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

On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 02:00, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:10:39AM +1000, Tristan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 00:28, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > Also, it seems to me that Englishers tend to hear [dZ_0] as /dZ/ rather
> > > than /tS/. Nativers?
>
> All of this [voiced_0] vs [unvoiced] stuff is still very mysterious to
> me.
The glyphs we're used to calling voiced, apparently, involve less muscle
tension at the POA than those we're used to calling unvoiced. Those we
call unvoiced have more tension. David Crystal's Encyclopedia of English
claims that the difference in English is primarily one of tension and
only secondarily one of voice.

> I have no clue how to pronounce [dZ_0] or [v_0] other than
> like [tS] and [f].  And if I try to distinguish stops that way,
> e.g. [d_0] vs [t], the only difference is that the former comes out
> [t] and the latter comes out [t_h].
Well, don't forget [f_v]! (voiced [f].)

> > Well, I'm not exactly sure what it is phonetically, nor even if this is
> > the same thing as what you're talking about, but /tS/ after /s/ I hear
> > as /dZ/, and I'm not alone in this. Hence, 'nextyear' sounds like
> > [neksdZI:@] to me (actually, phonemically it, and lastyear, do have
> > /-dZ-/, but there when a normal word ending in -st and a normal word
> > beginning in /j-/ are pronounced adjacent in normal speech, the result
> > sounds like [sdZ]; normally /t+j/=[tS]).
>
> Huh.  Is it really voiced or does it just sound like it to you?
Phonemically, it's voiced (or lax). Phonetically I have no idea. There
is no desire to voice the [s] just because it's abut it (they're in the
same syllable too, btw: [nek."sdZI:@], ["la:s.sdZI:@], but I prefer to
say /sg/ and /sd/ than /zg/ and /zd/. But whether or not the stops are
voiced is another matter entirely... It'd be nice if I could find out
what's what, but my soundcard's record functions are stuffed...

> If it's voiced, I wonder where it comes from;  "next year" definitely sounds
>  like [nEks'tSI`r\] to me, not [nEks'dZI`r\].
It wouldn't surprise me if it was from the same place that made the /t/
in [stIk] unaspirated, really. Similar scenario.

> If it's not really voiced
> but just sounds as if it is, then you may have found the to-me-mysterious
> [dZ_0].  Not that it helps me reproduce it. :)
Or perhaps [tS_v]. Dunno... Or maybe (std.) /tS/ is really for me and my
peers /tS_h/ and std. /dZ/ is /tS/...

--
Tristan.