An Emergent Approach to the Guttural Natural Class

Abstract

The post-velar consonants (uvulars, pharyngeals/epiglottals, glottals) have been argued to form an innate and universal phonological natural class (e.g. by McCarthy 1994). Under this hypothesis, languages should have an equal likelihood of showing evidence for the guttural natural class regardless of which post-velar consonants are present in each language. However, typological evidence from P-base (Mielke, 2008) shows that languages with pharyngeal consonants are significantly more likely to show such evidence than languages with just uvulars and glottals. This paper argues that the reason that languages with pharyngeals are more likely to show evidence of the guttural natural class is that pharyngeals are able to pull other consonants into phonologically patterning with them for both articulatory and acoustic reasons. The epilaryngeal constriction used in pharyngeal consonants facilitates articulatory links with uvulars and glottals. The acoustic effects of pharyngeals and uvulars on adjacent vowels are also similar, providing another means for these segments to pattern together phonologically. A preliminary analysis in Optimality Theory of the effects of post-velars on vowels is proposed in which markedness constraints refer to similarity scales that relate post-velar consonants to vowels. The guttural natural class, rather than being innate, emerges from phonological patterns with phonetic underpinnings.

A theory of subfeatural representations: the case of rounding harmony in Laal

“…ABC is a theory of similarity-based segmental interaction that was initially developed for long-distance consonant agreement (Walker 1998, 2000, 2001, Hansson 2001, 2010, Rose & Walker 2004). It has since been extended to vowel harmony (Sasa 2009, Walker 2009, Rhodes 2012), long-distance consonant dissimilation (Bennett 2013, 2015) and local effects of assimilation and dissimilation (Shih 2013, Inkelas & Shih 2014, Shih & Inkelas 2014, Sylak-Glassman 2014).…”

Revisiting acoustic correlates of pharyngealization in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic: Implications for formal representations

“…At the onset, JA shows a clear back vowel quality as represented with absolute F2, whereas MA shows a clear open and back vowel articulation through absolute F1 and F2 respectively (see Figures 3a and 4a). Moving on to the Bark-difference results (see Figures 3b and 4b), and particularly at the onset (top), both JA and MA show a clear separation between the two categories, with vowels in the pharyngealized context showing a 'compact' (with lower Z2-Z1) and 'backed' (with higher Z3-Z2) production; they are 'retracted' in the sense of the Laryngeal Articulator Model (Esling, 2005;Moisik et al, 2012;Sylak-Glassman, 2014b). By using absolute formants only (Figures 3a and 4a), vowels in JA are not represented with an open configuration as all vowels seem to range around 4 Bark.…”

“…Various features were proposed in the literature to describe the effects of pharyngealization, and these include: [Constricted Pharynx] (Hoberman, 1987) (Lindau, 1975(Lindau, , 1978; [flat] (Jakobson, 1957(Jakobson, /1962Jakobson et al, 1952Jakobson et al, /1976; [Guttural] (Hayward & Hayward, 1989;Watson, 2007); [Lower/Upper Pharynx] (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1987); [Pharyngeal] (McCarthy, 1994;Zeroual & Clements, 2015); [Retracted] (Esling, 2005;Sylak-Glassman, 2014b); [Retracted Tongue Root] (Shahin, 1996(Shahin, , 1997(Shahin, , 2011Watson, 2007). This list is not exhaustive, however, it highlights the need for a unified set of feature(s) to account for pharyngealization.…”

“…It is possible then that some dialectal and/or idiosyncratic differences are the reason for these discrepancies. Another possibility is related to the fact that the pharyngealized set is produced with retraction of the tongue dorsum and/or root, whereas pharyngeal sets have a retraction of the tongue root as an enhancement of the epilaryngeal constriction and thus both sets are different in their 'pharyngeal' component (see e.g., Esling, 2005;Moisik, 2013a;Sylak-Glassman, 2014b). A slight larynx raising and/or constriction in the pharyngealized vowels and consonants in Arabic compared to pharyngeals may still be observed, and indicates a difference between the two categories (Hess, 1998).…”

Phonological potentials and the lower vocal tract

“…Because the epilarynx is the principal articulator of sounds traditionally classified as pharyngeal sounds (Esling 1996, 1999, 2005; Esling & Harris 2003; Edmondson & Esling 2006; Heselwood 2007), it is essential to understanding the guttural/post-velar class, whose prototypical members are argued to be pharyngeals (Hayward & Hayward 1989, Moisik 2013, Sylak-Glassman 2014). Laryngeals and uvulars, the other places of articulation associated with gutturals/post-velars, are peripheral to the class.…”