Class 3: Contrast and neutralization (part 2)

Adam Albright (albright@mit.edu)

LSA 2017 Phonology

University of Kentucky
Goals for today

▶ Continue discussion of markedness and contrast

▶ Licensing by cue: another example where neutralization
correlates with diminished cues
▶ Constraining perceptual distance directly: dispersion theory
▶ Reminders
▶ Assignment 1 for “option 1” due on Monday (7/17) by PDF on
Canvas
▶ My office hrs: Thurs 2-3pm (library basement, the Hub) and by
appointment
▶ I’m happy to meet and talk about class or about your work!

References 1/29
So far…

▶ A framework characterizing phonological restrictions

▶ Markedness constraints: *[+spread glottis] (no aspirated
segments), or *[spread glottis] (no s.g. specification)
▶ Contextual markedness: *[+spread glottis]/ [−sonorant]
▶ Faithfulness: Ident([±spread glottis])
▶ A result: with ranking and candidate competition, this system
allows us to characterize phonological distributions
▶ Contrast
▶ Lack of contrast
▶ Contextual neutralization
▶ An assumption (to be discussed more in class 8)
▶ All human grammars contain or are drawn from the same
constraints
▶ Defines a space of possible languages
▶ Reasoning about the constraint set: undergeneration,
overgeneration

References 2/29
The wide world of phonological restrictions
Languages of the world exhibit numerous types of phonological
restrictions
▶ Contrast vs. lack of contrast
▶ Positional neutralization
▶ No voiced obstruents word-finally (“final devoicing”)
▶ No voiceless obstruents after nasals (“post-nasal voicing”)
▶ No vowels other than [ə] in stresless syllables (“vowel reduction”)
▶ Assimilation and harmony
▶ No voiceless obstruents before a voiced obstruent, and vice versa
(“voicing assimilation”)

▶ Prosody: stress, tone, etc.

It would not be possible to do justice to surveying such restrictions in a

class of this length.1 Instead, we will focus here on a few selected
restrictions, and how analysts haved reasoned about their analysis.
1
A nice set of summary articles can be found in the Blackwell Companion to
Phonology.
References 3/29
Reminder: licensing by cue

▶ Last time: two restrictions on voicing in Lithuanian

▶ Positional restriction: contextual neutralization word-finally
▶ Assimilation: obstruents must agree in voicing with a following
obstruent
▶ What unifies these two restrictions
▶ Contrast is limited to pre-sonorant positions

References 4/29
Reminder: licensing by cue

▶ The ‘licensing by cue’ hypothesis grounds the set of markedness

constraints in considerations of perception (Steriade, 1997)
▶ Pay-off: derive asymmetries (contrast in a perceptually
disadvantageous context implies contrast in perceptually more
advantageous context)
▶ Interpretation of markedness as penalizing any specification
directly captures insight that the markedness eliminates
contrasts (not specific feature values)
▶ Caveat: both of these hypotheses are controversial

▶ Alternative: find other ways to limit set of markedness

constraints, or simply allow a wide range of markedness
constraints and seek typological explanations elsewhere (class 8)

References 5/29
Contextual neutralization: place

Navajo also shows neutralization for place of articulation in final

position
▶ Final t, ʔ but no *p, *k
▶ Same questions as above
▶ Why does neutralization target some contexts
(word-final/pre-pausal), but not others (word-initial/pre-vocalic)?
▶ When place is neutralized, why are t,ʔ favored?

References 6/29
Contexts for neutralization

Jun (1995, 2004)

▶ Place contrasts are typically maximal before vowels and
sonorants, reduced before obstruents and word-finally

E.g., English #C
▶ Stop place fully contrastive before vowels and ɹ, limited before l,
banned before nasals and obstruents
▶ Fricative place fully contrastive before vowels, limited before ɹ and
l, only [s] before nasals and obstruents
▶ Cues to place
▶ Formant transitions in preceding, following vowel (V2 privilege;
Fujimura et al., 1978)
▶ Stops and nasals: release (strongest before V, also prominent
finally in some lgs, weak or absent before C)
▶ Nasals: frequency of nasal resonances
▶ Liquids, glides: formants

References 7/29
References 8/29
Example: nasal place contrasts

Nasal place contrasts: a mini-typology (de Lacy 2002)

V # C
(V)mV∼(V)nV Vm∼Vn VmtV∼VntV
Japanese, Spanish ✓ * (neutr.) * (assim.)
Latin, Diola Fogny ✓ ✓ * (assim.)
Russian, English ✓ ✓ ✓
▶ Neutralization targets worse-cued positions over better-cued
positions
▶ Worst: no following transitions and no release

▶ Better: no following transitions, but audible release

▶ Best: following transitions and release

References 9/29
Not all C2’s are equal
▶ Although consonants/ C2 are generally prone to place
assimilation, some places of articulation are more likely trigger
assimilation than others
▶ Dorsals > Labials > Coronals
▶ Korean place assimilation
▶ Coronals assimilate to labials and dorsals, and not vice versa
▶ Labials assimilate to Dorsals (for some speakers, esp. in casual
speech) and not vice versa

+e + to + pota + kwa
‘loc’ ‘too’ ‘more than’ ‘and’
/mitʰ-/ ‘bottom’ mitʰe mi(t)t’o mipp’oda mikkwa
/apʰ-/ ‘front’ apʰe apt’o app’oda akk’wa
/sok-/ ‘inside’ soge sokt’o sokp’oda sokk’wa
+ ə/a + ta + ko
‘Inf’ ‘decl’ ‘and’
/mit/ ‘believe’ midə mi(t)t’a mikk’o
/ip-/ ‘wear’ ibə ipt’a ikk’o
/mək-/ ‘eat’ məɡə məkt’a məkk’o

References 10/29
Latin place assimilation
▶ Coronals assimilate to labials and dorsals

ad- ‘towards’
/ [lab] / [dors]
ap-par-ere ‘gain in addition’ ak-kept-aːre ‘take’
ap-pend-ere ‘hang upon’ ak-klaːm-aːre ‘call to’
ap-plaud-ere ‘strike upon’ ak-kliːn-aːre ‘lean on’
ap-prim-ere ‘press close’ ag-gluːtin-aːre ‘glue to’
ab-brewi-aːre ‘shorten’ ag-ger-ere ‘carry towards’

▶ Labials assimilate to dorsals (but not coronals)

sub- ‘under’
/ [cor] / [dors]
sub-teg-ere ‘cover beneath’ suk-kend-ere ‘kindle beneath’
sub-tend-ere ‘stretch beneath ’ suk-kiːd-ere ‘cut below’
sub-deːlig-ere ‘choose’ sug-ger-ere ‘carry below’
sub-dubit-aːre ‘be a little doubtful’ sug-gluːt-iːre ‘hiccup a little’
sub-dok-eːre ‘teach as an assistant’ sug-grunn-iːre ‘grunt a little’
▶ Not just verbs: /sub-grundaːri-um/ → suggrundaːrium ‘grave of a
child less than 40 days old’
References 11/29
Jun’s hypothesis
▶ Susceptibility to assimilation correlates with gestural duration
▶ Dorsal > Labial > Coronal
▶ Targets: shorter gestures are more significantly affected/eclipsed
by adjacent gestures

▶ Triggers: longer gestures are more likely to affect/eclipse an

adjacent gesture

References 12/29
The consequence for markedness constraints
▶ A (non-necessary) assumption about features
▶ [PLACE] is a feature, can have values [dorsal], [labial], [coronal]
▶ Equivalent: feature geometric interpretation (cf. LARYNGEAL)
▶ Fixed rankings reflecting cue availability
▶ *PLACE/ C ≫ *PLACE/ # ≫ *PLACE/ [+son] ≫
*PLACE/ V
▶ *PLACE/ [−syl,dors] ≫ *PLACE/ [−syl,lab] ≫ *PLACE/
[−syl,cor]
▶ Implicational relations
▶ Ident(PLACE) may be ranked at various points along hierarchy
▶ Assimilation before labials implies assimilation before dorsals
▶ Why assimilation?
▶ Steriade’s proposal for voicing is useful here too:
underspecification
▶ Consonant with no independent place specification is realized with
articulatorily simplest interpolation: same gesture as adjacent
consonant

References 13/29
Additional asymmetries

Place assimilation is often limited to particular classes of segments,

confirming that less well cued contrasts are dispreferred
▶ Nasals more likely to assimilate than stops
▶ Formant transitions in preceding vowel are less clear when it is
nasalized
▶ Better cues for oral stops than for nasal stops
▶ *[PLACE,+nas]/ X ≫ *[PLACE,−nas]/ X
▶ Stops more likely to assimilate than Fricatives
▶ Both stops and fricatives have external cue of preceding formant
transitions
▶ Fricatives have additional internal cue: frequency distribution of
aperiodic noise
▶ *[PLACE,−continuant]/ X ≫ *[PLACE,+continuant]/ X

References 14/29
More generally: eliminating some places, favoring others
What about cases where we see a reduced range of contrasts, but not
total assimilation to a following consonant? Which places of
articulation are more marked?
▶ *[PLACE] won’t do the trick
▶ Just yields one outcome, perhaps [ʔ] (no oral stricture)2
▶ Markedness constraints for specific places?
▶ *[+labial], *[+coronal], *[+dorsal], etc.
▶ Does not predict any implicational asymmetries
▶ Is it a coincidence that only t, ʔ are tolerated?
▶ Cue-based constraints?
▶ Favor places with longer/more robust place cues, such as dorsals?
▶ Favor contrasts that are more distinct from each other, such as
dorsal vs. labial?
▶ Potential sources of evidence for asymmetries
▶ Language-internal asymmetries
▶ Cross-linguistic asymmetries
2
Or, sometimes assumed to yield default coronal…
References 15/29
Language-internal place asymmetries

Three relevant configurations

▶ Languages with limited sets of place contrasts
▶ Tagalog contrasts p,t,k,ʔ in initial, medial, and final positions
▶ English contrasts p,t,k (i.e., *ʔ)
▶ Seneca contrasts t,k (*p, *ʔ)
▶ Hawaiian has only k,ʔ (*p, *t)
(We’ve seen how to handle these with markedness constraints)
▶ Within a language, place contrasts may be restricted in specific
contexts
▶ Phonological: Navajo lacks *p, *k in final position (We’ve seen how
to handle these with contextual markedness constraints)
▶ Phonological: epenthesis
▶ Morphological: restrictions in affixes, etc. (next time)

The hope: comparing these restrictions might reveal systematic and

consistent markedness asymmetries

References 16/29
Epenthetic segments

▶ Epenthetic segments violate Dep

▶ Since there is no underlying segment, they don’t violate Ident

(i.e., dont change the place of any segment in the input)
▶ Choice of epenthetic segment therefore falls to markedness
▶ The Emergence of the Unmarked (TETU)

▶ Example: epenthetic [ʔ] before word-initial vowels

/ap/ *#V Ident(place) *[coronal] *[glottal]

a. ap *! W L
b. tap *! W L
+ c. ʔap *
/ta/ *#V Ident(place) *[coronal] *[glottal]
+ a. ta *
b. ʔa *! W L *W
▶ Epenthetic ʔ = *other ≫ *glottal

References 17/29
Inventory and contextual asymmetries

Some contradictions for a general hierarchy of place markedness

▶ Hawaiian stops: only k,ʔ
▶ *[labial] ,*[coronal] ≫ Ident(place) ≫ *[dorsal]
▶ Spanish stops: p,t,k
▶ *ʔ ≫ *[labial] ,*[coronal], *[dorsal]
▶ German epenthetic stops: ʔ
▶ *[labial] ,*[coronal], *[dorsal] ≫ *ʔ
▶ Navajo word-final stops: only t,ʔ
▶ *[labial]#, *[dorsal]# ≫ Ident(place) ≫ *[coronal]#, *ʔ#
No simple convergence! Even within inventories, there are
contradictions, and epenthesis favors segments that are often
disfavored (h, ʔ)

References 18/29
Contextual restrictions

A further example, involving nasal place neutralization

▶ Neutralization before C results in assimilation

▶ Neutralization of nasal place in final position may favor [ɴ]

(Japanese), [ŋ] (Dominican Spanish), [n] (Castilian Spanish),
perhaps even [m]?
▶ This is just like the problem we saw with voicing: a value that’s
marked in general may be favored in a specific context
▶ A possible start: *PLACE/ ¬[+son] favors underspecification.
But then all languages should be like Japanese.
▶ Other outcomes must be favored by markedness contraints, but
no consistent ranking?

References 19/29
One solution: dispersion

▶ No general hierarchy that singles out specific places of

articulation as universally more marked than others
▶ Markedness penalizes perceptually indistinct contrasts
▶ i.e., [t] is difficult to distinguish from [k], or [ʔ] (or other stops
more generally), so may be marked in contrast with those
▶ But it is tolerated or even preferred when there are sufficient cues,
or when there is no contrast
▶ This allows for a fairly wide range of ‘optimal’ small inventories.
Once you are down to just one or two places, it’s easy to be
distinct.
▶ Faithfulness favors perceptually minimal changes
▶ Unlike small inventories and contextual neutralization, epenthetic
segments do show a fairly high degree of consistency in place
(glottal h,ʔ; homorganic glides)
▶ We’ll come back to this next week, and attribute it to the nature of
Dep: insert perceptually unobtrusive segments

References 20/29
Dispersion theory
Flemming (2004, 2006)

▶ An observation about vowel inventories: vowels tend to be

spaced (more or less) regularly throughout vowel space
▶ Schematically: some 3 and 5 vowels inventories
i ɨ i
u u
700 600 500 400

700 600 500 400

700 600 500 400

ə e
o
F1 (Hz)

F1 (Hz)

F1 (Hz)
a a a

2200 1800 1400 1000 1000 1400 1800 2200 1800 1400 1000

F2 (Hz) F2 (Hz) F2 (Hz)

▶ A recurring pattern: segments that are marked in some context

are preferred in others
▶ Inventories with [i] and [u] frequently lack [ɨ]
▶ Inventories without front/back contrast prefer [ɨ]3
3
In such systems, [ɨ] typically varies in backness depending on context; but this is
typical of systems with few vowels.
References 21/29
 wide range of vowel qualities in transcriptions of English dialects and could have b

used to symbolize [F1 7, F2 2]. Similarly, [y] could also have been used for [F1 1,
Flemming (2004): schematic vowel space
▶ Discretely quantized
(6) a.dimensions b.
F2 F3
6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1
i i y   u 1 i y,,u 1
   2  , 2
e ø  o 3 e ø,,o 3
e ø   o 4 F1 e ø,,o 4 F1
    5  , 5
æ   6  6
a a 7 a 7

▶ Grammar candidates of contrasting elements

▶ E.g., a vowel inventory:
The distinctiveness
ɨ-ə-a of a pair of vowel qualities should then be calculated from
▶ MinDist constraints penalize
differences contrasts
on each that
of these three are too
dimensions. closerelative
However, on adistinctiveness on
specified dimension:
single e.g., MinDist
dimension = F1:2 with much greater confidence than distinctiven
can be determined
▶ Intrinsic ranking(?): smaller distances always penalized more
involving differences on multiple dimensions, so almost all of the analyses develop
▶ MaximizeContrasts: penalizes neutralization (fewer elements in
candidate than input) 10
▶ Relative ranking determines size of inventory, and optimal
dispersion
References 22/29
MinDist constraints

▶ MinDist = dim:dist
▶ For all pairs of segments x,y: assess a violation if x,y are not at
least distance dist apart on dimension dim
▶ Specific values vs. stringency relations (dim≥dist)
▶ Dimensions: F1, F2, duration, etc.
▶ Approach is compatible with any dimension that can distinguish
distances (auditory, abstract phonological)
▶ Flemming (2004) chooses auditory distance to account for
dispersion along multiple ‘featural’ dimensions (height, backness,
rounding)
▶ However, it is also possible to specify distances in multiple
dimensions (which we’ll do here)

References 23/29
 modification that dimensions take integer value

different vowel qualities are indicated as far as

Defining an inventory: i, a, u
cases there is no IPA symbol for a particular vo
▶ ‘Point’ vowels differ maximally in F1, F2
counterpart to [] which might occupy [F1 2, F
▶ Criterion: MinDist:F1=6 or F2=5
vowel could occupy a given position in F1-F2 s
▶ Assessing violations
lip rounding and tongue backing, e.g. central ro
▶ If we just give the grammar single forms or vowels, we won’t know
whether there’s another vowel out thereback unrounded
that’s []. Also, the IPA low back un
too close
▶ Solution: evaluate entire inventories wide range of vowel qualities in transcriptions o
▶ Example used to symbolize [F1 7, F2 2]. Similarly, [y] c

MinDist:F1=6∨F2=5
(6) a. b
+ a. i a u ✓ F2
6 5 4 3 2 1
b. i e a o u *!***
i i y   u 1
i,e:∆F1=3,∆F2=1
   2
e,a:∆F1=3,∆F2=2 e ø  o 3
a,o:∆F1=3,∆F2=2 e ø   o 4 F1
o,u:∆F1=3,∆F2=0     5

c. i ɐ u *!* æ   6
a a 7
i,ɐ:∆F1=5,∆F2=3

ɐ,u:∆F1=5,∆F2=2

References The distinctiveness of a pair of vowel24/29

qual
 back unrounded []. Also, the IPA low back

Defining an inventory: i, e, a, o, u wide range of vowel qualities in transcriptions

used to symbolize [F1 7, F2 2]. Similarly, [y]

▶ By itself, this system won’t ever let us choose an inventory with
contrasts that are closer than the maximally dispersed ones
(6) a.
F2
6 5 4 3 2 1
i i y   u 1
MinDist: MinDist:
   2
F1=3∨F2=4 F1=6∨F2=5
e ø  o 3
+ a. i a u ✓ ✓ e ø   o 4 F1
b. i e a o u ✓ *!***     5
æ   6
a a 7
▶ Larger inventories are favored by MaxContrasts
▶ Given: an input of logically possible contrasts
The distinctiveness of a pair of vowel qua
▶ Ranking determines how many are preserved
differences on each of these three dimensions.
/i e ɛ a ɔ o u/ MinDist: Max MinDist:
single dimension can be determined with muc
F1=3∨F2=4 Contrasts F1=6∨F2=5
involving differences on multiple dimensions,
a. i a u ✓ ***!* ✓
+ b. i e a o u ✓ ** ****
10
c. i e ɛ a ɔ o u **** ✓ ********
References 25/29
Which dimensions?

▶ Languages may differ in which MinDist constraints are highest

ranked
▶ F2 distinctness ≫ F1 distinctness: vertical vowel system
▶ I.e., no front/back distinction at all
▶ F1 distinctness ≫ F2 distinctness: ‘point’ vowel system
▶ Systems like i,u,a

▶ Side note: no strictly horizontal systems?

References 26/29
Application to place contrasts

▶ Acoustic dimensions for stops

▶ Preceding (VC), following (CV) formant transitions (if present)
▶ Release burst (if present)
▶ Possible restrictions:
▶ MinDist:CV transitions≥x
Requires following formant transitions; bans place contrasts
before a C or word-finally
▶ MinDist:CV transitions≥x or VC transitions≥x+1
Allows place contrasts before or after a vowel, but more stringent
condition after a vowel (recall Navajo)

References 27/29
Summing up
▶ Three different ways of formulating restrictions
▶ Markedness constraints on feature values: *[+voice]
▶ Markedness constraints on feature specifications in perceptually
weak positions (Licensing by cue)
▶ Markedness constraints contrasts (Dispersion: MinDist)
▶ Arguments against marked feature values
▶ No intrinsic predictions about contexts where a particular feature
value will be marked
▶ Value that’s marked in some contexts is preferred in other
contexts
▶ Perceptually grounded accounts make testable predictions about
contexts for neutralization
▶ Implicational asymmetries: contrast in weakly cued position
implies contrast in strongly cued position

▶ Dispersion account helps to resolve contradictions in which

values are favored

References 28/29
References

Flemming, E. (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes,

R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically-Based Phonology, pp. 232–276.
Cambridge University Press.

Fujimura, O., M. J. Macchi, and L. A. Streeter (1978). Perception of stop consonants

with conflicting transitional cues: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Speech,
337–346.

Jun, J. (1995). Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: an Optimality

Theoretic approach:. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA.

Jun, J. (2004). Place assimilation. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (Eds.),

Phonetically-Based Phonology, pp. 58–86. Cambridge University Press.

Steriade, D. (1997). Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization.

UCLA ms.

References 29/29