Basic definitions

In this section we will deal briefly with defining the segments involved in assimilation as well as defining assimilation itself. Concerning the segments involved, at least two segments are required for assimilation to take place. These segments affect each other and change their phonetic properties. The segment that is influenced by assimilation can be referred to as the assimilee; the segment that causes another segment to undergo

33

assimilation can be dubbed the assimilator.4 The resultant segment, the segment produced through a particular assimilatory process, can be termed the assimilant (Pavlík 2009: 4). For example, as we will see in the nasal assimilation in chapter (4), in the word anbar [‘ward’ is the assimilator; the segment [n] is the assimilee, while the segment [m] is the assimilant, resulting from the [n] acquiring the place of articulation of following [b]. It should, however, be borne in mind that the issue is a bit more complex than this simplification of facts. Generally speaking, adjacent segments may affect each other reciprocally. For instance, in the bimorphemic word ħafaḍ + -ta [ħafaṭṭa] ‘I/you learnt it by heart’, stem-final [ḍ] and suffix-initial [t] affect one another to yield geminate [ṭṭ].

We will now have a look at some definitions of the term assimilation. Alfozan (1989: 48-50) gives four definitions introduced by some other researchers and tests each of them against certain examples. Testing the definitions against those examples shows that each of the definitions Alfozan presents has some sort of incompleteness or inaccuracy. Consider, for example, D. Abercrombie’s (1967) definition “changes in pronunciation which take place under certain circumstances at the ends and the beginnings of words”.

Alfozan says that this definition is incomplete in that it does not list the middle of the word as a possible environment in which assimilation may occur. Thus examples like /idtaʕa / → [ iddaʕa] ‘he claimed’, /waṣtabir/ → [waṣṭabir] ‘and be patient’ are excluded from the definition. So Alfozan combines some of the definitions he presents to produce a more precise definition: “assimilation is the process in which sounds

4

Alternative terms to assimilator and assimilee are the trigger and the undergoer, respectively (e.g. Mohanan 1993: 89; Watson 2002: 214). Gleason (1961: 83) calls them the conditioning sound and the

34

become identical or more alike under the influence of a third sound or that of one, upon the other. It may occur at the beginning, in the middle, or at the ends of words.” (p.50)

Different types of assimilation taking place at different positions are included in this definition. The word identical here refers to total assimilation, while the phrase

more alike refers to partial assimilation.

Pavlík (2009: 2-3) says that besides the term assimilation, a number of related terms have emerged in the literature during the last five decades or so, with similar or slightly different meanings. Some of these terms are: similitude, coarticulation, feature

spreading, coproduction, gestural coordination, etc. Several of these terms are used

interchangeably, but some may pose compatibility problems. For example, there has been a debate about the difference between assimilation and coarticulation. This matter is connected with the debate regarding the difference between phonetics and phonology and whether there is or there is no interface between the two disciplines. In this respect, distinction is made between connected speech phenomena that are planned before the actual articulation and those that take place “during the articulation as a biomechanical result of human psychology” (ibid). The former processes are frequently treated as instances of assimilation, whereas the latter are referred to as coarticulations. (For more details on this point, see Pavlík (2009) and references therein).

In this respect, Heselwood et al (2011: 63) say that researchers do not always agree if a distinction should be made between the terms assimilation and

coarticulation5, or how this distinction should be drawn in case it exists.As pointed out by Farnetani & Recasens (2010: 321-323) both terms indicate that there is a change in the pronunciation of the affected word due to the influence of the context in which it occurs. Laver (1994: 153) uses the term coarticulation to designate phonetic adjustment

5

35

across a word boundary and assimilation to refer to phonetic adjustment inside the word.

Likewise, Alfozan (1989: 51-2) differentiates between assimilation and similitude. He cites Jones (1950) insisting on distinguishing between these two terms and saying “[S]imilitude is the use of a certain variety of sound at the present time. Assimilation is the process of replacing one sound by another under particular conditions.” (p. 128) Hartmann (1972) defines similitude as “the pronunciation of one segment being influenced by the pronunciation of an adjacent segment”

Alfozan goes on to say that these definitions indicate that the key difference between the two processes is that similitude involves comparing a sound with itself in different places, whereas assimilation entails comparing a sound to adjacent sounds. As an example of similitude, the voiceless velar stop /k/ has an advanced (i.e. more forward) articulation before front vowels, e.g. keep [ki:p]; its articulation is further back when it occurs before a back vowel, as in caught [kɔ:t].

This means that similitude yields allophonic variation, while assimilation gives rise to phonemic alternation. “Similitude, however, may perhaps still be considered as a branch of assimilation.” (Alfozan 1989: 52) In this study, the term assimilation will be used as a cover term to include all the terms mentioned above.

Pavlík (2009: 5) classifies assimilation into phonemic and phonetic (i.e. allophonic), a classification that is based on the -emic/-itic distinction. Phonemic assimilation gives rise to the existence of a new phoneme. For example, the alternation between [n] and [] in the phrase in Canada can be treated as an instance of phonemic assimilation. This assimilation, however, is always restricted to a specific language (or language variety), since the same assimilatory process in some other language may give

36

rise to the production of an allophone. In the dialect under analysis [] is simply an allophone of the phoneme /n/ not a phoneme in its own. Allophonic assimilation, by contrast, results in the production of an assimilant that is not a separate phoneme in a certain language. An example of this is the case of the advanced and retracted versions of the voiceless velar stop mentioned in the paragraph just before the preceding paragraph.

Having considered some general aspects of assimilation, we now turn in the next section to the analytic framework of this thesis, OT.