Further considerations - Charting the features

We’ve got bitter | mild | stout | and porter

7.3 Charting the features

7.3.6 Further considerations

While the set of features outlined in the preceding sections is much the same as that found in most textbooks, and indeed in many primary sources, it should be noted that it is by no means uncontroversial or unproblematic. For instance, the features proposed for vowels in Section 7.3.5 involve a number of awkward compromises and omissions with respect to vowel systems encountered in the languages of the world. Vowel height is characterised above in terms of the features [high] and [low]. Formally, this gives us four possible feature combinations, since each feature is binary: [+ hi, – lo], [– hi, – lo], [– hi, + lo] and [+ hi, + lo]. The problem here is two-fold; ﬁrstly, although there are four combinations, the system can actually only characterise three vowel heights. The combination [+ hi, + lo] represents a physical impossibility, since the tongue cannot be simultaneously raised and lowered. This means that languages with more than three vowel heights, like Danish, with [i, e, ε, a] (high, high-mid, low-mid, low), are impossible to characterise using just these features. The second aspect to the problem is that the system overgenerates, in that it formally allows a combination, [+ hi, + lo], that represents a vowel-type that is not found in human languages (and, indeed, could never be found). The system is thus failing to model the facts of language, by having to allow a segment type that cannot exist.

Similarly, many accounts use a single feature, [back], to characterise the horizontal axis, but this creates difﬁculties for languages with central vowels (like English [3] and [ə]), since only two horizontal positions, [+ back] and [– back], are possible. If we get around this by proposing two features, both [back] and [front], as we do above, then although this allows us to characterise central vowels as [– front, – back], it runs into the same problem of overgeneration that we have just encountered with vowel height, in that it allows the unwanted (and physically impossible) [+ front, + back].

This problem of overgeneration is in fact endemic in binary feature systems; given the eighteen binary features listed here, over 260 000 different feature combinations are possible, the vast majority of which will never be utilised to represent segments, and a large proportion of which are simply impossible as characterisations of actual speech sounds.

There are also problems with some of the individual features. The feature [tense] has sometimes been appealed to as a way of solving the problem of representing four vowel heights. So, for English [i] vs. [i], where [i] might be seen as high-mid, the height distinction is dealt with by claiming that [i] is [+ tense], and so higher than [i], which is [– tense] (see Section 7.3.5.6). Whilst this approach might be considered adequate for English,

109

where both the length and quality of the vowels are different, it does not deal with languages such as Danish, which have length contrasts without concomitant quality differences, as in [i:] vs. [i], while also having contrasts like [e] vs. [ε], where there is no length distinction, but purely one of height. But not only is the feature [tense] not able to solve the problem, it is also problematic in other ways; its articulatory deﬁnition is dubious at best, and to the extent it is relevant to consonants at all, it seems to do a completely different job, being largely concerned with voiceless ([+ tense]) vs. voiced ([– tense]) sounds.

A similar difﬁculty is encountered with a feature like [delayed release]; while this seems to be a feature like any other, in fact it only serves one, very speciﬁc, purpose; its sole role is to distinguish affricates, as [+ del rel], from other stops, which are [– del rel]. Furthermore, it fails to capture the nature of the difference between affricates and stops, which has to do with the extent of lowering of the active articulator, rather than the timing of the release (cf. Section 3.2).

A different kind of problem is encountered with the feature [voice]. This feature clearly allows for two glottal states, [– voice] i.e. voiceless and [+ voice] i.e. voiced, and we have used this to characterise the difference between /p, t, k/ and /b, d, / in English. However, we have also noted that there are other important differences between these two groups in English. We saw in Section 3.1.3 that the first group are often aspirated, whereas the second group never are, but none of the features we have discussed so far can be said to account for aspiration versus lack of it. It could be argued that since aspiration is not distinctive in English (i.e. it has only phonetic but not phonological significance), this lack of a phonological feature for aspiration is of no import. However, given that there are languages (such as Danish) for which it is aspiration, not voicing, that is the active distinguishing characteristic between the sets of stops, we need to be able to characterise the distinction. A possible solution is to introduce the feature [+/– spread glottis], where [+ spread glottis] involves a fully open glottis, as for aspirates; non-aspirated sounds (whether voiced or voiceless) are [– spread glottis]. Indeed, it can be, and has been, argued that this is the appropriate way of characterising the distinction between /p, t, k/ and /b, d, / in English, given that, along with the aspiration facts, voicing may be variable for the second group, but not for the first group (cf. Section 3.1.4). The [+/– voice] distinction would then be reserved for languages such as French in which the /b, d, / set are always fully voiced, and the /p, t, k/ set always unaspirated. The full characterisation of laryngeal states is rather more complex than outlined here (see Section 2.1.2), and may well involve yet more features; this is not the place for a full discussion.

Another problem for this characterisation of segments in terms of lists of distinctive features arises when we consider ‘complex’ sound types such as diphthongs and affricates. The features outlined in this chapter refer to states, in the sense that each value for a feature describes a particular setting of the vocal organs, such as ‘velum lowered’ for [+ nasal], or ‘tongue raised’ for [+ high]. The difﬁculty here is that diphthongs and affricates are

110

‘dynamic’, in the sense that the tongue starts in one position and moves to another (see Section 4.3). It might be possible to think of diphthongs as a sequence of two sets of features, i.e. as one vowel followed by another, but this would fail to indicate the ‘single sound’ aspect of a diphthong, which behaves in many ways like a long vowel and not as a sequence of two short vowels. The same is true for affricates; see again Section 3.2.

We shall return to some of the issues raised here in Chapters 10 and 13, where possible solutions to some of these problems will be outlined.

7.4 Conclusion

The focus of this chapter has been on features as the building blocks which make up segments. A segment can thus be seen as comprising a list – or matrix – of features; [p] might thus be as in (7.15).

(7.15) /p/ – syll + cons – son – cor + ant – cont – nas – stri – lat – del rel – high – low – back – round – voice

⎡

⎤

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎣

⎦

Although, as we have seen in the preceding section, there are some difficulties with the mechanics of this view of segmental structure, the basic insight, that segments are made up of smaller phonological entities, remains valid. By referring to phonological features like those we have discussed in this chapter, phonologists are able to identify formally natural classes of sounds as those sharing a set of common feature specifications. So, the set of sounds [p, t, k, b, d, ] in English share the feature specifications [+ consonantal], [– sonorant], [– continuant] and [– delayed release]. No other sounds in English can be grouped together with these same feature specifications. Similarly, English [l, ɹ] can be singled out as [+ consonantal], [+ sonorant] and [– nasal]; again, this particular conjunction of feature specifications is unique to just these two sounds. On the other hand, the set [w, ɔ, t, h, ɒ, ] does not constitute a natural class, and cannot be

111

identified on the basis of a set of shared feature specifications. There is no combination of feature values which will identify just this set of sounds as separate from all others in English, since there is no single feature specification shared by all members of this set.

By referring to natural classes in this way, generalisations can be made concerning the behaviour of sounds in a particular language or in human language in general. As we shall see more clearly in the following chapters, using features allows us to capture such generalisations in a more insightful way; rather than referring to natural classes in terms of the individual segments in the class, we can refer to the features which the segments share, allowing a more economical and elegant statement of our claims.

In the charts in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 we summarise the feature speciﬁcations for the consonants and vowels found in many kinds of English.

Exercises

1 From the vowel charts given below ﬁll in matrices using features relevant to vowels to characterise each of the vowels shown.

a. Japanese monophthongs

Table 7.2 Feature speciﬁcations for English vowels

i υ ɔ ɒ ɑ æ e high + + + + – – – – – – – – – – low – – – – – – + + + + – – – – back – – + + + + + + – – – – – – front + + – – – – – – – + + + – – round – – + + + + + – – – – – – – tense + – + – – + – + – – + – – + i ɯ e o ɑ b. Russian monophthongs i 6 u e ə o ɑ

Given the vowel chart for French monophthongs in (c), what further considerations are necessary that were not needed for either Japanese or Russian? Why?

c. French monophthongs (Parisian; excluding nasal vowels)

i y u

e ø o

ε : ɔ

114

2. The following sets form natural classes. How can they be characterised in terms of features? Assume the sounds of English.

a. [ t d n ɹ s z l θ ð] e. [f θ s ʃ] b. [m n ŋ l ɹ] f. [b d ] c. [p v b f m] g. [i i υ u]

d. [e ε ə 3 ɔ o] h. [k ŋ]

3 Identify the English consonants represented by the following feature matrices.

a. + anterior b. + anterior c. – anterior

– coronal + coronal – coronal

– continuant

+ sonorant

– sonorant

d. – anterior e. – continuant

+ del rel

– voice

4 Answer the following questions using distinctive features:

a. Assume a language in which the voiceless stops [p, t, k] surface as the corresponding fricatives [f, θ, x] at the beginning of a word, yet the voiced stops [b, d, ] are unaffected in the same position. What feature of [p, t, k] needs to change for them to surface as fricatives? What feature(s) can be used to distinguish [p, t, k] from [b, d, ]? How can [p, t, k] be isolated from all other consonants?

b. Assume a language in which [i] and [u] at the end of a word show up as [e] and [o] respectively. What single feature can be changed to express both changes?

c. In English, [d] may show up as [b] as in ‘ba[b] man’ or as [] as in ‘ba[] king’. What feature value or values of [d] need to change for this to occur? In each case, change the fewest features possible.

8

In document Introducing Phonetics and Phonology-DRM rip (Page 127-134)

Further considerations

We’ve got bitter | mild | stout | and porter

7.3 Charting the features

7.3.6 Further considerations

7.4 Conclusion

⎡

⎤

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎢

⎥

⎣

⎦

Further reading

Exercises

8