Scottish Gaelic Grammar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Transcriptions of Epenthesis

2009-09-28T02:29:30Z

LionelMathieu:

Following are transcriptions (each word will be transcribed by two people) of [[Epenthesis|epenthesis]] in Scottish Gaelic. Also included are examples of 'pseudo-epenthesis.'

The sound files come from a native speaker of the Skye dialect.

==Epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| ormsa
| [aɾamsa]
|
| Dihaoine, line 5
|
|-
| dearbh
| [ʤɛɾəv]
|
| Dihaoine, line 15
|
|-
| t-ainm
| [tɛnəm]
|
| Dimairt, line 5
|''name''
|}

==Pseudo-epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| cheannach
| [çanax]
|
| Dihaoine, line 3
|
|-
| earrach
| [aɾəx]
|
| Dimairt, line 1
|''Spring''
|}

==See also==
*[[Sounds of Scottish Gaelic]]
*[[Epenthesis]]

[[Category:Transcriptions]]
[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Transcriptions of Epenthesis

2009-09-28T02:15:43Z

LionelMathieu:

Following are transcriptions (each word will be transcribed by two people) of [[Epenthesis|epenthesis]] in Scottish Gaelic. Also included are examples of 'pseudo-epenthesis.'

The sound files come from a native speaker of the Skye dialect.

==Epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| ormsa
| [aɾamsa]
|
| Dihaoine, line 5
|
|-
| dearbh
| [ʤɛɾəv]
|
| Dihaoine, line 15
|
|}

==Pseudo-epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| cheannach
| [çanax]
|
| Dihaoine, line 3
|
|-
| earrach
| [aɾəx]
|
| Dimairt, line 1
|''Spring''
|}

==See also==
*[[Sounds of Scottish Gaelic]]
*[[Epenthesis]]

[[Category:Transcriptions]]
[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Transcriptions of Nasalized Fricatives

2009-09-28T01:30:12Z

LionelMathieu:

Following are transcriptions (each word will be transcribed by two people) of potential "nasalized fricatives," which have been included in the sound inventory of Scottish Gaelic, although it has been claimed that nasalized fricatives are physiologically impossible. Also included are examples of their oral counterparts.

The sound files come from a native speaker of the Skye dialect.

==Nasalized Fricatives==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| a-ria'''mh'''
| [əðiəv]
|
| Dihaoine, line 6
|
|-
| tala'''mh''' gu do'''mh'''ainn
| [t̪halˠas kə t̪õɨn]
|
| Dihaoine, line 10
|
|-
| '''mh'''ór
| [ṽo:ɾ]
|
| Dimairt, line 3
|''big''
|}

==Corresponding Oral Fricatives==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| dear'''bh'''
| [ʤɛɾəv]
|
| Dihaoine, line 15
|
|-
| '''bh'''eil
| [vɛl]
|
| Dihaoine, line 2
|
|-
| '''bh'''uidhe
| [vuʝə]
|
| Dimairt, line 9
|''yellow''
|}

==See also==
*[[Sounds of Scottish Gaelic]]

[[Category:Transcriptions]]
[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Transcriptions of Epenthesis

2009-09-28T01:07:13Z

LionelMathieu:

Following are transcriptions (each word will be transcribed by two people) of [[Epenthesis|epenthesis]] in Scottish Gaelic. Also included are examples of 'pseudo-epenthesis.'

The sound files come from a native speaker of the Skye dialect.

==Epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| ormsa
| [aɾamsa]
|
| Dihaoine, line 5
|
|-
| dearbh
| [ʤɛɾəv]
|
| Dihaoine, line 15
|
|-
| earrach
| [aɾəx]
|
| Dimairt, line 1
|''Spring''
|}

==Pseudo-epenthesis==
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Orthography
! Transcription 1
! Transcription 2
! Source
! Notes
|-
| cheannach
| [çanax]
|
| Dihaoine, line 3
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|
|}

==See also==
*[[Sounds of Scottish Gaelic]]
*[[Epenthesis]]

[[Category:Transcriptions]]
[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Prosody (definition)

2009-09-27T04:41:34Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Prosody''' refers to the linguistic units (e.g. syllable, feet, phonological word) and/or properties (e.g. stress, intonation, pitch accent) of speech, distinct from individual speech sounds.

==See Also==
==External Links==
==References==

[[Category: Phonology]]
[[Category: Phonetics]]
[[Category: Technical Definitions]]

International Phonetic Alphabet

2009-09-27T04:31:52Z

LionelMathieu:

The '''International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)''' is a system of sound representation that consistently and unambiguously sets a one-to-one correspondence between sounds and symbols. For example the symbol [s] always corresponds to a voiceless alveolar fricative; in turn, a voiceless alveolar fricative is always represented by a [s].

==External Links==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet Wikipedia page on the IPA]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA Wikipedia Key to pronouncing the IPA]

[[Category:Phonetics]]
[[Category:Technical Definitions]]

Syllable (definition)

2009-09-27T04:12:31Z

LionelMathieu:

A '''syllable''' is a unit of speech composed of a vowel which may or not be surrounded by one or more consonants. In phonological/prosodic theory, the vowel is referred to as the ''nucleus'' of the syllable; the consonantal material preceding the nucleus is known as the ''onset'' while the consonantal material following the nucleus is known as the ''coda''. In addition, the nucleus and the coda together form the ''rhyme''. Hence for instance, in the monosyllabic word ''cat'' [kæt], the vowel [æ] is the nucleus of the syllable, [k] is the onset, and [t] is the coda.

==See Also==
==External Links==
==References==

[[Category: Phonology]]
[[Category: Phonetics]]
[[Category: Technical Definitions]]

Syllable (definition)

2009-09-27T04:08:08Z

LionelMathieu:

A '''syllable''' is a unit of speech composed of a vowel which may or not be surrounded by one or more consonants. In phonological/prosodic theory, the vowel is referred to as the ''nucleus'' of the syllable; the consonantal material preceding the nucleus is known as the ''onset'' while the consonantal material following the nucleus is known as the ''coda''. In addition, the nucleus and the coda together form the ''rhyme''.

==See Also==
==External Links==
==References==

[[Category: Phonology]]
[[Category: Phonetics]]
[[Category: Technical Definitions]]

Hiatus

2009-09-26T18:27:44Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Hiatus''' refers to a break in a vocalic sequence whereby each vowel belongs to a different syllable. For instance, the word ''hiatus'' [haɪ.e.təs] exhibits such a phenomenon where the " . " marks the syllable break between the diphthong [aɪ] and the monophthong [e].

Examples from the Barra dialect of Gaelic are presented below (from Clements 1986):

- [N'i.an] ''bird''

- [bi.əɣ] ''let (him) be''

- [ʀu.əɣ] ''flush in the face''

- [du.an] ''hook''

==See Also==
==External Links==
==References==

[[Category: Phonology]]
[[Category: Phonetics]]
[[Category: Technical Definitions]]

Epenthesis

2009-09-26T18:05:00Z

LionelMathieu:

*For a definition of Epenthesis (also known svarabhakti) see [[Epenthesis (definition)]]
*For a discussion of the theoretical treatments of epenthesis in the linguistics literature see [[Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis]]

'''Epenthesis''' in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a [[Vowel (definition)|vowel]] within a [[Consonant (definition)|consonantal]] sequence.

== Description of the phenomenon ==

Epenthetic vowels generally occur "between non-homorganic [[Sonorant (definition)|sonorants]] and [[Obstruent (definition)|obstruents]], following a short, stressed vowel." (Bosch 1997: 1).

Some examples are provided below (all taken from Bosch 1997); the epenthetic vowels are underlined:

- [aram] ''army''

- [ʃaɫav] ''prosperity''

- [skarav] ''cormorant''

- [aɫapə] ''Scotland''

- [uruxirᴶ] ''a shot''

- [dɔrɔxɔ] ''dark''

- [merᴶekᴶ] ''rust''

== Orthography ==

==See Also==
*[[Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis]]
*[[Hiatus]]
*[[Epenthesis (definition)
*[[Syllabification]]

==External Links==
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epenthesis

==References==

*Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1937). The Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides, ''Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap'' 7, 71-242.
*Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1940). The Dialects of the Outer Hebrides, ''NTS suppl. bind 1'' Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.
*Bosch, Anna (1995). ''A gestural analysis of epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic''. Ms., University of Kentucky.
*Bosch, Anna (2003). Borgstrøm's Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides: The Uses and Misuses of Description in Theory, ''Scottish Gaelic Studies'' 21, 221-239.
*Bosch, Anna & De Jong, Kenneth (1997). The Prosody of Barra Gaelic Epenthetic Vowels, ''Studies in the Linguistic Sciences'' 27, 1-16.
*Clements, G.N. (1986). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst & M. Mous (eds.), ''The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals: Studies on African Languages Offered to John M. Steward on His 60th Birthday'', 317-336. Dordrecht: Foris.
*Halle, Morris (1995). Feature Geometry and Feature Spreading, ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 26, 1-46.
*Ní Chiosáin, M. (1994). Barra Gaelic Vowel Copy and (Non)-Constituent Spreading, ''Proceedings of WCCFL XIII'', 3-13.

[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-26T06:13:44Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Epenthesis''' in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel within a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditions on the part of the surrounding consonants. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.

== [[Theoretical Treatments]] ==

==== [[Autosegmental Phonology]] ====

Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-distinctiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. He argues that ''surface'' contrastive syllabification is ruled-governed and predictable, dismissing any claims of pre-syllabified underlying representations. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:

- '''Type A''' relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook''

Clements reports an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to ''h''" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /VCV/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below (adopted from Clements 1986: 333):

[[File:VV/V.V.jpg]]

- '''Type B''' relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army''

Clements identifies three phonological environments influencing the syllabification of this intervocalic consonant:

(1) V:.CV [mo:.ran] ''much'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding a long vowel.

(2) V̆C.V [ar.an] ''bread'' -- C assumes the coda position of the first syllable when directly preceding a short vowel.

(3) ˈV̆.CˈV̆ [ma.rav] ''dead'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding and following short, stressed vowels.

Borgstrøm (1940) reports that “[n]ative speakers are described as distinguishing between the two types of words [i.e. (2) and (3)] in deliberate speech, syllabifying faNak ''crow'' as [faN.ak], while declaring that in ʃaLak [ʃa.Lak] ''hunting'' the L and the k are inseparable” (153). Clements proposes that this difference of syllabification is the result of svarabhakti, which "occurs before the sequences [hp, çk', xk] only if preceded by a nonlenited plain consonant , i.e. /N, L, R/." (1986: 327).

Clements also predicts the nature of the epenthetic vowel from the surrounding phonological environment. Borgstrøm (1937) mentioned that out of the 78 occurrences of epenthetic vowels, 52 were identical to the preceding vowel, while 26 were not. Relying on an autosegmental analysis where nonlabial consonants are specified for the feature [back] and labial consonants are not, Clements shows that the featural composition of the epenthetic vowel is entirely supplied by the preceding CV sequence via a rightward spreading of features. Nonlabial consonants, specified for the [back] feature, are ''opaque'' to the featural spread, while labial consonants are ''transparent'' to the process - yielding surface vowel harmony. The following schematization illustrates the proposed mechanism (adopted from Clements 1986: 331).

[[File:Feature spreading (epenthetic vowel).jpg]]

While Clements' account manages to capture the locality and identity of epenthetic vowels, it nevertheless fails to take into account the prosodic properties of such vowels (i.e. stress and pitch level).

==== [[Articulatory Phonology]] ====

Bosch (1995) adopts a gestural approach to the treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect. Her argument crucially rests on a gradient (rather than discreet) approach to syllable constituency, where the syllable formed by the epenthetic vowel is an extension of the original syllable.

Unlike previous accounts (Clements 1986, Ni Chiosáin 1994, Halle 1995), Bosch's analysis seeks to arrive at a justification for the particular prosodic characteristics of the epenthetic vowel, namely the fact that both the original and epenthetic vowels have (somewhat) equal stress and pitch level (Borgstrøm 1937, Bosch & De Jong 1997). Espousing the theoretical tools made available by articulatory phonology, she claims that "epenthesis can be viewed as the result of a premature articulation of the sonorant gesture, which is itself superimposed upon the preceding vocalic gesture" (10). The following gestural representation shows epenthesis as a readjustment in timing (adopted from Bosch 1995:11).

[[File:Gesture [aram].jpg]]

As a result, epenthesis is no longer thought of as the consequence of an additional tongue body (vocalic) gesture, nor as an additional vocalic slot on the timing tier, nor as an additional word-internal moraic position. The outcome is that there is only ''one'' long syllable carried out by the original tongue body gesture and bearing (somewhat) equal stress and pitch level. Such perspective has the benefit of accounting for the fact that putative disyllabic words composed of an epenthetic vowel are perceived to have a shorter initial vowel than ordinary (non-epenthetic) disyllables (Bosch 1995, 2003).

== [[References]] ==

- Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1937). The Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides, ''Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap'' 7, 71-242.

- Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1940). The Dialects of the Outer Hebrides, ''NTS suppl. bind 1'' Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.

- Bosch, A. (1995). ''A gestural analysis of epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic''. Ms., University of Kentucky.

- Bosch, A. (2003). Borgstrøm's Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides: The Uses and Misuses of Description in Theory, ''Scottish Gaelic Studies'' 21, 221-239.

- Bosch, A. & De Jong, K. (1997). The Prosody of Barra Gaelic Epenthetic Vowels, ''Studies in the Linguistic Sciences'' 27, 1-16.

- Clements, G.N. (1986). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst & M. Mous (eds.), ''The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals: Studies on African Languages Offered to John M. Steward on His 60th Birthday'', 317-336. Dordrecht: Foris.

- Halle, M. (1995). Feature Geometry and Feature Spreading, ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 26, 1-46.

- Ni Chiosáin, M. (1994). Barra Gaelic Vowel Copy and (Non)-Constituent Spreading, ''Proceedings of WCCFL XIII'', 3-13.

[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-26T06:00:56Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Epenthesis''' in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel within a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditions on the part of the surrounding consonants. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.

== [[Theoretical Treatments]] ==

==== [[Autosegmental Phonology]] ====

Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-distinctiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. He argues that ''surface'' contrastive syllabification is ruled-governed and predictable, dismissing any claims of pre-syllabified underlying representations. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:

- '''Type A''' relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook''

Clements reports an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to ''h''" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /VCV/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below (adopted from Clements 1986: 333):

[[File:VV/V.V.jpg]]

- '''Type B''' relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army''

Clements identifies three phonological environments influencing the syllabification of this intervocalic consonant:

(1) V:.CV [mo:.ran] ''much'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding a long vowel.

(2) V̆C.V [ar.an] ''bread'' -- C assumes the coda position of the first syllable when directly preceding a short vowel.

(3) ˈV̆.CˈV̆ [ma.rav] ''dead'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding and following short, stressed vowels.

Borgstrøm (1940) reports that “[n]ative speakers are described as distinguishing between the two types of words [i.e. (2) and (3)] in deliberate speech, syllabifying faNak crow as [faN.ak], while declaring that in ʃaLak [ʃa.Lak] hunting the L and the k are inseparable” (153). Clements proposes that this difference of syllabification is the result of svarabhakti, which "occurs before the sequences [hp, çk', xk] only if preceded by a nonlenited plain consonant , i.e. /N, L, R/." (1986: 327).

Clements also predicts the nature of the epenthetic vowel from the surrounding phonological environment. Borgstrøm (1937) mentioned that out of the 78 occurrences of epenthetic vowels, 52 were identical to the preceding vowel, while 26 were not. Relying on an autosegmental analysis where nonlabial consonants are specified for the feature [back] and labial consonants are not, Clements shows that the featural composition of the epenthetic vowel is entirely supplied by the preceding CV sequence via a rightward spreading of features. Nonlabial consonants, specified for the [back] feature, are ''opaque'' to the featural spread, while labial consonants are ''transparent'' to the process - yielding surface vowel harmony. The following schematization illustrates the proposed mechanism (adopted from Clements 1986: 331).

[[File:Feature spreading (epenthetic vowel).jpg]]

While Clements' account manages to capture the locality and identity of epenthetic vowels, it nevertheless fails to take into account the prosodic properties of such vowels (i.e. stress and pitch level).

==== [[Articulatory Phonology]] ====

Bosch (1995) adopts a gestural approach to the treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect. Her argument crucially rests on a gradient (rather than discreet) approach to syllable constituency, where the syllable formed by the epenthetic vowel is an extension of the original syllable.

Unlike previous accounts (Clements 1986, Ni Chiosáin 1994, Halle 1995), Bosch's analysis seeks to arrive at a justification for the particular prosodic characteristics of the epenthetic vowel, namely the fact that both the original and epenthetic vowels have (somewhat) equal stress and pitch level (Borgstrøm 1937, Bosch & De Jong 1997). Espousing the theoretical tools made available by articulatory phonology, she claims that "epenthesis can be viewed as the result of a premature articulation of the sonorant gesture, which is itself superimposed upon the preceding vocalic gesture" (10). The following gestural representation shows epenthesis as a readjustment in timing (adopted from Bosch 1995:11).

[[File:Gesture [aram].jpg]]

As a result, epenthesis is no longer thought of as the consequence of an additional tongue body (vocalic) gesture, nor as an additional vocalic slot on the timing tier, nor as an additional word-internal moraic position. The outcome is that there is only ''one'' long syllable carried out by the original tongue body gesture and bearing (somewhat) equal stress and pitch level. Such perspective has the benefit of accounting for the fact that putative disyllabic words composed of an epenthetic vowel are perceived to have a shorter initial vowel than ordinary (non-epenthetic) disyllables (Bosch 1995, 2003).

== [[References]] ==

- Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1937). The Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides, ''Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap'' 7, 71-242.

- Borgstrøm C, Hj. (1940). The Dialects of the Outer Hebrides, ''NTS suppl. bind 1'' Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.

- Bosch, A. (1995). ''A gestural analysis of epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic''. Ms., University of Kentucky.

- Bosch, A. (2003). Borgstrøm's Dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides: The Uses and Misuses of Description in Theory, ''Scottish Gaelic Studies'' 21, 221-239.

- Bosch, A. & De Jong, K. (1997). The Prosody of Barra Gaelic Epenthetic Vowels, ''Studies in the Linguistic Sciences'' 27, 1-16.

- Clements, G.N. (1986). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst & M. Mous (eds.), ''The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals: Studies on African Languages Offered to John M. Steward on His 60th Birthday'', 317-336. Dordrecht: Foris.

- Halle, M. (1995). Feature Geometry and Feature Spreading, ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 26, 1-46.

- Ni Chiosáin, M. (1994). Barra Gaelic Vowel Copy and (Non)-Constituent Spreading, ''Proceedings of WCCFL XIII'', 3-13.

[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-26T02:15:34Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Epenthesis''' in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel within a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditions on the part of the surrounding consonants. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.

== [[Theoretical Treatments]] ==

==== [[Autosegmental Phonology]] ====

Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-contrastiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. He shows that the apparent surface contrast in syllabification is derivable from a common underlying representation. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:

- '''Type A''' relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook''

Clements reports an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to ''h''" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /VCV/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below (adopted from Clements 1986: 333):

[[File:VV/V.V.jpg]]

- '''Type B''' relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army''

Clements identifies three phonological environments influencing the syllabification of this intervocalic consonant:

(1) V:.CV [mo:.ran] ''much'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding a long vowel.

(2) V̆C.V [ar.an] ''bread'' -- C assumes the coda position of the first syllable when directly preceding a short vowel.

(3) ˈV̆.CˈV̆ [ma.rav] ''dead'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding and following short, stressed vowels.

Borgstrøm (1940) reports that “[n]ative speakers are described as distinguishing between the two types of words [i.e. (2) and (3)] in deliberate speech, syllabifying faNak crow as [faN.ak], while declaring that in ʃaLak [ʃa.Lak] hunting the L and the k are inseparable” (153). Clements proposes that this difference of syllabification is the result of svarabhakti, which "occurs before the sequences [hp, çk', xk] only if preceded by a nonlenited plain consonant , i.e. /N, L, R/." (1986: 327).

Clements also predicts the nature of the epenthetic vowel from the surrounding phonological environment. Borgstrøm (1937) mentioned that out of the 78 occurrences of epenthetic vowels, 52 were identical to the preceding vowel, while 26 were not. Relying on an autosegmental analysis where nonlabial consonants are specified for the feature [back] and labial consonants are not, Clements shows that the featural composition of the epenthetic vowel is entirely supplied by the preceding CV sequence via a rightward spreading of features. Nonlabial consonants, specified for the [back] feature, are ''opaque'' to the featural spread, while labial consonants are ''transparent'' to the process - yielding surface vowel harmony. The following schematization illustrates the proposed mechanism (adopted from Clements 1986: 331).

[[File:Feature spreading (epenthetic vowel).jpg]]

==== [[Articulatory Phonology]] ====

Bosch (1995) adopts a gestural approach to the treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect. Her argument crucially rests on a gradient (rather than discreet) approach to syllable constituency, where the syllable formed by the epenthetic vowel is an extension of the original syllable.

Unlike previous accounts, Bosch's analysis seeks to arrive at a justification for the particular prosodic characteristics of the epenthetic vowel, namely the fact that both the original and epenthetic vowels have equal stress and pitch level. Espousing the theoretical tools made available by articulatory phonology, she claims that "epenthesis can be viewed as the result of a premature articulation of the sonorant gesture, which is itself superimposed upon the preceding vocalic gesture" (10). The following gestural representation shows epenthesis as a readjustment in timing (adopted from Bosch 1995:11).

[[File:Gesture [aram].jpg]]

As a result, epenthesis is no longer thought of as the consequence of an additional tongue body (vocalic) gesture, nor as an additional vocalic slot on the timing tier, nor as an additional word-internal moraic position. The outcome is that there is only ''one'' long syllable carried out by the original tongue body gesture and bearing equal stress and pitch level. Such perspective has the benefit of accounting for the fact that putative disyllabic words composed of an epenthetic vowel are perceived as 'shorter than' ordinary syllables (Bosch 1995:11).

== [[References]] ==

- Clements, G.N. (1986). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst & M. Mous (eds.), ''The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals: Studies on African Languages Offered to John M. Steward on His 60th Birthday'', 317-336. Dordrecht: Foris.

- Bosch, A. (1995). ''A gestural analysis of epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic''. Ms., University of Kentucky.

[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-26T01:07:42Z

LionelMathieu:

'''Epenthesis''' in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel between a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditions on the part of the surrounding consonants. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.

== [[Theoretical Treatments]] ==

==== [[Autosegmental Phonology]] ====

Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-contrastiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:

- '''Type A''' relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook''

Clements reports an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to h" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /VCV/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below (adopted from Clements 1986: 333):

[[File:VV/V.V.jpg]]

- '''Type B''' relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army''

Clements identifies three phonological environments influencing the syllabification of this intervocalic consonant:

(1) V:.CV [mo:.ran] ''much'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding a long vowel.

(2) V̆C.V [ar.an] ''bread'' -- C assumes the coda position of the first syllable when directly preceding a short vowel.

(3) ˈV̆.CˈV̆ [ma.rav] ''dead'' -- C assumes the onset position of the second syllable when directly preceding and following short, stressed vowels.

Borgstrøm (1940) reports that “[n]ative speakers are described as distinguishing between the two types of words [i.e. (2) and (3)] in deliberate speech, syllabifying faNak crow as [faN.ak], while declaring that in ʃaLak [ʃa.Lak] hunting the L and the k are inseparable” (153). Clements proposes that this difference of syllabification is the result of vocalic epenthesis, which "occurs before the sequences [hp, çk', xk] only if preceded by a nonlenited plain consonant , i.e. /N, L, R/." (1986: 327).

Clements also predicts the nature of the epenthetic vowel from the surrounding phonological environment. Borgstrøm (1937) mentioned that out of the 78 occurrences of epenthetic vowels, 52 of them where identical to the preceding vowel, while 26 were not. Relying on an autosegmental analysis where nonlabial consonants are specified for the feature [back] and labial consonants are not, Clements shows that the featural composition of the epenthetic vowel is entirely supplied by the preceding CV sequence via a rightward spreading of features. Nonlabial consonants, specified for the [back] feature, are ''opaque'' to the featural spread, while labial consonants are ''transparent'' to the process. The following schematization illustrates the proposed mechanism adopted from Clements 1986: 331).

[[File:Feature spreading (epenthetic vowel).jpg]]

==== [[Articulatory Phonology]] ====

Bosch (1995) adopts a gestural approach to the treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect. Her argument crucially rests on a gradient (rather than discreet) approach to syllable constituency, where the syllable formed by the epenthetic vowel is an extension of the original syllable.

Unlike previous accounts, Bosch's analysis seeks to arrive at a justification for the particular prosodic characteristics of the epenthetic vowel, namely the fact that both the original and epenthetic vowels have equal stress and pitch level. Espousing the theoretical tools made available by articulatory phonology, she claims that "epenthesis can be viewed as the result of a premature articulation of the sonorant gesture, which is itself superimposed upon the preceding vocalic gesture" (10). The following gestural representation shows epenthesis as a readjustment in timing (adopted from Bosch 1995:11).

[[File:Gesture [aram].jpg]]

As a result, epenthesis is no longer thought of as the consequence of an additional tongue body (vocalic) gesture, nor as an additional vocalic slot on the timing tier, nor as an additional word-internal moraic position. The outcome is that there is only one long syllable carried out by the original tongue body gesture that retains the original stress and pitch level. Such perspective has the benefit of accounting for the fact that putative disyllabic words composed of an epenthetic vowel are perceived as 'shorter than' ordinary syllables (Bosch 1995:11).

== [[References]] ==

- Clements, G.N. (1986). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In K. Bogers, H. van der Hulst & M. Mous (eds.), ''The Phonological Representation of Suprasegmentals: Studies on African Languages Offered to John M. Steward on His 60th Birthday'', 317-336. Dordrecht: Foris.

- Bosch, A. (1995). ''A gestural analysis of epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic''. Ms., University of Kentucky.

[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-25T21:40:45Z

LionelMathieu: Blanked the page

Theoretical Treatments of Epenthesis

2009-09-25T21:39:51Z

LionelMathieu:

For a definition of Epenthesis (also known svarabhakti) see [[Epenthesis (definition)]]

Epenthesis in Scottish Gaelic primarily refers to vocalic epenthesis (also known as Svarabhakti), which is generally understood as the insertion of a vowel between a consonantal sequence. Vocalic epenthesis is closely related to syllabification and is subject to stringent phonological conditioning. The locality, prosody and identity of Svarabhakti vowels are nevertheless predictable. Researchers however debate the phonological mechanisms that render those characteristics. Two such accounts are exposed below.

== [[Theoretical Treatments]] ==
[[Autosegmental Phonology]]

Adopting an autosegmental framework for his analysis, Clements (1986) offers a formal treatment of syllabification and vowel epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. His argument pertains to the non-contrastiveness of syllabification at the level of underlying representation. Two main types of surface syllabification are delineated:

- Type A relates to the syllabification of vocalic sequences -- VV [duən] ''poem'' vs. V.V [du.an] ''hook''

Clements notes an observation first made by Borgstrøm (1937) that "the break in the tension [occurring at the location of the dot – GNC] is a phenomenon which occurs in positions where a consonant could be expected, a kind of ‘consonant without oral articulation’, comparable to ''h''" (150). This remark leads Clements to assume that the underlying contrast of syllabification is really one of /VV/ vs. /V'''C'''V/ where C represents a silent consonant devoid of any segmental features except for syllabicity (i.e. [-syllabic]). Clements conjectures that such resulting hiatus might be the reflex of a historical loss of the intervocalic consonant. Illustrative examples are provided below:

i

V

- Type B relates to the syllabification of an intervocalic consonant -- VC.V [ar.an] ''bread'' vs. V.CV [a.ram] ''army''

[[Articulatory Phonology]]

Bosch (1995) adopts a

[[Category:Phonology]]
[[Category:Phonetics]]