2. ?Phonetics/phonology interactions". ??Phonological grammars reflect phonetic constraintsarticulatory and perceptual limitations??*DD: no voiced obstruent geminate[Podesva 2002; Hayes
1. 1 Projecting non-lexical phonology from phonetic knowledge Donca SteriadeMIT
2. 2 “Phonetics/phonology interactions” • Phonological grammars reflect phonetic constraints
articulatory and perceptual limitations
• *DD: no voiced obstruent geminate
[Podesva 2002; Hayes &Steriade 2003; Kawahara 2004 ]
sustained airflow across glottis requires more articulatory adjustments in longer stop closures
DD, if passively devoiced DD9, more similar to TT
? (D-T) > ? (DD –TT) if DD = [DD9]
3. 3 Phonetic asymmetries of this kind… • are reflected in phonological systems
*DD relates to p????????????????????????[d:], …
• How do we get from phonetics to grammar?
????? ?(D-T) > ?(DD –TT) to grammar
• What is the grammar like?
Is *DD the right constraint?
4. 4 Option 1: link via phonetic knowledge • Speaker awareness of perceptual limitations
e.g. knowledge that ?(D-T) > ?(DD –TT)
• Projects a fragment of the grammar:
Ident [±voice]/ [_-long] >> Ident [±voice]/[_+long]
[“phonetic knowledge” from Kingston & Diehl (1994): awareness of the perceptual correlates of a contrast & their articulatory implementation.]
5. 5 From perception to phonology