Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:29:28.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What it means to be phonetic or phonological: the case of Romanian devoiced nasals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2010

Benjamin V. Tucker  and
Natasha Warner
Benjamin V. Tucker
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and University of Alberta
Natasha Warner
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract phonological patterns and detailed phonetic patterns can combine to produce unusual acoustic results, but criteria for what aspects of a pattern are phonetic and what aspects are phonological are often disputed. Early literature on Romanian makes mention of nasal devoicing in word-final clusters (e.g. in /basm/ ‘fairy-tale’). Using acoustic, aerodynamic and ultrasound data, the current work investigates how syllable structure, prosodic boundaries, phonetic paradigm uniformity and assimilation influence Romanian nasal devoicing. It provides instrumental phonetic documentation of devoiced nasals, a phenomenon that has not been widely studied experimentally, in a phonetically underdocumented language. We argue that sound patterns should not be separated into phonetics and phonology as two distinct systems, but neither should they all be grouped together as a single, undifferentiated system. Instead, we argue for viewing the distinction between phonetics and phonology as a largely continuous multidimensional space, within which sound patterns, including Romanian nasal devoicing, fall.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 289 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Academia Română (1996). Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române (DEX). Bucharest: Editurii Univers Enciclopedic.Google Scholar
Avram, Andrei (1991). Semivocalele, semiconsoanele şi pseudovocalele în românia. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice 5–6. 193–205.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan (2006). Strength and weakness at the interface: positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Ladefoged, Peter (1991). Two types of voiceless nasals. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 21. 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankenship, Barbara, Ladefoged, Peter, Bhaskararao, Peri & Chase, Nichumeno (1993). Phonetic structures of Khonoma Angami. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 84. 127–141.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2005). Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer (version 4.3.19). http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bombien, Lasse, Mooshammer, Christine, Hoole, Philip, Rathcke, Tamara & Kühnert, Barbara (2007). Articulatory strengthening in initial German /kl/ clusters under prosodic variation. In Trouvain & Barry (2007). 457–460.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert (2004). Phonological aspects of nasality: an element-based dependency approach. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis (1992). Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani & Choi, Susie (2010). At the juncture of prosody, phonology, and phonetics: the interaction of phrasal and syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.) Laboratory phonology 10. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani, Krivokapić, Jelena & Lee, Sungbok (2006). How far, how long: on the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. JASA 120. 1589–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani, Lee, Sungbok, Riggs, Daylen & Adams, Jason (2005). Interacting effects of syllable and phrase position on consonant articulation. JASA 118. 3860–3873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani & Saltzman, Elliot (2003). The elastic phrase: modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. JPh 31. 149–180.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana (2001). The phonology of Romanian: a constraint-based approach. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana (2002). A perception-production study of Romanian diphthongs and glide–vowel sequences. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32. 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana, Goldstein, Louis & Byrd, Dani (2002). Gestural overlap and recoverability: articulatory evidence from Georgian. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong (2005). Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /ɑ, i/ in English. JASA 117. 3867–3878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dantsuji, Masatake (1986). Some acoustic observations on the distinction of place of articulation for voiceless nasals in Burmese. Studia Phonologica 20. 1–11.Google Scholar
Flege, James Emil (1995). Second-language speech learning: theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, Winifred (ed.) Speech perception and linguistic experience: issues in cross-language research. Timonium, Md.: York Press. 229–273.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Keating, Patricia A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. JASA 101. 3728–3740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gick, Bryan, Campbell, Fiona, Oh, Sunyoung & Tamburri-Watt, Linda (2006). Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: a cross-linguistic study of liquids. JPh 34. 49–72.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (1998). The phonetics and phonology of non-modal vowels: a cross-linguistic perspective. BLS 24. 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Marie & Krakow, Rena (eds.) (1993). Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Pétursson, Magnús (1998). Voiceless nasal phonemes in Icelandic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 28. 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (2006). Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure. In Harrington, Jonathan & Tabain, Marija (eds.) Speech production: models, phonetic processes, and techniques. New York: Psychology Press. 167–186.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A., Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cécile & Hsu, Chai-Shune (2003). Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.) Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 145–163.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. (1993). Nonsegmental influences on velum movement patterns: syllables, sentences, stress, and speaking rate. In Huffman & Krakow (1993). 87–116.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. (1999). Physiological organization of syllables: a review. JPh 27. 23–54.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian (1996). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford & Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1984a). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1984b). The effects on F0 of a voicing distinction in sonorants and their implications for a theory of tonogenesis. JPh 12. 9–15.Google Scholar
Marin, Stefania (2007). An articulatory modeling of Romanian diphthong alternations. In Trouvain & Barry (2007). 453–456.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1975). Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, Charles A., Hyman, Larry M. & Ohala, John J. (eds.) Nasálfest: papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project, Stanford University. 289–316.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990). There is no interface between phonetics and phonology: a personal view. JPh 18. 153–171.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1997). Emergent stops. Proceedings of the 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics [SICOL]. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea. 84–91.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari (1993). The phonetics of nasal phonology: theorems and data. In Huffman & Krakow (1993). 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, David & Connine, Cynthia M. (2001). Variant frequency in flap production: a corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58. 254–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrovici, Emil (1930). De la nasalité en Roumain. Cluj: Institul de Arte Grafice ‘Ardealul’.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija (2003a). Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: acoustic results. JASA 113. 516–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabain, Marija (2003b). Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. JASA 113. 2834–2849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabain, Marija & Perrier, Pascal (2005). Articulation and acoustics of /i/ in preboundary position in French. JPh 33. 77–100.Google Scholar
Tiede, Mark, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Johnson, Beth, Ghosh, Satrajit, Matthies, Melanie, Zandipour, Madjid & Perkell, Joseph (2007). Gestural phasing in /kt/ sequences contrasting within and cross word contexts. In Trouvain & Barry (2007). 521–524.Google Scholar
Trouvain, Jürgen & Barry, William J. (eds.) (2007). Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Dudweiler, Saarbrücken: Pirrot.Google Scholar
Tsuchida, Ayako, Cohn, Abigail C. & Kumada, Masanobu (2000). Sonorant devoicing and the phonetic realization of [spread glottis] in English. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 13. 167–181.Google Scholar
Vasiliu, Emanuel (1965). Fonologia limbii române. Bucarest: Editura Ştiinţifică.Google Scholar
Warner, Natasha, Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan & Kemps, Rachèl (2004). Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: evidence from Dutch. JPh 32. 251–276.Google Scholar
Westbury, John R. & Keating, Patricia A. (1986). On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. JL 22. 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar