Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian ‘transparent’ vowels

Abstract

Using a combination of magnetometry and ultrasound, we examined the articulatory characteristics of the so-called 'transparent' vowels [iː], [i], and [eː] in Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonologically, transparent vowels are front, but they can be followed by either front or back suffixes. However, a finer look reveals an underlying phonetic coherence in two respects. First, transparent vowels in back harmony contexts show a less advanced (more retracted) tongue body posture than phonemically identical vowels in front harmony contexts: e.g. [i] in buli-val is less advanced than [i] in bili-vel. Second, transparent vowels in monosyllabic stems selecting back suffixes are also less advanced than phonemically identical vowels in stems selecting front suffixes: e.g. [iː] in ír, taking back suffixes, compared to [iː] of hír, taking front suffixes, is less advanced when these stems are produced in bare form (no suffixes). We thus argue that the phonetic degree of tongue body horizontal position correlates with the phonological alternation in suffixes. A hypothesis that emerges from this work is that a plausible phonetic basis for transparency can be found in quantal characteristics of the relation between articulation and acoustics of transparent vowels. More broadly, the proposal is that the phonology of transparent vowels is better understood when their phonological patterning is studied together with their articulatory and acoustic characteristics.

Not crazy after all these years? Perceptual grounding for long-distance vowel harmony

“…Can a case be made that Hungarian, like Kinande, does not involve true transparency? Benus and Gafos (2007); Benus (2005) provide articulatory data (electromagnetic articulography and ultrasound) which suggest that front [i] and [e] are realized with less extreme articulatory gestures in a back-harmonic context-however, their results show that these segments are still articulatorily front. This is consistent with acoustic evidence from similar transparent vowels in Finnish (Gordon, 1999).…”

Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony

“…Specifically, we will discuss variation in anti-harmony and transparency. In order to be able to do this, we will have to go into some descriptive detail about anti-harmony and transparency in Hungarian, a harmony system in which variation in harmony has been studied in detail (Ringen and Kontra 1989;Hayes and Cziráky Londe 2006;Benus and Gafos 2007;Hayes et al 2009;Kálmán et al 2012;Rebrus et al 2012;Blaho and Szeredi 2013;Törkenczy et al 2013;Rebrus and Szigetvári 2013;Forró 2013). …”

Neutrality and variation: what are they?

“…An overwhelming majority of all-neutral stems exhibit clear-cut complementary distribution in their harmonic behaviour (with the monosyllabic /i(:)/-stems, this is 100% true). Some researchers claim that this complementarity even extends to the actual phonetic realisations of these items, even when pronounced in isolation (Benus and Gafos 2007). In other words, the /i(:)/ in these items is claimed to be articulated (and sound) slightly differently depending on whether they are antiharmonic or otherwise.…”