There is a substantial debate over whether sonority is a legitimate concept, as opposed to being epiphenomenal. To the extent that phonological theorists posit phonological devices that derive the scale V > y > l > m > p, you can say that it is a phonological concept. This is, however, a speculative account of the concept "sonority" (the inverse of "impedance"), posited simply to show that the feature is not necessary in order to compute that relation where V > y > l > m > p. This relates to amplitude of the signal, but factors out differences in the source which make amplitude an unsatisfactory measure of whatever "sonority" is about. those factors in the vocal tract configuration that increase resistance to airflow. See Hume & Odden ("Reconsidering ") for an account in terms of "impedance", i.e. There are phonological accounts which attempt to relate "sonority" to a physical property, namely properties of the vocal tract which result in minimal signal damping. "we would need to look at segments of high sonority"). something published in JASA, JoP, Phonetica) ever claim to quantify "sonority", but it is possible that some phonetic paper has referred casually to the phonological account (e.g. I don't think I have ever seen a phonetic paper (i.e. The term is a phonological one rather than a phonetic one, though given common assumptions about phonological properties, that implies (falsely IMO, but that's another matter) that it is a phonetic property, because phonological properties are widely thought to be really phonetic in nature. So my question is: is sonority conventionally a phonetic or a phonological property? Or are there two separate definitions of the word, one used in phonetics, and one used in phonology?
This is violated only by the clusters /sp/, /st/, and /sk/, which some theories explain by calling those three individual phonemes rather than clusters ("presigmatized stops").īut if the sonority hierarchy applies to phonemes, rather than phones, doesn't that undermine its phonetic nature? The amplitude of a waveform doesn't change if we decide that /st/ is one phoneme or two. For instance, English syllable structure follows a "sonority sequencing constraint" where a less sonorous phone cannot be closer to the nucleus than a more sonorous one. However, I also see sonority brought up in phonological contexts. This seems like something that can be measured quantitatively: take the average amplitude of the phone in question, divide it by the average amplitude of the entire utterance, and you have a nice clean measured value. Section 5 provides a tentative explanation for the generalizations presented in Section 4.I've seen several mentions of "sonority" in different works, most of which define it as something like "how loud a particular sound is in relation to other speech sounds". Section 4 offers new observations about the unexpectedly restricted structure of consonant clusters involving trapped sonorants.
Section 3 shows how this lack of conformity with the SSG has been explained in the existing phonological literature. In Section 2 data that show how consonant clusters in Polish appear to violate the SSG are presented. The structure of the paper is as follows: In Section 1 the principle of the SSG is discussed. It is further argued that the patterning of trapped sonorants sets them apart from other sonorants violating the Sonority Sequencing Generalization SSG in Polish, revealing much greater influence of the SSG on the makeup of word-initial three-term consonant clusters than required by the phonotactic constraints of Polish described in the phonological literature. It is argued that their structure is much more restricted than would be expected from the application of the phonotactic generalizations of Polish identified so far. consonantal sonorants that appear between two consonants of lower sonority, as in krwi ‘blood’ gen. This paper discusses the structure of consonant clusters in Polish involving so-called trapped sonorants in syllable onset, i.e. The Sonority Sequencing Generalization and the Structure of Consonant Clusters with Trapped Sonorants in Polish
0 kommentar(er)
