Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, 2002 The Role of Perception in Slavic Sibilant Systems Marzena Rochoń Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, 2002 The Role of Perception in Slavic Sibilant Systems Marzena Rochoń Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, 2002 The Role of Perception in Slavic Sibilant Systems Marzena Rochoń Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin

3 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Goal: Perception plays a crucial role in Slavic (and other) sibilant systems: A trifold sibilant distinction such as s   is not optimal in terms of maintaining sufficient perceptual contrast. Therefore languages either: (a) enhance the contrast by replacing a post- alveolar sibilant (  ) by a retroflex one  , e.g. Polish, Russian, or (b) they reduce a trifold distinction to a bifold one, e.g. s,  or s  j, e.g. Croatian, Polish dialects, Serbian.

4 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Outline of the talk: 1. Coronal fricatives and affricates in Polish 2. Sibilant systems in other Slavic languages: similarities and contrasts 3. Preliminary analysis 4. Acoustic analysis and the role of perception in sibilant inventories 5. Conclusions: marked vs. unmarked systems

5 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Standard Polish AlveolarsRetroflexesAlveolo- palatals Fricatives        Affricates t                  

6 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Mazovian Dejna 1994: 71 2 Kashubian 3 Mazurian

7 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Mazovian spoken in Mazovia (except the extreme northeast), in Małopolska (except the areas between the rivers Wisłok i San, the Upper Wieprz and Bug) and in northern Silesia. Standard Polish [   ]yto ‘ rye ’ nom.sg. [t    ]as ‘time’ nom.sg. Mazovian [z]yto [t  s]as

8 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Mazovian AlveolarsRetroflexesAlveolo- palatals Fricatives s z   Affricates t  s d  z t  d 

9 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Kashubian: spoken in the northern part of Poland, close to Gdańsk Standard Polish a on [  p j ]i ‘and he sleeps’ nie wi[d  ]eli ‘ they didn’t see’ Kashubian a on [sp j ]i nie wi[d  z]eli

10 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, How are Standard Polish retroflexes realized in Kashubian? Standard Polish [   ]aro ‘grey’ [   ]arpie ‘he pulls’ Conclusion: they are palatalized post- alveolars Kashubian szaro szarpie

11 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Kashubian AlveolarsPalatalized post- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z  j  j Affricates t  s d  z t   j d   j

12 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Mazurian & Jabłonków dialects: spoken in the northeastern regions of Poland (around Malbork, Ostróda, Lubawa and eastern Warmia) and in the small area in the southern part of Poland (around Jab ³ onków) Standard Polish [   ]yto ‘ rye ’ nom.sg. [t    ]as ‘time’ nom.sg. Mazurian & Jabłonków [  j ]yto [ t   j ]as

13 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Mazurian & Jabłonków dialects AlveolarsPalatalized post- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z  j  j Affricates t  s d  z t   j d   j

14 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Polish systems Standard Polish        Mazovian    Kashubian    j  j Mazurian    j  j Conclusions: 1. A trifold sibilant system is not optimal. 2. Dialects, trying to avoid it, prefer a bifold distinction. 3. The retroflexes     are consistently avoided.

15 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Why have Mazovian dialects chosen alveolopalatals and not retroflexes ? They are easier from an articulatory point of view, cf. also acquisition of  vs.  , Łobacz (1996). In morphology the role of   t  d  is much more important than that of            . They appear in both nominal and verbal inflection, e.g. nos no[  ]e ‘nose’ nom./loc., plotę ple[t  ]esz ‘to weave’ 1.sg./2.pl.pres., cf. Stankiewicz (1986: 109)

16 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Serbian/Croatian DentalsPost- alveolar Alveolo- palatal Fricatives s z   (  ) (  ) (Eastern Herzegovina Zeta-Lovćen, some areas of Slavonia) Affricates t  s d  z t  (d  ) t  d 

17 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Kordić (1997:5) on Serbian & Croatian: The meaning of the words containing č (t  ) or ć (t  ) remains the same even if a speaker does not distinguish č and ć. [..] The majority of native speakers pronounce both č or ć in the same way making no difference between them. The same holds for dž (d  ) and dź (d  ) as well. Stankiewicz (1986: 110): ć, dź have a very low frequency. […] Their overlap has no effect on the morphological structure.

18 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Lower Sorbian, cf. Stadnik (1998:385), de Bray (1951:701): AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z     Affricates t  s t 

19 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Russian, cf. Stadnik (1988: 380) Dentals Post- alveolars/ retroflexes ?? Alveolo- palatals Fricativess z s j z j    j  j Affricates tt tt

20 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Russian Alveolopalatals are emerging s j adl ‘he sat down’ vz j at j ‘to take’ Sawicka (2001:11): ‘t j, d j are frequently accompanied by affricatization. ’ Jones & Ward (1969: 104): ‘a very short fricative element is heard. ’

21 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Phonological & phonetic evidence Hamman (2001) Polish: Retraction Rule Rubach (1984) ko/s/+i+ć ko[  i]ć ‘to mow’ towarzy/   /+i+ćtowarzy[    ]ć ‘to accompany’ Russian: Hamilton (1990) b  t j ‘to be’ b j it j ‘to hit’ s   t j ‘to sew’ *s  j it j Bulgarian: ti[  i]na ‘silence’ stra[  i]lo ‘monster’ Conclusion: in Russian retroflexes occur; they are velarized; tongue backing and tongue-fronting for front vowels are incompatible

22 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Belorussian, cf. Stadnik (1988: 382) s j udy ‘ here ’ t j omnyj ‘ dark ’ AlveolarsPost- alveolars ? Alveolo- palatals Fricativess z s j z j   Affricates t  d  z t  j d  z j t  d 

23 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Ukrainian, cf. Stadnik (1988:381) Stankiewicz (1986): , , t , d  occur in the southwestern Ukrainian dialects. AlveolarsPost- alveolars (?) Alveolo- palatals Fricativess z s j z j    j  j Affricates t  d  z t  j d  z j t  d  t  j d  j

24 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Russian (Belorussian, Ukrainian) Alveolopalatals are emerging and post- alveolars are changing to retroflexes.

25 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Czech, cf. Kučera (1961:24) AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z   Affricates t  s t 

26 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Slovenian, cf. Stadnik (1998 : 391) AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z   Affricates tststt

27 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Slovak, cf. Rubach (1993: 31) AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z   Affricates t  s d  z t  d  

28 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Bulgarian, cf. Stadnik (1988: 389) AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z   Affricates t  s (d  z) t  d  

29 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Upper Sorbian, cf. Schuster-Šewc (1996: 41) de Bray (1951:688) Carlton (1990:260): In modern US t  merges with t . AlveolarsPost- alveolars Alveolo- palatals Fricatives s z z j   Affricates t  s d  z t  s j t  d  

30 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Preliminary conclusions: 1. If a language has a bifold distinction, then it is between alveolars/dentals and postalveolars. 2. As soon as alveolopalatals emerge, postalveolars change to retroflexes. 3. A system such as     is more optimal than   . Is this a Polish/Slavic specific phenomenon or a universal one?

31 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Hall (1997a): The Historical Development of Retroflex Consonants in Indo-Aryan. Indo-European *s  Indo-Iranian *   Old Indo- Aryan s . Two claims: No language can contrast palatoalveolars and alveolopalatals. If a language contrasts two postalveolar (retroflex, palatoalveolar, alveolopalatal) sounds then one will be apical and the other laminal.

32 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Hall (1997a) stage 1: /s,  /  stage 2: /s, ,  /  stage 3: /s, s ,  / s s  ,  [coronal]+ + + [anterior]+ - - [distributed] Contrasts like / ,  / and / ,  / are nonoccurring.

33 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Feature [round] s ss  [coronal]++++ [anterior]+--- [distribu- ted] --++ [round] -++-

34 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Functional explanation: a. articulation does not explain why s  is more preferable to . b. perception cf. Wierzchowska (1970:64,98) ss 

35 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Acoustics, cf. Kudela (1968), Dogil (1990), Stevens (1998). F2 F3F4 ss  s  (2700)

36 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Acoustic comparison, cf. Halle and Stevens(1989), Kudela (1968), Dogil 1990)   F3, F4 higher than in s . Absence of the major amplitude peak in the F2 frequency region. Halle and Stevens(1989): prominent spectral peaks in the F3-F4 follow from the natural resonances of the cavity situated under the inferior surface of the tongue blade: the so called lower incisors cavity F3 and F4 in   are higher because of the expected influence of palatalization. s  z  A broad band in the 2-4kHz frequency range Dogil (1990): the observed acoustic difference must be attributed to the participation of the lips in the production of these sound types. The closed front cavity has the property of enhancing the natural frequencies with the F2 region. The spread lips in the case of   leave the front cavity open and thus radiation of the F2 frequencies is facilitated which, explains why natural frequencies corresponding to the second resonance of the entire vocal tract are absent in these consonants.

37 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Acoustics / Perception: s  and  are very similar from an acoustic point of view. Speakers of different languages have difficulty in distinguishing them. Piela & Dukiewicz (1962), Piela (1964) show that the range of plays a crucial role in the recognition of sibilants. s  and  considerably differ in F2 (1280 vs 1750). s  is preferred over  because it creates more contrast to s (2000) and  (2700). If a language already has dental/alveolar and alveolopalatal fricatives, the perceptual contrast is better maintained by retroflexes than by post- alveolars.

38 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Conclusions: Perception plays a crucial role in Slavic sibilant systems: A trifold distinction such as s   is not optimal in terms of maintaining sufficient perceptual contrast. Therefore languages either (a) create a system in which a postalveolar is replaced by a retroflex fricative, e.g. Polish, Russian, or (b) reduce a trifold distinction to a bifold one, e.g. Croatian, Polish dialects, Serbian. In this case the system contains postalveolars.

39 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Markedness  s   j s j s * *   s * s   s  s  j s

40 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, References: Boersma, P. (1998). Functional Phonology. Den Haag: Holland Academic Press. Carlton, T.R. (1990). Introduction to the Phonological Hstory of the Slavic Languages. Slavica Publishers: Columbus, Ohio. Dejna, K. (1994). Atlas polskich innowacji dialektalnych. Warszawa, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Naukowe: PWN. Dogil, G. (1990). Hissing and Hushing Fricatives: A Comment on Non-anterior Spirants in Polish. Unpublished ms. Universität Bielefeld. Dukiewicz, L & R. Piela (1962). Wyrazistosc i rozroznialnosc glosek w jezyku polskim w zaleznosci od gornej granicy czestotliwosci. Przeglad Komunikacyjny 7, Flemming, E. (1995). Auditory Representations in Phonology. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Halle, M. and K. N. Stevens. (1997). The Postalveolar Fricatives of Polish. In: Kiritani, S., Hirose, H. and H. Fujisaki (eds) Speech Production and Language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter Hall, T. A. (1997a). The Historical Development of Retroflex Consonants in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 101, Hall, T. A. (1997b). The Phonology of Coronals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hamann, S. (2001). The Phonetic and Phonological Status of Slavic Postalveolar fricatives. Paper presented at FDSL-4, Potsdam. Hume, E. (1994). Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and their Interaction in Nonlinear Phonology. London: Garland. Hume, E. and K. Johnson (eds.) (2001). The Role of Speech Perception Phenomena in Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic.

41 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Lahiri, A. und V. Evers (1991). Palatalization and Coronality. In C. Paradis und J.-F. Prunet (Hrsg.). Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Status of Coronals. Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press Hamilton, W.S. (1980). Introduction to Russian Phonology and Word Structure. Columbus: Slavica Publishers. Jassem, W., Szybista, D., Krzyśko M., Stolarski P. and A. Dyczkowski (1976). Rozpoznawanie polskich spółgłosek trących na podstawie cech widmowych. IPPT PAN Jones, D. & D. Ward (1969). The phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kordić, S. (1997). Serbo-Croatian. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Kudela, K. (1968). Spectral analysis of Polish fricative consonants. In: Jassem, W. (ed.) Speech analysis and synthesis. Warszawa: PAN. Kučera, H. (1961). The phonology of Czech. The Hague: Mouton & co. Lindblad, P (1980). Svenskans sje- och tje-ljud i ett Allmänfonetisk Perspektiv. Travaux de l‘Institut de Linguistique de Lund 16. C.W.K. Gleerup, Lund. Łobacz, P. (1996). Polska fonologia dziecieca. Warszawa: Energeia. Piela R. (1964). Wyrazistosc gloskowa w funkcji czestosci granicznej filtrow dolno- i gornoprzepustowych. Przeglad Telekomunikacyjny 2, Piela R. & L. Dukiewicz (1962). Szczegolowe badania wyrazistosci i rozroznialnosci glosek polskich w roznych warunkach przenoszenia. Biuletyn WAT 4, Recasens, D. (1984). Timing constraints and coarticulation: alveolo-palatals and sequences of alveolar + /j/ in Catalan. Phonetica 41: Recasens, D. (1990). The articulatory characteristics of palatal consonants. Journal of Phonetics 18: Rocho , M. und B. Pompino-Marschall (1999). The Articulation of Secondarily Palatalized Coronals in Polish. Proceedings of XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco Rubach, J. (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology. The Structure of Polish. Dordrecht:.Foris.

42 Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, Rubach, J. (1993). The Lexical Phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sawicka, I. (2001). Palatalization as the main factor of the phonetic development and typological diversification of Slavic languages. Ms. Nicolas Copernicus University, Torun, Poland. Schuster-Šewc, H. (1996). Grammar of the Upper Sorbian Language. München: Lincom Europa. Shadle, C.H. (1985). The acoustics of fricative consonants. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: the MIT Press. Stadnik, E. (1998). Phonemtypologie der slawischen Sprachen und ihre Bedeutung für die Erforschung der diachronen Phonologie. Zeitschrift für Slavistik 43 (1998) 4, Stankiewicz, E. (1986). Polish Mazurzenie and the Serbo-Croatian Palatals. In: Stankiewicz (ed.). The Slavic Languages. Unity in Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Wierzchowska, B. (1980). Fonetyka i fonologia języka polskiego. Wrocław, Warszawa: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.


Download ppt "Contrast in Phonology University of Toronto May 3-5, 2002 The Role of Perception in Slavic Sibilant Systems Marzena Rochoń Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google