Comments on: The jug trade http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/ all things phonology | camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:22:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Eric Bakovic http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1866 Eric Bakovic Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:29:45 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1866 <p>I think that's precisely the rub, Neal. Standardly, one says that in an initial cluster of C+liquid in English, C must be either a stop /p, t, k, b, d, g/ or a voiceless fricative /f, θ, s, ʃ/, noting "exceptions" such as */tl, dl, sr/, the "special status" of /ʃl, ʃr/ (in e.g. Yiddish borrowings), and other "peripheral" examples like [vru:m] 'vroom'.</p> <p>Since there are no alternations to show anything relevant, it's impossible to tell what <i>would happen</i> if we simply assumed that, say, an affricate actually underlies the examples we tend to say are /tr, dr/. Do stops and affricates neutralize in this position, or are affricates simply banned from this position in underlying representations, or does something else happen to potential affricate+liquid clusters?</p> <p>It seems to me that we need good experimental methods for addressing basic questions like these (if we don't have them already -- I could just be ignorant in this regard), since at least some phonological theories make claims about which of these interpretations of the facts is correct. That's why I found the speech error interesting; this may be a window into how to approach the problem experimentally.</p> I think that’s precisely the rub, Neal. Standardly, one says that in an initial cluster of C+liquid in English, C must be either a stop /p, t, k, b, d, g/ or a voiceless fricative /f, θ, s, ʃ/, noting “exceptions” such as */tl, dl, sr/, the “special status” of /ʃl, ʃr/ (in e.g. Yiddish borrowings), and other “peripheral” examples like [vru:m] ‘vroom’.

Since there are no alternations to show anything relevant, it’s impossible to tell what would happen if we simply assumed that, say, an affricate actually underlies the examples we tend to say are /tr, dr/. Do stops and affricates neutralize in this position, or are affricates simply banned from this position in underlying representations, or does something else happen to potential affricate+liquid clusters?

It seems to me that we need good experimental methods for addressing basic questions like these (if we don’t have them already — I could just be ignorant in this regard), since at least some phonological theories make claims about which of these interpretations of the facts is correct. That’s why I found the speech error interesting; this may be a window into how to approach the problem experimentally.

]]> By: Neal Whitman http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1865 Neal Whitman Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:15:54 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1865 <p>You know, I've always wondered about that myself. The phonology textbooks I read for classes never mentioned this (to me) glaringly obvious fact. When I taught about allophones of /t/ or /d/, I always included the affricates occurring before /r/. You could probably make some kind of argument based on the fact that if these affricates weren't allophones of /t, d/, you should be able to create a minimal pair of nonsense words like <i>drack</i> and <i>jrack</i>, but I don't think you can.</p> You know, I’ve always wondered about that myself. The phonology textbooks I read for classes never mentioned this (to me) glaringly obvious fact. When I taught about allophones of /t/ or /d/, I always included the affricates occurring before /r/. You could probably make some kind of argument based on the fact that if these affricates weren’t allophones of /t, d/, you should be able to create a minimal pair of nonsense words like drack and jrack, but I don’t think you can.

]]> By: Eric Bakovic http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1864 Eric Bakovic Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:47:12 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1864 <p>Thanks, Travis. I thought about the Spanish facts -- which occurs in my father's-side-of-the-family's speech -- and put it aside precisely because, e.g., <i>otro</i> and <i>ocho</i> are "more homophonous" than, e.g., <i>drug</i> and <i>jug</i>. There's still an /r/ in the English case (though not in the speech error!), but not in the Spanish case. I guess I was thinking this difference might have something to do with the differences between the two /r/-sounds, but now I don't know why I would have thought that.</p> <p>And I had forgotten that Lamontagne discussed this in his diss.! It's been a while. Thanks!</p> Thanks, Travis. I thought about the Spanish facts — which occurs in my father’s-side-of-the-family’s speech — and put it aside precisely because, e.g., otro and ocho are “more homophonous” than, e.g., drug and jug. There’s still an /r/ in the English case (though not in the speech error!), but not in the Spanish case. I guess I was thinking this difference might have something to do with the differences between the two /r/-sounds, but now I don’t know why I would have thought that.

And I had forgotten that Lamontagne discussed this in his diss.! It’s been a while. Thanks!

]]> By: Travis Bradley http://camba.ucsd.edu/blog/phonoloblog/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1863 Travis Bradley Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:08:12 +0000 http://camba.ucsd.edu/phonoloblog/index.php/2006/01/31/the-jug-trade/#comment-1863 <p>Wouldn't it make sense to view the entire tr (and dr) cluster as a phonetic affricate instead of affricate+rhotic? As you know, a similar phenomenon happens in some Spanish dialects, such that otro 'other' and ocho 'eight' start to sound homophonous--the former sequence is typically described as a voiceless alveolar quasi-affricate. Treating English 'dr' as a phonetic affricate might explain its interchangeability with the phonological affricate 'j' in Bush's speech error. A following rhotic need not be present to condition the affrication of 'd' in the speech error because affricate 'j' is somehow felt to be equivalent to affricate 'dr'. By the way, another reference is Greg Lamontagne's 1993 UMass dissertation. r-assimilation in English 'tr' is dealt with in chapter 3.</p> Wouldn’t it make sense to view the entire tr (and dr) cluster as a phonetic affricate instead of affricate+rhotic? As you know, a similar phenomenon happens in some Spanish dialects, such that otro ‘other’ and ocho ‘eight’ start to sound homophonous–the former sequence is typically described as a voiceless alveolar quasi-affricate. Treating English ‘dr’ as a phonetic affricate might explain its interchangeability with the phonological affricate ‘j’ in Bush’s speech error. A following rhotic need not be present to condition the affrication of ‘d’ in the speech error because affricate ‘j’ is somehow felt to be equivalent to affricate ‘dr’. By the way, another reference is Greg Lamontagne’s 1993 UMass dissertation. r-assimilation in English ‘tr’ is dealt with in chapter 3.

]]>