A Sketch of Muniche Segmental and Prosodic Phonology

Michael, Lev; Farmer, Stephanie; Finley, Gregory; Beier, Christine; Acosta, Karina

doi:10.1086/670752

Cited by 19 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Many languages allow voiceless fricative-stop onsets while disallowing stop-fricative onsets, e.g. Muniche (Michael et al 2013), Takelma (Sapir 1912), Yatée Zapotec (Jaeger & van Valin 1982) and Camsa (Howard 1967). The opposite pattern is extremely rare: Nivkh (Shiraishi 2006) is the only example of which I am aware.…”

Section: The Two Kinds Of Lenitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lenition, perception and neutralisation

Katz

2016

Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that processes traditionally classified as lenition fall into at least two subsets, with distinct phonetic reflexes, formal properties and characteristic contexts. One type, referred to as loss lenition, frequently neutralises contrasts in positions where they are perceptually indistinct. The second type, referred to as continuity lenition, can target segments in perceptually robust positions, increases the intensity and/or decreases the duration of those segments, and very rarely results in positional neutralisation of contrasts. While loss lenition behaves much like other phonological processes, analysing continuity lenition is difficult or impossible in standard phonological approaches. The paper develops a phonetically based optimality-theoretic account that explains the typology of the two types of lenition. The crucial proposal is that, unlike loss lenition, continuity lenition is driven by constraints that reference multiple prosodic positions.

show abstract

Section: The Two Kinds Of Lenitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lenition, perception and neutralisation

Katz

2016

Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This grammar derives stops and voiceless fricatives, but no voiced fricatives, and has no lenition or fortition patterns. The general inventory pattern of voiced and voiceless stops but only voiceless fricatives is widely attested, for instance in Camsá (Howard 1967), Muniche (Michael et al 2013) and Shodon (Martin 1970). Intervocalic lenition is not phonological…”

Section: Basic Phonology Of Singletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intervocalic lenition is not phonological: evidence from Campidanese Sardinian

Katz

2021

Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a model of lenition in Campidanese Sardinian. The model treats lenition (and its inverse, fortition) as a predictable consequence of gradient changes in duration associated with prosodic structure. A more typical approach to lenition processes in Campidanese and other languages is to treat them as changes in phonological features. I show here that a phonetic model operating on the output of phonological computations avoids some of the analytical problems associated with such phonological analyses, unifies the phonetic and phonological description of lenition, and captures the relationship between prosody, lenition and duration. While the detailed simulations here are specific to Campidanese, I suggest that the model is broadly applicable to languages with intervocalic lenition processes such as voicing, spirantisation and tapping.

show abstract

The Native Languages of South America

1920

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Sketch of Muniche Segmental and Prosodic Phonology

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Lenition, perception and neutralisation

Lenition, perception and neutralisation

Intervocalic lenition is not phonological: evidence from Campidanese Sardinian

The Native Languages of South America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About