The Perceptual Dimensions of Sonority-Driven Epenthesis

Abstract

<p>Vowel epenthesis often appears to preferentially target consonant clusters with rising sonority. One explanation for this is perceptual faithfulness (Fleischhacker, 2002; Steriade, 2006): rising sonority clusters are more susceptible to epenthesis because the perceptual distance between the underlying /C1-C2/ sequence and its correspondent output sequence [C1-V-C2] is small, thus incurring a smaller faithfulness cost. This raises the question of how to compute the perceptual distance between two sonority contours /C1-C2/ and [C1-V-C2] in terms of the sonority of C1, C2 and V. In this paper, I propose the metric Sonority Angle, the angle formed by the contours /C1-C2/ and [C1-V]. I apply it in analysing two case studies of sonority-driven epenthesis, Chaha and Irish. A comparison is made to another possible metric, Sonority Rise (Flemming, 2008), the ratio of the gradients of the two contours, as well as to Syllable Contact and Sonority Sequencing, which represent an alternative, markedness-based approach to the problem of sonority-driven epenthesis.</p>

Modeling Sonority in Terms of Pitch Intelligibility With the Nucleus Attraction Principle

“…A somewhat similar formula can be found in Fullwood's (2014) sonority angle , which builds on Flemming's sonority rise (see also Fleischhacker, 2002). 9 Flemming (2008) and Fullwood (2014) combine measurements of C 1 C 2 and C 1 V slopes to analyze the distance between alternatives with and without a vowel epenthesis (C 1 C 2 vs. C 1 V C 2 ).…”

“…A somewhat similar formula can be found in Fullwood's (2014) sonority angle, which builds on Flemming's sonority rise (see also Fleischhacker, 2002). 9 Flemming (2008) and Fullwood (2014) combine measurements of C 1 C 2 and C 1 V slopes to analyze the distance between alternatives with and without a vowel epenthesis (C 1 C 2 vs. C 1 VC 2 ). By incorporating the sonority distance between consonants in C 1 and vowels, these formulas are capable of mitigating some of the problems that the standard SSP formula has in accounting for either putatively ill-formed sonority slopes with an overall low sonority (e.g., /s/-stop clusters) or putatively well-formed sonority slopes with an overall high sonority (e.g., sonorant plateaus and rises).…”

Elements, Government, and Licensing

“…Studies include Noyer (1990), Ní Chiosáin (1991. Carnie (1994), Ní Chiosáin (1999), and Fullwood (2013 focus on the particular consonant clusters that allow or disallow the epenthesis. In Irish distinctions among unstressed short vowels have been significantly curtailed compared to SG.…”