Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:09:54.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Perception and Sonority in Cluster Simplification: Consonant Deletion in Icelandic Preterites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Marie-Hélène Côté
Marie-Hélène Côté
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa University of Ottawa, Department of Linguistics, P.O. Box 450, Station A, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada, [mhcote@uottawa.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the motivations for consonant cluster simplification through an analysis of consonant deletion in Icelandic, in clusters of three consonants created by the addition of the preterite suffix -ti/-di/-ði directly to the verb stem. It is argued that deletion is driven by perceptual factors interacting with sonority requirements. Deletion targets stops and nonstrident obstruents and its likelihood correlates with similarity in manner and place of articulation between the consonants and their adjacent segments. These two generalizations are elucidated in terms of perceptual cues, and an optimality-theoretic analysis is developed in which more perceptible consonants are protected from deletion by higher-ranked faithfulness constraints.I am grateful to Ólafur Páll Jónsson and Haraldur Bernharðsson, as well as Hanna Óladóttir, for patiently going through a long list of verbs with me and answering my questions. Haraldur also provided me with useful references and easy access to them. Thanks also to Michael Kenstowicz, Eiríkur Rögnvaldsson, and two anonymous JGL reviewers for answering questions, discussing different issues, and commenting on earlier versions of this research.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 203 - 243
Copyright
© 2004 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anttila Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. Variation, change and phonological theory, ed. by Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout, and Leo Wetzels, 35– 68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Árnason Kristján. 1980a. Some processes in Icelandic connected speech. The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, ed. by Even Hovdhaugen, 212– 222. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Árnason Kristján. 1980b. Quantity in historical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auger Julie. 2001. Phonological variation and optimality theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. Language Variation and Change 13. 253– 303.Google Scholar
Berg Thomas. 2001. An experimental study of syllabification in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24. 71– 106.Google Scholar
Bladon Anthony. 1986. Phonetics for hearers. Language for hearers, ed. by Graham McGregor, 1– 24. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Blevins Juliette. 2003. The independent nature of phonotactic constraints: An alternative to syllable-based approaches. The syllable in Optimality Theory, ed. by Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijver, 375– 403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blöndal Sigfús. 1920. Íslenzk-dönsk orðabók / Islands-dansk ordbog [Icelandic-Danish Dictionary]. Reykjavík: Kaupmannahöfn og Kristíaníu, Pór. B. Pórláksson og H. Aschehoug, and Co.
Boersma Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Booij Geert E. 1999. The role of the prosodic word in phonotactic generalizations. Studies on the phonological word, ed. by Tracy Alan Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz, 47– 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Borowsky Toni J. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Clements George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, 283– 333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Côté Marie-Hélène. 2000a. Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Côté Marie-Hélène. 2000b. The perception of stops in post-consonantal position and the role of auditory cues in stop deletion. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Côté Marie-Hélène. In press a. Consonant cluster simplification in Québec French. Probus 16.2.
Côté Marie-Hélène. In press b. Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion. To appear in: Phonology 21.1.
Delgutte Bertrand. 1997. Auditory neural processing of speech. The handbook of phonetic sciences, ed. by William J. Hardcastle and John Laver, 507– 538. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dell François. 1995. Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 95. 5– 26.Google Scholar
Einarsson Stefán. 1945. Icelandic: Grammar, texts, glossary. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fleischhacker Heidi. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA working papers in linguistics 7. 71– 116Google Scholar
Flemming Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fujimura Osamu, Marian J. Macchi, and Lynn A. Streeter. 1978. Perception of stop consonants with conflicting transitional cues: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Speech 21. 337– 346.Google Scholar
Gibson Courtenay St. John. 1997. Icelandic phonology in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Gussmann Edmund. 2002. The dental suffix in modern Icelandic: Phonology, morpho(phono)logy, and the lexicon. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38. 191– 214.Google Scholar
Halle Morris, and George N. Clements. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hankamer Jorge, and Judith Aissen. 1974. The sonority hierarchy. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 131– 145.Google Scholar
Helgason Pétur. 1993. On coarticulation and connected speech processes in Icelandic. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.
Hooper Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.
Hume Elizabeth. 2004. The indeterminacy/attestation model of metathesis. Language 80. 203– 237.Google Scholar
Hume Elizabeth, and Keith Johnson, eds. 2001. The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Itô Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Jun Jungho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An Optimality theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kawasaki Haruko. 1982. An acoustical basis for universal constraints on sound sequences.Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Kaye Jonathan. 1990. “Coda” licensing. Phonology 7. 301– 330.Google Scholar
Kress Bruno. 1963. Laut- und Formenlehre des Isländischen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Ladefoged Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lamontagne Gregory A. 1993. Syllabification and consonant cooccurrence conditions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Miller George A., and Patricia E. Nicely. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusion among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27. 338– 352.Google Scholar
Ohala John J. 1983. The origins of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. The production of speech, ed. by Peter F. MacNeilage, 189– 216. New York: Springer Verlag.
Ohala John J., and Haruko Kawasaki. 1985. Prosodic phonology and phonetics. Phonology Yearbook 1. 113– 127.Google Scholar
Pétursson Magnús. 1973. Quelques remarques sur l'aspect articulatoire et acoustique des constrictives intrabuccales islandaises. Travaux de l'Institut de phonétique de Strasbourg 5. 79– 99.Google Scholar
Piggott Glyne L. 1999. At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16. 143– 196.Google Scholar
Prince Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ragnarsdóttir Hrafnhildur, Hanne Gram Simonsen, and Kim Plunkett. 1999. The acquisition of past tense morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian children: An experimental study. Journal of Child Language 26. 577– 618.Google Scholar
Richter Gregory C. 1982. A generative phonology of modern Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Rögnvaldsson Eiríkur. 1989. Íslensk hljóðfræði: kennslukver handa nemendum á háskólastigi [Icelandic Phonetics: An Introductory Handbook for University Students]. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.
Silverman Daniel. 1995. Phasing and recoverability. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Spaelti Philip. 1999. Weak edges and final geminates in Swiss German. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Steriade Donca. 1999a. Alternatives to syllable-based accounts of consonantal phonotactics. Proceedings of LP '98: Item order in language and speech, ed. by Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph, and Bohumil Palek, vol. 1, 205– 245. Prague: The Karolinum Press.
Steriade Donca. 1999b. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Papers in phonology 3, ed. by Matthew K. Gordon, 25– 246. (UCLA working papers in linguistics, 2.)
Steriade Donca. 1999c. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Wilson Colin. 2001. Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints. Phonology 18. 147– 197.Google Scholar
Wright Richard A. 1996. Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Wright Richard A. 2001. Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. by Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson, 251– 277. San Diego: Academic Press.
Zhang Jie. 2000. Non-contrastive features and categorical patterning in Chinese diminutive suffixation: MAX[F] or IDENT[F]? Phonology 17. 427– 478.Google Scholar