Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Marc van OostendorpMeertens Instituut & Leiden University
Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
09.08.07
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
I Final devoicing seems to pose two major problems for acategorical theory of phonology:
I The output is gradientI The input is predictable on the basis of corpus distribution
I From this, people have drawn the conclusion that either thedata are wrong or non-phonological, or that formalphonology is wrong
I We offer instead a refined, but classical phonologicalaccount of these experimental data
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Final Devoicing
I Catalan:I gris ‘grey (M)’ - griz@ ‘grey (F)’I gos ‘dog (M)’ - gos@ ‘dog (F)’
I Dutch:I kwaa[t] ‘angry (PRED.)’ - kwad@ ‘angry (ATT)’I laat ‘late (PRED.)’ - lat@ ‘late (ATT)’
I Polish:I klup ‘club’ - klubi ‘clubs’I trup ‘corpse’ - trupi ‘corpses’
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Phonetic Timing
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Listening task
I if asked to randomly guess whether a given instance [bunt]corresponds to (German) /bund/ ‘league’ or /bunt/‘colourful’, speakers will guess correctly (60 to 70 per cent)
I “If [these words] were the same, then in a listening taskyou would expect 50 percent correct (pure guessing — likeEnglish too and two would show). If contrastive, one wouldexpect at least 99 percent correct identification under goodlistening conditions with motivated subjects (just like Bundeand bunte would show).” (Port & Leary 2005)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions;
but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong;
but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics;
but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
1. The data are wrong, for instance because they have beenacquired under suspicious laboratory conditions; but theyhave now been replicated for many languages, and weneed to account for laboratory behaviour as well
2. Phonology is wrong; but this throws away decades of solidresults
3. This is all phonetics; but that means direct access ofphonetics to the lexicon
4. We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Final devoicing is phonological
I ik heb ‘I have’ [Ik hEp]I hebben ‘to have’ [hE.b@n]I ik heb ’m ‘I have him’ [Ik hE.p@m]
(Booij 1995)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Formal analyses
I There is a phonetic paradigmatic effect; ‘Word-basedphonetics’ (Pierrehumbert 2002) is a possibleimplementation of this.
I The laryngeal contrast between voiced and voicelessobstruents is ‘enhanced’ by other features (Avery and Rice1989).
I Both of these complicate the relationship betweenphonology and phonetics
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Containment and Correspondence
1. Correspondence Theory: There are separate input andoutput representations, as well as correspondenceconstraints between elements of these (McCarthy andPrince 1995)
2. Containment Theory: The input is contained in the output,therefore all faithfulness constraints can be read off thesurface representation (Prince and Smolensky 1993, VanOostendorp 2005).
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Correspondence
k
k
l u
u
k
k u
input
output Universe { k1, l2 ,u3 ,k4 } ∪ { ka, ub,kc ,ud }Relations C (k1,ka)∧C (u3 ,ub)∧C (k4,kc)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Containment
I Containment. Every element of the phonological inputrepresentation is contained in the output. (There is nodeletion.)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Containment: Prince and Smolensky 1993
I PARSE: All elements should be ‘parsed’ in the phonologicalstructure (no deletion.)
I FILL: Do not allow empty elements. (No insertion.)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Containment Representation
Φ
k l u k ∅ Universe { k1, l2 ,u3 ,k4,∅5 }Relations Dφ(Φ,k1)∧Dφ(Φ,u3)∧Dφ(Φ,kk )∧Dφ(Φ,∅5)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Occam’s Razor and Containment
I PARSE-C: Every consonant needs to be affiliated toprosodic structure
I FILL-V: (Nuclear) syllable slots need features.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Problems with the Prince & Smolensky Interpretation
I features should also not be allowed to ever spread to anepenthetic vowel
I how do we prevent spreading from happening everywherein every language?
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Consistency of Exponence
I “No changes in the exponence of aphonologically-specified morpheme are permitted.”(McCarthy and Prince 1993, 1994)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Explanation
“[Consistency of Exponence] means that the lexicalspecifications of a morpheme (segments, prosody, or whatever)can never be affected by Gen. In particular, epentheticelements posited by Gen will have no morphological affiliation,even when they lie within or between strings with morphemicidentity. Similarly, underparsing of segments — failure to endowthem with syllable structure — will not change the make-up of amorpheme, though it will surely change how that morpheme isrealized phonetically. Thus, any given morpheme’sphonological exponents must be identical in underlying andsurface form.”
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
CoE Representation
Φ
k l u k u
M Universe { k1, l2 ,u3 ,k4,u5 }Relations DM (M,k1)∧DM (M,l2)∧DM (M,u3)∧DM (M,k4)
Dφ(Φ,k1)∧Dφ(Φ,u3)∧Dφ(Φ,kk )∧Dφ(Φ,u5)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Faithfulness
Faithfulness constraints (coloured versions)
I PARSE-φ(x): The morphological element x must beincorporated into the phonological structure. (No deletion.)
I PARSE-µ(x): The phonological element x must beincorporated into the morphological structure. (Noinsertion.)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
The trouble with features
input outputx x
F
x x
F
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
The trouble with PARSE-F
input outputx x
F
x x
F
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Two relations instead of one
I projection: an abstract, structural relationship holdingbetween a segment and the feature (roughly equivalent tonotions of ‘Licensing’).
I pronunciation: an output relationship that holds betweenthe feature and the segment and describes the outputrealization of structure.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Turbidity in Goldrick’s work
I /ka+tiko/ → [katiko] ‘mushroom’
I /ka+oto/ → [ko:to] ‘fireplace (DIM)’I /ka+ezi/ → [ke:zi] ‘moon (DIM)’
(Luganda)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Turbid representation
µ µ
6@@R?6
a oTurbidity presupposes Containment.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Stray Erasure (Turbid version)
I The phonetics only interprets features that stand in apronunciation relation to a segment in the phonology.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Turbidity as Containment (Revithiadou 2006)
I we take projection lines to represent the lexical state ofaffairs, that is, to be part of the lexical representation of amorpheme [. . . ]. In conformity with [Consistency ofExponence], therefore, they cannot be altered by Gen.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Reciprocity
I RECIPROCITYVF (RV
F ): If a vowel V entertains aprojection relation with a feature F, then F must entertain apronunciation relation with the vowel V.
I
x6
F
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
FinDev
I [voice] cannot entertain a pronunciation relation with anobstruent in the coda.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Candidates
a. [kwa:d˚
] b. [kwa:d]
k w a: d6
voice
k w a: d6?voice
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Turbidity Theory
Miniature TypologyI FINDEV�RECIPROCITYV
F : Final Devoicing (Catalan,Dutch, etc.)
/kwa:d/ FINDEV RECIPROCITYVF
kwa:d *!+kwa:d
˚*
I RECIPROCITYVF�FINDEV: Final Devoicing (Spanish,
English, etc.)
/kwa:d/ RECIPROCITYVF FINDEV
+kwa:d *kwa:d
˚*!
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
(Weak) past tense formation
I -/t@/ after roots ending in underlyingly voiceless obstruents:kook-te ‘cooked’, raap-te ‘gathered’, praat-te ‘talked’
I -/d@/ after all other stems: leev-de ‘lived’, meld-de‘mentioned’, ren-de ‘ran’
Past-tense formation thus reveals the underlying voicing ofobstruents.
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
What happens with new (nonsense) verbs
I First person singular does not have any overt suffix, hencefinal devoicing (ik leef ‘I live’, ik kook ‘I cook’, ik kam ‘I live’,ik ren ‘I run’)
I This allows for a straightforward Wug test:I ‘What is the past tense of ik le[p], ik sta[x], ik draa[s]?’
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Baayen and Ernestus (2003)
Responses ending in -de and -te, by type of stem-finalobstruent (CV:C words)
TYPE de teP 3 97T 4 96S 55 45F 64 36X 81 13
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Correspondence to corpus data
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
The puzzle
I From these facts, Baayen and Ernestus (2003) concludethat speakers have knowledge of the statistical distributionin the corpus
I However, it is unclear that we can establish a direct causalrelation here
I and it is left unexplained why the statistical distribution isthe way it is
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
The hierarchy and its surprises
I P > T > F > S> XI “[T]he type of the final obstruent itself is an important
predictor of voicing. Surprisingly, a mirror image of thehierarchy of phonological strength emerges from the data[. . . ] Dutch shows a preference for words to use finalobstruents with a high cue validity. More research is clearlyrequired here.” (B&E 2003:30)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong
but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological but there is a clear
interaction with ‘real’ phonologyI Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solid
resultsI We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for this
I The data are non-phonological but there is a clearinteraction with ‘real’ phonology
I Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solidresults
I We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological
but there is a clearinteraction with ‘real’ phonology
I Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solidresults
I We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological but there is a clear
interaction with ‘real’ phonology
I Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solidresults
I We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological but there is a clear
interaction with ‘real’ phonologyI Phonology is wrong
but this throws away decades of solidresults
I We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological but there is a clear
interaction with ‘real’ phonologyI Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solid
results
I We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
The issue
Possible responses
I The data are wrong but again there is no indication for thisI The data are non-phonological but there is a clear
interaction with ‘real’ phonologyI Phonology is wrong but this throws away decades of solid
resultsI We have to integrate these facts into a classical model
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Voicing in Dutch
I A number of authors (Avery 1996, Iverson and Salmons2003, Van Oostendorp 2002, fc) have argued onsynchronic and diachronic phonological grounds that thereis a split in the voicing system of Dutch:
I Stops have a ‘Romance’ system of [± voice]I Fricatives have ‘Germanic’ system of [± spread glottis]
and/or length
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Voicing in Dutch
I A number of authors (Avery 1996, Iverson and Salmons2003, Van Oostendorp 2002, fc) have argued onsynchronic and diachronic phonological grounds that thereis a split in the voicing system of Dutch:
I Stops have a ‘Romance’ system of [± voice]I Fricatives have ‘Germanic’ system of [± spread glottis]
and/or length
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Arguments in favour of a stop/fricative split (1)
I Syllabification: voicing for fricatives (but not stops) ispredictable in intervocalic position ([knœf@l] ‘hug’, [hø:v@l]‘hill’, *[knø:f@l], *[hœv@l]; [kAb@l] ‘ripple’, [ka:b@l] ‘cable’,[kEp@l] ‘yarmulka’, [ke:pi] ‘kepi’)
a. σ σ
@@����� @@��
k n œ f @ l
b. σ σ
�� @@��h ø: v @ l
c. *σ σ
@@���
�� @@��k n ø: f @ l
d. *σ σ
�� @@��h œ v @ l
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Arguments in favour of a stop/fricative split (2)I Voicing assimilation. In obstruent clusters C1C2:
I If C2 is a stop, the cluster gets the underlying voicing of C2(/hœyz/+/dø:r/→[hœzdø:r]) (’house+door’=’‘front door’)
I If C1 is a fricative, the cluster gets devoiced:(/hœyz/+/vœyl/→[hœsfœyl]) (’house+dirt’=’‘garbage’)
I Exceptions. Some dialects have exceptions to finaldevoicing. If these exceptions are lexical, they alwaysinvolve stops only; if they are grammatical they alwaysinvolve fricatives only.
I Spelling. Final devoicing is reflected in traditional Dutchorthography for fricatives (huis-huizen ‘house(s)’) but notstops (bord-borden ‘plate(s)’)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Arguments in favour of a stop/fricative split (3)
I Phonetics. “The problem is that fricative geminates arealways realized as voiceless, independently of theircontext, exact duration, etc.” (Ernestus 2000:177)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Voiceless fricatives as long/spread glottis typologically
I VAUX: Fricative ⊃ [spread glottis]. ‘Fricatives preferablyhave the feature [spread glottis]’ (Vaux 1998, Avery 2001)
I MULTILINK: [spread glottis] ⊃ µµ ‘The feature [+spreadglottis] has to be linked to two positions.’ (Ringen 1999)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Different representations for stops and fricatives/t/ /d/
[-cont]
[coronal]
[-cont]
[coronal] [voice]
/s/ /z/[+cont]
[coronal] [sp.gl.]
[+cont]
[coronal]
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Different representations for stops and fricatives/t/ /d/
[-cont]
[coronal]
[-cont]
[coronal] [voice]
/s/ /z/
[+cont]
[coronal]
µ
[+cont]
[coronal]
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Proposal about Lexicon Optimisation
I Choose the lexical representation which is least marked(contains the smallest amount of structure) and compatiblewith the data
I In case of stops, this will be the voiceless variant; in thecase of fricatives, this will be the variant which is short/not[spr.gl]
I Notice that this makes predictions about e.g. German, inwhich plosives are also characterized by [sp.gl]
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
Baayen and Ernestus (2003)
Responses ending in -de and -te, by type of stem-finalobstruent (CV:C words)
TYPE de teP 3 97T 4 96S 55 45F 64 36X 81 13
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Voicing in Dutch
The length of place
I This accounts for the split between plosives andobstruents. What about place?
I At least for velarity, we know that there is an intimateconnection to length as well
I Velars sometimes behave as if they were long. E.g.velarisation in codas triggers shortening of precedingvowels.
I [sxu:n@] ∼ [sxuN] ‘shoe(s)’ (Antwerp Dutch)I [zi:t] → [zik] ‘time’ (Cologne German)
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Conclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology
Incomplete final devoicingThe issueFaithfulnessTurbidity Theory
Determining underlying voicingThe issueVoicing in DutchConclusions
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology
Incomplete final devoicing Determining underlying voicing
Conclusions
Conclusions
I At first sight, Final Devoicing is a very simple andstraightforward phonological process
I Recent empirical study has shown that FD is morecomplicated than was hitherto assumed
I However, this is a reason to refine our models rather thanreject them
Voicing Variability and Formal Phonology Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology