Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Roger Mills <romilly@...>:
>
> > Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > Also, it seems to me that Englishers tend to hear [dZ_0] as /dZ/
rather
> > > than /tS/. Nativers?
> > >
> > As in......?  example, please.
>
> It seems that if I say [eIdZ_0], native English speakers tend to hear this
> as "age", not "aitch".
>
Thanks.  Thought so.  Or batch vs. badge etc.
I think this has been discussed before--  in the view of many, English
initial/final voiced sounds-- stops, frics and affricates-- are not fully
voiced.  It's a question of voicing onset time (in initial position) or
voicing offset time (in final position). In addition, there are other cues,
possibly more important than the amount of voicing-- differences in muscular
tension, initial aspiration, and vowel lengthening before underlying final
voiced sounds.

> Reminds me, is /tS/ supposed to be aspirated in English?
>
For me, at least, slightly in initial position.

Mark J. Reed's cri de coeur resonates with me, as well--
>All of this [voiced_0] vs [unvoiced] stuff is still very mysterious to
me.  I have no clue how to pronounce [dZ_0] or [v_0] other than
like [tS] and [f]. >

Perhaps the X-Sampa diacritic "_0" with consonants  should better be
interpreted as "lenis", "lax", or "voiceless onset/offset" rather than
"voiceless".  It seems to me that to refer to a "voiceless [d]" or whatever
is a contradiction in terms-- IPA [b d g etc.] are inherently voiced-- and a
"voiceless [d]" would be describing some sort of [t] articulation.
(Voiceless vowels are another matter; that would be a legitimate use of the
"voiceless" diacritic.)

YADEPT.

Reply