LINGUIST List 3.187

Thu 27 Feb 1992

Disc: Devoicing

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  • Henry Kucera, Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing
  • , Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing

    Message 1: Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing

    Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 11:46:32 ESRe: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing
    From: Henry Kucera <HENRYbrownvm.brown.edu>
    Subject: Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing


    The two pronunciations of final (normally) voiceless consonants in Russian and Czech (as voiced and voiceless, depending on the morphology) is certainly well established. It occurs in cases when the distinction between homophones (e.g. Russian "rot" and "rod") needs to be conveyed. Since the spelling in these languages is morphophonemic, this kind of articifical pronunciation is simply a variety of spelling pronunciation under specific circumstances.

    It should be also noted that in Czech and Russian (in contrast to German, for example), the voice-voiceless opposition in final word position is "suspended" -- as Trubetzkoy called it-- BUT the actual realization of a morphophonemically voiced consonant can be either voiced or voiceless, and vice versa, depending on the environment that follows the word or preposition boundary. For a discussion of these facts in generative phonology, cf. Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian, initial chapters. For Czech, where the situation is very complicated, a description is given in my Phonology of Czech (out of print).

    Henry Kucera

    Message 2: Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing

    Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 09:15 EST
    From: <KINGSTONcs.umass.EDU>
    Subject: Re: 3.169 Queries: Chinese, Dictionary, Final Devoicing


    Regarding Alexis Manaster-Ramer's query about final devoicing. Two points:

    1) Thai is well-known for having just a single series of stops syllable- finally, neutralizing an initial contrast between prevoiced, voiceless unaspirated, and voiceless aspirated stops (though prevoiced stops are only found at the bilabial and alveolar but not palatal and velar places of articulation). The usual phonetic description of the final stops is voiceless unreleased, though some maintain that they also have constriction or closure of the glottis (I don't recall the references on this last point, but can dig them up if asked). However, the stops are written (most of them anyway, see below) with the symbols used in initial position to represent prevoiced stops, and not with what would seem the "logical" choice, the symbols for the voiceless unaspirated stops (there's an illogic to that choice, too, what I won't go into). Furthermore, Mary Haas, whose understanding of Thai I would hesitate to question, also insisted that the choice of symbol represented some kind of phonetic reality, citing the pronunciation of a consultant of the loan word _cheed_ as (approximately) [tShd^] where [] is a mid back unrounded vowel, and the final stop is voiced, with a voiced release. The force of this example is that it's the English word "shirt" which of course has a voiceless final consonant in the source language. One caveat, this pronunciation is cited as occurring when the consultant was emphasizing the proper pronunciation of the word. [Perhaps irrelevant notes on Thai orthography: Final stops are also written with symbols that represent other kinds of consonants; in initial position, e.g. stops with with other laryngeal articulations, fricatives, and even [r], but these are less common and are largely restricted, I think, to learned vocabulary, which are largely imports/ adpatations from Pali.

    2. There have a series of investigations, largely by people at Indiana (Dan Dinneson, Jan Charles-Luce, Bob Port, Louisa Slowiaczek), which puport ot show that final neutralization of voicing in German, Polish, and Catalan is phonetically incomplete, in that speakers produce stops which are underlyingly [+voice] differently than those which are underlyingly [-voice]. While I believe that much of the early work on this possibility was seriously marred by flaws in method (mostly a matter of drawing the speakers' attention to the possibility of a difference), the more recent work has been more careful in this regard, in particular a paper by Port in, I believe, Journal of Phonetics, in the last two years.

    John Kingston kingstoncs.umass.edu