The Production of Consonant Clusters: Implications for Phonology and Sound Change

222 Pages·2018·4.005 MB·English

by  Recasens, Daniel

DanielRecasens
TheProductionofConsonantClusters
Phonology and Phonetics
Editor
Aditi Lahiri
Volume 26
Daniel Recasens
The Production of
Consonant Clusters
Implications for Phonology and Sound Change
ISBN978-3-11-056567-6
e-ISBN(PDF)978-3-11-056805-9
e-ISBN(EPUB)978-3-11-056572-0
ISSN1861-4191
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
ACIPcatalogrecordforthisbookhasbeenappliedforattheLibraryofCongress.
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailedbibliographicdataareavailableontheInternetathttp://dnb.dnb.de.
62018WalterdeGruyterGmbH,Berlin/Boston
Typesetting:RoyalStandard,HongKong
Printingandbinding:CPIbooksGmbH,Leck
♾ Printedonacid-freepaper
PrintedinGermany
www.degruyter.com
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Productionconstraintsandarticulatoryadaptation
mechanisms 5
2.1 Tautosyllabicconsonantsequences 5
2.2 Heterosyllabicconsonantsequences 8
2.3 Coarticulation 10
2.4 Assimilation 12
2.4.1 Categoricalvsgradientassimilations 14
2.4.2 Overlap/assimilationandreduction/elision 18
2.4.3 Mannerassimilation 21
2.5 Blending 22
2.6 Prosodic,morphologicalandlexicalfactors,andspeech
rate 24
2.7 TheDACmodelofcoarticulation 27
2.8 Directionofsegmentaladaptation 30
3 Homorganicclusters 32
3.1 Simpleconsonants 32
3.1.1 Dentalordentoalveolar? 35
3.1.2 Frontandbackalveolars 37
3.1.3 Palataloralveolopalatal? 39
3.1.4 Segmentalcomplexity 40
3.1.5 Summary 41
3.2 Consonantsequences 41
3.2.1 Methodology 41
3.2.1.1 Electropalatography 42
3.2.1.2 Ultrasound 44
3.2.2 Testinghypotheses 48
3.3 Results 51
3.3.1 Unconstrained+constrained 51
3.3.1.1 EPGdata 51
3.3.1.2 Ultrasounddata 61
3.3.1.3 Otherlanguages 68
3.3.2 Constrained+unconstrained 72
3.3.2.1 EPGdata 72
3.3.2.2 Ultrasounddata 78
vi Tableofcontents
3.3.2.3 Otherlanguages 82
3.3.3 Trendsinassimilatorydirection 84
3.3.4 Unconstrained+unconstrained 86
3.3.4.1 Palatalizingenvironment(EPGdata) 86
3.3.4.2 Palatalizingenvironment(ultrasounddata) 92
3.3.4.3 Dentalizingenvironment 96
3.3.4.4 Otherlanguages 100
3.3.5 Constrained+constrained 101
3.4 Blendinginvolvingdorsalconsonants 104
3.5 Generalsummary 104
3.5.1 Sequenceswithconsonantsdifferingindegreeofarticulatory
constraint 104
3.5.2 Sequenceswithunconstrainedconsonants 106
3.5.3 Sequenceswithconstrainedconsonants 107
4 Heterorganicarticulators 108
4.1 Stopclusters 109
4.1.1 OnsetandheterosyllabicC(#)Csequences 109
4.1.1.1 Lingual 109
4.1.1.2 Labialandlingual 115
4.1.1.3 Summary 117
4.1.2 Codasequences 118
4.2 Obstruentclusterswithafricative 118
4.2.1 Sequenceswithastopandafricative 118
4.2.1.1 OnsetandheterosyllabicC(#)Csequences 118
4.2.1.2 Codasequences 120
4.2.2 Two-fricativesequences 120
4.3 Clusterswithanasal 121
4.3.1 OnsetandheterosyllabicC(#)Csequences 121
4.3.1.1 Non-nasalC1 121
4.3.1.2 NasalC1 123
4.3.2 Codasequences 124
4.4 Clusterswithalateral 125
4.4.1 OnsetandheterosyllabicC(#)Csequences 125
4.4.2 Codasequences 126
4.5 Clusterswitharhotic 127
4.5.1 OnsetandheterosyllabicC(#)Csequences 127
4.5.2 Codasequences 130
4.6 Blendingscenarios 130
TableofContents vii
4.6.1 Sequenceswithadentaloranalveolarconsonant,andthe
dorsopalatal/j/ 130
4.6.2 Sequenceswithfrontlingualandvelarconsonants 132
4.7 Generalsummary 139
4.7.1 Mannerofarticulation 140
4.7.2 Placeofarticulation 141
4.7.3 C-centereffect 141
4.7.4 Blending 142
5 Mannerassimilationandweakening 144
5.1 Stops 145
5.1.1 Assimilation/elision 145
5.1.1.1 Nasalcontext 145
5.1.1.2 Lateralcontext 147
5.1.1.3 Fricativeandrhoticcontext 148
5.1.2 Lenition/elision 149
5.1.2.1 Syllable-finalposition 149
5.1.2.2 Syllable-onsetposition 149
5.1.2.3 Word-finalelision 151
5.1.3 Rhotacismandvocalization 151
5.1.4 Summary 153
5.2 Lingualfricatives 154
5.2.1 Aspiration 154
5.2.2 Assimilation/elision 156
5.2.2.1 Beforeatrill 156
5.2.2.2 Assimilationinotherconsonantalcontexts 157
5.2.2.3 Deletioninotherconsonantalcontexts 158
5.2.3 Rhotacism 159
5.2.4 Vocalization 161
5.2.5 Palatalization 163
5.2.6 Summary 164
5.3 Nasals 165
5.3.1 Assimilation/elision 165
5.3.1.1 Contextualfricative 165
5.3.1.2 Contextualliquid 167
5.3.1.3 Contextualstop 169
5.3.2 Rhotacism 169
5.3.3 Summary 170
5.4 Laterals 170
5.4.1 Assimilation/elision 170
viii Tableofcontents
5.4.1.1 Contextualtrill 170
5.4.1.2 Contextualnasal,stopandfricative 171
5.4.1.3 Contextualvelarandlabial 172
5.4.2 Rhotacism 174
5.4.3 Vocalization 175
5.4.4 Summary 176
5.5 Rhotics 177
5.5.1 Assimilation/elision 177
5.5.1.1 Contextualfricative 177
5.5.1.2 Othercontextualconsonants 178
5.5.2 Vocalization,aspirationanduvularization 181
5.5.3 Summary 182
5.6 Generalsummary 182
5.6.1 Homorganicity 182
5.6.2 Weakening 185
6 Recapitulationanddiscussion 187
6.1 Homorganicsequences 187
6.2 Heterorganicsequences 189
6.3 Mannerassimilationandweakening 191
6.4 Generalconclusionsandtopicsforfuturework 192
References 195
Indexoflanguagesanddialects 211
1 Introduction
The phonetic realization of consonant clusters presents a challenge for studies
onspeechproduction.Differentlyfromsegmentalsequencescomposedofvowels
and consonants, the realization of consonant sequences offers a large variety of
productionscenarioswhichspeakersmayresolvethroughanarrayofarticulatory
mechanisms.These mechanisms are conditioned by the need to implement the
placeandmannerofarticulationandvoicingcharacteristicsfortheconsecutive
consonants and may result in highly antagonistic situations. For example, in a
sequence like /ɲr/ which may be found in the Catalan string bany rus “Russian
bath”,where /ɲ/ is an alveolopalatal nasal and /r/ is an alveolar trill,the need
to anticipate the tongue body lowering and backing movement for the trill
conflicts necessarily with the raised and fronted tongue body configuration for
the preceding alveolopalatal nasal. Articulatory data show that speakers often
solvethisantagonisticsituationbydepalatalizingC1ratherthanbypalatalizing
C2.There is no conflict in other consonant sequences where the lingual activity
for C1 is more compatible with that for C2 as, for example, in the case of /nʃ/
where the tongue body raising and fronting movement for /ʃ/ is freely antici-
pated during the preceding alveolar nasal since the production of /n/ does not
require a very precise lingual configuration partly due to the low manner of
articulation-dependentproductiondemandsinvolved(seesection4.3.1.2).
A good reason for investigating the production mechanisms of consonant
clustersisinordertobeabletoaccountforwhycertainconsonant-to-consonant
adaptations in place and manner of articulation take place more often than
others. Aproduction-motivated rationale for why these articulatory adaptations
occur the way they do appears to be more acceptable than other approaches
based on phonological principles such as the strength hierarchy, which runs
oppositetothesonorityhierarchyandproceedsintheprogressionstops(conso-
nantswithmaximalstrength)>fricatives>nasals>laterals>rhotics(consonants
withminimalstrength).Accordingtothisview,aCCsyllablecontactisfavoured
thehigherthestrengthvalueofonsetC2relativetothatofcodaC1,andassimi-
lation causes the stronger consonant to become less strong. Therefore, it is
predicted that /ln/ and /rn/ should assimilate progressively into [ll] and [rr],
respectively,while /nl/ and /nr/ ought to assimilate regressively into the same
phonetic outcomes [ll] and [rr] (Maiden, 1995: 72,Vennemann, 1988: 50–51). A
problem with this and similar hierarchies is that strength values are not in-
dependently motivated but are derived from the outcomes of the phonological
andsoundchangeprocessesthemselves,whichmayleadtodifferenthierarchies,
especially among sonorant consonants, depending on which process is subject
to analysis (see for a similar objection Cho, 1999: 205–211).Thus, for example,
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110568059-001
2 Introduction
the relatively high strengthvalue for nasals in the scale referred to above does
notholdwhenwetakeintoconsiderationthetrendfor/n/ratherthan/t/or/s/
to assimilate in place of articulation to the following syllable-onset consonant
(chapter 4). Another problem with manner categories such as stop, fricative,
nasal,lateralandrhoticisthattheyarefartoogeneralformakingvalidpredic-
tions about the range of adaptability processes which may apply to consonant
sequences such as the ones analyzed in the present study. For instance, under
the label rhotic we find manner classes as different as taps, trills and approx-
imants,whichoperateverydifferentlyascoarticulationandassimilationtriggers
andtargets,andasimilarobjectionmaybemaderegardingdifferencesinadapt-
abilitybetweenstopsandnasalsdependingontheprimaryarticulatorandthus
whethertheyarecoronalordorsal.
Asimilarcriticismmayberaisedwithrespecttootherphonologicalmodels
based on features or gestures which consider place and manner of articulation
characteristicsindependentlyofeachotherorattributemorerelevancetogestural
goals than to manner of articulation demands. Throughout this book we
generally render consonantal assimilations dependent on the articulatory and
aerodynamic requirements involved in the production of the two successive
consonantsinconsonantclusters.Therationalebehindthisapproachisthat,in
a good number of cases, place and manner of articulation properties account
jointlyforwhetherspecificassimilatoryprocessesapplyornot.
Alargenumberofrecentstudiesontherealizationofword-initialandword-
final consonant sequences have tested several predictions about gestural over-
lap and articulatory cohesion at the syllable level formulated by Articulatory
Phonology (Browman & Goldstein, 1992). Within this and other frameworks,
muchattentionhasbeenpaidtothemechanismsofinterarticulatorycoordination
for successive consonants produced with independent articulatory structures
whichmayoverlapintime,i.e.,lips,jaw,tongue,velumandlarynx,andtongue
front and tongue body as well.The present book reviews citically the existing
literature on the production of these two-consonant cluster structures, and
providessomenewinsigthsaboutthearticulatoryorganizationofheterosyllabic
sequences which are (nearly)-homorganic and thus composed of consonants
sharing essentially the same primary articulator. Moreover, it does not only
deal with the place adaptation mechanisms between the two consonants in the
cluster,butalsowithhowthehomorganicorheterorganicrelationshipbetween
C1 and C2 as well as other articulatory and aerodynamic characteristics influ-
ence the implementation of manner assimilations (see section 2.4.3 for details)
and the weakening of syllable-final consonants. These research topics are
relevant in so far as they have been paid little attention in the literature.
The study of manner assimilations will not deal with voicing adaptations or