Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T07:30:28.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nasalisation in English: phonology or phonetics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Abigail C. Cohn
Abigail C. Cohn
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In English, a number of rules affect the realisation of a nasal consonant or a segment adjacent to a nasal consonant. These include rules of Anticipatory Nasalisation, e.g. bean /bin/ [bĩn]; Coronal Stop Deletion, e.g. kindness /kajndnes/ [kãjnnes]; Nasal Deletion and optionally Glottalisation, e.g. sent /sent/ [set] or [set'] (see Malécot 1960; Selkirk 1972; Kahn 1980 [1976]; Zue & Laferriere 1979). These rules, characterised largely on the basis of impressionistic data, are widely assumed to be phonological rules of English. Yet current views of the relationship between phonology and phonetics make the distinction between phono-logical rules and phonetic ones less automatic than once assumed and a reconsideration of the status of these rules is warranted. In the present article, I use phonetic data from English to investigate these rules. Based on these data, I argue that Anticipatory Nasalisation results from phonetic implementation rather than from a phonological rule, as previously assumed. It is shown that the basic patterns of nasalisation in English can be accounted for straightforwardly within a target-interpolation model. I then investigate the phonological status and phonetic realisation of Nasal Deletion, Coronal Stop Deletion and Glottalisation. The interaction of these rules yields some surprising results, in that glottalised /t/ [t'] is amenable to nasalisation.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , May 1993 , pp. 43 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Anderson, Stephen R. (1981). Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. LI 12. 493–539.Google Scholar
Bell-Berti, F. (1980). Velopharyngeal function: a spatial-temporal model. In Lass, N. J. (ed.) Speech and language: advances in basic research and practice. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 137–150.Google Scholar
Benguerel, A.-P., Hirose, H., Sawashima, M. & Ushijima, T. (1977a). Velar co-articulation in French: a fiberscopic study. JPH 5. 149–158.Google Scholar
Benguerel, A.-P., Hirose, H., Sawashima, M. & Ushijima, T. (1977b). Velar co-articulation in French: an electromyographic study. JPH 5. 159–167.Google Scholar
Botherel, Andre, Péla, Simon, François, Wioland & Jean-Pierre, Zerling (1986). Cinéradiographie des voyeles et consonnes du français. Strasbourg: Publications de PInstitut de Phonétique de Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine R. & Louis, Goldstein (1990). Tiers in Articulatory Phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Kingston, & Beckman, (1990). 341–376.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine R. & Louis, Goldstein (1992a). Articulatory Phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browman, Catherine R. & Louis, Goldstein (1992b). Responses to commentaries. Phonetica 49. 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of consonant environment. Phonetica 22. 129–159.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1988). Toward a substantive theory of feature specification. NELS 18. 79–93.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1992). Phonological primes: gestures or features? Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 7, 1–15. (Revised version in Phonetica 49. 181–193.)Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (1989). Phonetic evidence for configuration constraints. NELS 19. 63–77.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (1990a). Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Distributed as UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 76.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (1990b). The dual status of Anticipatory Nasalization in English. CLS 26. 111–124.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. (forthcoming). The status of nasalized continuants. In Huffman & Krakow (forthcoming a).Google Scholar
Dell, F. C. (1970). Les regies phonologiques tardives et la morphologie dérivationnelle du français. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (1976). The interface between phonetics and phonology. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 31. 104–107.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. & Robert, Rodman (1988). An introduction to language. 4th edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu (1981). Elementary gestures and temporal organization – what does an articulatory constraint mean? In Myers, T., Laver, J. & Anderson, J. (eds.) The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 101–110.Google Scholar
Hertz, Susan R. (1991). Streams, phones and transitions: toward a new phonological and phonetic model of formal timing. JPH 19. 91–109.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1977). Substantive evidence for linearity: vowel length and nasality in English. CLS 13. 152–164.Google Scholar
Huffman, Marie K. (1989). Implementation of nasal: timing and articulatory landmarks. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Distributed 1990 as UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 75.Google Scholar
Huffman, Marie K. & Rena, A. Krakow (eds.) (forthcoming a). Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huffman, Marie K. & Rena, A. Krakow (forthcoming b). Instruments and techniques for investigating nasalization and velopharyngeal function: an introduction. In Huffman, & Krakow, (forthcoming a).Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1976). Phonologization. In Juilland, A. (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Vol. 2. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 407–418.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, R. Armin (1989). Ga-gyoo: featural and prosodic characteristics. Paper presented at the MIT Conference on Feature and Underspecification Theories.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1980). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland (PhD dissertation, MIT, 1976).Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1990). Toward a typology of postlexical rules. In Sharon, Inkelas & Draga, Zee (eds.) The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 127–143.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1985a). CV Phonology, experimental phonetics, and co-articulation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 62. 1–13.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1985b). Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In Victoria, A. Fromkin (ed.) Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press. 115–132.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5. 275–292.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1990). The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. In Kingston, & Beckman, (1990). 451–470.Google Scholar
Kingston, John (1990). Articulatory binding. In Kingston, & Beckman, (1990). 406–434.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Mary, E. Beckman (eds.) (1990). Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Janet, B. Pierrehumbert (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 157–233.Google Scholar
Lovins, J. (1978). A study in ‘nasal reduction’ in English syllable codas. Ms, Bell Laboratories.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1960). Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Lg 36. 222–229.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin & Junko Itô (1989). Feature predictability and underspecification: patal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Lg 65. 258–293.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1975). Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, C. A., Hyman, L. M. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.) Nasálfest: papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalisation. Standford: Language Universals Project, Standford University. 289–316.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1990). Phonological and phonetic representation. JPH 18. 375–394.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Mary, Beckman (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. (1987). On the autonomy of the feature Nasal. CLS 23:2. 223–238.Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François (1986). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. (1984). Categorical perception: issues, methods, findings. In Lass, N. J. (ed.) Speech and language: advances in basic research and practice. Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press. 243–335.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1957). Vowel nasality in Sundanese: a phonological and grammatical study. In Studies in Linguistics (special volume of the Philological Society). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 87–103.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1980, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosody and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339–362.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1990). Gestures and autosegments: comments on Browman & Goldstein's paper. In Kingston, & Beckman, (1990). 383–397.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (forthcoming). Closure, release and nasal contours. In Huffman, & Krakow, (forthcoming a).Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt & Robert, Johnson (1982). Phonological analysis: focus on American English. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zue, Victor W. & Laferriere, M. (1979). Acoustical study of medial /t, d/ in American English. JASA 66. 1039–1050.Google Scholar