The Italian" mobile diphthongs": a test case for experimental phonetics and phonological theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Some cross-linguistic differences in diphthongs
Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 1990
In this paper we will discuss some phonetic differences that are found in the production of diphthongs. The study is of a limited scope and may be considered a pilot study. The kinds of questions that will be addressed have to do with the specification of timing in speech production. Are the vowel elements of diphthongs joined in language-specific ways, or can they be joined by more general principles, such as the assumption of a fairly constant transition duration, so that the transition rate will be faster if the distance between onset - and offset - vowels is greater? This kind of principle was proposed by Kent and Moll (1972) for some types of vowel-to-vowel sequences. Or does the duration of the transition lengthen as the distance of the transition increases, keeping the transition rate fairly constant? If any of these principles are at work, then their effects will show up acoustically in the transition duration, particularly of F2. If the Kent and Moll principle is applicable...
Italo-Romance Metaphony and the Tuscan Diphthongs
Transactions of the Philological Society, 2015
The historical causes of general so-called 'opening' diphthongization of proto-Romance low mid vowels in stressed open syllables are an enduring matter of dispute in historical Romance phonology, the two principal positions being that the diphthongs originate in the assimilatory process of metaphony conditioned by following unstressed vowels, or that they are a matter of 'spontaneous' diphthongization associated with lengthening of the vowels. Most recent scholarship on the subject has tended to favour the latter view. This study, focusing on Tuscan (and thereby on Italian), reasserts the case for the former interpretation, critically reviewing older arguments and adducing new ones to show that the details of Tuscan open syllable diphtongization are significantly correlated with a metaphonic origin, despite claims to the contrary. In particular, I argue that the restriction of the generalized diphthongs to open syllables reflects the early conditions of metaphony, and that the occasional absence of the diphthongs in Tuscan systematically presupposes the historical absence of a metaphonizing environment. In conclusion, I reflect on the significance of my claims both for general Romance historical morphology and, particularly, for the place of Tuscan among the Italo-Romance dialects. The data also show how morphological analogy may play a significant role in the diffusion of the effects of sound change. 1. INTRODUCTION Many Romance languages show the effects of historical diphthongization of the proto-Romance stressed low mid vowels *[ɛ] and *[ɔ] (derived in turn from Latin short Ĕ and Ŏ). F ˈsau̯ rdə (< *ˈsorda) ˈsau̯ rdə (< *ˈsorde) M ˈissə (< *ˈessu) ˈissə (< *ˈessi) 'he/they' F ˈɛssə (< *ˈessa) ˈɛssə (< *ˈesse) 'she/they' M ˈvwostə (< *ˈvɔstru) ˈvwostə (< *ˈvɔstri) 'your' F ˈvɔstə (<*ˈvɔstra) ˈvɔstə (< *ˈvɔstre) M purˈʧjeddə (< *porˈkɛllu) purˈʧjeddə (< *porˈkɛlli) 'piglet' F purˈʧɛddə (< *porˈkɛlla) purˈʧɛddə (< *porˈkɛlle) M kajəˈnɛtə (< *kogˈnatu) kajəˈnɛtə (< *kogˈnati) 'brother-in-law' F kajəˈnatə (< *kogˈnata) kajəˈnatə (< *kogˈnate) 'sister-in-law' The problem is whether general stressed syllable diphthongization as found in Tuscan is historically related to metaphonic diphthongization, since their distribution appears quite different, the former occurring in stressed open syllables only, and apparently independently of the identity of the final vowel, while the latter occurs equally in open and closed stressed syllables and shows a strict historical dependency on the nature of the posttonic vowel. Maiden (1987; 1988) argues that general stressed syllable diphthongization has its origins in metaphonic diphthongization, while Loporcaro (2011b:135) denies any link between them, and Sánchez Miret (1998), argues that even what is traditionally regarded as metaphonic diphthongization of low mid vowels is actually an impossible effect of metaphony. Broadly, the 'non-metaphonic' accounts maintain that the diphthongs are the spontaneous result of vowel-lengthening under stress, given the greater length of vowels in stressed open syllables than in closed (e.g., Italian palla [ˈpal.la] 'ball' vs pala [ˈpaː.la] 'spade'; cf. Loporcaro 2011a:52). It is undoubtedly the case that lengthened vowels may diphthongize in stressed open syllables as a consequence of reduction in articulatory energy over their duration. The usual result, however, is a closing diphthong, whose effects are encountered in French and other northern Gallo-Romance dialects, Francoprovençal, Romansh, Friulian, the dialects of much of northern Italy, coastal areas of southeastern Italy, and Vegliote. Most commonly affected are high vowels (but cf. Sánchez Miret 1998:217 or Loporcaro 2011b:138 for raising and fronting of [a] to [ɛ] in open syllables, possibly via a diphthongal stage), and especially [e] and [o]. Thus Bolognese and Vegliote: Table 3: Diphthongization in stressed open syllables in Bolognese and Vegliote Bolognese *ˈtela > ˈtai̯ la 'canvas' *aˈmore > aˈmau̯ r 'love' *ˈveskovu > ˈvaʃkuf 'bishop' *ˈplombu > pjaemp 'lead' Vegliote *ˈripa > raipa 'bank' *ˈkrudu > kroit 'raw' *ˈmille > mel 'thousand' *ˈbruttu > brot 'ugly' *ˈpera > paira 'pear' *ˈkroke > krauk 'cross' *ˈpeske > pask 'fish' *ˈmonte > muant 'mount'
2017. Sobol. Against Old English short diphthongs.pdf
Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies, 2017
Since the earliest grammars, Old English has been analysed as having a length contrast in diphthongs, containing both regular, bimoraic ones, side by side with cross-linguistically unique monomoraic ones. The supposedly monomoraic diphthongs [io eo æɑ] arose through back umlaut and breaking. Unsurprisingly, they have become the source of possibly the greatest controversy in OE phonology, which still remains unresolved. The present paper refutes the main arguments for a length contrast in OE diphthongs. Instead, it argues for a generative phonological analysis, where the diphthongs constitute monomoraic monophthongs in the underlying representation, and bimoraic diphthongs in the surface representation.
This paper presents briefly the most relevant facts about metaphonic diphthongization triggered by word final high vowels in some Southern Italian dialects and Schürr's account of those facts. It is argued that Schürr's explanation is based on an ad hoc interpretation of assimilatory anticipation (germ. Vorausnahme) and lacks the necessary phonetic foundation. In order to verify the validity of Schürr's explanatory proposal, data on V-to-V anticipatory coarticulation are presented and discussed, the most crucial issue being whether coarticulatory effects can be discontinuous or not. An experiment has been designed and carried out in order to test the hypothesis that metaphonic diphthongization is motivated by stressed vowel duration . Preliminary results show that word final high vowels cooccur with longer stressed vowels to a larger extent than word final low vowels. It is argued that this relationship could be at the origin of Southern Italian metaphonic diphthongization.
Against Old English ‘short’ diphthongs
The Journal of English Studies, 2017
Since the earliest grammars, Old English has been analysed as having a length contrast in diphthongs, containing both regular, bimoraic ones, side by side with cross-linguistically unique monomoraic ones. The supposedly monomoraic diphthongs [io eo aeɑ] arose through back umlaut and breaking. Unsurprisingly, they have become the source of possibly the greatest controversy in OE phonology, which still remains unresolved. The present paper refutes the main arguments for a length contrast in OE diphthongs. Instead, it argues for a generative phonological analysis, where the diphthongs constitute monomoraic monophthongs in the underlying representation, and bimoraic diphthongs in the surface representation.
Diphthongs and Kildin Saami vowel system
Ural-Alraic Studies, 2023
The aim of this paper is to present a revision of the phonological system of Kildin Saami. This revision is based on the results of a computational analysis of the Kildin vowel inventory. Specifically, a number of segments that have been variously described by different scholars as either diphthongs or monophthongs have been examined using two automatic methods: trajectory length and changepoint detection. These methods were tested on the material of Estonian and Lithuanian before the examination of the Kildin data. The data analyzed in this research was collected during fieldwork in the city of Murmansk, the rural locality of Lujaavv'r (Lovozero), and the urban locality of Verkhnetulomsky in the Murmansk Oblast of Russia in 2021 and 2022. Computational analysis revealed that the segments analyzed by some scholars as diphthongs /ie/ and /ea/ are monophthongs /eː/ and /aː/ occurring after palatal and palatalized consonants. The low back vowels analyzed sometimes as diphthongs /oa/ and /oaː/ are monophthongs /ɒ/ and /ɒː/. The first component of /ua/ is acoustically closer to /o(ː)/ than to /u(ː)/. The phonetic quality of /ue/ remains to be defined. It is proposed to analyze this phoneme as having three allophones in free variation, diphthong [ʊə] (or even [ɔə]) and monophthongs [ɵː] and [əː]. /i/ and /ɨ/ were shown to be in contrastive distribution only word-initially if Russian loanwords are taken into consideration, so /i/ should be considered a marginal phoneme. /i/-final diphthongs and triphthongs are proposed not to be postulated and analyzed instead as combinations of vowels with /j/ or /jː/. The vowel inventory thus comprises two diphthongs and thirteen monophthongs.