The Eye · 2020. 1. 17. · Preface For decades, the voicing system of Polish has been at the...

Eugeniusz CyranBetween Phonology and Phonetics

Studies inGenerative Grammar

Edited byHarry van der HulstNorbert CorverJan KosterHenk van Riemsdijk

Volume 118

Eugeniusz Cyran

BetweenPhonology andPhoneticsPolish Voicing

DE GRUYTERMOUTON

ISBN 978-1-61451-714-6e-ISBN 978-1-61451-513-5ISSN 0167-4331

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataA CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/BerlinPrinting and binding: CPI buch bücher.de GmbH, Birkach♾ Printed on acid-free paperPrinted in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Preface

For decades, the voicing system of Polish has been at the centre of a heated theoretical debate concerning laryngeal phonology. This is due to two factors. Firstly, Polish features a number of phenomena that constitute the core of this debate, such as Final Obstruent Devoicing, Regressive Voice Assimilation, Pro-gressive Voice Assimilation, dialectally distributed external sandhi voicing in pre-sonorant context, and other instances of special behaviour of sonorants with respect to practically all the above mentioned processes, leading to inter-esting cases of variation. Secondly, Polish data have had very good ambassa-dors, such as Christina Bethin, Edmund Gussmann, and Jerzy Rubach, whose theoretical work was always at the forefront of the advances in laryngeal pho-nology, from linear to non-linear accounts, from binary to privative representa-tion of voice, and from the days of the brute force of phonological rules to non-derivational frameworks, seeking to uncover the mechanisms of laryngeal dis-tribution, which would stem directly from the general design of phonological representations or grammar.

This book, however, is no less a tribute to the great Polish linguists of the previous century whose work is still highly inspirational. Jan Baudouin de Cour-tenay draws our attention to the similarity between the external sandhi voicing in Cracow-Poznań Polish and similar facts in Sanskrit, thus broadening hori-zons and prompting a universalist, or at least a comparative perspective on voicing issues. Tytus Benni’s generalizations attempting to incorporate Progres-sive Voice Assimilation into a uniform system of assimilations, rather than see-ing them as an exception to Regressive Voice Assimilation, are echoed in most modern analyses. Kazimierz Nitsch provided many insights into the nature of the external sandhi voicing in Cracow-Poznań Polish and Progressive Voice Assimilation. Finally, Zdzisław Stieber proposed a still valid structural and sys-temic explanation of Progressive Voice Assimilation, while his inspirational comments about the relationship between phonology and phonetics contrib-uted greatly to the model of Sound System, which underlies the analyses of Polish voicing in this book.

The database used in this book is a combination of well-established facts presented in previous modern and earlier analyses, with recent experimental results, which point to greater variation in all the processes mentioned above than formal approaches assumed, or were ready to admit. Gradient phenomena

vi | Preface

and variation are difficult to express in formal descriptions, especially if they do not envisage a clear division between what is phonological and what is not phonological in the phenomena under study. On the other hand, when phonol-ogy is relieved of most of the explanatory responsibility, the implementational and indeed purely phonetic factors, as well as their relationship with phonology proper, needs to be spelled out, especially in models which eschew phonetic grounding in phonology. This book attempts to do that, and more. The model presented here is one in which phonology, phonetic interpretation and phonet-ics find a home, or rather their respective homes, in fact. Paradoxically, by sepa-rating these three levels of description, we wish to integrate the disparate threads of modern research of sound patterns into one sound system. For ex-ample, we take seriously the major results of laboratory phonology research, which gives us insight into how production and perception shape sound pat-terns, as well as seemingly competing theories of phonological organization. An example of the latter, would be the inspiring hypothesis of Licensing by Cue (Steriade 1999), which, although couched within Optimality Theory, does not contradict our own proposals stemming from a representation-based theory of Government in phonology. Since OT attempts to model the grammar with a view to arriving at the end point of ‘derivation’, that is, the optimal surface forms, it is by definition closer to implementational and phonetic aspects of sounds sys-tems. The theories of representations, then, are not, by definition incompatible with theories of constraint interaction. The question is how phonetic and im-plementational patterns can be incorporated into the computational module of phonology, and how much of this type of information fits in. At any rate, as research into laryngeal phonology progresses on various fronts, it becomes more and more obvious that a large portion of the phenomena in question have phonetic, or implementational conditioning, thus limiting the role of phonology even further. One of the aims of this study is to show the nature of what is left, and must remain.

The phonological model used in this study is a minimalist representational approach stemming from the research programme, which is generally referred to as Government Phonology (Charette 1991; Harris 1990, 1994; Kaye 1990, 1995; Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud 1985, 1990). The exact version of that theory will be that proposed in Cyran (2010), which follows the view that phonological representation is formally organized by a series of CVs, as well as lateral rela-tions of Government and Licensing (Lowenstamm 1996; Polgárdi 1998; Rowicka 1999; Scheer 2004). The representation of melody in this book follows the main tenets of the Element Theory (Harris 1990, 1994; Harris and Lindsay 1993, 1995), of which the most important ones are as follows. Melodic representations are privative. Non-specified members of oppositions do not receive further specifi-

Preface | vii

cation during derivation. They are interpreted phonetically as such. With re-spect to voicing oppositions, Laryngeal Realism (Harris 1994; Honeybone 2002, 2005; Iverson and Salmons 2003a) will be used as a starting point of reference.

The discussion here takes a slightly different course than usual, in that the central aspects of Polish voicing such as Final Obstruent Devoicing (FOD) and Regressive Voice Assimilation (RVA) are given less focus than Cracow-Poznań sandhi voicing (CPV) and Progressive Voice Assimilation (PVA). In this sense, we adhere to the early descriptions of Polish in which these ‘fringe’ phenomena drew more energy and analytic effort because they are more difficult to deal with. The usual course of action in more recent analyses has been to establish a model which accounts for the major phenomena, that is, FOD and RVA, and then try to demonstrate, with varying degrees of success, how the model applies to PVA and CPV. The net result has almost invariably been a postulation of a separate rule, or particular extrinsic rule ordering which contradicted the origi-nal intuition that all these phenomena are intrinsically connected.

The book is organized as follows. Chapter 1 contains preliminary informa-tion concerning the Polish voicing data and discusses the main theoretical is-sues connected with laryngeal phonology. The model of Laryngeal Realism is introduced and applied to the data with a view to demonstrating its failure with respect to CPV. Chapter 2 introduces a modification of the above mentioned model, which will be referred to as Laryngeal Relativism. The new model is placed in a broader perspective of a Laryngeal System, which, like any Sound System based on arbitrary relations between phonological and phonetic catego-ries, is composed of three levels of description: phonological, implementational (phonetic interpretation) and phonetic. The chapter contains definitions of various types of voicing found in natural languages and argues for a new type: enhanced passive voicing, which, it is claimed, occurs in Cracow-Poznań Pol-ish. Chapter 3 provides a new analysis of CPV, in which no new rule or rule ordering is necessary. The phenomenon is claimed to be purely phonetic and interpretational. The analysis, however, works under one condition: the phono-logical representation, and therefore the phonetic interpretation conventions, are the opposite of what is found in Warsaw Polish. In other words, two differ-ent systems generate almost identical sound patterns, with the same series of voiced and voiceless unaspirated obstruents and the same phenomena such as FOD and RVA, except that in external sandhi the interpretation of the neutral obstruents must be voiced in Cracow-Poznań and voiceless in Warsaw Polish for systemic reasons. Chapter 4 contains a rather lengthy discussion of Progressive Voice Assimilation, in which an attempt is made to explain the phenomenon by devoting close attention to the distinction between phonological, interpreta-tional and phonetic conditioning. This chapter enforces a reinterpretation of

viii | Preface

such phenomena as obstruency, obstruentization and obstruent devoicing, as well as the sometimes automatic connection which is made between friction and obstruency. With the new results it is possible to demonstrate that PVA is not an exception to RVA because it has a completely unrelated conditioning. The concluding Chapter 5 is a collection of issues that either have been left un-explored in the previous discussion, or had to be left to this point in the book for presentational reasons. The reader will find a detailed proposal of a uniform formal source of laryngeal licensing, which is at the same time amenable to micro-shifts leading to the observable variation in data. A section is devoted to the behaviour of Polish prepositions and prefixes. We also return to the problem of sonorant behaviour with respect to spreading processes, and the relationship between phonology and phonetics. One of the consequences of the model pre-sented in this work is that subsegmental primes – here elements – can be viewed as devoid of phonetic substance. The chapter ends with a brief reference to two languages in which the overall laryngeal system seems to resemble that of Cracow-Poznań Polish. We look at possible analytical consequences of this.

I wish to express my gratitude to the following friends and colleagues for their generous assistance and comments at various stages in the writing of this book. First and foremost, many thanks are due to my phonology teacher and friend, the late Edmund Gussmann. He did not have a chance to see any of this book, but I am sure his comments would have changed it a lot. I am also ex-tremely grateful to Jonathan Kaye and Tobias Scheer, who spent time talking to me about phonology including laryngeal phonology. I am not sure if we fully agree, but their encouragement allowed me to press on with my ideas. Thanks are also due to Sławek Zdziebko, who looked at the manuscript in great detail, to Robert Looby for proofreading the text, and to Katarzyna Bednarska, Ewa Pająk and Krzysztof Jaskuła for providing other comments. Last but not least, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and Harry van der Hulst for all their help and comments. I take full responsibility for the errors that remain.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife Marta and daughter Jadzia for their patience and support. This book is dedicated to them.

Chapter 1

Preliminaries

1 Introduction

In this chapter, we look first at the least controversial and best known voicing facts from Polish, which include the type of laryngeal contrast utilized in this system as well as the two core phenomena, namely Final Obstruent Devoicing (FOD) and Regressive Voice Assimilation (RVA) in obstruent clusters. This brief survey will not include details connected with the behaviour of sonorants, pre-fixes and prepositions, or the so called Progressive Voice Assimilation (PVA). These issues will receive attention in separate chapters once the new model of description is introduced in Chapter 2. The data discussed below will serve the purpose of allowing us to set the scene in terms of basic facts and theoretical choices that need to be made in order to grasp the entire voicing complex of Polish. As a starting point to a more detailed theoretical discussion we intro-duce the approach called Laryngeal Realism and apply it to the data with a view to demonstrating better the theoretical and analytical problems that Polish data pose especially on privative models of laryngeal representation. The chapter ends with an introduction of one of the most complicated problems of the Polish voicing complex, namely, the Cracow-Poznań sandhi voicing before sonorants. It will be shown that Laryngeal Realism is unable to provide an explanatory account of this phenomenon.

2 The basic Polish voicing facts

The basic facts of the Polish voicing system are well known,1 both from the tra-ditional phonetic studies (e.g. Benni 1964; Wierzchowska 1971), but especially from a number of generative and post-generative analyses (e.g. Bethin 1984, 1992; Gussmann 1992, 2007; Rubach 1996, 2008; Michalski 2009). Polish has a

|| 1 There are a number of experimental studies rejecting or supporting such ‘established’ as-sumptions as word-final neutralization or sonorant transparency and opacity (e.g., Slowiaczek and Dinnsen 1985; Jassem and Richter 1989; Strycharczuk 2012b).

2 | Preliminaries

two-way voicing contrast among obstruents, which is typically depicted as fully voiced versus voiceless unaspirated. The system has also been described as fortes versus lenes (Benni 1964: 19, Wierzchowska 1971: 149), but unlike in Ger-man or English in which the fortes series is accompanied by aspiration in stops, as well as a number of other cues, the distinction along the articulatory strength parameter does not seem to have any consequences in Polish.2 The relatively stronger constriction in the voiceless unaspirated series is assumed to be a natural phonetic consequence of the lack of voicing.3 The data in (1) illustrate some minimal pairs with the voiced / voiceless contrast. (1) pić [pjit��] ‘to drink’ bić [bjit��] ‘to hit’ płotem [pw�t�m] ‘fence, instr.’

błotem [bw�t�m] ‘mud, instr.’ rysa [r�sa] ‘scratch’

ryza [r�za] ‘ream’ oknie [�k��] ‘window, loc.’

ognie [�g��] ‘fire, pl.’ The contrast is neutralized in two contexts: before an obstruent and word-finally. Examples of FOD are given below and include devoicing of obstruent clusters, as well as obstruents followed by sonorants.4

(2) Final Obstruent Devoicing

waga [vaga] / wag [vak] ‘scale, nom.sg./gen.pl.’ stogu [st�gu] / stóg [stuk] ‘haystack, gen.sg./nom.sg.’ żaba [�aba] / żab [�ap] ‘frog, nom.sg./gen.pl.’

koza [k�za] / kóz [kus] ‘goat, nom.sg./gen.pl.’

|| 2 Dłuska (1950: 79) describes the difference between the articulations of voiceless stops in Romance and Slavic on the one hand, and Germanic on the other, as having a closed and raised glottis in the former, and open in the latter group. 3 It should be mentioned, however, that the articulation of the voiced / voiceless opposition in Polish exhibits a number of articulatory parameters which are typically found in the fortis / lenis one. With respect to [t/d], Wierzchowska (1971: 154) enumerates the following features of [t]: stronger burst, stronger laminal articulation, raised larynx, and longer duration of closure. 4 Recently, researchers are more prone to admit the variability in the operation of FOD in forms such as kadr [katr] ‘personnel, gen.pl.’. This issue will be returned to in Chapter 5.

The basic Polish voicing facts | 3

gwiżdżę [gvji�d ��] / gwiżdż [gvjit�] ‘I whistle/whistle, imp.’ mózgu [muzgu] / mózg [musk] ‘brain, gen.sg./nom.sg.’

gwiazda [gvjazda] / gwiazd [gvjast] ‘star, nom.sg./gen.pl.’

blizna [blizna] / blizn [blisn] ‘scar, nom.sg./ gen.pl.’ dobro [d�br�] / dóbr [dupr] ‘goodness, nom.sg./gen.pl.’ kadra [kadra] / kadr [katr] ‘personnel, nom.sg./gen.pl.’

Word-final devoicing results in surface ambiguities. For example, a surface form [stuk] may have two lexical sources, that is, stóg ‘haystack’ with final devoicing, or stuk ‘a knock’, with a lexically voiceless obstruent.

As observed in (2) above, obstruent clusters which were lexically voiced, e.g., gwiazda [gvjazda] ‘star, nom.sg.’, become voiceless as a whole in gwiazd [gvjast] ‘star, gen.pl.’. This brings us to the other context in which voicing can-not be used contrastively, and illustrates the general phonotactic pattern found in Polish clusters of obstruents. Either they statically agree in voicing as in (3a), in which case we are dealing with a Voice Agreement, or they become uniform in voicing by assuming the value of the right-hand obstruent. This phenomenon is called Regressive Voice Assimilation and occurs inside words (3b), across morpheme boundaries (3c), and across word boundaries (3d).

(3) Static voice agreement

a. kto [kt�] ‘who’ *kd, *gt gdy [gd�] ‘when’ *kd, *gt brzask [b�ask] ‘dawn’ *b, *p�, *zk, *sg ksiądz [k��nt�s] ‘priest’ *k, *g� krtań [krta�] ‘larynx’ *krd, *grt

drgać [drgat��] ‘tremble’ *drk, *trg

Dynamic voice agreement (assimilation)

b. dech [d�x] / tchu [txu] ‘breath, nom.sg./gen.sg.’ wieś [vj��] / wsi [f�i] ‘village, nom.sg./gen.sg.’

wesz [v�] / wszy [f�] ‘louse, nom.sg./gen.sg.’

c. prosić [pr��it��] / prośba [pr�ba] ‘to ask/a request’ ryza [r�za] / ryzka [r�ska] ‘ream/dim.’

mędrek [m�ndr�k] / mędrka [m�ntrka] ‘smart-aleck/gen.sg.’

d. kwiat begonii [kfjad b�g��ji] ‘begonia flower’ litr bimbru [ljidr bjimbru] ‘a litre of moonshine’

4 | Preliminaries

sad śliwkowy [sat �ljifk�v�] ‘plum orchard’ szyb kopalni [�p k�pal�i] ‘mine shaft’ The data in (3) require some comments. Firstly, the stem-internal alternations of voice in dech / tchu (3b) are extremely rare in Polish, which is why the forms in (3b) are quoted in almost every analysis of voicing facts in Polish. One reason for the special status of such forms is the fact that, two obstruents of opposite voice value must additionally be separated by a vowel that alternates with zero. Thus, when the vowel disappears, as in tchu, wsi, or wszy, the two obstruents become adjacent and their opposite voice value needs to be brought in line with the Voice Agreement condition. Interestingly, there seems to be no example of the reverse type of assimilation, that is, to a voiced obstruent.5

Similarly restricted are the assimilations across morpheme boundaries, as in (3c). This is due to the existing list of suffixes in Polish. Here, the assimilation to a voiced obstruent is basically limited to the fairly unproductive nominalizing suffix –ba, e.g., prosić [pr��it��] ‘to ask’ vs. prośba [pr�ba] ‘request’, and the context before the clitic –by, rósłby [ruz(w)b�] ‘would grow’. On the other hand, the assimilation to a voiceless obstruent is generally limited to the suffix −ek/−ka.

There are two data sets which to some extent compensate for this defi-ciency. Firstly, there is a relatively high incidence of forms involving the static agreement in sequences of two obstruents, as in (3a). And secondly, there are numerous cases of assimilation to a voiced obstruent across a word boundary, as illustrated in (3d), e.g., kwiat begonii [kfjad b�g��ji] ‘begonia flower’. Here, unlike with the root-internal and word-internal situation, the increased inci-dence of such cases is directly related to the number of words that begin with voiced obstruents in the Polish lexicon.

The data in (3d) include instances of assimilation across word boundaries which appear to be cases of voicelessness spreading, e.g., szyb kopalni [�p k�pal�i] ‘mine shaft’. Since the lexical voiced obstruent in the word szyb [�p] ‘shaft’ is devoiced word-finally anyway, it remains to be seen if we are dealing with assimilation here. A better example of regressive assimilation to a voiceless obstruent involves prefixes or prepositions followed by words beginning with a voiceless obstruent, e.g., pod kopalnią [p�t k�pal��w�] ‘under the mine’. Polish prefixes and prepositions do not undergo FOD if not used in isolation, which

|| 5 This gap is to a great extent accidental as it stems directly from the historical development of yer vowels. However, it has some consequences, which will be considered in more detail in connection with the intriguing phenomenon of so called progressive devoicing in, e.g., krewny [kr�vn�] ‘a relative’ vs. krwi [krfji] ‘blood, gen.sg.’. There are reasons to assume that the labio-dental fricative is lexically voiced, which should produce *[grvji], parallel to drgać in (3a).

Representing voice | 5

can be seen in the forms where the following word begins with a vowel, e.g., pod oknem [p�d �kn�m] ‘under the window’, or a sonorant consonant, e.g., pod mostem [p�d m�st�m] ‘under a bridge’ (Booij and Rubach 1987). Thus, clearly, in pod kopalnią, the devoicing of the preposition-final obstruent is due to the voiceless object at the beginning of the following noun. Thus, we can conclude that at least in surface terms, we are dealing with a symmetrical phenomenon of voice agreement in obstruent clusters, that is, both to a voiced and to a voiceless trigger, a point that will be returned to in the following sections.

Given the basic data above, the distribution of the voicing distinction, if ex-pressed by the ability to maintain the laryngeal distinction (Lar), is easily cap-tured in descriptive terms. The voice contrast is maintained before vowels ‘_V’ and before sonorant consonants followed by vowels ‘_SV’. The two contexts can be schematically merged into one ‘_(S)V’ as shown in (4a). The contrast is neu-tralized word-finally, whether the sonorant is present or not ‘_(S)#’ (4b),6 and before other obstruents (4c).

(4) a. b. c.

... C (S) V... ... C (S) # ... C (S) C...

| | |

Lar Lar Lar

C = obstruent, (S) = optional sonorant, Lar = laryngeal specification, V = vowel Having seen the basic data concerning the distribution of the voice contrasts in Polish, we now turn to some theoretical preliminaries leading to the specific choice of a representational model that will be a starting point to our own pro-posal in Chapter 2.

3 Representing voice

For any phonological model which recognizes a distinction between phonology and phonetics, and that concerns most models, the following simplified scheme (paradigm) applies. However, the difference between individual approaches may produce quite a range of possibilities: from full incorporation of phonetic grounding into phonology to substance free phonology.

|| 6 Some variation is present in forms like kadr [katr ~ kadr] ‘personnel, gen.pl.’. See Chapter 5.

6 | Preliminaries

We limit the discussion of the phonological representation only to the rele-vant melodic aspect, that is, laryngeal specification. There are a few fundamen-tal choices that may be made here, and the particular options greatly influence the rest of the paradigm.

(5) Phonological Computation Phonetic representation (Rules) form

/.../ [...] One such decision is whether the distinctive features are binary, for example, [�voice], [�spread�glottis], [�constricted glottis], [�stiff vocal folds], [�slack vocal folds], or whether the laryngeal contrasts should be expressed privatively. In the latter case, only the marked segments contain a particular feature, for example [voice], and the unmarked segments do not have any laryngeal specifi-cation underlyingly.7

One of the consequences of the above decision is the way basic phonologi-cal phenomena related to voice will be described. For example, Final Obstruent Devoicing (FOD) in Polish as in żaba / żab [�aba ~ �ap] ‘frog, nom.sg./gen.pl.’, will receive quite disparate analyses. In a binary model, the phonological rule may take the following form (e.g., Hayes 1984: 319).

(6) Final Devoicing

C → [–voice] / __ # Problems with rules of this type concern their purely descriptive adequacy and arbitrariness. If both [+voice] and [–voice] are available in computation, then such rules as in (6) do not explain, for example, why an obstruent is devoiced and not voiced in that environment. This is because the representational sym-metry predicts a computational one. The analysis is partly improved by break-ing the rule in (6) down into two separate ones, as in Rubach (1996: 77).

|| 7 Given that we are mainly concerned with the laryngeal system of Polish, we limit the discus-sion to a two-way contrast, in which one series of consonants is marked and the other one remains unmarked.

Representing voice | 7

(7) a. Final Devoicing b. Voice Default

R R R |

L [–sonor] / __ )PW [–sonor] → L [–sonor] | [–voice]

One rule delinks the laryngeal node of the obstruent in word-final position, regardless of whether it had [+voice] or [–voice] (7a). Thus, technically speak-ing, it is a delaryngealization and not merely a devoicing rule. The other rule is a universal default, which reintroduces the laryngeal node on unspecified ob-struents at a later stage in the derivation and fills it in with [–voice]. Here, one of the results of the improvement is the introduction of rule ordering, where (7a) feeds (7b). The other consequence is that the derivation has intermediate stages at which, next to the phonetically observable voiced and voiceless obstruents, a third object is created. It is an unspecified obstruent, which cannot be inter-preted phonetically unless it receives some specification in further derivation. The universal tendency for obstruents to be voiceless rather than voiced is built-in in the Voice Default but we are still dealing with mere descriptive adequacy because rule (7b) only formalizes the observation and does not explain it.

Privative models assume that in a two-way contrast system like Polish only one series of obstruents carries laryngeal specification. Typically, it is assumed that the voiced series contains the feature [voice]. The models differ, however, with respect to how the unmarked series is treated in further derivation. In the approaches in which phonological derivation is meant to bring the phonologi-cal representation closer to the stage at which it becomes phonetically inter-pretable – systematic phonetic level – the underlyingly unmarked segments receive their respective laryngeal features by means of various defaults. Univer-sally, sonorant consonants and vowels become [+voice], while obstruents be-come [–voice]. We find nothing wrong with defaults as long as they are mere phonetic interpretation statements, and the filled values do not participate in any phonological computation. Unfortunately, they do in a number of accounts of the Polish voicing system (e.g., Bethin 1992). In this sense, it is difficult to maintain that we are indeed dealing with a privative system.

A more radical proposal is made, for example, within the Element Theory of Government Phonology (GP). Instead of underspecification, GP talks about non-specification of the unmarked objects and assumes that the segments receive phonetic interpretation without any feature filling devices (Kaye, Lowenstamm, and Vergnaud 1990; Harris 1990, 1994). Phonological representations in this

8 | Preliminaries

model are phonetically interpretable at any stage of the derivation. This does not mean that there are no phonological processes or computation. To the con-trary. However, the computation does not bring the phonological representation any closer to the level at which they would be more pronounceable. The repre-sentations are pronounceable both before and after phonological processing, and the systematic phonetic level of representation is dispensed with (Harris and Lindsey 1993, 1995).

As a starting point, we assume the position called Laryngeal Realism8 (Har-ris 1994; Honeybone 2002, 2005), which is a privative approach with non-specification rather than underspecification. We review this approach below concentrating on how the privative view accounts for basic phenomena such as FOD and Voice Assimilation (VA), as well as on the question of what is a possi-ble phonological rule (computation).

4 Laryngeal Realism

Laryngeal Realism (Honeybone 2002, 2005) is an approach to laryngeal phonol-ogy whose main assumption is the privativity of the representation of voice coupled with non-specification and direct phonetic interpretation of the un-marked segments familiar from the Element Theory of Government Phonology (e.g., Kaye, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud 1985, 1990; Harris 1990, 1994). It is based on two important observations from the realm of universal phonetics and translates them into phonological systems.

The first observation is that there are three major phonetic categories which are regularly utilized by languages to express laryngeal contrasts.9 These cate-gories can be illustrated along the so called VOT continuum (Lisker and Abram-son 1964; Lieberman 1970; Keating 1984), i.e., i) long lead (negative VOT, which is found in fully voiced stops), ii) short lag (voiceless unaspirated stops), and iii) long lag (voiceless aspirated stops). The symbols used below are taken from Honeybone (2002).

|| 8 We owe the term to Honeybone (2002) but in spirit the proposal is not different from Harris (1994). For this reason we refer to both authors here. 9 We exclude systems with glottalization in this discussion. It is possible within Element Theory (e.g., Harris 1990, 1994) to represent this property by means of the occlusion element {�} rather than a special laryngeal category, e.g., [constricted glottis].

Laryngeal Realism | 9

(8) fully voiced

voiceless

unaspirated

voiceless

aspirated

b d g

po to ko

ph th kh

The other observation, this time concerning mostly European languages, is that among languages possessing a two-way laryngeal contrast, one can observe two groups of languages according to the different kinds of laryngeal distinctions they use. The first group is said to be represented by most Germanic languages and is characterized by a fortis / lenis distinction, which translates into voiceless aspirated vs. voiceless unaspirated in surface terms. The other group, represented by Romance and Slavic languages, has an opposition between fully voiced and voiceless unaspirated stops. Additionally, the two groups tend to exhibit differ-ent patterns of assimilation. Languages with full voicing seem to spread that property in assimilation processes, e.g., Polish rendition of football as [fudb�l] vs. English [ftb��l].

Laryngeal Realism takes these facts as evidence that the two groups of lan-guages cannot have the same phonological representations of the contrast that would be based on the feature [voice], and proposes two different types of rep-resentation.10

(9) Romance Germanic

and Slavic

fully

voiced

voiceless

unaspirated

voiceless

aspirated

Harris Honeybone

b

{L} [voice]

po

− −

ph

{H} [spread]

The Germanic languages are viewed as ‘aspiration’ systems in which the marked feature, or in fact element, is high tone {H} for Harris (1994), and

|| 10 One should note the proposal of Keating (1984) who uses [–voice] and [+voice] as phono-logical categories and derives surface phonetic categories corresponding to those in (8).

10 | Preliminaries

[spread] for Honeybone (2002).11 The Romance and Slavic languages are as-sumed to base the opposition on [voice], which translates into the low tone element {L} for Harris and the element |voice| for Honeybone. Note in the graph above that in both systems the voiceless unaspirated objects symbolized with /po/ are neutral, i.e., non-specified.Given the presence of a non-specified object in both systems, Harris (1994: 135) derives a more general typology of phonation systems based on this fact and on the use of two laryngeal elements, which he has at his disposal. Thus, in a pre-contrast system – which only has one series of obstruents – no laryngeal specification is employed at all. An unmarked se-ries is also present in two-, three-, or even four-way contrast languages. The growing complexity of the systems is directly correlated with the number of laryn-geal elements used and whether they themselves may combine, as in Gujarati.

(10) representation examples

Hawaiian {_} p Polish {L} {_} b p English {_} {H} b ph Thai {L} {_} {H} b p ph Gujarati {L} {_} {H} {L-H} b p ph b�

Returning now to the non-specified obstruents, it should be remembered that one of the distinguishing factors among the privative models is the treatment of the unmarked series. Thus, in some traditions it is lexically underspecified but receives phonetic content (features) in derivation (e.g., Iverson and Salmons 1995, 2003b; Bethin 1992). In the Laryngeal Realism tradition (Harris 1994, 2009; Honeybone 2002, 2005), on the other hand, no systematic level of phonetic representation is postulated at which more concrete representations are de-rived. The unmarked segment is non-specified and it is directly interpretable on a language specific basis. Nevertheless, the two privative traditions are similar in exhibiting a strong phonetic bias with respect to the analytical decision as to what actual phonological representation stands behind the observable surface facts. For example, the presence of full voicing is taken to be the indication of the presence of the element [voice], or {L}, while aspiration leads to the postula-tion of [spread], or {H}.

|| 11 Honeybone uses a different notation, namely, |spread| to express the fact that it is not a feature but an independently interpretable element. We keep the square brackets here for expository reasons.

Laryngeal Realism and Polish voicing | 11

Typically, the authors do correlate the respective representations also with phonological phenomena such as presence or absence of a particular type of assimilation. However, while phonetically correct, it is not impossible to pro-vide alternative and equally valid analyses, as we will see below. It is often argued within privative frameworks that assimilation is possible only if the active feature / element is spread. If we talk about phonological assimilation only, this is correct. However, the fact that assimilation as a phonetic fact can be symmetrical, that is, both to voiced and to voiceless segments in e.g., Polish, suggests that either privativity is on the wrong track, or that there is also a pho-netic or interpretational assimilation, which has little to do with active phono-logical categories. We will see examples of such analyses presently.

Not only assimilations can be given alternative analyses. Harris (2009) con-vincingly argues that not every case of final devoicing is in fact phonological delaryngealization. All the above points strongly suggest that an analysis of a particular voicing system should do much more than look at the acoustics and the presence of assimilation and devoicing. We will return to this point in our further discussion. If the division into H- and L-systems could be done so easily on the basis of observable VOT values, half of the analytical job would be done by looking at the spectrograms. We would also expect little variation between the actual phonetic details in individual systems. On the other hand, not only do such details differ, but also they are difficult to understand under the view that VOT lead languages are L-systems, and VOT lag languages are H-systems. At least, as will be demonstrated presently, it would not be so difficult to under-stand the laryngeal system of Polish. Let us look at how the basic voicing facts from Polish are handled by Laryngeal Realism with a view to demonstrating how this model works on actual data and defining where its limitations lie.

5 Laryngeal Realism and Polish voicing

Let us begin the discussion by clarifying the notation to be used as shorthand for full representations. Following the arguments laid out in Harris (1994), and especially in Honeybone (2002: 141-142), we will use two types of symbols for Polish obstruents depending on their lexical laryngeal specification. It will be recalled from the previous section that Honeybone uses a system of three sym-bols /po, ph, b/ to refer to neutral, voiceless aspirated and fully voiced stops respectively in the two groups of languages, that is, Germanic and Slavic. We adapt this notational system a little to fit the Polish system, and especially to facilitate the modification of Laryngeal Realism, which will be proposed in the

12 | Preliminaries

following chapter. In short, when referring to obstruents in some abstraction the symbols /Co, CH, CL/ will be used, corresponding to Honeybone’s /po, ph, b/. On the other hand, when referring to concrete examples, we will use, e.g., /po/ to refer to the lexically neutral (voiceless unaspirated) [p], as in pić /pjoit��/ > [pjit��] ‘to drink’, and /bL/ to refer to a lexically voiced [b], as in być /bL�t��/ > [b�t��] ‘to be’.12 Thus, in discussing phonological representations, the symbols will always be accompanied by some diacritic, that is, /po/ or /bL/. Understandably, in the actual phonological representation, the zero diacritic does not correspond to any reality. Throughout this book, the symbol ‘>’ will be used to mean ‘pho-netically interpreted as’. Phonological processes, or any change, on the other hand, will be marked with ‘→’.

As mentioned in the previous section, for Laryngeal Realism, a language like Polish, which has a phonetic contrast between fully voiced and voiceless unaspirated obstruents, and in which assimilation to a voiced obstruent is ob-served, should be represented by the presence of the element {L} in the voiced series, while the voiceless unaspirated obstruents are lexically non-specified. Recall that in the non-neutralizing context, that is, ‘_(S)V’ (4a), these values remain unchanged by any phonological processing and are phonetically inter-preted as voiced and voiceless unaspirated, e.g., /to�m/ > [t�m] tom ‘volume’ vs. /dL�m/ > [d�m] dom ‘house’.13 More examples are given below.

(11) ...C(S)V... C retains its lexical laryngeal specification

#CoV /pjoit��o/ > [pjit��] pić ‘to drink’ #CLV /bjLit��o/ > [bjit��] bić ‘to hit’ #CoSV /pow�to�m/ > [pw�t�m] płotem ‘fence, instr.’

#CLSV /bLw�to�m/ > [bw�t�m] błotem ‘mud, instr.’ VCoV /r�soa/ > [r�sa] rysa ‘scratch’

VCLV /r�zLa/ > [r�za] ryza ‘ream’ VCoSV /�ko��/ > [�k��] oknie ‘window, loc.’

VCLSV /�gL��/ > [�g��] ognie ‘fire, pl.’ The actual theory internal explanation for the survival of the laryngeal specifi-cation in ‘_(S)V’ will be provided in Chapter 5. As a preview of that analysis we may use the concept of licensing, which is compatible with the mechanisms

|| 12 For reasons of exposition, we choose to use Harris’s element symbols, that is {L}, and later in the discussion also {H}, corresponding to Honeybone’s [voice] and [spread]. 13 Technically speaking, sonorants should also bear the superscript ‘o’, as they are assumed to be devoid of any laryngeal specification.


employed in the Element Theory in Government Phonology (e.g., Gussmann 2007; Harris 1990, 1994). In syllabically oriented analyses of Polish voicing (e.g., Bethin 1984, 1992; Gussmann 1992), this context corresponds to the onset posi-tion, or the head of a complex onset. And conversely, the neutralization / de-laryngealization context has been identified as the coda.

A delaryngealized (neutralized) lexical /bL/ will be referred to as /bo/, where the voiced symbol is a mere transcriptional trace of the object we are dealing with lexically. Its phonetic interpretation, however, will be identical to that of /po/, e.g., /�abLa/ > [�aba] żaba ‘frog’ vs. /�abL/→/�abo/ > [�ap] żab ‘frog, gen.pl.’. Note, that a phonological process has applied in the genitive plural form, by which /bL/ becomes /bo/. Since the phonetic interpretation of a neutral obstru-ent in Polish is that of voiceless unaspirated object, /bo/ will have exactly the same interpretation as a lexical /po/, namely, [p]. Thus, the phonetic interpreta-tion takes into account only the superscripted value in our phonological tran-scription. Phonologically speaking, a delaryngealized /bo/ and a lexical /po/ are identical objects.

We saw in (4b,c) that the laryngeal contrast in Polish is suspended word-finally and before another obstruent. The former situation leads to FOD, while the latter effects Voice Assimilation. FOD results in surface ambiguities. For example, a surface form [stuk] may have two lexical sources. It is either stóg [stuk] ‘haystack’ with final devoicing (cf., stogi [st��i] ‘haystack, nom.pl.’), as in (12a), or stuk [stuk] ‘a knock’ (cf., stukanie [stuka��] ‘knocking’) with a lexically voiceless obstruent (12b). Below, only the relevant consonants are given the superscripted diacritics.

(12) Lexical Phonological Phonetic

representation representation interpretation

L-delinking (FOD)

a. /stugL/ → /stugo/ > [stuk]

b. /stuko/ = /stuko/ > [stuk] Since the element {L} does not survive in word-final position, it is delinked in stóg (12a). This derivation illustrates another aspect of GP. The lexical represen-tation, which is in fact a fully interpretable phonological representation, may be subject to phonological computation. Here, we are dealing with the delinking or deletion of the laryngeal category in a hostile environment ‘_#’.14 What remains in

|| 14 A precise explanation how this environment works will be given in Chapter 5.

14 | Preliminaries

that position is a delaryngealized object which is identical to the non-specified series in that system, and must receive the same phonetic realization, that is, voiceless unaspirated. It is important to note that a potential absence of L-delinking would still produce a fully interpretable representation. The obstruent would then have to be pronounced as voiced. On the other hand, in (12b), the lexical representation is not subject to any processing, and its interpretation is obvious. To repeat, the difference between /bo/ and /po/ is not phonological. Phonologically they are the same, except that /bo/ is an output of delaryngeali-zation.

Turning now to the phenomenon of Regressive Voice Assimilation (RVA), we recall that, unlike FOD, it appears to be symmetrical in Polish. That is, we witness assimilations to a voiced and to a voiceless obstruent. In systems using binary features (e.g., Gussmann 1992; Rubach 1996), the analysis is straightfor-ward. First, the left-hand obstruent must lose its laryngeal specification, and then the [+voice] or [–voice] spreads leftwards from the following one. Let us illustrate this point with the rules proposed in Rubach (1996: 78).15

(13) a. Obstruent delinking b. Spread

R R R R

[–sonor] L L [–sonor] L [–sonor]

Rule (13a) consists in the delinking of the laryngeal node in an obstruent if the node is adjacent to the laryngeal node of the following obstruent. The laryngeal nodes contain either [+voice] or [–voice]. Thus, whichever feature is present in the laryngeal node of the second obstruent will eventually spread to the preced-ing one.

Privative models, when confronted with symmetrical assimilation, must distinguish between a phenomenon which is a result of spreading of the active laryngeal category, in this case {L}, as in, e.g., prosić / prośba [pr��it�� ~ pr�ba] ‘to ask / a request’, and one which is quite different in kind. Since Polish, under this view, utilizes only the element {L}, the assimilation to a voiceless obstruent as in dech / tchu [d�x ~ txu] ‘breath, nom.sg./gen.sg.’ must be viewed as non-assimilatory in nature. Rather, it is a case of neutralization (delaryngealization) similar to word-final devoicing. The two types of assimilation are shown below.

|| 15 Gussmann (1992) differs only in the causes of delaryngealization (13a) of the first obstruent, which, for him, stem from syllabification and voice licensing.


(14) a. Assimilation as L-spreading Interpretation

/po r ��o i t��o/ ~ /po r ��o bL a/ → /�LbL/ > [b] | L

[pr��it��] [pr�ba]

b. Delaryngealization Interpretation

/dL ��xo/ ~ /do xo u/ → /doxo/ > [tx] | � L L [d�x] [txu] It appears then that surface symmetrical assimilations can be given an asym-metrical account. This has at least three very important consequences. Firstly, it becomes obvious now that the term ‘assimilation’ is a mere cover term describ-ing the phonetic (surface) facts, which need not have a direct analogue phonol-ogically speaking. If that is correct, then a mere observation of the presence of voice assimilation can no longer be taken as evidence for a particular phono-logical representation (e.g., van Rooy and Wissing 2001). Secondly, reversing the first observation a little, it is important to realize that assimilation need not involve element or feature spreading. This is particularly instructive because, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, the existence of voice assimilations is often taken as an argument that a particular system has to possess the relevant cate-gory in the first place. The third consequence concerns the predictions that such a privative analysis makes. It was noted in Lombardi (1995a: 54) that the priva-tive analysis of voicing predicts that in the absence of delaryngealization – in our terms this would mean no L-delinking in a system like Polish – one should expect the absence of FOD and only one type of voice assimilation in obstruent clusters. In other words, /CL/ would survive in the two contexts (4b) and (4c), allowing for word-final voiced obstruents as well as clusters of obstruents which would disagree in voicing. To be precise, /CLCo/ would be found, but /CoCL/ would have to become uniform /CLCL/ because L-spreading is a different rule from L-delinking. This is exactly what seems to be found in Ukrainian in which voiced obstruents are found word-finally, e.g., [hryb] ‘mushroom’ vs. [hryp] ‘grippe’, while clusters of obstruents assimilate only to a voiced one, e.g., [proz’ba] ‘request’ (compare with the parallel Polish prośba [pr�ba] ‘request’), and not to a voiceless one, e.g., Ukrainian [ridko] ‘rarely’ vs. Polish rzadko [�atko] ‘rarely’. This correlation between FOD and RVA to a voiced obstruent is not

16 | Preliminaries

impossible to express in binary feature systems. It is enough to eliminate the rule of delaryngealization. However, that move would also affect [–voice] ob-struents and render them immune to [+voice] spreading from the following obstruent. This is a wrong prediction. Thus, the privative systems fare better in dealing with cases like Ukrainian. Of course, rule-based approaches could still rescue the analysis of Ukrainian by specifying the rule of delaryngealization as delinking only [–voice]. This however, does not add to the explanatory value of such analyses.

Returning now to Polish, it seems to allow for two configurations of obstru-ent clusters in phonological representation (15).

(15) a. b.

Co Co CL CL They may be lexical or ‘derived’ by element spreading (/CoCL/ → /CLCL/) or ele-ment delinking (/CLCo/ → /CoCo/).16 Gussmann (2007: 291) captures this regular-ity by means of a Voice Adjustment principle. (16) Voice Adjustment

The tonal specification of the last obstruent controls the laryngeal tier of the sequence.

This principle is meant to account not only for cases of dynamic voice assimila-tion – which can be observed as processes – but also for the static phonotactic patterns found in, e.g., kto ‘who’, gdy ‘when’, etc. Later in this book, we will pro-pose a slightly different formulation, which is based on contextual tone licensing.

The conclusion we can draw from the above discussion is that the basic Pol-ish voicing facts can be easily handled by Laryngeal Realism, allowing for inter-esting predictions which follow from privativity and non-specification. The three aspects of Polish voicing discussed above, that is, the distribution of con-trast, final devoicing and voice agreement in obstruent clusters are common to the two major dialect groups in Polish. There is, however, one phenomenon that sets the two main dialects of Polish apart. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is inexplicable under the Laryngeal Realism view in which Polish is an L-system. One of the main problems is that sonorants appear to need a voicing property to spread in one of the dialect groups of Polish.

|| 16 It will be recalled that the obstruents may be separated by a sonorant. Thus, in fact, we are talking about /Co(S)Co/ and /CL(S)CL/, respectively.

The problem of Cracow-Poznań sandhi voicing | 17

6 The problem of Cracow-Poznań sandhi voicing

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Polish exhibits voicing agreement also in obstruent clusters which result across word boundaries. The agreement in-volves, what appears to be voice spreading in, for example, kwiat begonii [kfjad b�g��ji] ‘begonia flower’, in which the final obstruent in the first word is lexi-cally voiceless, cf., kwiaty [kfjat�] ‘flower, pl.’, as well as in the ambiguous cases in which a lexically voiced obstruent, e.g., in szyb kopalni [�p k�pal�i] ‘mine shaft’ is followed by a voiceless obstruent. From the point of view of Laryngeal Realism, the analysis of kwiat begonii would be parallel to that of prośba in (14a) above, while szyb kopalni corresponds to tchu (14b). This is illustrated below in (17a) and (17b) respectively, where only the relevant consonants carry the speci-fication symbols.

(17) a. Assimilation as L-spreading Interpretation

/k fj a to/ # /bL ��g �� j i/ → /tLbL/ > [db] | L

[kfjad b�g��ji]

b. Delaryngealization Interpretation

/�� bo/ # /ko ��p a l � i] → /boko/ > [pk] � L

[�p k�pal�i] Since the voiceless /ko/ in kopalni is unmarked, the analysis in (17b) does not use voicelessness spreading. All that needs to be said is that the final obstruent in the first word is delaryngealized.

The voicing agreement between two obstruents across a word boundary is subject to some variation due to typical causes observable in this context, such as tempo of speech. Nevertheless, the facts seem to be uniform in all dialects of Polish in this respect, as can be seen in (18c,d) below. An interesting divide arises between two major dialects, that is, so-called Warsaw Polish (WP) and Cracow-Poznań Polish (CP) when the word-final obstruent of the first word is

18 | Preliminaries

followed by a vowel or a sonorant consonant in the second word.17 Irrespective of the lexical marking of the final obstruent, it becomes voiced in CP in this context, and remains voiceless in WP (18a,b).18

The first observation that needs to be made is that regardless of the striking difference in terms of sandhi voicing, both dialect groups ignore the lexical distinction of its word-final obstruents. The obstruents are uniformly affected or not affected whether they were underlyingly voiced or voiceless. Thus, both groups seem to carry out some kind of neutralization in this context. This obser-vation is important as it eliminates the possibility that, for example, the word-initial vowel in oni or odrębny reverses the delaryngealization of the preceding word-final obstruent. This could be an option only if the sandhi voicing con-cerned the lexically voiced obstruents alone. Rather, we are dealing with neu-tralization of the laryngeal contrast in word-final position and something which looks like voicing triggered by the word-initial sonorant. Note that this happens before vowels as well as sonorant consonants.

(18) WP CP

a. jak oni ‘how they’ k-� g-�� __V+v wkład odrębny ‘separate contribution’ t-� d-�

b. jak możesz ‘how can you’ k-m g-m __S+v wkład mój ‘my contribution’ t-m d-m

c. jak dobrze ‘how well’ g-d g-d __C+v wkład własny ‘own contribution’ d-v d-v

d. jak trudno ‘how hard’ k-t k-t __C–v wkład stały ‘permanent contribution’ t-s t-s

Secondly, the two groups can be described as predominantly devoicing (WP) and predominantly voicing (CP). Note that in CP, the final obstruents are voice-less only in front of voiceless obstruents in the following word.19 Likewise, in WP, the final obstruents are voiced only in front of voiced obstruents and re-main voiceless elsewhere.

|| 17 These major dialects are in fact dialect groups. CP includes Lesser Poland, Silesia, Greater Poland as well as Kashubia. WP involves Mazovia and the North Eastern dialects (e.g., Urbańc-zyk 1984). For earlier discussions of the phenomenon see, e.g., Baudouin de Courtenay (1894), Benni (1907), Nitsch (1912, 1957), Śmiech (1961). 18 Reports of similar effects concern Breton (Ternes 1970), West Flemish (De Schutter and Taeldeman (1986), Catalan (Wheeler 1986), and varieties of German and Italian (Krämer 2001). 19 Of course, they are also voiceless in absolute final position, when no other word follows.

The problem of Cracow-Poznań sandhi voicing | 19

The facts observed in WP seem to fit the Laryngeal Realism analysis rather neatly. Recall that Polish is an L-system in which voiced obstruents contain {L}, while voiceless obstruents as well as vowels and sonorant consonants are non-specified for voice. We predict that phonological assimilation, that is, spreading of the laryngeal element, is possible only from voiced obstruents, which is ex-actly what we see in (18) above. In other words, the representation proposed by Laryngeal Realism provides a clear answer as to why WP has no sandhi voicing before sonorants, and why the voicing is possible before voiced obstruents. They stand out from all the other phonetically voiced segments because they are the only objects which have an active laryngeal category in their representation.

To conclude, the WP facts can be accounted for in the following way. The instances of sandhi voicing, that is, both jak dobrze [jag d�b��] < /jak # d�b��/ ‘how well’ and wkład własny [fkwad vwasn�] < /fkwad # vwasn�/ ‘own contribu-tion’ may be viewed as cases of L-spreading from the word-initial obstruent. In the case of wkład własny in (19b) we may assume that the lexically voiced /dL/ was first delaryngealized in the word-final context only to be revoiced by spreading.

(19) Sandhi voicing in Warsaw Polish a. /j a ko/ # /d ��b ��/ → /kLdL/ > [gd] | L b. /f k w a dL/ # ↓

/f k w a do/ # /v w a s n �/ → /dLvL/ > [dv] | L The only way to voice an obstruent in WP is to provide it with {L}. Since only voiced obstruents possess this element in their representation, no other context may produce the voicing effect. In other words, sandhi voicing before sonorants is simply impossible in the L-system of WP.

Thus, it appears that the L-system perfectly accounts for the Warsaw Polish facts. However, it fails miserably when it comes to the Cracow-Poznań data in (18a,b). It should be stressed that we are dealing here with dialects in which word-internally the voicing facts are identical – both dialects have a phonetic contrast between fully voiced vs. voiceless unaspirated obstruents, and identi-cal voicing phenomena such as final devoicing and assimilation of voice in

20 | Preliminaries

obstruent clusters. All the above criteria are normally used to postulate an L-system.

The data in (18) show that in CP the sandhi voicing occurs in all phoneti-cally voiced contexts, that is, before a vowel, a sonorant consonant and a voiced obstruent. Thus, it appears that for this dialect, the voicing of obstruents is no different from the voicing of sonorants. These facts are problematic for phono-logical theory, regardless of whether a privative or a binary feature system is used. For example, in some privative models (e.g., Bethin 1984, 1992) the feature [+voice] must be assumed to be present in the representation of vowels and sonorant consonants at least at the relevant, late (post-lexical) level of represen-tation in order to be manipulated by late rules. In binary feature systems (e.g., Gussmann 1992; Rubach 1996) the assimilation rules also must be kept at bay at earlier levels of derivation in order not to produce wrong results word-internally. The specification of sonorants may only become active late in the derivation and only in Cracow Polish. Most of these analytical problems with CP voicing partly stem from the assumption that it must be dealt with in terms of phono-logical computation, manipulating active categories such as the feature [+voice]. This need not be correct. It will be recalled that in this section we have noted that the surface presence of assimilation need not be a result of phono-logical spreading, as shown in (17b).

Laryngeal Realism with its privative elements does not fare any better with respect to CP sandhi voicing (e.g., Gussmann 2007). If voicing in obstruents can only be due to the presence of the element {L}, then one must postulate that this element is present somewhere in the representation of the initial voiced seg-ments in CP. This, however, goes strongly against the Element Theory in which sonorants are not specified laryngeally.20 For this reason, both Gussmann (2007) and Michalski (2008, 2009) fail to provide a viable analysis of CP voicing.

In the following chapter, a modification of Laryngeal Realism is going to be proposed which takes into account the nature of the relationship between pho-nology and phonetics. This will be followed by a new analysis of CP sandhi voicing.

|| 20 For a proposal that sonorants have a special feature [sonorant voice] see Rice (1993).

Chapter 2

Sound system, phonology and phonetics

1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to introduce a particular view on how phonology and phonetics interact in sound systems. The main idea is that phonetics provides an arrangement of probable phonetic contrasts, which will be called phonetic categories, for a particular number of phonological contrasts. The nature of this interaction consists in building quite arbitrary relations between categorical distinctions provided by phonology proper and their direct expression within a particular phonetic space.21 The phonetic nature of these spaces, however, is such that the interpretational phonetic choices are not entirely arbitrary, espe-cially since in language acquisition learners do not construct the systems from scratch. They merely work out the nature of the relationship between the pho-netic categories recurring in the input data with the phonological representa-tions of the categorical distinctions to do with particular phonetic spaces.22 The phonological representations are also constructed in accordance with certain principles, for example, privativity. It will be argued that most of the confusion in the discussion on phonology and phonetics stems from the fact that sound systems are mistaken for either phonology or phonetics.

First, we look at the phonetic and interpretational aspects of voicing in dif-ferent types of segments and systems. This discussion follows and further de-velops the proposals in Harris (2009) concerning what he calls ‘the disunity of voice’. There, the main argument is that voicing depends on three types of as-pect: i) segment types, ii) phonological contexts, and iii) languages. Thus, con-cerning the first aspect, voicing is different in kind between sonorants and ob-struents, which, as is often claimed especially in privative studies, should be reflected in a different phonological treatment. While we will generally agree

|| 21 Although our direct interest is in the nature of laryngeal systems, other phonetic dimen-sions can constitute domains of such interaction, such as place (including the palatalization complex), manner, and the vowel system. 22 To see how particular phonetic spaces correspond to ‘contrastive hierarchies’ in phonologi-cal representation see, e.g., Dresher (2003).

22 | Sound system, phonology and phonetics

also with the remaining two aspects, we will emphasize the distinction between phonological and phonetic contexts and propose an extension to the division into ‘spontaneous’, ‘active’ and ‘passive’ voicing, by proposing a fourth, inter-pretationally based type of voicing, which seems to contradict Harris’s carrier-signal modulation model.

This chapter introduces the structure of sound systems, with a particular fo-cus on laryngeal systems, using the Government Phonology view of what the phonological side of the equation is. This is followed by a discussion of pho-netic interpretation and a proposal to replace Laryngeal Realism with Laryngeal Relativism, which seems to be necessary if the problem of Cracow-Poznań san-dhi voicing signalled in the previous chapter is to receive a satisfactory analysis within a privative model. The chapter ends with a discussion of some conse-quences of Laryngeal Relativism in anticipation of the application of this model to the basic Polish voicing data as well as the intriguing phenomenon of CP sandhi voicing, for which a new analysis will be provided in the following chapter.

2 Types of voicing

Depending on the different types of segments, that is, whether we are dealing with a sonorant consonant or an obstruent, as well as on the different phono-logical status of the obstruents within a particular laryngeal system, that is, marked or non-specified, we may distinguish three different situations to do with voicing. A fourth one will be added after Laryngeal Relativism has been introduced.

2.1 Spontaneous voicing

If a sufficient drop in air pressure and air flow between the trachea and pharynx (across the glottis) is maintained vocal cords are subject to what is called spon-taneous vibration (voicing). Next to these aerodynamic conditions, some other articulatory parameters must be met. For example, the vocal cords should not be spread apart and not tensed (e.g., Chomsky and Halle 1968; Halle and Ste-vens 1971). This situation typically occurs in unoccluded speech sounds such as vowels and sonorant consonants which, for reasons of maintaining an open articulation, are not characterized by an intra-oral air pressure build-up.

However, obstruents can also be spontaneously voiced under certain condi-tions. These involve the same aerodynamic characteristics, as well as a number

Types of voicing | 23

of articulatory parameters in addition to those mentioned above, which allow for the state in which vocal folds vibrate spontaneously in stops (e.g., Westbury and Keating 1986: 151). Some of these parameters involve, for example, rela-tively short closure, contracting the respiratory muscles, decreasing the average area of the glottis and / or tension of the vocal folds, decreasing the level of activity in muscles which underlie the walls of the supraglottal cavity, active enlargement of the volume of that cavity, etc. In other words, the vocal fold vibration can be orchestrated by a number of means, and there seems to be no one direct gesture causing the vibration.23

Unlike in sonorants, an important aspect of spontaneous voicing in obstru-ents is connected with the adjacent phonetic context.24 Some contexts are more conducive to spontaneous voicing maintenance than others (e.g., Westbury and Keating 1986; Harris 2009). For example, an inhibitory effect on such natural voicing is typically observed in word-initial and word-final contexts, as opposed to the intervocalic context, which allows for a maintenance of the articulatory state connected with vocal fold vibration. Westbury and Keating (1986: 163) note that, quite surprisingly, it is more ‘natural’ in terms of articulation to have a voiced stop in intervocalic contexts than a voiceless unaspirated one, as the latter requires a change in a steady articulatory state – switching off the vibra-tion of the vocal folds. However the voiceless unaspirated realization is fa-voured in pre-contrast systems, that is, systems with no phonological contrast based on voice, despite the fact that it requires a greater articulatory effort. Westbury and Keating (1986) explain this interesting paradox, by referring to what they call ‘more powerful principles’ governing phonetic interpretation in sound systems whereby a voiceless unaspirated stop is maintained in intervo-calic position, even though it would be phonetically more natural, in the sense of ease of articulation, to spontaneously voice the stop in that position. They give the example of English, a two-way laryngeal system, in which speakers may produce voicing in word-initial /b,d,g/ even though it is not necessary for the maintenance of contrast because the other type of stops, /p,t,k/, are articu-lated with aspiration in that position. They conclude that next to phonetic natu-ralness there is a systemic tendency to maintain the phonetic similarity among the positional allophones.

|| 23 If a number of articulatory gestures can be used to achieve the state of vocal fold vibration, and the voicing contrast is usually manifested by a number of acoustic / auditory cues, it is clear that representing the contrast by just one phonological category must lead to a fairly arbitrary relationship between phonological and phonetic categories. 24 This does not mean that voicing might not be inhibited in sonorants in certain voiceless environments. This issue will be developed further in Chapter 5.


It seems that in the case of English we are dealing not only, or not so much, with the maintenance of phonetic similarity among the positional allophones, as with an interpretational decision encompassing both stops and fricatives. The word-initial voicing appears to be more important in the case of the frica-tives where aspiration is less robust a cue, and the voicing allows for the preserva-tion of sufficient discriminability between the two laryngeally contrasting series.

We may conclude the discussion of spontaneous voicing by stressing a number of points. Natural phonetic interpretation of speech sounds in terms of voicing may be quite directly connected with the general aerodynamic and ar-ticulatory settings. However, this would apply only to the spontaneous voicing in vowels. The situation becomes a little more complicated with sonorant con-sonants, if they find themselves in voiceless environments. For example, in Polish, sonorant consonants tend to be devoiced if surrounded by voiceless obstruents, e.g., krtań [kr �ta�] ‘larynx, nom.sg.’, or in word-final position, when preceded by a voiceless sound, e.g., wiatr [vjatr �] ‘wind, nom.sg.’. However, in the latter cases, we may still talk about ‘natural’ phonetic interpretation involv-ing contextual inhibition of spontaneous voicing.

With obstruents, on the other hand, the situation is much more compli-cated. Firstly, the retention of a voiceless unaspirated stop in the context in which it would be pronounced more naturally as voiced suggests that the ease of articulation cannot be viewed as the only factor in sound patterns. Secondly, and more importantly, for our purposes, there seem to be ‘more powerful prin-ciples’ or systemic decisions as to the phonetic shape of one of the obstruents in a system possessing a two-way contrast, but also in pre-contrast systems. One thing that we can say about these principles at this point is that they are not purely phonetic. Rather, they are systemic decisions on phonetic interpretation of segments, which are clearly dependent on the type of the phonological repre-sentation with respect to voicing.

It follows from the above discussion that spontaneous voicing may occur not only in sonorants but also in obstruents under certain special circum-stances. In a sense, given the indirectness of the aerodynamic conditions and the articulatory parameters in connection with vocal fold vibration, it is possible to claim that all voicing is in fact spontaneous. However, for the sake of the following discussion, we will restrict the use of the term spontaneous voicing to vowels and sonorant consonants. For obstruents, we will distinguish two more types of voicing, ‘active’ and ‘passive’, which are meant to express the different situations involved. In the following sections, we will introduce another type of voicing which will follow from the proposed model of Laryngeal Relativism.


2.2 Active voicing

We follow, e.g., Harris (2009) in assuming that active voicing in obstruents is connected with the interpretation of the laryngeal element responsible for voic-ing, that is, {L}. To use an argument to do with the aerodynamics of voicing, active voicing is a kind of compensation for the intra-oral air pressure build-up arising due to obstruent stricture, which has an inhibitory effect on vocal fold vibration, by means of an active gesture or a set of gestures offsetting this effect. Viewed from the perspective of the relation between the phonetic fact of vocal fold vibration and the representation of laryngeal distinctions, in such cases there seems to be a one-to-one correspondence between the presence of the voicing cue in the signal (negative VOT) and the presence of the phonological category {L} in the representation.

In the modulated-carrier model of speech, to which Harris (2009) adheres, features map onto modulations of the carrier signal. In this case, for example, the presence of {L} entails the full voicing (long VOT lead) in initial plosives. In this respect, his model is essentially no different from the Laryngeal Realism approach. Like Laryngeal Realism, the modulated-carrier model also recognizes the existence of ‘passive’ voicing, to be discussed next. This suggests that not every case of carrier modulation is related to the presence of an active phono-logical category.

The listener needs to be able to distinguish between periodicity that is part of the carrier signal and periodicity that represents a linguistically significant modulation. (Harris 2009: 32)

It will be recalled from the previous chapter, that in Laryngeal Realism (Harris 1994; Honeybone 2002), laryngeal specification in two-way contrast systems is privative. One of the series of obstruents is marked, while the other remains non-specified. In systems with active voicing it is the voiced series that contains {L}, and the non-specified obstruents are voiceless unaspirated. Thus, Polish is an example of a system with active voicing. It is interesting to note at this point that in such a system, the systemic decisions (‘more powerful principles’) con-cerning the interpretation of the non-specified congener in fact forbid its spon-taneous voicing. This point will be further developed in the following sections.


2.3 Passive voicing

According to, e.g., Kohler (1984: 162), passive voicing occurs in the unmarked obstruents in which the aerodynamic conditions for voicing are said not to be actively controlled. In the previous section, we saw that this type of voicing is forbidden in L-systems. This means that the aerodynamic conditions of the neutral series in an L-system must be actively controlled to prevent passive voicing. Passive voicing is restricted to systems like English in which the so called voiced obstruents are in fact phonologically unspecified and the voice-less aspirated stops are marked with a laryngeal category (Avery and Idsardi 2001; Harris 1994, 2009; Iverson and Salmons 1995, 2003a; Kohler 1984). In terms of the Element Theory and the Laryngeal Realism approach, this passive voicing occurs in H-systems, that is, in ‘aspiration’ languages. An additional condition on passive voicing, it will be recalled, is the presence of voiced envi-ronment.

A rather restrictive definition of passive voicing in terms of context is given in Iverson and Salmons (2003a: 51). The authors view it as an extension of spon-taneous voicing from a preceding segment onto an unmarked obstruent. Thus, for example, the rightward influence allows Iverson and Salmons to view the /b/ in rubber and the /d/ in bad as passively (post)-voiced. However, the /b/ in bad cannot be viewed as a case of passive voicing in those varieties of English in which it is voiced. In the light of our discussion in the previous section, Iverson and Salmon’s decision is intuitively correct for English. Word-initially, the voic-ing of stops goes beyond what seems to be necessary, and some varieties of English do not even show it.

It should be emphasized, that unlike in sonorants, in which spontaneous voicing is also associated with the absence of active control of the aerodynamic conditions, passive voicing in obstruents is not of the same kind. Firstly, there are systemic conditions that must be fulfilled. It is required that the obstruent is non-specified for voice, and it is part of a system with a two-way laryngeal con-trast in which the marked segments carry {H}, that is, the category responsible for aspiration. Secondly, crucial in this type of voicing, is a voiced environment as well as an articulation which is conducive to maintaining the air pressure drop across the vocal folds. We may identify this articulation as weak, or lenis.

When we consider these conditions, it turns out that passive voicing is not just phonetic in nature. It is, in equal measure, an interpretational phenomenon which is dependent on the particular phonological marking in a given system. In other words, it is a systemic decision (e.g., contrast enhancement) that leads to lenis articulation. This intuition seems to be correctly expressed not only in


Westbury and Keating’s (1986) ‘more powerful principles’ which were men-tioned above, but also in Iverson and Salmons’s (2003a) claim that passive voic-ing is in fact a shallow phonological rather than purely phonetic fact. The fine distinction between phonetics and phonetic interpretation will be developed further below.

The articulatory parameters in lenis obstruents of some ‘aspiration’ languages are in a sense actively set to be weak. This point becomes particularly clear when we consider the interpretation of the unmarked series in a voicing lan-guage, that is, in one that marks full voicing with a category, e.g., {L}. Here, passive voicing is simply forbidden, as it would be difficult to distinguish be-tween fully voiced and weakly voiced obstruents, let alone produce such a con-trast. In this case, the contrast enhancement is less paradoxical as it does not lead to a lenis articulation of the non-marked obstruents, but to one that will guarantee the absence of passive voicing.

To conclude, passive voicing is a term describing a situation in which we are dealing with phonetic and interpretational voicing of the unmarked obstru-ents in an H-system (aspiration language). From the interpretational point of view, passive voicing may involve an active decision, a kind of enhancement of the categorical distinction if one prefers. It is, indeed, a paradoxical situation, when enhancement is implemented by weakening of the articulation. However, once we assume that weakening is one of the means of achieving contrast en-hancement, the contradiction disappears.

Two other conclusions follow from the above discussion. There is a need to clarify the nature of the systemic decisions mentioned above and the structure of the system itself with respect to the interaction between phonological repre-sentation and the phonetic facts. One interesting finding is that we should make a distinction between what might be called universal phonetic principles, like spontaneous voicing which relates to the physiology of speech and to phenom-ena which can be studied independently of phonology, and principles of pho-netic interpretation, whether universal or systemic, which take into account both the phonological and the phonetic aspects. With respect to voicing, the difference becomes clear when we consider the types of spontaneous, passive, and active voicing in the table below.

We include the information which follows from the three aspects of the ‘disunity of voice’ that Harris (2009) emphasizes, that is, i) the type of segment involved, ii) the phonological and phonetic context, and iii) the type of system in which particular segments occur. It appears that while talking about the ‘dis-unity of voice’ we begin to observe a kind of continuum, of which we are going to take full advantage in the following chapters, in which we discuss two puz-


zling phenomena concerning the Polish voicing system, namely, pre-sonorant sandhi voicing and the so called progressive devoicing.

(1) Voicing continuum

voiced

universal phonetic principles

universal and systemic principles of phonetic interpretation

spontaneous voicing passive voicing active voicing

Vo So Co CL

vowels

sonorant consonants

obstruents

unconditioned

contextually conditioned

systemically and contextually conditioned

phonologically conditioned

‘aspiration’ systems (Co vs. CH)

‘voicing’ systems (Co vs. CL)

The types of segments in the above table seem to constitute a scale from the laryngeally unmarked vowels which are least conditioned cross-linguistically in terms of voicing, through slightly more conditioned sonorant consonants to highly conditioned obstruents, of which some are still unmarked phonologi-cally, while others carry the element {L}. It is clear that universal phonetic prin-ciples end with sonorants and that obstruents are subject to the ‘more powerful’ principles of phonetic interpretation.25

In the following sections, a fourth type of voicing situation will be pro-posed. We proceed now to the discussion of the structure of sound systems.

|| 25 These principles, for example, ensure that the phonologically identical object /Co/ will function differently depending on the type of system it finds itself in. For example, in an L-system, /Co/ must not be allowed to be passively voiced, while in an L-system, /Co/ may but does not have to be voiced passively.

Sound system | 29

3 Sound system

The concept of ‘sound system’ is crucial in this work. A system, then, including a laryngeal system, may be defined as the sum of phonological, interpreta-tional, and phonetic aspects which together are responsible for the observed phonetic facts, which we will refer to as sound patterns. Let us look at a sche-matic illustration of the structure of sound systems as understood in this work.

(2) Sound system (e.g., Laryngeal system)

Phonology Phonetics

Representation

&

Computation

Phonetic categories

&

Phonetic interpretation

- privative categories - (un)licensing, government - (de)composition: spreading, delinking

- universal principles - system specific conventions - sociolinguistic modifications

It is a view, in which phonology and phonetics are kept strictly apart, yet they form two sides of the same coin and are mutually dependent, to the extent that it is quite impossible to study sound systems without making reference to both phonology and phonetics as well as to the way these domains interact within a particular system.

As can be seen in the diagram in (2), a sound system is the sum total of phonological and phonetic aspects. Phonetic facts, or sound patterns, follow from the interaction between the two sides of the coin. More specifically, it will be argued, there is a direct interaction between phonological representation and phonetic interpretation principles, rather than, between representation and phonetic categories. The latter option is represented in the Laryngeal Realism tradition, which has been shown earlier to work only for one dialect group in Polish.

Given the above structure, a sound system cannot be identified only with phonology, or only with phonetics. Sound patterns are always a result of system dependent phonetic interpretation of phonological representation. They follow from the system, and as such they may be ambiguous and misleading. In other


words, to understand a sound pattern one has

The Eye · 2020. 1. 17. · Preface For decades, the voicing system of Polish has been at the...

Documents

Transcript of The Eye · 2020. 1. 17. · Preface For decades, the voicing system of Polish has been at the...