From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: phonology question
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:26:46 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Z0m-3X=@engin.umich.edu>, rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.162919.3213@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>In article <W5[Am-XD-@engin.umich.edu>, rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep4.120207.3208@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep4.032626.8708@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
> 
>>>>> Why does it seem awkward for an English-speaker to say "ibpag"?
> 
>>>>[ibpag] violates a constraint in English that adjacent stops within
>>>>a word must agree in voicing. 
> 
> [I supplied counterexamples]
> 
>>Sure I could say "subpolar", though I doubt it would contain [bp] with
>>voiced [b] (try a voiceless lenis for size).  

Actually, I think I do say [bp] here, but because it's an English
compound, on which see below.  Sorry.

>>But I digress.  Most of
>>your examples are totally irrelevant because they are compounds formed
>>within English, 
> 
> As I pointed out.)
> 
>>and the voicing adjustment rule simply does not apply
>>to such compounds, most of which, by the way, are written with a word
>>space between the elements.  With or without a space, intraword
>>phonetic rules do not apply to such cases, which is why the second
>>p in _pisspot_ is aspirated, while the p in _spot_ is not (no aspira-
>>tion after /s/ within the word).
> 
> Leo, you're changing your claim.  You claimed that there is
> 
>>>>a constraint in English that adjacent stops within
>>>>a word must agree in voicing. 
> 
> I gave you counterexamples.  Regardless of how these things are
> written (and I can't accept typographical conventions as a very
> reliable type of phonological evidence), at least some of them are
> pretty indisputably words of English ("tadpole", "midpoint",
> "hardtack", "woodcock", "redcoat", "broadcast", and several others).
> Now you're proposing a different, perhaps better, analysis (though, as
> above, it's pretty ad hoc at this point).  My examples aren't
> irrelevant at all; they're precise counterexamples to your original
> claim, causing you to present a more refined claim.  Science marches
> on.

I neglected to mention compounds in my original post, but I'm not
changing my claim.  The phenomenon in question is well known, though
the explanation has varied over the years.  Pre-Chomsky structuralists
talked abouy "open juncture" in compounds (and elsewhere).  In the tra-
dition of _Sound Pattern of English_, it seems better to assume that
there is (yes!) a *word boundary* within English compounds, but not
those imported from Latin, as opposed to a mere morpheme boundary.
The two typed are represented as _hard#tack_ and _cough+ed_ respectively.
I have long accepted the word-boundary analysis and assumed it in my
original post.  I apologize for not stating it more clearly, but it
does entail precisely that e.g. [fd] is OK in _cough#drop_ but not
in _cough+ed#on_ (I won't eat coughed-on food).

This is why I mentioned orthography, by the way.  English compounds
are sometimes written solid (_tadpole_), sometimes with a hyphen
(a _last-ditch_ effort), but most frequently as separate words
(_red wine_; compare the intonation with that of _red car_ if you
don't believe it's a compound).  The latter two methods are possible
only if there is a word boundary within the compound.  That is,
Latin imports must be written solid: _subterranean_, never
*_sub-terranean_ or *_sub_terranean_.  So the orthographic possi-
bilities do matter.

A question at this point: do you agree that _ibpag_ would be
"easier" for Americans to pronounce if it were written <ib-pag>
or <ib pag>?  Surely yes: the first would suggest a English-
style compound, the latter either that or entirely separate
words.  With <ibpag> we have trouble, since it seems to short
to be a compound, and thus we etc.

>>The -bt- group is a different situation: your examples are all of
>>Latin derivation.  
> 
> Again, as I pointed out.
> 
>>Without exception I do apply the voicing adjust-
>>ment rule to these, pronouncing the /b/ (if such it be) as a voiceless
>>lenis.
> 
> So you claim that you pronounce the /b/s differently in "obtain" and
> "bobcat" (in ways not predictable from other aspects of the
> phonological context)?  Maybe, maybe not.  This is a pretty subtle
> thing to trust your ear on.  I certainly don't hear it in mine.
> Anyone?

I can only speak for myself.  I do hear it.  But since the voiceless
lenis is an allophone (realization) of /b/, not a separate phoneme,
it is to be expected that it is not usually heard, just as the
aspiration of /p/ is not.

It seems obvious that phonological context must include more
than the neighboring segmental phonemes.  In particular, wiithout
some sort of boundary as part of the phonological environment, we
cannot explain why _despot_ has unaspirated [p] while _pisspot_
has aspirated [ph] after s.  The alternative is to declare /p/
and /ph/ separate phonemes, which is surely wrong.  With /despat/
and /pis#pat/, we're in business.

> It seems to me you've proposed an ad hoc account based on some pretty
> tenuous evidence.

Well, it's not ad hoc, and I wish I could take credit for proposing it,
but it's not original, I'm afraid.  Nor do I think it's tenuous, but
that's a judgment call. 

> That said, you may very well be correct, but you'll
> need some stronger arguments to convince me.

Perhaps the above will suffice?

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang