The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 24th February 2008.
Obstruent Nasals Exist!* Karthik Durvasula University of Delaware
[email protected] 0. Introduction Contributions of the paper. The paper has two parts: •
Part 1: Shows obstruent nasals exist. (Sections 1 & 2) Leads to a better understanding of the phonology-phonetics interface. Maintains robust phonological generalizations.
•
Part 2: Consequences of the result in Part 1. (Sections 3) Problems for nasal harmony –specially, for opaque generalization of nasal harmony through obstruent stops (eg. ata → ata ) Propose a new solution to the problem.
1. Received position on obstruent nasals
The features [+nasal] and [+obstruent] are
•
Phonetically incompatible (Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996), Sole (2007)).
•
Consequently, phonologically incompatible.
Nasals are inherently sonorant. Kenstowicz (1994: 36) “The stricture associated with [+sonorant] segments does not disrupt airflow enough to inhibit voicing… While nasals are articulated articulated with an oral closure, the nasal cavity is open and hence airflow is not impeded.” Stevens (1998) “Finally, the value attached to the feature [sonorant] specifies whether pressure builds up behind the constriction [-sonorant] …” (pg. 249)
*
I would like to thank Dr. William Idsardi, Dr. Jeffrey Heinz, Dr. Uri Tadmor, and all the students at the Dept. Of Linguistics, University of Delaware for their help and support. 1
Karthik Durvasula
“…for a nasal consonant the velopharyngeal port is open during the time there is a supraglottal closure, and there is no pressure increase behind the constriction.” (pg. 487) Sole (2007) “If the obstruent constriction is anterior to the velopharyngeal port (i.e., labial to uvular), a tightly sealed velum is necessary to build up intraoral pressure… velic openings which do not impair the build up of pressure for audible turbulence would be insufficient to create the percept of nasalization in the consonant.” Diagrammatic representation of the standard understanding of obstruents (Fig. 1). Closed or nearly-closed velo-pharyngeal port
Obstruent Pressure build-up
Fig. 1. Condition for obstruent pressure build-up
2. Post-stopped nasals are obstruent nasals Claim: •
Some segments that have been called “pre-nasalised” stops (or) “post-stopped nasals” (or) post-stopped nasals are better analysed featurally as Obstruent Nasals.
•
Obstruent Nasals can have multiple phonemic / underlying representational sources, but they “leave the phonology” with the proposed featural representation.
Post-stopped nasals have been argued to be identical to pre-nasalised stops (PNS) in other languages as the two types of segments never contrast in any language (Maddieson & Ladefoged (1993)).
2
The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 24th February 2008.
Phonetics: Post-stopped nasals differ consistently from ‘typical’ PNS. (case-studies follow in sub-sections 2.1-2.3) •
Higher oral pressure during the nasal murmur than during simple nasals or PNS.
•
A relatively weaker nasal murmur than PNS or simple nasal stops.
•
A strong observable release burst unlike with PNS or simple nasals.
•
No clearly observable “oral” portion unlike with PNS.
Phonology: post-stopped nasals differ from ‘typical’ PNS. •
classifying post-stopped nasals as PNS goes against otherwise robust phonological generalizations about PNS regarding contrast.
•
Typical PNS are either phonetic manifestations of simple nasals in 2-way stop contrast inventories (1a) (Durvasula (2007)) or enhanced versions of voiced stops (1b) (Iverson & Samuels (1996)).
•
However, in Jambi Malay and Acehnese, these generalisations do not hold for the post-stopped nasals as they contrast with voiced stops and simple nasals in onsets – sections 2.2 & 2.3.
Problems for the view “post-stopped nasals = pre-nasalised stops” •
Doesn’t capture consistently different phonetic manifestations.
•
Loses cross-linguistic generalizations about pre-nasalised stops.
Next few sub-sections: Languages that high-light the above-mentioned problems Acehnese, Chinese dialects, Jambi Malay dialects.
2.1 Case Study 1: Chinese Dialects – Chan & Ren (1987), Hu (2007) Cantonese, Hakka, Shanxi… (Hu (2007)). Diachronically/dialectologically related to “simple nasals” in the same position. They appear in onsets. 3-way stop contrast in this position (p/b, ph, mb) (1) Comparison of post-stopped nasals and pre-nasalised stops S. No. Post-stopped Nasals Pre-nasalised stops Burst and/or amplitude drop Amplitude drop following nasals. 1 following nasal. Relatively weak nasal murmur. Relatively strong nasal murmur. 2
3
Karthik Durvasula
2.2 Acehnese – Durie (1985), Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) Similar characteristics! The oral portion is almost “non-existent”. Diachronically related to N+C clusters 4-way stop contrast in this position (b, p, m, mb) Simple Nasals (Fig. 2) and Post-stopped Nasals (Fig. 3) in Acehnese
Fig. 2. Simple Nasal (ʨama ‘sea-mew’)
Fig. 3. Simple Nasal (hamba ‘servant’)
2.3 Jambi Malay – Yanti & Tadmor (2004), my field work. Similar phonetic characteristics. Oral portion is not visible in the spectrograms. Diachronically related to N+C clusters. 4-way stop contrast in this position . 4
The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 24th February 2008.
(2) laba-laba ‘spider’ bapa?
‘father’
kamãr
‘room’
b
tam at
‘to tie’ (taMat)
-
post-stopped nasal
2.4 Reclassification: Post-stopped nasals are Obstruent nasals Reclassifying post-stopped nasals as obstruent nasals, i.e., [+obstruent, +nasal], accounts for their phonetic characteristics. •
The feature [+obstruent] is marked by an increase in oral pressure behind the constriction of a consonant (Stevens (1998), Clements and Osu (2002)).
•
Therefore, the increased oral pressure and decreased nasal murmur in poststopped nasals can be seen as a trade-off between the usual manifestations of the features [+obstruent] and [+nasal].
•
Furthermore, a strong release burst is now expected because of the oral-pressure build-up behind the constriction.
•
Finally, there is no expectation of an “oral” portion during the production of these segments.
Diagrammatic representation of the present claim (Fig. 4). Min. Open
Max. Open
Medium Open
Min.
Min.
Min. Pressure
Max. Pressure Min. Pressure Medium Pr.
Simple Obstruent
Simple Nasal
Obstruent Nasal
Fig. 4. Simple obstruents, Simple nasals, Obstruent nasal Lets us maintain otherwise robust cross-linguistic generalizations about true PNS.
5
Karthik Durvasula
Importance of reclassification: •
Shows nasality can co-exist with obstruency.
•
This is further evidenced in data from Jambi Malay where word-final voiceless stops are optionally nasalized.
(3) a. ikat
→ ika(n)t
b. makan → makadn
‘fish’ ‘eat’ Result: Obstruent Nasals Exist!
3. Implications for Nasal Harmony In this section, I highlight the consequences of the result in the previous sections for cases of nasal harmony through obstruent segments. Piggott (2003a,b) – principle of UG - blocks stops from being nasalized or changing in general. Uses this to explain the otherwise anomalous data in Guarani, Tuyuca, Barasana where nasal harmony ‘skips’ intervening obstruent stops. (4) Barasana (Piggott (2003b)) a. ware + re → [warere] ‘to watch’ b. mini + aka → [miniaka] ‘small bird’ However, allowing nasal obstruents means, we no longer have an “explanation” for what is happening!
3.1 Nasal Harmony and Walker’s Intuition Walker’s Intuition- Walker (1999) •
Nasal Harmony is always to adjacent segments – No-Gap condition.
•
Nasal Harmony follows a hierarchy (5)
•
In Guarani, Tuyuca, Barasano…, [+nasal] copies on to the obstruent segment, and then to the following vowel (6).
6
The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 24th February 2008.
•
Obstruent surfaces as ‘oral’ because of opaque interactions – Sympathy Theory.
•
However, her formalization of obstruent opacity in nasal harmony in terms of ‘Sympathy Theory’ has been criticized (Piggott (2003), Ploch (manuscript)).
(5) Nasalisation Hierarchy (Walker (1999))
(6) Nasal Harmony a t a | [nasal]
→
a t a | | | [nasal] [nasal] [nasal]
3.2 Relevant Observation Nasal harmony through obstruents is always an opaque interaction, i.e, the obstruent is always oral, not even pre/post-nasalised (as in (4b)). •
Not an areal bias. Moba Yoruba – Benue-Congo languages (Welmers (1973), Piggott (2003a,b)) Barasano – Tucanoan languages (Piggott (2003a,b)) Guarani – Tupi languages.
But, when harmony stops with the obstruent, the obstruent can be nasalized – it surfaces as pre-nasalised (7). (7) Terena nasal harmony 3rd person
1st person
a. emoʔu
emoʔu
‘sickness’
b. owoku
owoŋ gu
‘house’
c. tuti
n
‘head’
duti
Reframing the generalization: •
When a tauto-syllabic vowel is nasalized, the obstruent is not nasalized (phonetically).
•
When a tauto-syllabic vowel isn’t nasalized, the obstruent can be nasalized. 7
Karthik Durvasula
3.3 New Account Nasal harmony through obstruents in the phonology is simple process – there is no opacity (8) – maintains Walker’s (1999) intuition. (8) Nasal Harmony in the phonology a t a → a t a | | | | [nasal] [nasal] [nasal] [nasal]
Independently needed phonetics-phonology principle: Only a single gesture completes identically specified adjacent phonological features/dimensions within a syllable (Durvasula 2007). (9) Nasal Harmony: mapping to gestures
Phonological features:
a t | [nasal]
a
→
a ][ t a ]σ | | | [nasal] [nasal] [nasal]
Phonetic nasal gesture:
Gestural Phasing Gestures are aligned to optimise perceptual contrast. (Silverman (1997)). The nasals final gesture in (9) aligns almost completely with the vowel (and not with the preceding obstruent) to optimise the perceptual contrast of the gesture (10). (10) Nasal Harmony: Alignment of gestures
Phonological features:
a t | [nasal]
Phonetic nasal gesture:
8
a
→
a ][ t a ]σ | | | [nasal] [nasal] [nasal]
The 32nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 24th February 2008.
(11) Nasal Harmony: In short
Underlying form (UR) Surface Phonological Form (SR) – after nasal harmony Syllable-based gestural mapping
a. Transparent ‘r’ that is nasalized phonetically V r V | [+nasal] V ]σ V ][ r | | | [+nasal] [+nasal] [+nasal] Gesture V-Place C-Place Velum
V ][ r
V]σ
b. Transparent ‘t’ that is not nasalized phonetically V t V | [+nasal] V ][ t V ]σ | | | [+nasal] [+nasal] [+nasal] Gesture V-Place C-Place Velum
V ][ t
V]σ
4. Conclusion Obstruent Nasals exist! Re-examination of opacity in nasal harmony through obstruent segments. •
Proposed a new analysis.
Some cases of opacity are not because of the phonology, they are because of phonetic mapping / gestural principles. IPA symbol for obstruent nasals?
References Clements, G. N. & Osu, S. (2002). Explosives, Implosives and Nonexplosives : the Linguistic Function of Air Pressure Differences in Stops. In Gussenhoven and Warner (eds), Laboratory Phonology 7. Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 299-350. Chan, M. and Ren, H. 1987. Post-stopped nasals: An acoustic investigation. UCLA working Papers in Phonetics 68, 120-129. Durie, M. (1985). A Grammar of Acehnese on the Basis of a Dialect of North Aceh. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde Nr. 112. Dordrecht: Foris. Durvasula, K. (2007). The Nature of Stop-contrast Predicts Prenasalisation. Paper Presented at the 30th Annual Colloquium of Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW). Hu, F. (2007). Post-oralized nasal consonants in chinese dialects–aerodynamic and acoustic data. Paper presented at 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.Saarbru cken,Germany.6-10 Aug. 2007. Iverson, G. K., & Salmons, J. C. (1996). Mixtec Prensalization as Hypervoicing. International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 62, No. 2. pp. 165-175. Kenstowicz, Michael. J. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
9
Karthik Durvasula
Ladefoged, P. & I. Maddieson (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. Maddieson, I. & Ladefoged, P. (1993). Phonetics of partially nasal consonants. In Huffman and Krakow (eds), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 251-301. Piggott, G. L. (2003a). Invariance and Variability in Nasal Harmony. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. Piggott, G. L. (2003b). Theoretical implications of segment neutrality in nasal harmony. Phonology 20. Cambridge University Press. UK. pp. 375 - 424. Ploch, S. (manuscript). Review of Rachel Walker’s ‘Nasalization, Neutral Segments, and Opacity Effects’ Silverman, D. (1997). Phasing and recoverability. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics series. New York: Garland Publishing. Solé, M. J. (2007). Compatibility of features and phonetic content. The case of nasalization. Paper presented at 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbru cken,Germany.6-10 Aug. 2007. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics. MIT Press, Cambridge. Walker, R. (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. PhD dissertation, UCSC. Welmers, W. (1973). African language structures. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Yanti and Tadmor, U. (2005). Complex oral-nasals as boundary markers in Traditional Jambi Malay. Presented at ISMIL 9. Maninjau, Indonesia. 27-29 July 2005.
10
