Languages without allophony
- alynnidalar
- Avisaru
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
Languages without allophony
All right, so the title's deliberately evocative--I know that all languages have some degree of allophony. What I'm really interested in is languages that have the least allophony. I know languages with very small phoneme inventories can have some crazy allophones (you know, like Pirahã apparently having [k] as an allophone for /hi/). Does the opposite hold true--do languages with very large phoneme inventories have very little allophony? For example, what kind of allophony does Ubykh or !Xóõ have? (I know Ubykh has a lot of vowel allophony, but among the consonants, at least.) And are there other factors that can impact the amount of allophony a language has, aside from just the size of the phoneme inventory?
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
- Frislander
- Avisaru
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
- Location: The North
Re: Languages without allophony
I think languages with (C)V syllables, particularly the Polynesian and Bantu languages, would have very little allophony as there are fewer environments to influence the consonants.
Re: Languages without allophony
There may be few logically possible conditions for allophony but they certainly make use of the ones they have available. Hawaiian /w/ > [v] before (adjacent to?) front vowels.Frislander wrote:I think languages with (C)V syllables, particularly the Polynesian and Bantu languages, would have very little allophony as there are fewer environments to influence the consonants.
Re: Languages without allophony
A common one is /t/ > [s] before /i(ː)/.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Re: Languages without allophony
Even with (C)V syllables, the quality of the V can often have an allophonic effect on the C, or vice versa. For example, the Bantu language Sotho has /l~d/: [d] is used before the closest vowels /i/ and /u/, while [l] is used before all of the other vowels. I don't remember which ones, but there are other languages where high vowels cause allophonic aspiration of preceding voiceless plosives. And of course, non-phonemic processes of palatalization such as /s/ > [ʃ] / _i are common.Frislander wrote:I think languages with (C)V syllables, particularly the Polynesian and Bantu languages, would have very little allophony as there are fewer environments to influence the consonants.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Languages without allophony
There are probably two contrary processes here.
Languages with small inventories will have plenty of allophony, as sounds spread out to fill the space: you can have /w/ be [v] in some places, or /t/ be [s] in others because there are few other phonemes for these ones to 'compete' with for space.
Languages with large inventories should have less allophony. But there's a problem.
Languages with large inventories tend to be languages with complex phonotactics. And complicated phonotactics will also probably lead to plenty of allophony, because the phonemes can be places in a wider array of contexts.
[Complex phonotactics produce lots of allophony, which is one reason why they end up with large consonant inventories, as the conditioning environments for that allophony are lost!]
So I would suspect that on average you'd find the narrowest range of allophony among nondescript languages with mid-sized inventories.
Languages with small inventories will have plenty of allophony, as sounds spread out to fill the space: you can have /w/ be [v] in some places, or /t/ be [s] in others because there are few other phonemes for these ones to 'compete' with for space.
Languages with large inventories should have less allophony. But there's a problem.
Languages with large inventories tend to be languages with complex phonotactics. And complicated phonotactics will also probably lead to plenty of allophony, because the phonemes can be places in a wider array of contexts.
[Complex phonotactics produce lots of allophony, which is one reason why they end up with large consonant inventories, as the conditioning environments for that allophony are lost!]
So I would suspect that on average you'd find the narrowest range of allophony among nondescript languages with mid-sized inventories.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- Frislander
- Avisaru
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
- Location: The North
Re: Languages without allophony
So something like, I don't know, Swahili?Salmoneus wrote:So I would suspect that on average you'd find the narrowest range of allophony among nondescript languages with mid-sized inventories.
Re: Languages without allophony
As far as I know the only allophones Welsh has are the devoiced nasals. I could be wrong though.
My conlangery Twitter: @Jonlang_
Me? I'm just a lawn-mower; you can tell me by the way I walk.
Me? I'm just a lawn-mower; you can tell me by the way I walk.
Re: Languages without allophony
What would motivate that?Sumelic wrote:there are other languages where high vowels cause allophonic aspiration of preceding voiceless plosives.
Re: Languages without allophony
I'd reason all languages have allophony, simply because not all languages contrast all human sounds. Even in languages like Ubykh there's plenty of room for allophony: [h~hʷ~hʲ~ɦ], [l~ɫ], [m~m̥] .
Sprachbund: bi-lingual speakers start to normalize phoneme inventories of one another (european [ʀ]).And are there other factors that can impact the amount of allophony a language has, aside from just the size of the phoneme inventory
Re: Languages without allophony
Hmm... I found a book that says it might be because it takes longer to release the oral pressure buildup: https://books.google.com/books?id=TFUTD ... on&f=falseTSSL wrote:What would motivate that?Sumelic wrote:there are other languages where high vowels cause allophonic aspiration of preceding voiceless plosives.
Here's another book that discusses changes like this (mostly phonologized, though, not allophonic) in some African languages; it seems to often be linked to affrication of coronal stops: https://books.google.com/books?id=5_a3j ... on&f=false
Apparently, aspirated plosives may occur allophonically in some cases for French speakers before /i/ and /y/ (environments where coronal plosives may also become affricates for some speakers), as well as before /u/ : http://ling.snu.ac.kr/jun/under_phono/sample_paper.pdf
In a way, this reminds me of the affrication of coronals in Japanese before /u/ and /i/; I wonder if these phenomena are related. On the other hand, it looks like in some Japonic languages, aspiration was actually inhibited before high vowels for some reason: https://books.google.com/books?id=aun8B ... on&f=false
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Languages without allophony
I've heard that this affrication in Japanese and some other languages is thought to be related to sulcalisation, which is common allophonically before high vowels. Don't know if that's an alternative explanation for the same phenomenon as the 'longer to release' idea, or two phenomena that happen to have the same result...Sumelic wrote: In a way, this reminds me of the affrication of coronals in Japanese before /u/ and /i/; I wonder if these phenomena are related.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Languages without allophony
Pedantic but perhaps important note: all languages have allophony, because phones are analog, and phonemes are discrete. Say the same sound a hundred times and you'll get a little cloud in your feature space.
Plus, each context modifies the sounds. k is different before o or u, n is different initially and finally. A word will sound different in quick speech. Plus there's all the tiny differences that allow you to recognize individual voices.
Whether or not the variation gets reported in a grammar may well depend on the ear, the thoroughness, and the background of the grammarian.
Snarky response: what about Esperanto? Its spelling is claimed to be "phonetic", so technically it has no allophony...
Plus, each context modifies the sounds. k is different before o or u, n is different initially and finally. A word will sound different in quick speech. Plus there's all the tiny differences that allow you to recognize individual voices.
Whether or not the variation gets reported in a grammar may well depend on the ear, the thoroughness, and the background of the grammarian.
Snarky response: what about Esperanto? Its spelling is claimed to be "phonetic", so technically it has no allophony...
- Chengjiang
- Avisaru
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Davis, CA
Re: Languages without allophony
I was going to say this if you didn't. There logically cannot be a language without allophonic processes because no sounds can be reproduced with 100% precision and all sounds are affected to at least a minor degree by preceding or following sounds. (All consonants are at least slightly palatalized before front vowels unless there's at least a slight non-front onglide, for example, simply because your tongue can't instantly teleport from one position to the next.) At best there are languages that only have very minor allophonic variation.zompist wrote:Pedantic but perhaps important note: all languages have allophony, because phones are analog, and phonemes are discrete. Say the same sound a hundred times and you'll get a little cloud in your feature space.
Plus, each context modifies the sounds. k is different before o or u, n is different initially and finally. A word will sound different in quick speech. Plus there's all the tiny differences that allow you to recognize individual voices.
Whether or not the variation gets reported in a grammar may well depend on the ear, the thoroughness, and the background of the grammarian.
I've always hated how glibly and incompletely Zamenhof tried to describe his language, and how often later Esperantists insist that there's nothing missing. Granted, I rather dislike Esperanto in general.Snarky response: what about Esperanto? Its spelling is claimed to be "phonetic", so technically it has no allophony...
[ʈʂʰɤŋtɕjɑŋ], or whatever you can comfortably pronounce that's close to that
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Languages without allophony
I wasn't going to say this, because I read the OP, which says it already.Chengjiang wrote:I was going to say this if you didn't. There logically cannot be a language without allophonic processeszompist wrote:Pedantic but perhaps important note: all languages have allophony, because phones are analog, and phonemes are discrete. Say the same sound a hundred times and you'll get a little cloud in your feature space.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Languages without allophony
On the other hand, since the narrower acceptable ranges for each phoneme have still not gone anywhere, combinatory effects should be perhaps rather expected to collapse into morphophonology. If a language underlyingly allows both //kw// and //kʷ//, or allows both //ts// and //tˢ//, I would definitely expect these to be realized as the same — not for them to allow a "mildly labialized allophone" of /k/ and a "mildly affricated allophone" of /t/. (Exceptions happen, of course — see e.g. Polish.)Salmoneus wrote:Languages with large inventories should have less allophony. But there's a problem.
Languages with large inventories tend to be languages with complex phonotactics. And complicated phonotactics will also probably lead to plenty of allophony, because the phonemes can be places in a wider array of contexts.
Another thing though is that we perhaps should not measure the bare size of the inventory, but also keep an eye on its feature economy. A fricative subsystem /f s ʃ v z ʒ/ is exactly as large as /f s sʰ z ħ ʁ/, but I for one would expect the latter to have more allophony (e.g. the existence of an aspiration contrast /s sʰ/ enables the possibility of [fʰ] as an allophone of /f/, while the existence of a pharyngeal place of articulation enables [ʕ] as an allophone of /ʁ/).
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]
Re: Languages without allophony
Those are contrastive and so, by definition, not allophonic.dyolf wrote:As far as I know the only allophones Welsh has are the devoiced nasals. I could be wrong though.
One thing that might influence allophony is the existence of a strongly-enforced normative codified pronunciation standard. I would expect that being hyperaware of nonstandard variations would make one more aware of pronunciation variations in general. Moreover, these are most common in situations where the standard variety is learned explicitly by most speakers.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Languages without allophony
re: Japanese, some languages (e.g. O'odham) had all high vowels condition palatalization
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Languages without allophony
I think Finnish has very little allophonic variation. The only major things I can come up with are /n/ having the allophones [m n ŋ] and /h/ with several allophones.
Re: Languages without allophony
How would you define "major" allophonic variation?
Some cases of allophony in Finnish include:
• prosody-related variation in length (e.g. short vowels become half-long at the end of a short trochaic stress group)
• variation between dentals and alveolars (probably speaker-dependant, but e.g. I have fairly systematically /rt̪/ → [rt͇])
• /sr/ → [sɹ]
• usual combinary effects with labialization or palatalization (/ju/ → [ɥu], /li/ → [lʲi])
• some degree of free variation in mid vowel height (I typically have [e ø̞ ɔ] for /e ö o/)
• some vowel-harmony-related issues (/e/ → [e̠] when back-harmonic)
• relatively free variation /v/ → [ʋ ~ v]
• variation in number of contacts in /r/ (i.e. [ɾ ~ ɾɾ ~ ɾɾɾ ~ …])
Some cases of allophony in Finnish include:
• prosody-related variation in length (e.g. short vowels become half-long at the end of a short trochaic stress group)
• variation between dentals and alveolars (probably speaker-dependant, but e.g. I have fairly systematically /rt̪/ → [rt͇])
• /sr/ → [sɹ]
• usual combinary effects with labialization or palatalization (/ju/ → [ɥu], /li/ → [lʲi])
• some degree of free variation in mid vowel height (I typically have [e ø̞ ɔ] for /e ö o/)
• some vowel-harmony-related issues (/e/ → [e̠] when back-harmonic)
• relatively free variation /v/ → [ʋ ~ v]
• variation in number of contacts in /r/ (i.e. [ɾ ~ ɾɾ ~ ɾɾɾ ~ …])
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]
Re: Languages without allophony
Okay, I didn't know about these. Anyway, what I was thinking of was variation that you can actually hear if you listen very carefully. Now, of course it's a fuzzy definition, and it varies from person to person. But I understood it like the OP wanted to hear about our impressions, rather than spergingly clear evidence (which is impossible for anyone to give).Tropylium wrote:• prosody-related variation in length (e.g. short vowels become half-long at the end of a short trochaic stress group)
• variation between dentals and alveolars (probably speaker-dependant, but e.g. I have fairly systematically /rt̪/ → [rt͇])
• /sr/ → [sɹ]
• usual combinary effects with labialization or palatalization (/ju/ → [ɥu], /li/ → [lʲi])
• some degree of free variation in mid vowel height (I typically have [e ø̞ ɔ] for /e ö o/)
• some vowel-harmony-related issues (/e/ → [e̠] when back-harmonic)
• relatively free variation /v/ → [ʋ ~ v]
Re: Languages without allophony
The entire point behind allophony, though, is that your average monoglot speaker can't hear the difference; we're trained to hear the sounds our language distinguishes phonemically and sort of tune out the rest. For example, it took me some time to hear [ɾ] because my brain automatically parses it as /t d/.Qwynegold wrote:Okay, I didn't know about these. Anyway, what I was thinking of was variation that you can actually hear if you listen very carefully. Now, of course it's a fuzzy definition, and it varies from person to person. But I understood it like the OP wanted to hear about our impressions, rather than spergingly clear evidence (which is impossible for anyone to give).Tropylium wrote:• prosody-related variation in length (e.g. short vowels become half-long at the end of a short trochaic stress group)
• variation between dentals and alveolars (probably speaker-dependant, but e.g. I have fairly systematically /rt̪/ → [rt͇])
• /sr/ → [sɹ]
• usual combinary effects with labialization or palatalization (/ju/ → [ɥu], /li/ → [lʲi])
• some degree of free variation in mid vowel height (I typically have [e ø̞ ɔ] for /e ö o/)
• some vowel-harmony-related issues (/e/ → [e̠] when back-harmonic)
• relatively free variation /v/ → [ʋ ~ v]
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Languages without allophony
I wouldn't go that far - native speakers can sometimes be aware of allophony. Allophones sometimes get their own letters, for instance. But it's true that speakers are often not aware of allophony, sometimes even if they're told about it. I've had people flat out refuse to believe there's a difference between aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops in English, for instance.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Languages without allophony
I would presume that second-language learning informs people's understanding of their native languages' allophony at least somewhat.
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]
Re: Languages without allophony
Yes, hence my emphasis on "monoglot speakers." Learning French, for example, is what made me conscious of aspiration, flapping, and debuccalization, prior to my interest in linguistics.Tropylium wrote:I would presume that second-language learning informs people's understanding of their native languages' allophony at least somewhat.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”