216 D. Eddington

Stemberger, Joseph Paul (1994). Rule-less morpbology at tbe phonology-Iexicon interface.In The Reality o/ Linguistic Rules, Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K.Iverson (eds.), 147-169. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

-( 1996). The scope of Ibe theory: where does "beyond" lie? In Proceedings o/ theParasesslon of the Chicago Linguistlc Society's 321ld Meeting, Lisa McNair, Kora Singer,Lise M. Dobrin, and Michelle M. Aucoin (eds.), 139-164. Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety.

Wheeler, Cathy l. (1980). On the relationship between phonology and psychology. Papersin Linguistics 13,51-100.

Yngve, Victor H. (1986). Linguistics as o Science. Bloomington and Indianapolis: IndianaUniversity Press.

Zimmer, Karl E. (1969). Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structureconditions. Language 45, 309-32 l.

\

'rt: On the diphthong/hiatus contrast inSpanish: some experimental results*

,;..,..

JOSÉ IGNACIO HUALDE and MÓNICA PRIETO.n,:

Abstract

rs;;~e Spanish dialects have a lexical contrast between sequences in hiatus\ ~~d diphthongs. Thus, whereas, for instance, dueto 'duet' admits a trisyl-

labic pronunciation with the sequence ue realized in hiatus [du. é. tol, theword duelo 'sorrow' can only be pronounced as bisyllabic [dwé.lo J.Similarly, {pi.él '1chirped' contrasts witb {pjél 'foot' in this manner. Theinterest of this phenomenon lies in the fact that it represents a clear caseof phonological contrasts between hiatus and djphthong or, in other terms,between hi h vowels andgJides. What remains largely unknown is tTledialectal extension o t is contrast and how consistently specific items areclassified as belonging to either the hiatus or the diphthong class within agiven dialect or across dialects. In this paper we report on an experimentdesigned to test the consistency of the distinction in Madrid Spanish, as afirst step in the crossdialectal investigation of the phenomenon. We measuredthe duration of the sequence ia in a group of test words inserted in a uniformcarrier sentence. The results show that for all six speakers tested, thehypothesized hiatus and diphthong classes present different durational distri-butions, the sequence ia tending to be longer in hiatus-class words, although Athere is a certain amount of overlap between the groups and some variatiCZ!:!;J

Introduction

r0 Spanish the syllabification of sequenees of rising sonority of the typerepresented by ia, ie, io, ua, ue, ete., is generally predietable: suchsequenees are normally realized as diphthongs (as in the examples in[la)), unless the first element is lexieally stressed, in which case they arealways realized in hiatus, (1b). (In this paper sequences in hiatus ~~elredundantly marked with a syllable break in phonetie representation~

Linguistics 40-2 (2002), 217-234 0024-3949/02/0042-0217«:> Walter de Gruyter

(>'~

""

218 J. l. Hualde and M Prieto

(1) General rulea. Diphthong: varias [bárjas] 'several', Santiago [santjáyo],

caliente [kaljénte] 'hot', amplio [ámpljo] 'wide', dioses [djóses]'gods', guasa [gwása] 'humor', vuelo [bwélo] 'fiight'

b. Hiatus ifi/u stressed: varías [bari.as] 'you vary', sonríe [sonrí.e]'sfhe smiles', desafío [desafí.o] 'challenge', amplío [amplí.o]'1 widen', púa [pú.a] 'barb', fluctúe [fluktú.e] lit fluctuate,subjunctive' .

~

ThNevertheless, it has been noted that, at least in certain dialects, someJ~rds are exceptions to the general rule in (1 a), being realized with hiatuseven though the stress does not fall on the high vowel in the sequenc;1For instance, the words in (2) are given as exceptions to the general rulesin Hualde (1999) (cf. also Real Academia Española 1973: 47-58; NavarroTomás 1977: 159; Monroy Casas 1980; Quilis 1993: 183-188; Harris1969; Harris and Kaisse 1999; Hualde 1991, 1994, 1997, among others)rw Exceptions with hiatus:

riamos [ri.ámos] 'we laugh, subjunctive', cliente [kli.énte] 'client',~biólogo [bi.óloyo] 'biologist', dueto [du.éto] 'duet'.

J Ine total number of lexical items with the configuration in (2) is much\ smaller than that represented by the examples in (la). That is, the hiatus

realization is cJearly exceptional pquences of this type where the firstvocoid does not receive the strs In Hualde (1997, 1999) severallexicaltendencies are mentioned in the distribution of items in the exceptionalhiatus c1ass. First of all, some cases of exceptional hiatus have a morpho-phonological explanation, a fact that has also been pointed out by otherauthors. Thus we may find an exceptional hiatus in a given word if thehigh vocoid is stressed in a morphologically related word; thus, riada[ri.áóa] 'fíood' with lexical hiatus is explained by río 'river' (cf. NavarroTomás 1977: 159). Similarly, the presence of a morphological boundarymay support a pronunciation in hiatus, as in bienio [bi.énjo] 'biennium'vs., for exampl.:: ~lar viento [bjénto] 'wind', Viena [bjéna] 'Vienna',bien [bjén] 'we.!!J ~side from these cases, some phonological contextsalso favor the realization in hiatus in the Castilian dialect consideredin Hualde (1997, 1999). These inc1ude a preceding trill, especial\ywJ,l(q-initial, and the word-initial sequences #(C)ia, #(C~

This is not to say, however, that syllabification is in every case com-pletely predictable from other factors of morphological structure andposition in the word. Certain morphological and contextual factors favor(although they do not strictly determine) either hiatus or diphthong, butthe syllabification of a number of lexical items remains unpredictable

The Spanish diphthongjhiatus contrast 219

even taking all these factors into acco~ Thus, in the speech of theauthors, L[wi]sa contrasts with S[u.í]za 'Switzerland', s[wá]ve 'soft' with \ ~Z[u.á]vo 'Zouave', v[jó]/a with b[i.ó}/ogo 'biologist' and v[já]je 'trip'with m[i.á]ja 'small piece', to give a few examples of w:.ar-minimal pairsfor which there is no identifiable conditioning factillJThis is thus abonafide contrast in syllable structure that cannot be entirely reduced to otherpr~rties of the phonological or morphological conte&

The contrast with which we are concerned is not marked in the conven-tibnal orthography of Spanish - which otherwise does an excellent jobat representing phonological contrasts - and appears to be subject to a 1certain amount of dialectal variation. Nevertheless the fact is that verylittle is known about the dialectal distribution of the phenomenon. Westill don't know how much consistency there is among speaker s ofdifferent dialects, or even within a single dialect, in the pronunciation ofS~ifiC lexicaI ite~

lt should be noted that the existence of this diphthong/hiatus contrasth s important implications for syllabic theory, since it shows that theidentification of syllable nuc1ei and, consequently, the syllabification ofsequences of vocoids cannot be achieved without some type of lexicalmarking in Spanish (see Harris and Kaisse 19~Hualde 1991, 1994,1997; Roca 1997 for different views and análys~In spite of the theoreti-cal importance of the phenomenon, most previous work has relied solelyon speakers' intuitions (which are not always consistent), and very little 1phonetic evidence h~.s~ far been offered for the contrast (Quilis 1993;Monroy Casas 19821JJThe present paper represents a first attempt toundertake a systematic study of the phenomenon taking both speakers'intuitions and acoustic data into accou.ml

A surface contrast in the syllabification of vocalic sequences of risingsonority is also found in other Romance languages, but with a moremarginal phonological status than in Castilian Spanish. In French (seeBattye and Hintze 1992: 127; Walker 2001: 103-106), as in Spanish, thediphthong is the non:;!, but these sequences are bisyllabic after a complexonset; for exarnple, liez [Ije] 'yo u tie up' vs, pliez [plLje] 'you fold' (withan epenthetic glide). This is not a true phonological contrast since thedistribution is completely predictable from other factors of syllable struc-ture (i.e. the presence of. a complex onset). In addition, French alsoallows a hiatus in these sequences across morpheme boundaries, as inanti-aérien. In Italian too the diphthong is the norm in these sequences,but for many speakers there can be a hiatus in cases where the highvowel is stressed in other morphologically related forros. For instance, inthe minimal pair [spjánti] 'you uproot' vs. [spi.ánti] 'spying' (Lepschyand Lepschy 1988: 89), the latter forro owes its hiatus to the fact that it ~

"',-,

220 J. l. Hualde and M. Prieto

belongs to the same morphological paradigm as, for example, [spía] 's/hespies', with stressed li/. As mentioned above, th.is paradigm effect isalso found in Spanish. Neither Italian nor French appears to have casesof completely unpredictable syUabification in the sequences underconsideration.

According to Ch.itoran (1997), Romanian presents a lexical contrastsimilar to that found in Spanish, wh.ich the author represents as onebetween sequences forming a diphthong, such as C[já] (e.g. [pjátro]'stone'), and bisyUabic sequences with a transitional glide, such as C[ijá](e.g. [pijástru] 'Turkish coin'). Although the exact manner in which theseRomanian sequences differ phom;ticaUy from the Spanish ones remainsto be determined, it is c1ear tha~anish shows a somewhat more complex ')situation, since in this language C[já] contrasts both with C[iá] and with (C[ijá]. Sequences of the type [ijá] are found in words like pillado [pijáóo] ((~[pija60J) 'caught', wh.ich contrasts with piado [pi.áño] 'chirped', in thehiatus c1ass, and with limpiado [limpjáño] or viaje [bjáxe] in the diph-thong class.' The existence of th.is third contrasting sequence lendsthe diphthong/hiatus contrast of Spanish even greater theoretical andtypological importance.

1. Methodological considerations

fin this paper we want to initiate an investigation in order to try to answertwo related questions regarding the diphthong/hiatus lexical contrast:

a. Are there c1ear acoustic corre1ates of the diphthong/hiatus contrast?b. To what extent do speakers' syllabification intuitions agree with

their behavior as reflected in objective measurernentInvestigation of th.is phenomenon so far has been for the most part

limited to reports on intuitions, as mentioned above. A problem withrelying on the methodology of asking speakers for their intuitions abouthow specific words are divided into syUables is that, whereas some speak-ers appear to be able to perform this task with great ease, others c1earlydo not do as well in th.is type of task. This is the situation that onetypically finds in other similar lin~istic tasks, such as identifying stressedsyllables. The difference is thatlregarding Spanish stress, we know thatthe majority of speakers do show complete agreement as to where thestress falls in all words, even if a small minority of Spanish speakersappear to be "stress deaf." Th.is nearly universal agreement on intuitionsis what makes the orthographic marking of stress practical in Spanish.

~r the hiatus/diphthong contrast, we still do not know this, and tfacts are further complicated by the existence of a certain amount of

~(

The Spanisb diphthongfhiatus contrast 221

dialectal variation (whose extent is still unknown). Much work remainsto be done to determine the consistency of syllabification intuitions bothwithin and across Spanish dialects.

In this pa~{ we primarily wañtt:o address the questions above, whichrelat~ the physical manifestation of the putative contrast in syllabifica-ti0!.lAddressing this issue involves the analysis of speakers' productions.Tliís is obviously a much more time-consuming procedure than elicitingsyllabification judgments. If, within a given dialect, speakers were toshow sufficient agreement in their syllabification intuitions regardingspecific items and, furthermore, the results of taking certain objectivemeasurements were found to correlate well with speakers' intuitions, infuture work we could simply rely on the intuitions of the majority ofspeakers from a given area for the geographical mapping of the phonolog-ical contrast, just as the intuitions of the majority of speaker s are generallyjudged to be solid enough evidence to determine the position of thesyllable with primary stress in a language like Spanish (Ieaving aside forthis purpose the minority of Spanish speakers who do not have c1earintuitions regarding stress). But first we must dete.rrnine whether there issuch correlation between intuitions and behavior,

For this we must find a feature in the sj>eechSÍgnal that indicates in amore or less straightforward manner whether a given pronunciationcorresponds to a diphthong or to two vowels in hiatus.ÍQuilis (1988:178) remarks that in sequences realized as a diphthong there is a smoothtransition between the beginning and the end of the sequence, whereasin sequences in hiatus there is a more abrupt discontinuity in vowelforrna~(see also Monroy Casas 1980; Quilis 1993: 187-188; Aguilar19972JWhereas for the smoothness vs. abruptness in the change offorrnant values it is not easy to obtain reliable measurements, the samesources point out that under equal conditions there also seems to be adurational difference between dip~ng and hiatus for the Spanishsequences we are considering here. In principie, we may assume that a

[

'giVen sequence will be longer if r;;:jized as a hiatus than as a=.We may thus try to deduce the hiatus/diphthong contrast from durational

f differences in the realization of the sequences under investigati~vr complication for deducing the lexical affiliation of specific itemsfrom the measurement of production toleens is that the words in theexceptional h.iatus c1ass in (2) also allow a pronunciation with a diph-thong in running speech (Hualde 1999). The difference is thus betweena majority c\ass ofwords that only adrnit a diphthong pronunciation andan exceptional c1ass of words that-allow a pronunciation in hiatus, eventhough a diphthong pronunciation is also possible for the~ ~

r\t-..:.,

222 J. 1. Hualde and M. Prieto

2, Procedures and subjects

2.1. Test materials

\In this paper we begin our investigation of the diphthong/hiatus contrastwith the dialect spoken in Madrid. For the reasons mentioned above, westart from the hypothesis that the diphthong/hiatus contrast is refiectedin durational differences. Since different vocalic segments have differentintrinsic durational properties, it is important to control for vowel qualitywhen performing durational measurements. For this reason, we havedecided to concentra te 00 words with the sequence ia. (In future workother sequences will be tested.) Words with a hiatus sequence [i.á) havebeen reported to fall into three classes: (a) words morphologically relatedto other words where the high vocoid is stressed (like riada 'fiood' relatedto río 'river'), (b) compounds (like boquiancho 'wide-rnouthed', fromboca 'mouth' + ancho 'wide'), and (e) other words, without a morphologi-cal explanation, the majority of which contain the sequence in initialposition (Hualde 1997, 1999). (But not all words with initial Cia necessar-ilvJ2.elong to the hiatus class.)

For this prelirninary ex~ent we have selected a list of 20 iternscontaining orthegraphic ia, without stress on the i. These items wereselected in the following manner. One of the authors (who grew upprimarily in Madrid) designed a list of ten words that, according to hisintuitions, contained the hiatus sequence [i.áJ, and paired them with tenother words containing the diphthong [já) matching for phonologiealcontext to the extent that that was possib~e twenty words were thenpresented to the second author (also a native speaker of Castilian Spanish,from the Bilbao area) in written forro and in a random order. She wasasked to classify these words as belonging to the hiatus or to the diph-thong class according to ber intuitions. The agreement between the intu-itions of both authors was complete. It was thus decided to use this listof twenty items to test the consistency io intuitions aod behavior ofsemal naive speakers from Madrid.\

Of the twenty test items, ten thm contain a hiatus sequence [i.á) andthe other ten a diphthong [já) according to the shared linguistic intuitions

Iof the authors. The quality of irnmediately preceding and followingsegments has be en matched as much as this was possible. Ease of segmen-tation (for taking the relevant durational measurements) has also beentaken into account in the selection of examples. In our test materials,seven of the ten examples with postulated hiatus present this sequenceword-initially, whieh are matebed with other words with a word-medialdiphthong. To obtain greater homogeneity, the exarnples with word-

)

The Spanish diphthonglhiatus contrast 223

initial hiatus have been provided with a preceding stress1ess syllable,generally a c!!!5Thus, for instance, el piano is matched with Ulpiano(example takenTrom Monroy Casas 1980) and con Diana is matchedwith Indiana+ The experimental items where the hiatus has a rnorphologi-cal explanation are the following: iban piando 'they went along chirping'(cf. pía 's/he chirps') , los vaciamos 'we empty them out' (cf. vacío 'empty'),lo enviamos 'we send it' (cf. lo envía 's/he sends it'), los guiamos 'we leadthem' (cf. los guía 's/he leads them'), la riada 'the flood' (ef. río 'river'),diario 'daily' (cf. dla 'day') and semiviable 'semiviable' (ef. v/a 'path, traek,way'). The other items, piano, Diana, liana have h morphologically unex-plained hiatus (they are pure lexical exception.ll:1The complete list of testitems is shown in Table 1.

¡.-

2.2. Subjects

Ine subjects for this experiment are six Spanish speakers, three male (JL,JC, and JT) and three female (IP, MH, and AH), in their thirties orearly forties who have lived in Madrid since childhood. None of thespeakers is fluent in any other language ?esides Spani~

2.3. Data-gathering procedures

The subjects eompleted both a production task and a test of syllabificationintuitions, in this order.

Table 1. Experimental materials [separation in columns is according to the authors'intuitions )

i-a ja

el piano [elpi.áno) 'tbe piano'iban piando [íbampi.ándo)

'they went along chirping'con Diana [kondi.ána) 'with Diana'los vaciamos [lozñaüi.ámos]

'we empty them out'lo enviamos [Ioembi.ámos] 'we sent irlo guiamos [loyi.Amos] 'we guide it'la riada [lari.áóa] 'the ñood'semiviable [serniPi.áPle) 'serniviable'casi diario [kasiñi.árjo] 'almost daily'y la liana [ilali.ána) 'and tbe liana' --

Ulpiano [ulpjáno) 'a name'y limpiando [ilimpjándo]

'and c1eaning'Indiana [indjána] 'Indiana'los saciamos [los:a9jámos]

'we saciate them'aliviamos [alipjámos) 'we soothe'elogiamos [eloxjárnos] 'we praise'barriada [barjáña] 'town district; slum'envidiable [embiñjállle] 'enviable'presidiario [presiéjárjo] 'prisoner, inmate'italiana [italjána] 'Italian, remo sg.'

~

~~.,

'" ." _~ ,_ ,••••• ., •• ~.1io

224 J. 1 Hualde and M. Prieto

rFor the production task, the test words were typed embedded in the )fr'ame digo __ porque sí '1 say __ just because' and pasted en indivi- \

,J!gal index cards. Thirty distractors were added, using the same frame.Test sentences and distractors (50 cards) wer~.interspersed in an arbitriryway before being presented te the subje~ The recordings took placeunder quiet co.nditio.~ing a Tascam digital recorder and a head-mounted micro.pho.m;jThe subjects were all naive as te the purpose o.fthe experiment. Subjects were told te read the typed senteoces at acomfortable speed and in a natural manner. The experimenter presentedthe 50 cards te the subject one by ene. This procedure was repeated threetimes with each subject. Between repetitions, the experimenter reshuffledtl;!uards and, after a short pause, presented them again te the subject. .

After this task was completed, the subjects were presented with a liStcontaining the target words in an arbitrary order, together with a numbero.f distractors, and were asked te either divide the words into syllablesor count the syllables by tapping and write their answer next te eachword, whichever task they found easier te perform, The purpose of thissecond task was te determine te what extent the intuitions of the subjectsabo.ut syllabification matched their behavio.r in the production task.

The results of the production and the syllabificatio.n-intuitio.n~sksare presented in the next section in reverse order te that in which theywere co.mpleted.

3. Results

3.1. Syllabification intuitions

The results of the test en syllabificatio.n intuitions (which, as mentioned,was administered after the prcduction test, so. as not te biasfh.e subjects

( in their pro.nunciatio.n) are presented in Table 2. In this table, words withpredicted diphtho.ng are listed before those with predicted hlatus. An Xin a cell indicates that the subject's answer did not co.incide with thepredicted syllabification of the sequence for that word, w1!cIeas an emptycell represents agreement with the autho.rs' predicti~s can be seenin the table, the results for three of the six subjects show co.mpleteagreement with the predictio.ns (lF, MH, and AH 20/20). Ano.ther one,Jl., differed only in the syl1abificatio.n of one single item (19/20). lCdeviated frorn the expectations in three cases (17/20), where a hypothe-sized hiatus was syllabified as a diphth~inally, JT divided the testwords in te syllables in ways that are less co.nsistent with their predictedsyllabification for Castilian Spanish speakers (12/20).1

.jt)~

The Spanish diphthonglhiatus contrast 225

Table 2. Syttabificatíon 1IIIIIitloIIS

n. IF JT MH leAH

Hypotbesized diphtbongU1pianoaliviamositalianapresidiarioenvidiablelimpiandosaciamosbarriadaelogiamosIndiana

x

x .'

x

x

1;'

Hypotbesized hiatuspianoenviamoslianadiariosemiviablepiandovaciamos XriadaguiamosDiana X

XX

XX

~;

'.xX

(I

W1 in all, these results demo.nstrate co.nsiderable agreement arnong thesubjects, as well as between the intuitio.ns of the subjects and those ofthe authors. We interpret these findings as indicating that we may reason-ably expect te obtain fairly consistent intuitio.ns among most speakerswith the same dialectal and sociolectal backgro.und regarding the lexicaldistribution of these sequences. Naturally, the small number of subjectstested prevents us from making any stro.ng predictio.ns at this mo.ment.(But obtaining syllabification intuitions from a much greater number ofspe"'y:ers is a straightforward matt:0J

t the same time, we no.te that one of the six subjects, JT, deviatesco.nsiderably in bis answers from those of the authors and the o.ther fivesubjects. The reaso.n ter this may be a genuine phonological differencein idiolects (which in principIe should also. become apparent in the pro-duction task) or simply less awareness regarding this syllabification con-trast on the part of this subjecte-The results from the production task, to.be discussed below, make us lean towards this second possibility. As ~

~,,)

-226 J. J. Hualde and M. Prieto

I indicated above, based on our previous experience, we expected to findsome subjects with less clear intuitio~

f3.2. Production task

rrn all, 360 tokens were obtained (20 test sentences x 3 repetitions x 6subjects). Of these only one token (by speaker IF) had to be discarded.The data were transferred to a personal computer and analyzed withPCQuire, cornmercially available speech-analysis program developed

y ciconrd, For each token, the ia portion was segmented from spectro-grams and measured. For the segmentation, standard procedures werefollowed. As rnentioned, examples were chosen in part consideringease of segmentation of the re1evant sequence from the surroundingconsonantal conteillExamples are given in Figures 1 and 2.

e measurements are first surnmarized in Table 3 in terms of means(with standard deviations) and ranges. The result of a two-tailed t-test isalso shown, for each of the speaker~fAs can be seen, for all speakers

~"Figure 1. digo italiana (IF)-dip/hong [ja1

Figure 2. digo y la liana (IF)-hialus [i.a]

The Spanish diphthongjhiatus contrast 227

Table 3. Durational measurements

Speaker i.a ja t-test, p =

JL(ro)rocan value 138.23 114.36 2.39511 E-06(standard deviation) (in ms.) (15.10) (19.89)range 106.6-170.1 83.3-179.9

IF (f)mean value 168.27 138.59 3.93007E-05(standard devialion) (in ms.) (15.22) (32.57)range 121.6-195.9 86.1-220.3

JT(m)mean value 176 118.16 1.34327E-10(standard deviation) (in ms.) (27.08) (30.29)range 105.2-218.3 58-188.1

MH(f)mean value 167.08 131.27 7.18533E-ll(standard deviation) (io ms.) (15.03) (19.53)range 142.5-205 106.4-195

AH (f)mean value 194.74 133.29 1.7494E-17(standard deviatioo) (in ms.) (23.93) (14.22)range 138.9-22S.8 101.5-156.2

Je (m)mean value 151.63 112.88 3.68959E-07(standard deviation) (in ms.) (27.37) (24.89)range 106.2-221.2 69.5-178.4

./l

there is a significant difference in the duration of sequences with predicted ~hiatus ji.aj and with predicted diphthong jjaj. This includes the data forJT, whose response in the syllabification intuitions test did not matchthat of the other speakers. On the other hand, some \overlap between theranges of the two sets is also found for all speake.!].J

'e-ebtain a clearer picture of the distribution of the data from thehistogra~ in Figures 3-8. In these histograms, x = duration in ms., y =~ óf tokens, white bars = predicted hiatus, and black bars = pre-dicted diphthong. To the extent that the two sets of items representdifferent phonological categories, under our assumption that thediphthongjhiatus contrast is manifested as a durational difference, wewould expect to obtain two separate distributions. On the other hand,as we have noticed above, hiatus words may also have a diphthongpronunciation (in somewhat faster speech), but not vice versa. Giventhis, we may expect some tokens that we have classified as belonging tothe hiatus class to fall within jae durational range of diphthongs, but,'crucially, not vice ver!!:.! $.

~"

.....

.1'·

.~~

228 J. t. Hualde and M. Prieto

12

1-- -

1-- ~

- m-I í r 1 n 11 11

10

j•• e

Iz

100-110110.1- 120.1- 130.1- 1-40,'- 150.1- 181.1- 170.'- 180.1- 190.1- 200.1- 210.1- 220.1-m m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~

I~~IFigure 3. AH

i1 5..i·

r-- -

f-- -1- f-- -

r- r-r- f-- f--

1-- 1-- r f-- f--

111100-"0 110.1-120 120.t-130 130.'-140 140.1-150 150.1-180 teU-170 110.1-180 180.1-190 190.1-200 200.1-210

ICH~ I.00phthong

Figure 4. MH

';'i

.~t-~;"I;p. '~"'J'.

~}:;.i~'Jf"t.1'.tr

t

If:¡i-

r.;'.¡

~)

lL{~'.~~,

'):.j

The Spanish diphthongfhiatus contrast 229

- f-

r ~

III .11 I Ir í I

12

10

jj e

80-90 90.1- l00.t- 110.1- 120.1- 130.1- 1<40.1-1SO,t- 181.t- 170.1- 180.1- 190.1. 200.1- 210.'- 220.1.100 110 120 130 1040 uso 180 170 1&0 180 200 210 220 230

IO~~1.01

Figure 5. IF

10

r-

f-

f-

1-- r- r--

- ¡- - r--

- - - .-I 11 11

~"b

j•• 5jI .

150-90 90,1-100 100.1-110 110.,-120 120.1-130 130,'-140 1040.1-150 1SO.1·1&O181.1.170 170.t-180

lCHMw I.01_

Figure 6. JL

230 J. 1. Hualde and M. Prieto

1-- ..- f--, ,.-

I II 1-- r-- r 11 111,

!5

2"& •

!

00.1- 10,1. &0.1- 90,'- 100.1- ,,0." 120.'- 130.'- 1.40.1- 150.1- tflt.t- 170.1- 180.1- 190.1- 200.1- 210.1- 220.1-70 ea 90 100 110 120 130 1<40 150 100 170 180 100 200 210 220 230

ID~AM I."'ptrthong

Figure 7. le

12

I

,

•- - f-- r2 I I I~I

f--

n \\• •o

10

js"&

!El

so-so eo.r- 10.1- ea.1- 90.1- 100.1-110.1- 120.1- 130.1- '40.1- 150.1- 161.'- 170.'- 160.1- 100.1- 200.1- 210.170 80 90 100 110 120 130 1040 150 reo 170 100 190 200 210 220

IOH.M I.CIphIhong

Figure 8. JT

The Spanisñ diphthongfhiatus contrast 231

rrr we observe the histograms of our su speakers, the one whose data 1most closely approach the hypothesized distribution is AH (Figure 3). In [the data for this speaker, the hypothesized hiatus and diphthong tokensforro almost completely separate groups, withjust four tokens with hypothe-sized hiatus falling within the durational range of the hypothesized diph-thong class. To the extent that there is almost perfect separation in thetokens for the two word c1asses along the duration dirnension and, inparticular, that there are no diphthong words in the durational range forhiatus, this subject's data are consistent both with her own syllabification. tuitions and with the hypothesized distribution of item~

For the other five speakers, the two hypothesized cJasses also have IclellIly distinct distributions, but there is a greater degree of overlaEJ

Besides AH, the other two speakers whose answers in the syllabificationintuitions task coincided completely with the expected intuitions are MH ¡and Il::J~r MH (Figure 4) there is one token in the hypothesizeddiphthong c1ass that falls well outside the normal range. This correspondsto barriada (195 ms.), alth~u the other two repetitions of this item aremuch shorter (138.2, 133.3). For IF (Figure 5), the histograms show thatthe two longest tokens be ong to the hypothesized diphthong c1ass. Theseare a repetition of presidiario (220.3) and arepetition of barriada (209.6) .Other tokens of the same words, however, fall within the expected ran~

[speaker JL differed from the hypothesized intuitions in the syllabificatlon \of vaciamos (syllabified as diphthong, against the hypothesized syllabifica-tion). His production data, however, do not reflect this difference. His datashow a similar pattem to those of the other speakers discussed above. In IFigure 6 we see that there is one token in the hypothesized diphthong cJassthat in fact has the longest duration of all tokens. This corresponds tobarriada. His three tokens oi vaciamos, on the other hand, are not conspicu-o¡'wy different in their duration from other tokens in the hiatus cJa~

For JC (Figure 7) as well, the longest hypothesized diphthong tokenis a repetition of barriada. In the intuitions test, this subject proposeddiphthong syllabifications for three items in the hypothesized hiatus cJass.A look at the data sheets from which the histograms were drawn doesnot reveal anything special about these items. Crucially, though, none ofthe five speakers whose data we have discussed so far provided a syllabifi-cation in hiatus in the introspective test for a word with hypothesizeddiphthong. The three items that JC syI1abified in a manner not consistentwith the hypothesis were in the opposite direction. As indicated above,this does not necessarily indicate a phonological difference, since in fastspeech hiatus words can indeed be syllabified with a diphthong.

The only speaker who in his answers to the syllabiñcation-iiituítionstest deviated from the hypothesized syI1abification of words both in the ~

.~~

'~~

.~~

""

,- '- .- \- l_ 1- \- l_ t_ t_ l_232 J. l. Hualde and M. Prieto

(

hiatus and in the diphthong class was JT. This is the subject who hadthe lowest agreement with the predicted distribution in the test of syllabi-fication intuitions. When we consider rus production data in Figure 8,on the other hand, what it is immediately apparent is that his results donot differ greatly from those of the other speakers. In the productiondata for JT there are four hypothesized diphthong tokens within thehiatus durational range. Consulting the data sheets, it turns out thatthese four tokens correspond to al1 three repetitions of barriada and onerepetition of U/piano (the shortest one among the four, 152.8 ms). Wemay tentatively conclude that for this speaker the word barriada belongsto the hiatus class (although he did not syllabify it as such in the task ofsyl1abification intuitions). Ofthe two possibilities that we suggested aboveto explain the deviant responses of this subject to the syl1abification task:that his idiolect differs in this respect from that of the other speakers orthat he is in some sense "deaf'" to the contrast, it appears that the secondexplanation is the correct one. In production, this speaker's performanceis similar to that of the other subjects, but he is not aware of the

honologica! contrast in syl1abification to the same extent.inally, it is clear that if we excluded the word barriada, the data

ould show greater conformity with the predictions. This word maybelong to the hiatus c1ass for some speakers (JT) and may fiuctuatebetween the two c1asses for other speakers. We may note that althoughthe realization of ia as a diphthong in this word is suggested by itsmorphological relatedness to barrio, fue context fol1owing a trill favorsthe hiatus (Hualde 1997, 1999). Nevertheless, even if we leave this itemaside, the segregation between the two hypothesized groups is not perfectfor any speaker

4. Conclusions

~/

\Both the "performance" (reading) and the "competence" (syl1abificationintuitions) tests employed support the hypothesized lexical contrastbetween a c1ass ofwords with a sequence /i.ál in hiatus and another c1assof words with the diphthong /jál in the Spanish dialect spoken in Madrid.rrn the syl1abification task, three of the su speakers performedmcomplete agreement with the hypothesized syllabification, that is, withthe intuitions of the authors, but the syllabifications prpposed by one ofthe speakers deviate considerably from the hypothe~

The durational measurement test, in its turn, while confirrning thebasic premise about the separation of the items into two lexical c\asses,has also revealed the existence of a certain amount of variation. One of

\-The Spanish diphthongfhiatus contrast 233

;f"J .••••

thehypothesized diphthong items employed, barriada, appears to belong (to hiatus class instead for one of the subjects and perhaps to showvariation in c1ass membership for other subjects. But even leaving thisitem asid e, the variation and overlap between the two hypothesized classes Iin production shows that it is not possible to simply rely on durationalmeasurements in order to determine whether some specific item belongsto the hiatus or to the diphthong c1ass for a given group of speakers. Apossibility that we leave for further research is that a combination of /duration and formant va!ues may yield a more clear separation betweenhiatus and diphthong sequences,

In conclusion, fue goal oftliis paper has been to provide a deeperunderstanding of the nature of the lexical contrast between hiatus anddiphthong sequences in Spanish. We have shown that the contrast has adurational basis. Words with lexical hiatUstend to have greater duTationof1he sequenCe'"than words where the relevant sequence is "felt" as beingtautosyllabic by most speakers.

The combination of taskSthat we have used in this paper may beemployed profitably to determine the geographical extension of thediphthongfhiatus contrast by examining data from speakers of otherdialects. For instance, in some South American dialects, speakers' intu-itions regarding the syl1abification of the sequences with which we havebeen concerned here appear to be very different. In particular, the speak-ers that we have informally consulted from severa! South Americanregions do not establish any syllabification contrasts among the test itemsused in this paper. We expect this intuition to be reflected in productionas a much greater (or complete) durational overlap among the two groupsof items tested in this paper than for Madrid speakers. That is, ourhypothesis is that, using the same materials, speakers of other Spanishdialects will perform in a very different way from the Madrid speakerswhose data we have reported here. We willleave this for future researc~ I

Received 25 April 2001 University o/ Illinois al Urbana-ChampaignRevised version received30 August 2001

¡L,;

~~

1'""t.

,r•.~-:.~Ir~

'J':'l';'.

:;~.u\,[1

:rt·

Notes

• Correspondence address: Department of Spaoisb, Italian aod Portuguese, 4080 FLB,Uoiversity ofIllinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. E-mail: j-bualde@uiuc,edu.

1, Therealization of ortbograpbic y and 11 in prevocalic positioo varies a great deal amongSpanisb dialects. For most younger speakers of Castiliao Spanisb both ortbograpbicletters represent a palatal pbooeme $-very variable constriction, includiog a glide orapproximaot (j1as a common inlervocalic allopbooe; see AguiJar (1997). ~

"",

1-

,~

It ~~(tJ"1' tl"iv-

--

234 J. L Hualde and M. Prieto

2. An anonyrnous reader suggests that speakers may assign some stress to word-initialsyllables, which could result in lengthening of tbe sequences under consideration inexamples like con Diana (vs. Indiana) and el piano (vs. Utpiano) even in the absence ofphonological contrast. Although the possible existence of word-initial lengthening inSpanish cannot be ruled out a priori and in the absence of experimental results, tbe factis tbat Spanish speakers and linguists generally agree tbat sequences such as se para 's{bestops' and separa 's{he separates', contabas 'you counted' and CO/1 tabas 'with knuckle-bones' or ti cano 'the gray-haired one' and Elcano 'a surname' are completely bomopbo-nous. Thus, the differences in duration tbat we find in tbe test items cannot be purelyattributed to a word-initial effect.

3. The experimental work reported in Aguilar (1999) carne lo our attention wben Ibis articlewas already al tbe proofs stage. Her results appear to be largely compatible with ours.

ReferencesAguilar, Lourdes (1997). De la vocal a la consonante. Colección Lucus Lingua 3. Santiago

de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Composlela.-(1999). Hiatus and diphthong: acoustic cues and speecb situation differences. Speech

Communication 28, 57-74.Battye, Adrian; and Hintze, Marie-Anne (1992). The French Language Today. London:

Routledge.Cbitoran, loana (1997). The phonology and morphology of Rornanian glides and

dipbthongs: a constraint-based approach. Unpublisbed doctora I dissertation, CornellUniversity.

Harris, James W. (1969). Spanish Phonology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press._; and Kaisse, Ellen (1999). Palatal vowels, glides, and obstruents in Argentinian Spanisb.

Phonology 16,117-190. _.c: ~Hualde, José Ignacio (1991). On Spanisb syllabification. In Current Studies in Spanish

Linguistics, Héctor Campos and Fernando Martínez-Gil (eds.), 475-493. Washington,D.C.: Georgetown University Press. "

-(1994). La contracción silábica en español. In Gramática del español, Violeta Demente(ed.), 629-647. Mexico Cily: Colegio de México. 1 ~~/

-(1997). Spanisb /i! and related sounds: an exercise In phonemic analysis. Studies in theLinguistic Sciences 27(2),61-79.

-(1999). Patterns in tbe lexicon: biatus with unstressed bigb vowels in Spanisb.ln Advancesin Hispanic Linguistics. Papas [rom the 2nd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, JavierGutiérrez-Rexach and Fernando Martínez-Gil (eds.), vol. 1, 182-197. SomervilJe, MA:CascadilJa.

Lepscby, Anna Laura; and Lepschy, Giulio (1988). The Italian Language Today, 2nd ed.London: Routledge.

Monroy Casas, Rafael (1980). Aspectos fonéticos de las vaca/es españolas. Madrid: SociedadGeneral Española de Librería.

Navarro Tomás, Tomás (1977). Manual de pronunciación española, 19tb ed. Madrid:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Publicaciones de la Revista de FilologíaEspañola).

Quilis, Antonio (1988). Fonética acústica de la lengua española. Madrid: Gredos._( 1993). Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos.Real Academia Española (1973). Esbozo de una llueva gramática de la lengua española.

Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Roca, Iggy (1997). Tbere are no "glides," at least in Spanisb: an optimality account. Probus

9.233-265.WaJker, Douglas C. (2001). French Sound Structure. Calgary, A1berta: University of

Calgary Press.

..~~;'\'b-.,

,1.

.~,1,\,i

.'.. The time-course of inflexionalmorphological priming*f;"

ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ. JUAN SEGUI, and FERNANDO CUETOS

Abstract

In Spanish. the contrast between the suffixes -a and -o in pairs oJ wordssuch as loc-a/loc-o 'mad woman'l'madman' has a morphological valuebecause it allows the gender selection oJ the stem loc. However, in pairssuch as rat-a/rat-o 'rat'l'moment' this contrast has a lexical value, permit-ting the selection of two different words. The use o/ these two c1asses oJword relationship, together with semantically related pairs sucb as saña-odio 'anger='hate', permits the study pJ the time course oJ morphological,orthographic, and semantic priming at 32, 64, and 250 ms. SOAs. Twoexperiments were carried out in whicñ the priming effects Jor the previouscategories were compared with unrelated priming and identity priming in alexical-decision task. Morphological [acilitation was obtained with 32 ms.and 64 ms. masked presentations oJ the prime word and with. a 250 ms.unmasked prime. Ho wever, semantic [acilitation occurred only witn theunmasked prime and orthographic [acilitation occurred only for the maskedprimes. Morphological, orthographic, and identity priming effects were ofcomparable magnitudes Jor the 32 ms. masked primes, whereas for the64 ms. masked priming, orthographic priming was half the magnitude ofmorphological and identity priming. To what extent the [acilitatian formorphological pairs is due to a morphological stage oJprocessing or, rather,to the summed effects oJ orthographic and semantic Jeatures is discussed.Agreements and differences with some recent studies in other languages areconsidered (Drews and Zwitserlood 1995; Frost et al. 1997; Rastle et al.2000).

Some of the most important word-recognition models support therequirement of a morphological treatment of the input at some level ofprocessing (see McQueen an~utler 1998 for a review). The Jull parsingmodels defend a mandatory prelexical segmentation of the word into its '"

Linguistics 40-2 (2002), 235-259 0024-3949/02/0040-00235e Walter de Gruyter

"'"