Chapter published in:
Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 145–162

The relative salience of consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing

| Tohoku Gakuin University
Arguments for a clear affinity between nasality and voicing can be found in the phonology literature (Nasukawa 1998, 2005a; Kula and Marten 1998; Ploch 1999, Botma 2004). In contrast to traditional feature theories, these arguments attempt to capture the nasality-voicing correlation by claiming that the two properties are different phonetic manifestations of a single unified nasal-voice feature |N|: this is interpreted as nasality when non-headed but as true obstruent voicing when headed. Under this approach, headedness contributes to melodic complexity and relative phonetic saliency: a truly-voiced expression (i.e. the realisation of headed |N|) is more complex than its nasal counterpart (i.e. the realisation of non-headed |N|) and also more salient. However, so far there has been no agreement on the precise definition of salience when applied to these two properties, the confusion arising from the use of different types of acoustic measurements. To address this issue, this chapter considers the relative salience of consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing with reference to the modulated-carrier model of speech.
Keywords: relative salience, nasality, obstruent voicing, modulated carrier signal, acoustic energy
Article outline
  • 1.Representing consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing using a single unified feature
  • 2.The relative salience of nasality and true voicing according to the sonority scale
  • 3.Relative salience in terms of the modulated carrier-signal of speech
  • 4.Consonant nasality and true obstruent voicing
    • 4.1Nasal consonants
    • 4.2Truly voiced obstruents
    • 4.3Modulations: Their comparison and combinatorial possibilities
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c9
References
Abramson, Arthur S. & Leigh Lisker
1970 Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross-language tests. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences . Academia, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague, 569‒573.
Backley, Phillip
1998 Tier geometry: An explanatory model of vowel structure. PhD dissertation, University College London, University of London.
2011 An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Kuniya Nasukawa
2009 Headship as melodic strength. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology, 47‒77. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Toyomi Takahashi
1998 Element activation. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), Structure and Interpretation: Studies in Phonology, 13–40. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert
2004 Phonological Aspects of Nasality: An Element-Based Dependency Approach (LOT dissertation series 90). PhD dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Breit, Florian
2013 Voice-nasality interaction and headedness in voiceless nasals. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 201‒221.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik
1991 Conditions on Phonological Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denes, Peter B. & Elliot N. Pinson
1993 The Speech Chain: The Physics and Biology of Spoken Language. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Duanmu, San
2016 A Theory of Phonological Features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu
1962 Analysis of nasal consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34: 1865–1875. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John
1990 Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7: 255–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1997 Licensing Inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14: 315–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Vowel reduction as information loss. In Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds.), Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, 119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority. Lingua 116(10): 1483‒1494.Google Scholar
2009 Why final devoicing is weakening. In Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology, 9‒46. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Lenition. Intensive Lecture Series, The Graduate School of Tohoku Gakuin University.
Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey
1995 The elements of phonological representation. In Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, 34‒79. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
2000 Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, 185‒205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael
1998 Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Catherine Ringen
2002 Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19: 189‒218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith
1997 Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D., Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud
1985 The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7: 193–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Ray D. & Charles Read
1992 The Acoustic Analysis of Speech. San Diego, CA: Singular Production Group.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C
2002 The Phonology of Verbal Derivation in Bemba. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, LOT dissertation series65.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C. & Lutz Marten
1998 Aspects of nasality in Bemba. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 191‒208.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter
1982 A Course in Phonetics, 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson
1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya
1995 Melodic structure and no constraint-ranking in Japanese verbal inflexion. Paper presented at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Essex, UK.
1998 An integrated approach to nasality and voicing. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), Structure and Interpretation: Studies in Phonology, 205–225. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
2005a A Unified Approach to Nasality and Voicing. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b The representation of laryngeal-source contrasts in Japanese. In Jeroen van de Weijer, Tetsuo Nishihara & Kensuke Nanjo (eds.), Voicing in Japanese, 79–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005c Melodic complexity in infant language development. In Maria Tzakosta, Claartje Levelt & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Developmental Paths in Phonological Acquisition. Special issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.1, ULCL, Leiden University, 53–70.Google Scholar
2017 The phonetic salience of phonological head-dependent structure in a modulated-carrier model of speech. In Bridget Samuels (ed.), Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology (Linguistik Aktuell), 121–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J
1992 Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable , 319–338.
Ohala, John J. & Haruko Kawasaki-Fukumori
1997 Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Stig Eliasson & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds.), Language and Its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, Vol. 100, 343‒365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, Glyne N
1992 Variability in feature dependency: The case of nasality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 33–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ploch, Stefan
1999 Nasals on my mind: The phonetic and the cognitive approach to the phonology of nasality. PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Rice, Keren
1993 A re-examination of the feature [sonorant]: The status of ‘sonorant obstruents’. Language 69: 308‒344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O
1978 On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Thorstein Fretheim (ed.), Nordic Prosody II, 111‒140. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
1980 The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut
1994 Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory. Phonetica 51: 170‒183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Speech considered as modulated voice. Ms. Stockhlolms universitet.