The Phonology and Phonetics of Ambiguity: A Case …cunyphonologyforum.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2015/01/Bjorndahl-handout.pdf · The Phonology and Phonetics of Ambiguity: A Case Study

1/31

Introduction Distribution Phonological Patterning Phonetic Study Conclusion

The Phonology and Phonetics of Ambiguity:A Case Study of /v/

Christina Bjorndahl

Cornell University

January 13, 2012

2/31


Motivation: Russian /v/

Patterns as an obstruent• Undergoes final devoicing• Undergoes regressive voicing assimilation

Patterns as a sonorant• Does not trigger regressive voicing assimilation

“. . . the Standard Russian V . . . occupies an obviously intermediateposition between the obstruents and the sonorants”

Jakobson (1978)

3/31


Inventories containing /v/

Frequency of /v/

• PBase: 200/548 (36.5%)• UPSID: 95/451 (21.1%)

Frequency of /v/ & /f/

• PBase: 167/548 (30.5%)• UPSID: 77/451 (17.1%)

Frequency of /v/ & /f/no /w, B

fl, V/

• PBase: 39/548 (7.1%)• UPSID: 23/451 (5.1%)

Figure: Mielke (2011), website

4/31


Languages with /v, f/ no /w, B, V/ (PBase)

Indo-European (20)• Slavic (6): Bulgarian, Czech, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovene,

Ukranian• Germanic (4): Afrikaans, Danish, Swedish, Yiddish• Indo-Aryan (3): Dhivehi, Burgenland-Romani, Sepecides-Romani• Indo-Iranian (2): Persian, Northern Talysh• Italic (2): Italian, Miogliola Ligurian• Armenian (1): Armenian• Baltic (1): Latvian• Greek

Austronesian (6)• Kwamera, Pileni, Rotuman, Sinaugoro, Tuvaluan, Wolio

5/31


Languages with /v, f/ no /w, B, V/ (continued)

• Altaic (Turkic): Iranian Azari, Turkish• Niger-Congo: Bantu• Creoles: Berbice Dutch Creole, Kristang• Afro-Asiatic (Semitic): Hebrew• Arawakan: Resigaro• Austro-Asiatic: Khmer• Oto-Manguean: Lealao Chinanteco• Sino-Tibetan: Bisu• Uralic (Finno-Ugric): Hungarian

6/31


Overview: Cross-linguistic patterning of /v/

ObstruentPolish*, Greek

SonorantSerbian, Icelandic

AmbiguousRussian, Hungarian

Factors• Structure of the inventory• Static patterning (distribution)• Dynamic patterning (phonological processes)• Phonetics

6/31


Overview: Cross-linguistic patterning of /v/

ObstruentPolish*, Greek

SonorantSerbian, Icelandic

AmbiguousRussian, Hungarian

Factors• Structure of the inventory• Static patterning (distribution)• Dynamic patterning (phonological processes)• Phonetics

7/31


Greek: Inventory

Labial Interdental Alveolar VelarStop p (m)b t (n)d k (N)gFricative f v T D s z x G

Affricates >ts

>dZ

Nasal m nLateral lRhotic r

8/31


Greek: Word-initial Clusters

p b t d k g f v T D x G s z r l m np pt (ps) pr pl pnb br blt ts tr tmd dz drk kt (ks) kr kl kng gr glf ft fT fx fr flv vD vG vr vlT Tr Tl TnD Drx xt xT xr xlG GD Gr Gl Gns sp st sk sf sx smz zv zGrlm mnn

9/31


Greek: Phonological Processes

Final DevoicingN/A

Voicing AssimilationLittle evidence of voicing assimilation as an active process; wordscan only end in vowels, [s, n]

(1) a. /tis Dino/ > [tiz Dino], I give herb. /tis varvaras/ > [tiz varvaras], Barbara’sc. /tous barbaDes/ > [touz barbaDes], the uncles, acc.d. /tis mamas/ > [tiz mamas], the mother’s

(2) [evGlotos] ‘eloquent’ ∼ [efstaTia] ‘steadiness’ (same prefix)

10/31


Serbian: Inventory

Labial Alveolar Palatal VelarStop p b t d k gFricative f s z S„ Z„ x

Affricates >ts«

>tS«

>dZ«

>tS„

>dZ„

Nasal m n ñLateral l LRhotic rApproximant v j

11/31


Serbian: Word-initial Clustersp b t d f s z x m n l r v j

p pl pr (pj)b bl br (bj)t tl tr tv (tj)d dl dr dv (dj)k kl kr kvg gl gr gvf fl fr (fj)s sp st sf sx sm sn sl sr sv (sj)z zb zd zm zn zl zr zv (zj)x xl xr xvm ml mr (mj)n (nj)l (lj)rv vl vr (vj)j

12/31


Serbian: Phonological Processes

Final DevoicingN/A

Voicing Assimilation

(3) a. /s-paziti/ > [spaziti], observeb. /s-gaziti/ > [zgaziti], tramplec. /s-loziti/ > [sloziti], put togetherd. /s-variti/ > [svariti], digest

(4) [ovca], sheep

13/31


Russian: Inventory

Labial Dental Palato-Alveolar VelarStop p b t d k g

pj bj tj dj (kj) (gj)Affricates ts tSj

Fricative fj vj s z S Z xfj vj sj zj (xj)

Nasal m nmj nj

Lateral llj

Rhotic rrj

Approximant v, vj j

14/31


Russian: Word-initial clusters

p b t d k g f v s z S Z x m n l r jp ps pS pn pl pr pjb bl br bjt tk tv tl tr tjd dv pn dl dr djk kp kt kv ks km kn kl krg gb gd gv gz gn gl grf ft fk fs fl fr fjv vd vz vZ vm vn vl vr vjs sp st sf sv sx sm sn sl sr sjz zb zd zg zv zm zn zl zr zjSZx xv xl xrm Sm ml mr mjn njl ljrj

15/31


Russian: Phonological Processes

Final Devoicing

(5) a. [sled-a] ∼ [slet], track (gen./nom.sg)b. [mil] ∼ *[mil

˚], dear

c. [prav-a] ∼ [praf], right (fem./masc.)

Voicing Assimilation

(6) a. /v ruke/ > [v ruke], in one’s handb. /v gorode/ > [v gorode], in the cityc. /v supe/ > [f supe], in the soup

16/31


Russian: Phonological Processes (cont)

Voicing Assimilation (cont)

(7) a. /ot-pustitj/ > [otpustitj], releaseb. /ot-brositj/ > [odbrositj], throw asidec. /ot-nesti/ > [otnesti], carry awayd. /ot-vesti/ > [otvesti], lead away

17/31


Summary: Phonological Patterning of /v/

Obstruent /v/

Greek

Sonorant /v/

Serbian

Ambiguous /v/

Russian

Unknown /v/

Yagaria• CV syllable structure• No voicing assimilation• No nasal harmony

No evidence either way as to how/v/ is categorized with respect tosonorancy.

17/31


Summary: Phonological Patterning of /v/

Obstruent /v/

Greek

Sonorant /v/

Serbian

Ambiguous /v/

Russian

Unknown /v/

Yagaria• CV syllable structure• No voicing assimilation• No nasal harmony

No evidence either way as to how/v/ is categorized with respect tosonorancy.

18/31


Phonetic Study: Motivation

Why do a phonetic study?

• Because it hasn’t been done. . .• Given the diversity of patterning, it’s hard to understand howGreek /v/ and Serbian /v/ are tokens of the same type;perhaps understanding the phonetics of [v] in these languagescan shed some light.

• Recent explanations of Russian /v/ rely on the “phonetics” of[v] being somehow “intermediate”, but this hasn’t beenquantified. (Padgett (2002); Kavitskaya (1999)).

• Phonetic studies that have been done have only focussed on asingle language (Lulich (2004) for Russian; Kiss and Bárkányi(2006) for Hungarian).

19/31


How many [v]’s exist?

To what extent does the three-way patterning of /v/ correlate withthe phonetic realization of [v]?

3Relationship between phonological patterning and phonetics is 1-1.

1Relationship highly abstract; explanation for patterning purelygrammatical.

2• {Greek, Serbian} vs. {Russian}• {Serbian, Russian} vs. {Greek}• {Greek, Russian} vs. {Serbian}

20/31


Phonetic Study

• Greek, Serbian, Russian• 7 native speakers of each language• Cornell University or University of Toronto• SD722 digital recorder; 44100 Hz, 16-bit• Hand-segmented in Praat• High pass filtered at 1000 Hz• Resampled to 22050 Hz & analysed in Matlab

21/31


Stimuli

• [f, v, T, D, x, G, s, z, m]

• C1VC2V(C)• Stressed in both syllables• Flanking vowels: /a, o/

• 5 randomized word lists

Greek[eGrapsa ____tris fores]

Serbian[kaZe jetsa ____opet]

Russian[sveta skazala ____opet]

22/31


Measures & Normalization

Measures• Spectral moments

• Centroid• Skewness

• (Relative duration)

Windowing

• Hann window, 23.2ms• windowed every 10ms• 512-point FFT• spectral measures middle 3windows averaged

OutliersEliminated outliers with z-score > 2.5; mean calculated across alltokens of segment within language.

23/31


Spectral Measures: Centroid and Skewness

Figure: Spectrogram of [sa], Russian

24/31


Spectral Measures: Centroid and SkewnessExample Spectrum: [s]

25/31


Spectral Measures: Centroid and SkewnessExample Spectrum: [a]

26/31


Spectral Measures: Centroid and SkewnessExample Spectrum: [f]

27/31


Normalization & Predictions

NormalizationFor each measure and for each speaker s,

• µ[f ],s = mean value for utterances of [f], averaged acrosswords and repetitions of that speaker

• For each measurement xi of speaker s, the relative measure xiis xi − µ[f ],s

Thus, xi provides a measure of the relative difference in thespectral measures of [v, s, z, m] to [f], for each speaker.

PredictionThe more obstruent the articulation of [v], the smaller thedifference in centroid and skewness from µ[f ].

28/31


Relative Centroidword initial, stressed syllable

29/31


Relative Skewnessword initial, stressed syllable

30/31


Summary and (Tentative) Conclusions

These data point to 2 kinds of [v], and group Greek and Russiantogether, to the exclusion of Serbian [v].

• Measures for [v] in Greek and Russian are similar to eachother, and are close to [f].

• Measures for [v] in Serbian are more similar to sonorant [m],and differ greatly from [f].

Conclusions?• Serbian /v/ is really [V] – transcriptions are wrong!

Unlessthere exists an even “more sonorant” /v/ and [v]...

• Russian /v/ is phonetically an obstruent... Or is it?Languages with contrasting labial approximants were excluded– maybe that’s what it takes to get a true “obstruent” [v]

30/31






Conclusions?• Serbian /v/ is really [V] – transcriptions are wrong! Unlessthere exists an even “more sonorant” /v/ and [v]...

• Russian /v/ is phonetically an obstruent...

Or is it?Languages with contrasting labial approximants were excluded– maybe that’s what it takes to get a true “obstruent” [v]

30/31






Conclusions?• Serbian /v/ is really [V] – transcriptions are wrong! Unlessthere exists an even “more sonorant” /v/ and [v]...

• Russian /v/ is phonetically an obstruent... Or is it?Languages with contrasting labial approximants were excluded– maybe that’s what it takes to get a true “obstruent” [v]

31/31


Thank you!

Documents

The Phonology and Phonetics of Ambiguity: A Case …cunyphonologyforum.ws.gc.cuny.edu/files/2015/01/Bjorndahl-handout.pdf · The Phonology and Phonetics of Ambiguity: A Case Study