Lavoie (2001) Consonant Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. Garlarnd Publishing Inc., ISBN 0-8153-4044-3, xix+214 pp.
Reviewed by Marta Ortega-Llebaria, University of Northern Colorado.
1. ABSTRACT
Lavoie's book provides us with a very thorough and detailed description of the acoustic and articulatory cues to consonant lenition with the aim of locating phonetic parallels to phonological patterns. After presenting an extensive review of lenition, which outlined the need of obtaining phonetic data to evaluate phonological theories of lenition (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2), she introduces a case study of American English and Mexican Spanish (Chapter 3). In this experiment, she compares consonants uttered in contexts which host lenition with those placed in contexts that promote consonant strengthening. She expects that consonants produced in weaker contexts would display shorter durations, and more vowel-like structure in that they would have less linguopalatal contact, more intensity and more degree of formant structure than their realizations in stronger contexts.
In addition to confirming her predictions, results display two interesting patterns (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). First, cues to lenition tend to pattern either by manner of articulation --like consonant intensity and some measures of linguopalatal contact-, or by position with respect to stress (i.e., duration) or by position in the word (i.e., burst intensity). Second, consonant duration is the most reliable cue to lenition.
These results are interpreted as evidence for different patterns between phonetic strengthening and phonological weakening (Chapter 6). Phonological theories of lenition are also discussed taking into consideration the phonetic data obtained in the case study and she concludes that none would provide a complete explanation of lenition. She outlines some aspects that an adequate Phonological Theory of lenition should have.
2. SUMMARY
2.1. BACKGROUND
In Chapter 1, Lavoie reviews the concept and four phonological theories of lenition. She relates lenition to a wide range of phenomena such as voicing, deletion, fricativization, debuccalization, degemination, deaspiration, and vowel reduction, all of which display a tendency towards weakening. This understanding of lenition allows her to make the following statements. First, she excludes coda and word final position as host sites for lenition on the grounds that they lead to the undesirable conclusion that both voicing and devoicing are phenomena related to lenition, preventing lenition from a general directional tendency. Second, phonological theories of lenition interpret weakening as a tendency towards either segmental deletion, or increasing sonority, or effort reduction, or reduction of linguopalatal contact. However, there is not enough phonetic data to evaluate any of these interpretations. Third, phonetic cues to weak or lenited consonants would include shorter durations and more vowel-like structure than strong consonant realizations.
In Chapter 2, a complete survey of phonological consonant strength alternations is described. Based in impressionistic data, the survey demonstrates that weakening often takes place in intervocalic position, and strengthening occurrs in medial position. It also shows that only 5% of the alternations reviewed make reference to stress. She concludes that there is a bias to explain consonant strength alternations by position in the word while ignoring the possible role of stress, and that there are no phonetic data to support the described alternations.
These conclusions lay the background for the case study. The case study examines with phonetic data Lavoie's predictions that both word position and stress would yield a continuum of consonant strength realizations. The strongest realizations would be in pre-stress word-initial position, and the weakest in non pre-stressed word medial-positions. Consonants with intermediate degrees of strength are predicted in the positions of non pre-stress word-initial and pre-stress word-medial.
2.2. CASE STUDY
In Chapter 3, Lavoie describes the methodology. Five speakers of American English and 4 of Mexican Spanish were recorded reading a word list in their native language. Words were disyllabic, were embedded in carrying sentences, and contained different target consonants according to the language of the list. Each target consonant was tested in the 4 environments obtained by crosscutting position in the word (word initial and word medial) with position with respect to stress (pre-stress and non pre-stress). For example, English target /p/ was tested in the words picker (word initial pre-stress), Picard (word initial non pre-stress), depose (word medial pre-stress), and depot (word medial non pre-stress). Vowels were controlled in order to allow comparisons between environments. Six repetitions of each word yielded 2640 items in English (6 repetitions * 22 consonants * 5 speakers * 4 environments), and 1824 in Spanish (6 repetitions * 19 consonants * 4 speakers * 4 environments).
The produced items are submitted to acoustic and articulatory analysis. Acoustic measurements include duration of the carrying sentence, durations of the target consonants and their subparts (closure and burst), and intensity of the target consonants. Intensity is measured as the Root Mean Square amplitude ratio of the target consonant to the /i/ in 'diga' or 'please', which are the first words of the Spanish and English carrying sentences. Realizations of each target consonant are classified into oral stops, nasal stops, fricatives, approximants, glides, and trills. Articulatory data were obtained from 4 of the 5 English speakers and from 2 of the 4 Spanish speakers who participated in the recordings. EPG recordings were made every 10 mls. during the whole articulation and they were submitted to regions analysis.
Results are described in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. Chapter 4 includes the three cues to lenition that patterns only by manner of articulation, i.e., intensity, voicing, and some patterns of linguopalatal contact. Intensity ratios for manner groups shows that English and Spanish consonants differ in their absolute measures, while maintaining identical relative positions. For example, voiceless fricatives in English display a ratio of 3-4, while in Spanish the ratios ranges from 12 to 16. However, both languages display the same intensity sequence i.e., nasals and liquids, followed by voiced obstruents (realized as approximants in Spanish), and by voiceless obtruents. The resemblance of the intensity sequence with a scale of sonority makes intensity a good phonetic correlate of sonority. Therefore, it provides evidence for sonority scales that differentiate voiced from voiceless obstruents while disregarding any differences between stops and fricatives. It also supports the attribute [+sonorant] for the English flap, since it has the same intensity as liquids and glides.
Voicing, which is measured as vocal fold vibration, varies greatly by speaker preventing to find any strong systematic patterns by position. As for linguopalatal contact, the clearest patterns are observed between manners of articulation, while most consonants retain very similar patterns across the 4 word environments. Only /t/, /d/, and /n/ display some variation by position, whereas fricative sibilants ae the sounds with the greatest consistency of patterning across contexts.
Lavoie appeals to several reasons to justify why those cues to lenition do not pattern by position. For example, changing linguopalatal contact in a sibilant may result in a different manner of articulation, preventing then any change by position. Causes related to articulatory effort motivate the patterns obtained for the cues of intensity and voicing.
Chapter 5 includes the results that pattern by position in the word or by position with respect to stress. First, consonant duration emerge as the most reliable cue to lenition. It patterns mainly by stress, being the pre-stressed consonants longer than their non pre-stressed counterparts. No significant interaction between word position contexts and stress contexts is found, providing no evidence for the predicted context strength gradation, which is from weakest to strongest (1) word-medial non pre-stress, (2) word-initial non pre-stress and word-medial pre-stress, (3) word-initial pre-stress. In fact, contexts tend to cluster into two groups: those in (1), which host weak consonant realizations, and those in (2) and (3), which host strong consonant realizations
Second, consonants in general keep their manner of articulation but there is a small tendency to become more sonorant in medial non pre-stress position, and to acquire a less sonorant manner in word initial or pre-stress position. Third, stops in pre-stress position exhibits multiple bursts and higher burst amplitude, while they tend to lack bursts in the non pre-stress position. Finally, as for linguopalatal contact, Spanish shows a slight tendency for strengthening in word initial position. In English, phonological weakening of /t, d/ consist of both reduction of percentage of contact and centralization of contact, whereas the phonetic weakening of /n/ consist only of centralization. Then, phonological weakening in English is related to reduction of closure and centralization, while phonetic weakening implies only centralization.
The bulk of the results of this case study patterns by stress, as it does duration, the most salient cue to lenition. Moreover, no interaction is found between stress and word position for consonant duration. Thus, phonetic data indicate that stress had a robust effect in the realization of consonants. However, the vast majority of phonological consonant strength alternations from the survey in Chapter 2 were based in word position, not in position with respect to stress. These results raise the questions of (1) why stress does not transfer into the phonology, and (2) how phonological theories of lenition could account for these phonetic data.
2.3. CONCLUSION
In Chapter 6, Lavoie answers questions (1) and (2). For the first one, she differentiates phonetic strengthening from phonological weakening. Her data indicate that phonetic strengthening is related to the position of stress and is cued mainly by duration. It signals prosodic domains, and takes precedence over phonological weakening in conflicting contexts. Cues that pattern by word position or manner of articulation signal phonological weakening, which displays allophonic alternations.
As for the second question, Lavoie evaluates the four theories of phonological lenition and finds that the theories based on increasing sonority, decreasing effort, and reduction of linguopalatal contact could account for some of her phonetic data. For example, lenition as increasing sonority captures broad phonetic generalizations, decreased effort may explain why voicing lenition does not actually consist of the addition of vocal fold vibration, but of shorter segmental duration. Her results also show that magnitude and duration of linguopalatal contact varies independently in consonant strength alternations, which offers partial support to the Articulatory Phonology theory. However, the lack of consistently decreased periodic intensity in weak positions does not support the view of lenition as a process towards deletion.
She concludes that none of the above phonological theories offers a complete explanation of lenition, and points at the need of developing an adequate theory. This theory should have a phonetic and a phonological component, it should include categorical perception to account for the outcomes, which do not follow directly from phonetic facts, and it should develop explicit views of strength hierarchies and gestural alignment.
3. EVALUATION
This book demonstrates the value of applying phonetic data to the study of consonant weakening. It examines numerous phonetic cues to lenition and shows that only a subset tends to be used in phonology. In the view of these results, she evaluates current phonological theories of lenition, and makes some suggestions to develop a phonological theory that offers a complete explanation of lenition.
In my opinion, one asset of this book is the great detail in which phonetic data is described. It includes numerous acoustic and articulatory measures of most English and Spanish consonants in four different word contexts. This valuable information helps the reader to further understand lenition, and it may serve as source of inspiration for new research projects.
In fact, Lavoie herself proposes some interesting new areas to explore. For example, she suggests other possible phonetic cues to lenition like fundamental frequency contour and duration of transitions. She also proposes to investigate which phonetic cues to lenition are relevant in perception.
Moreover, Lavoie also offers a fair evaluation of her results when she proposes to have more control in the future with two contexts she uses in her case study, i.e., non-pre-stressed syllables and prosodic domains. Her non-pre-stressed syllables, which are compared to syllables with primary stress, include syllables with secondary stress and non-stressed syllables. However, comparing consonant realizations in contexts with primary stress, secondary stress, and no-stress could have yield some more interesting data on consonant strength. As for prosodic domains, she keeps constant the position of the target word within the carrying sentence. Therefore, the phonetic strengthening she obtains in pre-stressed position could be related to either lexical stress or to the position in an intonational domain. To separate these confounding variables, she proposes to examine further the relation between intonation and consonantal strength.
In conclusion, Consonant Strength is a very valuable study of lenition, and it is recommended to researchers and specialists that want to investigate this area.
About the Reviewer:
Marta Ortega-Llebaria is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at the University of Northern Colorado. Her research interests include speech production and perception of adult second language learners, and English and Spanish phonetics and phonology.
|