Summary Details
| Query: |
The Behavior of Labiovelars
|
|
| Author: | Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
Phonetics
Phonology |
|
| Summary: |
The research I am doing concerns, not labiovelars in particular, but
phonological primes in general, the question of whether they should be seen as binary or monovalent, their hierarchy (if any), and several markedness-related issues. In this respect, the status of labiovelars, as well as that of retroflexes for example, remains unclear both in terms of internal structure and markedness. I believe that this is largely due to the fact that such consonants are restricted to specific linguistic areas, mainly in Africa, of which I am not a specialist. The descriptions I read (on Kru languages plus Igbo and Ngbaka) didn't shed any light on the object of my query. The sort of information I am looking for could be formulated as follows. Retroflex consonants, for example, can be shown to be 'coronals,' not only in articulatory terms, but also by their processual behavior, since they undergo several rules also affecting such consonants as /t d s z/, etc. How, then, do labiovelars, which are both labial and velar in articulatory terms, behave? Are they primarily labial or velar on the basis of processual evidence? or can they be shown to belong to both classes according to the process involved? There were 14 responses. Thanks a lot to the following people: William Awumey Michael Cahill Jakob Dempsey Laura Dimock James L. Fidelholtz Arnaud Fournet Shigeto Kawahara John Kingston Terry J. Klokeid Elizabeth J. Pyatt Katie Schack Tang Rolf Theil Tim Thornes Pete Unseth Something that was not quite explicit in my post, I'm afraid, is that I meant labiovelars of the kp, gb-type, like those found in many west and central African languages, not of the much more widespread kw/gw/w-type. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Here are some references for the debate on the primary place of labiovelars : Ohala and Lorentz (1977) (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/users/ohala/papers/story_of_w.pdf), Padgett (1995) (http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?id=21), and a response to this paper by Mike Cahill in NELS proceedings. There is a further response from Padgett in an article that appeared in Language (also available from his website). Mike Cahill himself, who has been working on this issue for a while (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/ detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_ 0=ED381003&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED381003), was kind enough to send me the handout of his LSA presentation (2006). Two points follow from his work: 1) contra Ohala, according to whom kp-labiovelars (KP) should be viewed as both labial and velar, nasal place assimilation should not count in considering primary place of KP, this type of data being influenced by the (variable) articulatory timing of velar and labial closure (whence the velar nasal is not the sole possible result); 2) when nasal place assimilation is filtered out, four facts at least - (a) co-occurrence restrictions, (b) KP-allophony, (c) neutralization, and (d) blocking of vowel harmony - tend to show that [labial] is the primary place of KP in a variety of languages. Once again, thank you very much for your help. Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho jbrandao@ext.jussieu.fr UFR de Sciences du Langage Université Paris 8 2, rue de la Liberté F-93526 Saint-Denis cedex UMR 7023 CNRS Structures formelles du langage |
|
| LL Issue: | 19.523 | |
| Date Posted: | 14-Feb-2008 | |
| Original Query: | Read original query | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
