herbert, R.K. (1986). Language Universals, Markedness Theory and Natural Phonetic Processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, D.H. (1979). Synthesis by rule of segmental durations in English sentences. In Lindblom, B. and Öhman, S. (editors) Frontiers of Speech Communication Research. New York: Academic Press, 287300.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P and Maddieson, I. (1986). (Some of) The Sounds of the World's Languages. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 64.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. and Rapp, K. (1973). Some Temporal Regularities of Spoken Swedish. Papers from the Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 21.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification. In Fromkin, V.A. (editor) Phonetic Linguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nurse, D. (1981). Chaga/Taita. In Hinnebusch, Thomas H., Nurse, Derek & Mould, Martin (editors) Studies in the Classification of Eastern Bantu Languages. Hamburg: Buske, 127180.Google Scholar
Sagey, E.C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Ph. D. dissertation. M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. (1984). The temporal effects of homorganic medial nasal clusters. Research in Phonetics (Indiana University, Bloomington) 4, 197233.Google Scholar