The Emergence of Contrastive Palatalization in Russian

Padgett, Jaye

doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0195-3_12

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Phonological theory must encode this in some fashion, whether by excluding distinctive features or by prohibiting faithfulness constraints on non-contrastive properties. 16 In phonological frameworks that take a systemic view of contrast, it is insufficient to ban IDENT(timing), either because no underlying representation is assumed (Flemming, 1995) or because generalized systemic faithfulness exists as an independent constraint in the grammar (Padgett, 2003a(Padgett, , 2003b(Padgett, , 2003c. See the discussion in Bradley (2005), who argues that imperceptible contrasts based on gestural timing must be universally ruled out by inviolable perceptual distinctiveness constraints.…”

Section: Faithfulness and Lexically Specified Gestural Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Morphological derived-environment effects in gestural coordination: A case study of Norwegian clusters

Bradley

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines morphophonological alternations involving apicoalveolar tap-consonant clusters in Urban East Norwegian from the framework of gestural Optimality Theory. Articulatory Phonology provides an insightful explanation of patterns of vowel intrusion, coalescence, and rhotic deletion in terms of the temporal coordination of consonantal gestures, which interacts with both prosodic and morphological structure. An alignment-based account of derived-environment effects is proposed in which complete overlap in rhotic-consonant clusters is blocked within morphemes but not across morpheme or word boundaries. Alignment constraints on gestural coordination also play a role in phonologically conditioned allomorphy. The gestural analysis is contrasted with alternative Optimality-theoretic accounts. Furthermore, it is argued that models of the phonetics-phonology interface which view timing as a low-level detail of phonetic implementation incorrectly predict that input morphological structure should have no effect on gestural coordination. The patterning of rhotic-consonant clusters in Norwegian is consistent with a model that includes gestural representations and constraints directly in the phonological grammar, where underlying morphological structure is still visible. On the assumption that Universal Grammar lacks faithfulness constraints on input timing, the phonology is free to include non-contrastive phonetic detail such as intersegmental gestural coordination without the danger of overgenerating impossible contrasts. #

show abstract

Section: Faithfulness and Lexically Specified Gestural Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Morphological derived-environment effects in gestural coordination: A case study of Norwegian clusters

Bradley

2007

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[nos] 'nose' (see Padgett 2003). The other type involves mutations of velar or alveolar/dental stops to palatoalveolar affricates in the neighborhood of front vowels and palatal glides.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Palatalization in educated Cairene Arabic

Youssef

2016

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the speech of some educated Cairenes, the coronal stops /t d tˤ dˤ/ acquire a secondary palatal articulation before high front vowels and glides, resulting in [t j ] or [d j ]. Based on first-hand data, this article provides a detailed phonetic and phonological investigation of this palatalization process in an attempt to fill a descriptive gap in the literature on Cairene Arabic. By examining the full range of triggers, targets, and potential blockers, I demonstrate that this is a phonetic coarticulatory effect, and that it should be distinguished from phonological assimilation. I also explore the hypothesis that this process -characterized as a sound change in progress -has been phonologized in a different sociolect of Cairene Arabic.

show abstract

“…Other generalizations using selected fingers in sign languages have also been formulated. For example, Eccarius (2008) used the set of selected finger features and phonological principles found in Dispersion Theory (Flemming 2002, Padgett 2003) to explain handshape inventories found ASL, DSGS, and HKSL. 7 She found that finger selection is not arbitrarily distributed but is instead systematically generated subject to pressures of iconicity, markedness (articulatory ease, perceptual distinctiveness), and maximal dispersion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners

Brentari

Coppola

Mazzoni

et al. 2011

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

132

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sign languages display remarkable crosslinguistic consistencies in the use of handshapes. In particular, handshapes used in classifier predicates display a consistent pattern in finger complexity: classifier handshapes representing objects display more finger complexity than those representing how objects are handled. Here we explore the conditions under which this morphophonological phenomenon arises. In Study 1, we ask whether hearing individuals in Italy and the United States, asked to communicate using only their hands, show the same pattern of finger complexity found in the classifier handshapes of two sign languages: Italian Sign Language (LIS) and American Sign Language (ASL). We find that they do not: gesturers display more finger complexity in handling handshapes than in object handshapes. The morphophonological pattern found in conventional sign languages is therefore not a codified version of the pattern invented by hearing individuals on the spot. In Study 2, we ask whether continued use of gesture as a primary communication system results in a pattern that is more similar to the morphophonological pattern found in conventional sign languages or to the pattern found in gesturers. Homesigners have not acquired a signed or spoken language and instead use a self-generated gesture system to communicate with their hearing family members and friends. We find that homesigners pattern more like signers than like gesturers: their finger complexity in object handshapes is higher than that of gesturers (indeed as high as signers); and their finger complexity in handling handshapes is lower than that of gesturers (but not quite as low as signers). Generally, our findings indicate two markers of the phonologization of handshape in sign languages: increasing finger complexity in object handshapes, and decreasing finger complexity in handling handshapes. These first indicators of phonology appear to be present in individuals developing a gesture system without benefit of a linguistic community. Finally, we propose that iconicity, morphology and phonology each play an important role in the system of sign language classifiers to create the earliest markers of phonology at the morphophonological interface.

show abstract

The Emergence of Contrastive Palatalization in Russian

Cited by 35 publications

References 15 publications

Morphological derived-environment effects in gestural coordination: A case study of Norwegian clusters

Morphological derived-environment effects in gestural coordination: A case study of Norwegian clusters

Palatalization in educated Cairene Arabic

When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About