Advertisement

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 317–330 | Cite as

Phonetic naturalness and unnaturalness in Japanese loanword phonology

  • Shigeto Kawahara
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that phonetic naturalness and unnaturalness can interact within a single grammatical system. In Japanese loanword phonology, only voiced geminates, but not voiced singletons, devoice to dissimilate from another voiced obstruent. The neutralizability difference follows from a ranking which Japanese speakers created on perceptual grounds: Ident(voi)Sing » Ident(voi)Gem. On the other hand, the trigger of devoicing—OCP(voi)—has no phonetic underpinning because voicing does not have phonetic characteristics that would naturally lead to confusion-based dissimilation (Ohala, Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the parasession on language and behaviour, 1981, in: Jones (ed.) Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 1993). OCP(voi) in Modern Japanese originated as a phonetically natural OCP(prenasal) in Old Japanese because the spread out heavy nasalization would lead to perceptual confusion, but it divorced from its phonetic origin when prenasalization became voicing. The interaction of the three constraints in Modern Japanese suggests that phonetic naturalness (the ranking Ident(voi)Sing » Ident(voi)Gem) and unnaturalness (OCP(voi)) co-reside within a single module.

Keywords

Phonetic (un)naturalness Perceptibility Dissimilation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson, Arthur, and Leigh Lisker. 1985. Relative power of cues: F0 shift versus voice timing. In Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, eds. V. Fromkin, 25–33. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson Stephen. (1981) Why phonology isn’t ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493–539Google Scholar
  3. Anttila Arto, Young-mee Yu Cho. (1998) Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, Emmon, and Robert Harms. (1972). How do languages get crazy rules? In Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. R. Stockwell and R. Macaulay, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett Patrick. (1967) Dahl’s law and Thagicu. African Language Studies 8: 127–159Google Scholar
  6. Blevins Juliette. (2004) Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Boersma Paul. (1998) Functional phonology. Holland Academic Graphics, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  8. Coetzee, Andries, and Joe Pater. (2005). Lexically gradient phonotactics in Muna and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, Nick. 1995. Current issues in the phonology of Australian languages. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. J.A. Goldsmith, 723–761. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2005. Similarity in phonology: Evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  11. Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  12. Flickinger Daniel. (1981) Dissimilation in Gothic without Thurneysen’s Law. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 17: 67–75Google Scholar
  13. Frisch, Stephan. (2004). Language processing and segmental OCP effects. In Phonetically-based phonology, ed. B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade, 346–371. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Garrett, Andrew. (2007). Thurneysen’s Law. A handout from East Coast Indo-European Conference 26, Yale University.Google Scholar
  15. Hawkins Sarah, Noel Nguyen. (2004) Influence of syllable-coda voicing on the acoustic properties of syllable-onset /l/ in English. Journal of Phonetics 32: 199–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes, Bruce. (1999). Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, ed. M. Darnell, E. Moravscik, M. Noonan, F. Newmeyer, and K. Wheatly, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  17. Hooper Joan. (1976) An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopper Paul. (1973) Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7: 141–166Google Scholar
  19. Huffman, Marie. (1993). Phonetic patterns of nasalization and implications for feature specification. In Phonetics and phonology 5: Nasals, nasalization and the velum, ed. M. Huffman and R. Krakow, 303–327. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Armin Mester., Armin Mester. (1986) The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 49–73Google Scholar
  21. Katayama, Motoko (1998) Optimality Theory and Japanese loanword phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSC.Google Scholar
  22. Kawahara Shigeto. (2005) Voicing and geminacy in Japanese: An acoustic and erceptual study. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 31: 87–120Google Scholar
  23. Kawahara Shigeto. (2006) A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: The case of voicing in Japanese. Language 82: 536–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawahara Shigeto. (2007) Half-rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 113–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kawahara, Shigeto, and Kazuko Shinohara. (2009). The role of psychoacoustic similarity in Japanese imperfect puns: A corpus study. Journal of Linguistics 45.Google Scholar
  26. Keating Patricia, Aditi Lahiri. (1993) Fronted velars, palatalized velars, and palatals. Phonetica 50: 73–101Google Scholar
  27. Kiparsky Paul. (1985) Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2: 85–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D.dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Liljencrants Johan, Björn Lindblom. (1972) Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48: 839–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lisker Leigh. (1978) On buzzing the English /b/. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR- 55(56): 251–259Google Scholar
  31. Lyman, Benjamin S. 1894. Change from surd to sonant in Japanese compounds. Oriental Studies of the Oriental Club of Philadelphia: 1–17.Google Scholar
  32. Macmillan Neil, Douglas Creelman. (2005) Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Maddieson, Ian (1997) Phonetic universals. In The handbook of phonetics sciences, ed. W. Hardcastle and J. Laver, 619–639. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Meillet, Antoine. (1964). Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes [Reprint of 8th Edition]. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nishimura, Kohei. (2003). Lyman’s law in loanwords. Ms., University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
  36. Ohala, John. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the parasession on language and behavior: 178–203.Google Scholar
  37. Ohala, John. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In The production of speech, ed. P. MacNeilage, 189–216. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Ohala, John. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, ed. C. Jones, 237–278. London: Longman Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Raphael Lawrence. (1981) Duration and contexts as cues to word-final cognate opposition in English. Phonetica 38: 126–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodriguez, Joao. (1930). Nihon Dai Bunten [Arte da Lingoa de Japam]. Tokyo: Sanseidoo [Originally written in 1604–1608; translated by Tadao Doi in 1930].Google Scholar
  42. Sapir, Edward. (1912). The Takelma language of southwestern Oregon. In The handbook of American Indian languages, ed. F. Boas, 1–296. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnography.Google Scholar
  43. Stampe, David. (1973). A dissertation on natural phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Steriade, Donca. (2001). The phonology of perceptibility effect: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  45. Tesar, Bruce. (2007). A comparison of lexicographic and linear numeric optimization using violation difference ratio. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  46. Thurneysen Rudolf. (1897) Spirantenwechsel im gotischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 8: 208–214Google Scholar
  47. Unger, Marshall. (1975). Studies in Early Japanese morphophonemics. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
  48. van Summers W. (1988) F1 structure provides information for final-consonant voicing. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 84: 485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vance, Timothy. 2005. Sequential voicing and Lyman’s Law in Old Japanese. In Polymorphous linguistics: Jim McCawley’s legacy, ed. S. Mufwene, E. Francis, and R. Wheeler, 27–43. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Verner, Kerl. 1875/1967. An exception to the first sound shift. Reprinted in A reader in nineteenth century historical Indo-European linguistics, ed. R.P. Lehmann 1967, 132–163. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Whalen Douglas, Arthur Abramson, Leigh Lisker, Maria Mody. (1990) Gradient effects of fundamental frequency on stop consonant voicing judgments. Phonetica 47: 36–49Google Scholar
  52. Whalen Douglas, Patrice Beddor. (1989) Connections between nasality and vowel duration and height: Elucidation of the Eastern Algonquian intrusive nasal. Language 65: 457–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuraw Kie. (2007) The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog reduplication. Language 83: 277–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentRutgers University, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations