[Lingtyp] Affricates vs. stop-fricative clusters
Stefan Savić
stefansavicz at gmail.com
Wed May 24 16:26:55 UTC 2023
Dear All,
there are similar examples in another Slavic language, BCMS
(Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian), like o*d-š*etati (walk away; I am
not sure if there are people who argue that d stays voiced) vs. *č*ekati
(wait), o*d-s*ad (from now on) vs. *c*ar (tzar). I could look for other
examples with d-ž and dž, but nothing comes to mind now.
Best regards,
Stefan
On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 15:49, Kuznetsova Natalia <nkuzn at yandex.ru> wrote:
> Dear Christian, Francoise, and Cat,
>
> Russian also distinguishes between the affricate /с/ and the cluster /ts/.
> For example, the pairs like отца (otca) [atc´a ~ acc´a] 'father:GEN' and
> отсадить (otsadit') [atsad´it' ~ acsad´it'] 'to sit/plant someone or
> something away' have been discussed in the Russian literature, e.g. here:
>
> Popov, Michail Borisovich. 2004. *Problemy Sinchroničeskoj i
> Diachroničeskoj Fonologii Russkogo Jazyka*. Sankt-Peterburg:
> Filologičeskij fakul’tet SPbGU, pp. 52-53, 71-72 (where there is also an
> overview of earlier studies).
>
> I am not aware of any phonetic study in this respect, but I imagine that
> also here the difference might be in a longer duration of the fricative
> part.
>
> As for the possible criteria which can contribute to phonemicity, I
> personally believe that there are many of them, not just phonetics or
> distribution. I myself have once counted around 20 of them in the paper
> below (available, although unfortunately only in Russian, at
> https://www.academia.edu/7370368/):
>
> Kuznecova, Natal’ja Viktorovna. 2014. Ob istorii, suš’nosti i izmerenijah
> fonemy. In *Ot Bikina do Bambal’umy, iz var’ag v greki: Ekspedicionnyje
> et’udy v čest’ Eleny Vsevolodovny Perehval’skoj*, Valentin Feodos’jevič
> Vydrin & Natal’ja Viktorovna Kuznecova (eds), 406-442. Sankt-Peterburg:
> Nestor-Istorija; Institut lingvističeskih issledovanij RAN; Grečeskij
> institut Filologičeskogo fakul’teta SPbGU.
>
> In this work, I was originally inspired by the ideas expressed in the
> works by Charles Bazell from the 1950s (about which I've first learned from
> Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1975. *Trends in Phonological Theory until 1975:
> A Historical Introduction*. Vol. 27. Copenhagen: Academisk Forlag, p.
> 373-374). I think those same works have also inspired Adam Tallan in his
> work on criteria convergence in wordhood, and I strongly believe that this
> approach might bring really interesting results in various fields of
> phonology in general.
>
> All the best,
>
> Natalia Kuznetsova
> Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
> Assistant Professor
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 05:41:35 +0000
> From: Fran?oise Rose <francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr>
> To: Christian Lehmann <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>, LINGTYP
> LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] [?] - [h]
> Message-ID: <2b37ffb65b47435789dbcb3933c19e1d at univ-lyon2.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Christian,
>
> ?Questions such as whether [ts] consists of two segments /ts/ or is one
> affricate /?/ are not solvable by phonetics (to the best of my knowledge),
> but are resolved by analyzing the distribution of this element.? This is in
> fact how I have proceeded for Moje?o Trinitario (Arawak, Bolivia) to
> distinguish the bi-phonemic sequence /ts/ from the phoneme /?/. Yet this is
> backed up by phonetics (in particular the duration of the fricative part),
> as shown in the following paper.
>
> Rose, Fran?oise. 2021. Moje?o Trinitario. Journal of the International
> Phonetic Association (Illustration of the IPA) 1?19.
> (doi:10.1017/S0025100320000365<https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100320000365>)
>
> As for your original question, ?Assuming that I want a rule that
> assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [?], I will have to
> accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in my phonology. Does this
> correspond to the state of the art in phonology?? I would say yes. I use
> the class ?labial consonant? to explain the change affecting a vowel
> following this class of consonant:
> Labialization; {Labial C}{non-front V}{front V} ? {Labial C}w{a?e,i}
>
> Rose, Fran?oise. 2019. Rhythmic syncope and opacity in Moje?o Trinitario.
> Phonological data and analysis 1(2). 1?25.
>
> Best,
> Fran?oise
>
>
> De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> De la part de
> Christian Lehmann
> Envoy? : mardi 23 mai 2023 15:41
> ? : LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] [?] - [h]
>
>
> Dear Miren and everybody,
>
> I find this problem interesting. Nowadays everybody appears to agree that
> syntactic and morphological classes are essentially distribution classes
> although the elements in question have meaning. In the same spirit, the
> distributionalists conceived of the phoneme in terms of the distribution of
> phones although these have physical properties. And the basic phonological
> features like [consonantal] and [syllabic] essentially relate to the
> distribution of segments in phonotactic patterns. Questions such as whether
> [ts] consists of two segments /ts/ or is one affricate /?/ are not solvable
> by phonetics (to the best of my knowledge), but are resolved by analyzing
> the distribution of this element. Again, it is true that distribution alone
> leads to unsatisfactory classes. The complementary distribution of [h] and
> [?] in several languages including English is one such example. Apparently
> a distribution class counts as a natural class only if it has a phonetic
> motivation.
>
> My impression is that a full phonological description works with a
> heterogeneous set of features: It does not abide by purely distributional
> phonological features, but also needs features which are essentially
> phonetic and have no direct relation to the distribution of the segments
> characterized by them. This may concern, in particular, features involved
> in processes of assimilation. If a consonant assimilates to an adjacent
> vowel, it means they share a feature despite their appurtenance to distinct
> distribution classes.
>
> Net result for my initial question: Assuming that I want a rule that
> assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [?], I will have to
> accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in my phonology. Does this
> correspond to the state of the art in phonology?
>
> Christian
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
> Tel.:
>
> +49/361/2113417
>
> E-Post:
>
> christianw_lehmann at arcor.de<mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
> <christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>>
>
> Web:
>
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230524/a1145780/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 10:46:44 +0200
> From: Cat Butz <Cat.Butz at hhu.de>
> To: Fran?oise Rose <francoise.rose at univ-lyon2.fr>
> Cc: Lingtyp <Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Affricates vs. stop-fricative clusters
> Message-ID: <5005b66d901ee7e538689d6f637d74fd at hhu.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hello Fran?oise,
>
> Interesting, so far I only knew of Polish as an example of a language
> which distinguishes affricates from their corresponding stop-fricative
> clusters. Thanks for doubling that!
>
> (For anyone who's interested: /t??/ is distinguished from /t?/ through a
> longer duration and/or allophonic trilling/flapping into a voiceless
> [tr?] of the latter in Polish.)
>
> Best,
> ---
> Cat Butz (she/they)
> HHU D?sseldorf
> General Linguistics
>
>
> Am 2023-05-24 07:41, schrieb Fran?oise Rose:
>
> Dear Christian,
>
> ?Questions such as whether [ts] consists of two segments /ts/ or is
> one affricate /?/ are not solvable by phonetics (to the best of my
> knowledge), but are resolved by analyzing the distribution of this
> element.? This is in fact how I have proceeded for Moje?o
> Trinitario (Arawak, Bolivia) to distinguish the bi-phonemic sequence
> /ts/ from the phoneme /?/. Yet this is backed up by phonetics (in
> particular the duration of the fricative part), as shown in the
> following paper.
>
> Rose, Fran?oise. 2021. Moje?o Trinitario. _Journal of the
> International Phonetic Association_ (Illustration of the IPA) 1?19.
> (doi:10.1017/S0025100320000365 [1])
>
> As for your original question, ?Assuming that I want a rule that
> assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [?], I will
> have to accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in my phonology.
> Does this correspond to the state of the art in phonology?? I would
> say yes. I use the class ?labial consonant? to explain the change
> affecting a vowel following this class of consonant:
>
> Labialization; {Labial C}{non-front V}{front V} ? {Labial
> C}w{a?e,i}
>
> Rose, Fran?oise. 2019. Rhythmic syncope and opacity in Moje?o
> Trinitario. _Phonological data and analysis_ 1(2). 1?25.
>
> Best,
>
> Fran?oise
>
> De : Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> De la part de
> Christian Lehmann
> Envoy? : mardi 23 mai 2023 15:41
> ? : LINGTYP LINGTYP <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
> Objet : Re: [Lingtyp] [?] - [h]
>
> Dear Miren and everybody,
>
> I find this problem interesting. Nowadays everybody appears to agree
> that syntactic and morphological classes are essentially distribution
> classes although the elements in question have meaning. In the same
> spirit, the distributionalists conceived of the phoneme in terms of
> the distribution of phones although these have physical properties.
> And the basic phonological features like [consonantal] and [syllabic]
> essentially relate to the distribution of segments in phonotactic
> patterns. Questions such as whether [ts] consists of two segments /ts/
> or is one affricate /?/ are not solvable by phonetics (to the best of
> my knowledge), but are resolved by analyzing the distribution of this
> element. Again, it is true that distribution alone leads to
> unsatisfactory classes. The complementary distribution of [h] and [?]
> in several languages including English is one such example. Apparently
> a distribution class counts as a natural class only if it has a
> phonetic motivation.
>
> My impression is that a full phonological description works with a
> heterogeneous set of features: It does not abide by purely
> distributional phonological features, but also needs features which
> are essentially phonetic and have no direct relation to the
> distribution of the segments characterized by them. This may concern,
> in particular, features involved in processes of assimilation. If a
> consonant assimilates to an adjacent vowel, it means they share a
> feature despite their appurtenance to distinct distribution classes.
>
> Net result for my initial question: Assuming that I want a rule that
> assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [?], I will
> have to accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in my phonology.
> Does this correspond to the state of the art in phonology?
>
> Christian
>
> --
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
>
> Tel.:
>
> +49/361/2113417
>
> E-Post:
>
> christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>
> Web:
>
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100320000365
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 104, Issue 26
> ****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230524/14f0cf2e/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list