Abstract
This study tests the P-Map’s (Steriade, 2001) hypothesis that attested phonological patterns vary depending on phonological context due to differences in the perceptual similarity of two phonological contrasts in different contexts, and that the knowledge of these relative perceptibilities are used to explain cross-linguistic patterns of phonological typology. Specifically, the phenomena in focus are spirantization and devoicing. The study investigates if preference for spirantization of voiced stops in intervocalic position and devoicing of voiced stops in word-final position across languages is correlated with perceptual similarity. Using perceptual similarity tests with native Michigan English speakers on pairs of contrasts in nonsense words, the results show that continuancy contrasts are significantly more similar in intervocalic position than in word-final position, explaining the preference for spirantization intervocalically while voicing contrasts are significantly more similar word-finally, explaining the preference for devoicing word-finally. The results thus support the P-Map’s claim and support a phonetics-based approach to phonology. In addition, since neither phenomenon is a process that happens in Michigan English, the lack of bias in these similarity judgements lends weight to the idea that these results reflect the universal perception of phonological processes.
Highlights
P-Map Experimental Work 2.1 Kawahara & Garvey (2010) Kawahara and Garvey (2010) look at the phenomenon Steriade originally used to explain her P-Map theory: coda devoicing
The P-Map has been argued to be effective in accounting for phonological phenomena across languages
that attested phonological patterns vary depending on phonological context
Summary
P-Map Experimental Work 2.1 Kawahara & Garvey (2010) Kawahara and Garvey (2010) look at the phenomenon Steriade originally used to explain her P-Map theory: coda devoicing. They ran four orthography-based experiments and two auditory similarity judgement experiments to test the preference across languages for coda devoicing (/tab/ ➝ [tap]) rather than other input-output pairs such as /tab/ ➝ [tam] or /tab/ ➝ [ta]. [ab]) and other orthographic forms which represented devoicing ([ap]), nasalization ([am]), deletion ([a]) and epenthesis ([apa]). The results further confirmed the findings of experiment one while suggesting that epenthesis may be the second most similar form to the original form
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.