|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition
|
|
Author:
|
Robert Kirchner
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
University of California, Los Angeles
, Department of Linguistics
|
|
Degree Date:
|
1998
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Phonology
|
|
Subject Language(s):
|
Italian
Panamint
|
|
Director(s):
|
Donca Steriade
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
Despite the pervasiveness of lenition in the sound systems of natural language, this class of patterns has eluded adequate characterization in previous theories of phonology. Specifically, previous theories have failed to capture formally the phonetic unity of the various lenition processes (e.g. degemination, voicing, spirantization, debuccalization, deletion), or to account for the environments in which lenition typically occurs. I present a unified approach to consonant lenition, wherein particular lenition patterns arise from Optimality Theoretic conflict between a principle of effort minimization (which I style LAZY), and faithfulness to auditory features, in combination with (perceptually-based) fortition constraints, building upon the proposals of Jun (1995) and Flemming (1995). I further demonstrate that this effort-based approach straightforwardly accounts for a number of generalizations, drawn from a survey of 272 grammars:
- Geminate stops never lenite unless they concomitantly degeminate.
- Unaffricated stops never synchronically spirantize to strident fricatives.
- All else being equal, lenition occurs more readily the greater the openness of the flanking segments (the widely attested pattern of intervocalic lenition being a special case).
- Lenition occurs more readily the faster or more casual the speech.
The approach is illustrated with case studies of lenition in Tumpisa Shoshone and Florentine Italian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 27-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
