Cover not available

In:Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 145–162

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

The relative salience of consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing

 | Tohoku Gakuin University
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c9
Arguments for a clear affinity between nasality and voicing can be found in the phonology literature (Nasukawa 1998, 2005a; Kula and Marten 1998; Ploch 1999, Botma 2004). In contrast to traditional feature theories, these arguments attempt to capture the nasality-voicing correlation by claiming that the two properties are different phonetic manifestations of a single unified nasal-voice feature |N|: this is interpreted as nasality when non-headed but as true obstruent voicing when headed. Under this approach, headedness contributes to melodic complexity and relative phonetic saliency: a truly-voiced expression (i.e. the realisation of headed |N|) is more complex than its nasal counterpart (i.e. the realisation of non-headed |N|) and also more salient. However, so far there has been no agreement on the precise definition of salience when applied to these two properties, the confusion arising from the use of different types of acoustic measurements. To address this issue, this chapter considers the relative salience of consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing with reference to the modulated-carrier model of speech.
Article outline
  • 1.Representing consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing using a single unified feature
  • 2.The relative salience of nasality and true voicing according to the sonority scale
  • 3.Relative salience in terms of the modulated carrier-signal of speech
  • 4.Consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing
    • 4.1Nasal consonants
    • 4.2Truly voiced obstruents
    • 4.3Modulations: Their comparison and combinatorial possibilities
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (46)
References
Abramson, Arthur S. & Leigh Lisker. 1970. Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences . Academia, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague, 569‒573.
Backley, Phillip. 1998. Tier geometry: An explanatory model of vowel structure. PhD dissertation, University College London, University of London.
. 2011. An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Kuniya Nasukawa. 2009. Headship as melodic strength. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology, 47‒77. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Toyomi Takahashi. 1998. Element activation. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), Structure and Interpretation: Studies in Phonology, 13–40. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Botma, Bert. 2004. Phonological Aspects of Nasality: An Element-Based Dependency Approach (LOT dissertation series 90). PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breit, Florian. 2013. Voice-nasality interaction and headedness in voiceless nasals. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 201‒221.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charette, Monik 1991. Conditions on Phonological Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denes, Peter B. & Elliot N. Pinson. 1993. The Speech Chain: The Physics and Biology of Spoken Language. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duanmu, San. 2016. A Theory of Phonological Features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu. 1962. Analysis of nasal consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34: 1865–1875. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7: 255–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Licensing Inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14: 315–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Vowel reduction as information loss. In Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds.), Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, 119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority. Lingua 116(10): 1483‒1494.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Why final devoicing is weakening. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology, 9‒46. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Lenition. Intensive Lecture Series, The Graduate School of Tohoku Gakuin University.
Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, 34‒79. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, 185‒205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Catherine Ringen. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19: 189‒218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D., Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7: 193–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kent, Ray D. & Charles Read. 1992. The Acoustic Analysis of Speech. San Diego, CA: Singular Production Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C. 2002. The Phonology of Verbal Derivation in Bemba. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, LOT dissertation series65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C. & Lutz Marten. 1998. Aspects of nasality in Bemba. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 191‒208.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A Course in Phonetics, 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 1995. Melodic structure and no constraint-ranking in Japanese verbal inflexion. Paper presented at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Essex, UK.
. 1998. An integrated approach to nasality and voicing. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), Structure and Interpretation: Studies in Phonology, 205–225. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005a. A Unified Approach to Nasality and Voicing. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. The representation of laryngeal-source contrasts in Japanese. In Jeroen van de Weijer, Tetsuo Nishihara & Kensuke Nanjo (eds.), Voicing in Japanese, 79–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005c. Melodic complexity in infant language development. In Maria Tzakosta, Claartje Levelt & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Developmental Paths in Phonological Acquisition. Special issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.1, ULCL, Leiden University, 53–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The phonetic salience of phonological head-dependent structure in a modulated-carrier model of speech. In Bridget Samuels (ed.), Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology (Linguistik Aktuell), 121–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable , 319–338.
Ohala, John J. & Haruko Kawasaki-Fukumori. 1997. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Stig Eliasson & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds.), Language and Its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, Vol. 100, 343‒365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne N. 1992. Variability in feature dependency: The case of nasality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 33–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ploch, Stefan. 1999. Nasals on my mind: The phonetic and the cognitive approach to the phonology of nasality. PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Rice, Keren. 1993. A re-examination of the feature [sonorant]: The status of ‘sonorant obstruents’. Language 69: 308‒344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Thorstein Fretheim (ed.), Nordic Prosody II, 111‒140. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut 1994. Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory. Phonetica 51: 170‒183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Speech considered as modulated voice. Ms. Stockhlolms universitet.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue