BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis 3–4. Contrast in English ...seas3.elte.hu/analysis/analysis0304-slides.pdf · BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis 3–4. Contrast in English

BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis

3–4. Contrast in English consonants

Zoltán G. Kiss, Péter Szigetvári, Miklós Törkenczy

Dept. of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University

z. g. kiss (elte|delg) analysis 3–4 | consonant contrast 1 / 98

aims

aims for today and next time

◮ contrast among English consonants


aims



◮ di=erent models/analyses of contrasts


aims




◮ laryngeal contrast: phonetics and distribution


aims





◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization


aims





◮ when contrast disappears: neutralization

◮ voicing assimilation


models

steps of scientific approaches

1. observe something interesting in the real world that needs explanation

2. set up a hypothesis = create a model that represents but is not equalto reality, use this model to predict future events in the real world

3. test the hypothesis: collect data, see if the model predicts what we seein the real world

4. if the data. . .

◮ . . . support hypothesis: retain it◮ . . . do not support hypothesis: reject it, look for new explanations


models

science: fitting models to reality


models

modelling language

modelling language is di;cult: we don’t have access to ‘reality’ = the brain


models

language as a black box = generating “machine”

the model of language needs to be built based on the input and the output


models

modelling sound contrast

our focus today and next time: to set up a model of sound contrast


contrast

speech = bundle of phonetic features

◮ we can think about speech sounds as a bundle of phonetic features

◮ these features can be related to articulation: articulatory gestures inthe vocal tract

◮ lips, teeth, tongue position, position of the velum, manner ofarticulation, vocal fold vibration, etc.


contrast

example

What phonetic features are needed to produce the word base?

Features b eI s

V-height mid

V-clipping clipped

Voicing voiced voiced voiceless

Nasality oral oral oral

C-place labial alveolar

C-manner stop fricative

. . . . . . . . . . . .

– are all these necessary to express contrast?


contrast

two approaches to features

classical phonemic & generative approach

◮ only those features are part of language that are unpredictable andcontrastive

◮ predictable features are introduced by phonological rules

◮ simpler model

phonetically-grounded approach

◮ even predictable (“redundant”) features are part of language (not justspeech)

◮ phonetically “richer” model

◮ one given contrast can be aided (“cued”) by several features, not justone


contrast

F. de Saussure: language = a system of contrasting signs

For language, only those phonetic features are “relevant” which can beused to express contrast between words and which are unpredictable.


contrast

phonetic di=erence 1: vowel length and nasality

Long Clipped Nasalized

save [seIv] ∼ safe [seIf ] ∼ sane [seIn]made [meId] ∼ mate [meIt] ∼ main [meIn]maze [meIz] ∼ mace [meIs] ∼ main [meIn]


contrast

phonetic di=erence 2: vowel height

Mid Low

pale [peIl] ∼ pile [paIl]

Dave [deIv] ∼ dive [daIv]


contrast

phonetic di=erences

1. [eI] ∼ [eI] ∼ [eI]: long ∼ clipped ∼ nasalized

2. [eI] ∼ [aI]: mid ∼ low


contrast

not all phonetic di=erences are equal

◮ vowel height causes contrast: pale 6= pile

◮ vowel clipping and nasality never cause contrast, no minimal pairs

◮ vowel height: part of language (part of the inventory), contrastive,phonemes

◮ vowel clipping and nasality: not part of language (not part of theinventory), redundant, allophones


contrast

predictability

s v – [eI]

s f – [eI]

s n – [eI]


contrast

unpredictable: [eI] or [aI]?

p l – both [eI] or [aI]


contrast

two levels of analysis = two approaches to sounds


contrast



contrast



contrast



contrast

phonology: mapping phonemes onto allophones


contrast

generative model of phonology

◮ underlying/lexical representation (input): only those sound propertiesthat are contrastive (= phonemes)

◮ phonological rules that derive the surface representation from theunderlying representation

◮ surface representation (output = speech): contrastive + predictablesound properties


contrast

underlying representation: only contrastive properties

(underspecification)

Properties b eI s

V-height mid

V-clipping !

Voicing voiced ! voiceless

Nasality oral ! oral

C-place labial alveolar

C-manner stop fricative


consonant contrasts

consonant contrasts in English


consonant contrasts

the consonant inventory (contrastive consonants)

◮ sonorants◮ glides: /j w/◮ liquids: /l r/◮ nasals: /m n N/

◮ obstruents◮ stops: /p b t d k g/◮ fricatives: /f v T D s z S Z h/◮ a=ricates: /Ù Ã/


consonant contrasts

the contrast of obstruents in English

what’s the contrastive feature in these?:

tie – diewriter – riderbeat – bead


consonant contrasts

main questions

◮ what features make the contrast possible?

◮ do these features “survive” in all position?

◮ are they the same in other languages, like HUN & GER?


consonant contrasts

obstruent groups

OBSTRUENTSStops & A=ricates Fricatives

/p/ /b/ /f/ /v//t/ /d/ /T/ /D//k/ /g/ /s/ /z//Ù/ /Ã/ /S/ /Z/


laryngeal contrast

the traditional view

tie ↔ die/t/ ↔ /d/

file ↔ vile/f/ ↔ /v/

“voiceless” ↔ “voiced”


laryngeal contrast

laryngeal contrast in obstruents

◮ the phonological contrast of “voicing” is signalled (“cued”)by a complex of features: there are several correlates of this contrast

◮ vocal fold vibration is only one of them

◮ let’s refer to the phonological contrast as laryngeal contrast

◮ voicing is a narrowly used phonetic term: vocal fold vibration (alsocalled: phonation)


laryngeal contrast

some phonetic correlates of laryngeal contrast in

obstruents

◮ voicing/phonation: vocal fold vibration

◮ Voice Onset Time (VOT)

◮ relative length of preceding vowel

◮ glottalization

◮ release noise/burst: intensity & length


laryngeal contrast voicing

framework of the larynx



the vocal folds + glottis in the larynx



states of the vocal folds



cross-section of the larynx



vocal fold vibration: the Bernoulli e=ect



steps of vocal fold vibration

vocal fold vibration happens because of air pressure changes (aerodynamicreasons):

1. vocal folds loosely close

2. air pressure increases below vocal folds

3. air pressure blows vocal folds apart (glottis opens)

4. speed of air particles increases through narrow glottis

5. air pressure decreases below/within vocal folds ⇒ vocal folds suckedtogether (Bernoulli e=ect)

6. vocal folds are closed again, a cycle like this repeats itself approx.100–300 times/second

7. the cycles last until the state of glottis changes (e.g., opens to producea voiceless sound)



types of voicing

1. passive/modal/spontaneous voicing: open oral cavity – this helps tostart and maintain voicing because air pressure will be low in themouth but high below vocal folds; sonorants

2. passive devoicing: closure/constriction in mouth – this creates highair pressure above vocal folds, which inhibits vocal fold vibration;obstruents

3. active voicing: extra articulatory e=ort is needed to maintain voicing inobstruents, e.g., lower larynx to enlarge oral cavity

4. active devoicing: extra articulatory e=ort to maintain voicelessness



phonetic di;culty of voicing in obstruents

◮ voicing is di;cult to maintain in obstruents: they prefer to be devoiced

(every language has voiceless stops, there are languages that onlyhave voiceless stops, but none that have only voiced stops)

◮ languages use 2 strategies:◮ additional articulatory gestures (active voicing): Hungarian, Spanish,

Polish, Dutch. . .◮ partial or full devoicing (passive devoicing): English, German, Swedish,

Norwegian, Danish. . .

◮ lenis stops: ‘weakly voiced’, ‘not voiced in all positions’

◮ in English: ‘voiced’ obstruents are typically devoiced, except between 2sonorants: ready, bandit. . .

◮ in Hungarian: “voiced” obstruents are typically voiced in all positions(initially and word-finally, too): bab, babos. . . ; cf. voicing assimilationthough



classic English literature: Jones

Jones (1918: 154)

In voiced plosive consonants the amount of voice heard during the stopmay vary. [. . . ] When a voiced plosive [. . . ] occurs between two vowels (asin about), voice sounds throughout the whole of the stop.

In English when /b d/ and /g/ occur initially [. . . ], they are partially devoiced[. . . ] i.e. voice is not heard during the whole of the stop but only during partof it, generally the latter part. With some speakers the voice disappearsaltogether [. . . ].

With many speakers [. . . ] final voiced plosives [are] partially or evencompletely devoiced [. . . ]. [These] consonants are very weak voicelessplosives consonants.



classic English literature: Gimson

Gimson (1962: 32; 152)

A voiceless/voiced pair such as [s, z] are distinguished not only by thepresence or absence of voice but also by the degree of breath and musculare=ort involved in the articulation. Indeed, [. . . ] in certain situations, thevoice opposition may be lost, so that the energy of articulation becomes asignificant factor. Those English consonants which are usually voiced tendto be articulated with relatively weak energy, whereas those which arealways voiceless are relatively strong. Thus, it may be important to define[s] as strong or fortis and [z] as weak or lenis.

The lenis series /b d g/ may have full voicing [. . . ] when they occur [. . . ]between voiced sounds e.g. labour, leader, eager [. . . ]. In initial andespecially in final positions, [. . . ] while remaining lenis, may be partiallyvoiced or completely voiceless.


laryngeal contrast VOT

laryngeal contrast in stops/plosives: Voice Onset Time

definition

the time between the release of the stop and the start of vocal fold vibrationof the vowel or sonorant

direction of VOT

◮ positive (aspiration, fortis stops = voiceless aspirated)

◮ zero (neutral/lenis = voiceless unaspirated)

◮ negative (truly voiced stops (unaspirated))

length of VOT

– in the case of positive and negative VOT: short or long



positive, long-lag VOT: aspiration (#paces)



aspiration in closeup



negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish)



negative VOT: voiced stop (Spanish)



positive VOT: aspirated, voiceless stop = fortis



positive VOT: aspirated, voiceless stop = fortis



zero VOT: unaspirated, voiceless stop = neutral








laryngeal contrast VOT summary

VOT typology: summary

– contrast based on VOT: 2 main types of languages

1. voicing languages:zero VOT ⇔ − VOT= voiceless-unaspirated ⇔ voiced-unaspiratede.g., Spanish, Hungarian, French, Dutch. . .

2. aspirating languages: zero VOT ⇔ + VOT= voiceless-unaspirated (lenis) ⇔ voiceless-aspirated (fortis)e.g., English, German, Danish. . .



comparing English & Hungarian

ENG HUN

pig big pig(ment) big(ott)

aspirated? + − − −

voiced? − − − +



warning!

◮ be careful: don’t be mislead by spelling

◮ spelling uses arbitrary symbols to indicate contrast

◮ if two languages use the same letter, it does not necessarily mean that

the contrast is based on the same phonetic feature!

◮ the p letters are the same, but the phonetic content is very di=erent:

E. pig 6= H. pigment; E. big 6= H. bigott



contrast in English vs. Hungarian

E pig—big: /ph/—/p/

H pig(ment)—big(ott): /p/—/b/


laryngeal contrast positions

laryngeal contrast of stops/plosives vs. positions

◮ so far two phonetic features have been used for the laryngeal contrast:voicing & aspiration

◮ they are not equally active in all phonetic positions

1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel: repél – rebél2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel: tíe – díe3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel: wríter – ríder



1. between sonorants, before a stressed vowel

repél rebélvoiced? − +aspirated? + −

– both features are active in this position for the contrast



2. word-initial, before a stressed or unstressed vowel

tíe díevoiced? − −

aspirated? + −

– only aspiration is active in this position for the contrast



3. between sonorants, before an unstressed vowel

wríter rídervoiced? − +aspirated? − −

◮ only voicing is active in this position for the contrast

◮ note: length of stops is relatively short here, and voicing may continuethroughout the stop: /t/ may become a flap [R] in American English,but not /p/ or /k/: rápid – rábid still contrast


laryngeal contrast word-final

absolute word final position: beat – bead

◮ in this position, voicing is di;cult to maintain

◮ since nothing follows the stop, aspiration is also impossible



no contrast in beat – bead?

beat beadvoiced? − −

aspirated? − −

◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position?

◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated hereto maintain the contrast. . .



halfway summary

◮ overall topic: how to model phonological contrast

◮ focus: laryngeal contrast in consonants (obstruents)

◮ 2 models: classical generative vs. phonetically-grounded

◮ laryngeal contrast is signalled/“cued” by several phonetic features

◮ features so far: voicing/phonation, VOT

◮ these features are not equally active in all positions



ranking of positions based on laryngeal contrast

preservation in stops

1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V (repél – rebél) >2. word-initial, before a stressed/unstr. V (tíe – díe) >

3. medial, between sonorants, before an unstressed V (wríter – ríder)

X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’(where X and Y are positions)



no contrast in beat – bead?


aspirated? − −

◮ has English given up contrast in word-final position?

◮ or maybe there are features other than voicing that get activated hereto maintain the contrast. . .


laryngeal contrast neutralization

neutralization: the beer goggle e=ect



neutralization

The disappearance of contrast under a given condition.(= The local suspension of a phonological oppositionbetween two or more contrastive sound segments.)



neutralization examples: vowel reduction

◮ a wide range of vowels can appear in a stressed syllable but inunstressed syllables, vowel contrast is reduced to a handful of vowels(primarily the schwa)

◮ senténtial ∼ séntence e ∼ @

systémic ∼ sýstem e ∼ @

morálity ∼móral æ ∼ @

symbólic ∼ sýmbol 6 ∼ @

atómic ∼ átom 6 ∼ @

harmónious∼ hármony oU ∼ @

mystérious ∼mýstery I@ ∼ @

dráma ∼ dramátic A: ∼ @

sulphúrious ∼ súlphur jU@∼ @

◮ opposition: full vowels, condition: unstressed syllable, output: /@/



neutralization examples: /s/ and /S/

◮ /s/ is in contrast with /S/

◮ so – show, mass – mash, parcel – partial, universal – controversial, etc.

◮ word-inital, pre-consonantal position: /S/ only before /r/, and /s/ isbefore any other consonant

◮ /Sr/: shrub, shrivel, shrink, shrug. . . but never */St/, */Sp/, */Sk/, etc.

◮ /s/ + C: steam, sport, sky, etc.

◮ opposition: /s/ – /S/, condition: word-inital, pre-consonantal position,output: either /Sr/ or /s/ + C (where C 6= /r/)



neutralization examples: nasal + stop clusters

◮ nasals contrast with respect to place of articulation

◮ sin – SIM – sing: /n/ – /m/ – /N/

◮ before a stop: only one can occur, whose place depends on followingstop

◮ e.g., print /nt/, but no /m/ or /N/ before /t/

StopsNasal /p/ /t/ /k/

/m/ limp — —/n/ — tent —/N/ — — link /Nk/

◮ opposition: /n/ – /m/ – /N/, condition: before a stop, output: onlyone nasal can occur, the contrast is suspended before a given stop



neutralization?

◮ laryngeal contrast in word-final position

◮ beat – bead, back – bag, loose – lose, leaf – leave, etc.

◮ opposition: obstruents, condition: word-final position, output: onlyvoiceless-unaspirated obstruents

◮ based on this, beat and bead are supposed to be pronounced the sameway: beat [bi:t] = bead [bi:t] (homophones)

◮ this does not seem to be the case!



“redundant” features to the help

◮ correlates of laryngeal contrast so far: voicing and aspiration – butthey are not active in word-final position

◮ there are other correlates of the laryngeal contrast

◮ they seem to emerge more saliently when contrast is in danger (as inword-final position):

◮ relative length of preceding vowel◮ glottalization◮ other features: release noise, articulatory strength/e=ort/force


laryngeal contrast vowel length

relative length of preceding vowel

◮ vowels are shorter (clipped) before fortis obstruents than before lenisobstruents: Pre-Fortis Clipping

◮ speak – speed,mate – made,rope – robe,write – ride,root – rude,cap – cabloose – lose,leaf – leave

◮ clipping is redundant/predictable but it cues the contrast here


laryngeal contrast glottalization

pre-glottalization/glottal reinforcement

◮ glottal closure quickly closes down the voicing of the vowel, followedby the oral closure of the fortis stops & a=ricate

◮ happens word-finally or when they are followed by another consonant

◮ right [raIPt], shop [S6Pp], shot [S6Pt], shock [S6Pk], April ["eIPprl],fatness ["fæPtn@s], football ["fUPtbO:l], reach [ri:PÙ], etc.

◮ it only happens for the fortis consonants:mate [meIPt] – made [meIt],seat [siPt]– seed [si:t]

◮ it is another indicator of the fortis – lenis contrast!

◮ it happens where the contrast between fortis & lenis stops couldpotentially disappear

◮ note: glottalization may well be just a more salient/forceful versionof pre-fortis clipping: the vowel is cut by glottal closure



contrast is salvaged in beat – bead


aspirated? − −

preceding V shorter? + −

glottalization? + −



redundancy is actually important

◮ remember: classical phonemic/generative model claims that whateveris predictable has no “information value”, it’s noncontrastive, hencenot part of language (only part of speech)

◮ contrary to the classical phonemic/generative model,predictable-redundant features may actually be important to maintaincontrast in certain situations

◮ vowel-clipping is predictable, yet it is crucial in preserving contrastword-finally (beat – bead, bit – bid, rope – robe, etc.)

◮ it is only sporadically present in other contexts like repél – rebél, whereother features safely signal the contrast


laryngeal contrast other features

other features?

◮ research is ongoing whether other features play a role in laryngealcontrast preservation or not

◮ release noise: length and intensity seem to be only present in fortisstops

◮ articulatory strength: lenis stops are claimed to be articulated with lesse=ort



release noise

◮ can be a cue of laryngeal contrast for stops in English

◮ the tongue is more saliently released after the fortis stops than afterthe lenis stops

◮ /t/ seems to have the noisiest release, it is often a=ricate-like /ts/

◮ “voicing” languages often use this cue for the contrast: voiced stopsmay have a voiced release, which may evolve into a schwa-like vowelsound (as in French, bag [bag@], buzz [b2z@])



articulatory e=ort?

◮ traditional literature (Gimson) often cite this as a cue for laryngealcontrast

◮ fortis obstruents: more energy, articulatory e=ort, stronger contact ofthe articulatorslenis obstruents: relatively weak energy, less articulatory e=ort

◮ this e=ort di=erence is supposed to remain active in all positions,including word-finally

◮ problem: no reliable phonetic definition of ‘energy’, ‘e=ort’, ‘strength’exists, and experiments have failed to show its relevance in laryngealcontrast



Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) on articulatory strength

The Sounds of the World’s languages, pp. 96, 98:

“Measures of the force of contact between the articulators [. . .] generallyfailed to show that pairs such as /p/ and /b/ di=ered in the expected way,and the idea of articulatory strength was widely considered amongphoneticians to be discredited. [. . .] There does not seem to be anindependent use of articulatory strength as a contrastive parameter.”



articulatory e=ort?

◮ traditional fortis may simply mean ‘voiceless strongly aspirated stop’,lenis: ‘a voiceless stop without aspiration’, and so fortisness/lenisnessis simply a synonym for + vs. zero VOT (aspiration vs. no aspiration)

◮ articulatory strength is what may cause the length di=erence betweenclosure: fortis stops are longer (and the vowel before them is shorter)than lenis stops

◮ it may only be a relevant factor in the laryngeal contrast of fricatives:feel – veal, file – vile, sip – zip, leaf – leave, bus – buzz, etc.


laryngeal contrast fricatives

correlates of laryngeal contrast for fricatives

◮ /T/ – /D/, /f/ – /v/, /s/ – /z/, /S/ – /Z/

◮ voicing/phonation, preceding vowel length and intensity signal thecontrast

◮ aspiration, glottalization, release do not seem to play a role



1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V

◮ conféction – convéction, defíed – divíde

◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast



2. word-initial, before a V

◮ sip – zip, cellar – Zellar, fain – vein, fault – vault, feel – veal,sheet /Si:t/ – gite /Zi:t/, thigh /TaI/ – thy /DaI/

◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue: initial fricatives seem to beactively voiced in English (unlike the stops), no danger for contrast



3. medial, between sonorants, after a stressed V

◮ míssle – mízzle, grístle – grízzle, rífle – ríval, Óphir /"@Uf@/ – óver/"@Uv@/, Áisha – Ásia, Ásher – ázure, tréssure – tréasure, Confúcian –confúsion

◮ voicing/phonation is the primary cue, no danger for contrast



4. absolute word-final position

◮ leaf – leave, brief – breve, calf – calve, safe – save, bus – buzz, race – raise,hiss – his, ruche /ru:S/ – rouge /ru:Z/, teeth /ti:T/ – teethe /ti:D/, loath

– loathe

◮ for similar reasons as for stops, vocal fold vibration in this position isdi;cult to maintain

◮ relative vowel and consonant length emerge to maintain the contrast

◮ /T f s S/: have a shorter vowel before them and they are articulatedlonger than

◮ /D v z Z/: preceding vowel is relatively longer and they are articulatedrelatively shorter


laryngeal contrast fric + stop

fortis fricative + stop clusters

◮ so far we have not seen neutralization of the laryngeal contrast

◮ fortis fricative + stop clusters:◮ /s/ + C: speak, sport, spring, stéreo, stúpid, string, school, scheme, sketch,

discóver, displáy, expláin. . .◮ /f/ + C: caftán, fiftéen

◮ the laryngeal contrast is completely neutralized in this position: onlyan unvoiced-unaspirated stop (= lenis) may occur here (especially after/s/)

◮ this stop “sounds” like a usual lenis stop for native speakers when weget rid of the fricative – DEMO


laryngeal contrast ranking

ranking of positions based on laryngeal contrast

preservation in stops

1. medial, between sonorants, before a stressed V (repél – rebél) >2. word-initial, before a stressed/unstr. V (tíe – díe) >

3. medial, between sonorants, before an unstressed V (wríter – ríder) >4. absolute word-final (beat – bead) >

5. after fortis fricatives (sport/stop/school)

X > Y = ‘X has more/better features to maintain the contrast than Y’(where X and Y are positions)


laryngeal contrast voicing assimilation

regressive voicing assimilation (RVA)

◮ when two (or more) obstruents with di=erent laryngeal specificationsstand next to each other: C1C2

◮ within the same word (C1C2) or across a word boundary (C1# C2)

◮ laryngeal specification of C2 influences/spreads to/is assimilated by

C1: he was sent /z/ + /s/ → [ss], good time /d/ + /t/ → [tt]

◮ if either only fortis+fortis or lenis+lenis clusters are possible, then thiswould be laryngeal neutralization of obstruents before anotherobstruent



RVA in Hungarian is neutralizing

◮ háztól ‘from house’ /z/+/t/ → [st]

◮ népzene ‘into the flour’ /p/+/z/ → [bz]

◮ Koszos lettem a mé[st]ol.‘I became dirty from the ?lime / ?honey’mész /me:s/ ‘line’ ↔ méz /me:z/ ‘honey’mésztol = méztol: complete neutralization



sonorants do not cause RVA

◮ mésznek ‘for the lime’ /s/ + /n/ → *[zn]

◮ mésznek does not become méznek: no laryngeal neutralization

◮ képnek ‘for picture’ [pn] *[bn], töröknél [kn] *[gn] ‘at Turk(ish)’,zokni ‘socks’ [kn] *[gn]

◮ reason: sonorants are passively voiced, passive voicing cannot spreadto other sounds

◮ only actively voiced and actively devoiced/fortis sounds can spreadtheir voicing and devoicing/fortis feature to other sounds – as inHungarian for example

◮ in English too: batman [tm] *[dm], putney [tn] *[dn], replay [pl] *[bl]

◮ Slovak is exceptional: Krásny kvet má pät’ malých lupienkov. [dm]‘The beautiful flower has 5 petals.’Položili kvet a . . . . [da]‘They laid the flower and. . . ’



laryngeal properties of word-initial obstruents in English

1. /p t k T f s S/: contain active devoicing/fortisness, prediction: theycan cause devoicing in preceding obstruents

2. /D v z Z/: seem to contain active voicing, prediction: they may causevoicing in preceding obstruents

3. /b d g/: do not contain a voicing feature, prediction: they do notcause voicing in preceding obstruents



fortisness of /p t k T f s S/ can spread in English

◮ is Pete going? [sp], live show [fS], grade four [tf ], bead show [ts]

◮ devoicing can spread (C1 becomes voiceless)

◮ but the contrast is not neutralized as other correlates of the contrastdo not change: the vowel will not become shorter (and if C1 is a stop,there is no glottalization either)!

◮ thus: bead show will not become beat show even though both finalconsonants are voiceless



contrast in beat show vs. bead show

beat show bead showvoiced? − −

aspirated? − −





/D v z Z/ may spread (some) voicing in English

◮ work zebra ?[gz], what’s this? ?[zD], beat Zoë ?[dz]

◮ voicing from the lenis fricatives may spread to C1

◮ even though voicing may spread, the contrast is not neutralized asother correlates of the contrast do not change: the vowel will stayshorter and there may be glottalization, too!

◮ thus: beat Zoë will not become bead Zoë even if both final consonantsare (partially) voiced



contrast in beat Zoë vs. bead Zoë

beat Zoë bead Zoëvoiced? (+) (+)

aspirated? − −





/b d g/ do not spread voicing in English

◮ pop group [pg], beat band [tb], black dress [kd], birthday [Td],wishbone [Sb]

◮ there is no laryngeal neutralization in this context

◮ thus: beat band will not become bead band – C2 does not influence C1

at all: all laryngeal features will remain in beat, including itsvoicelessness



contrast in beat band vs. bead band

beat band bead bandvoiced? − −

aspirated? − −




Documents

BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis 3–4. Contrast in English ...seas3.elte.hu/analysis/analysis0304-slides.pdf · BBN–ANG–243 Phonological analysis 3–4. Contrast in English