Approximant
Approximants are
Terminology
Before Peter Ladefoged coined the term "approximant" in the 1960s,[4] the terms "frictionless continuant" and "semivowel" were used to refer to non-lateral approximants.
In
Semivowels
Some approximants resemble vowels in acoustic and articulatory properties and the terms semivowel and glide are often used for these non-syllabic vowel-like segments. The correlation between semivowels and vowels is strong enough that cross-language differences between semivowels correspond with the differences between their related vowels.[6]
Vowels and their corresponding semivowels alternate in many languages depending on the phonological environment, or for grammatical reasons, as is the case with
Approximant-vowel correspondences[10][11] Vowel Corresponding
approximantPlace of
articulationExample i j** Palatal Spanish amplío ('I extend') vs. amplió ('he extended') y ɥ Labialized palatalFrench aigu ('sharp') vs. aiguille ('needle') ɯ ɰ** Velar Korean 음식 ('food') vs. 의사 ('doctor') u w Labialized velar Spanish continúo ('I continue') vs. continuó ('he/she/it continued') and ('you continued') used only in the formal treatment of 'usted'. ɑ ʕ̞Pharyngeal [ example needed]ɚ ɻ Postalveolar, retroflex* North American English waiter vs. waitress
- alveolar approximant ([ɹ]) is common, though the sound is more postalveolar. Actual retroflexion may occur as well and both occur as variations of the same sound.[12] However, Catford (1988:161f) makes a distinction between the vowels of American English (which he calls "rhotacized") and vowels with "retroflexion" such as those that appear in Badaga; Trask (1996:310), on the other hand, labels both as r-colored and notes that both have a lowered third formant.[13]
- ^** Because the vowels [i ɯ] are articulated with spread lips, spreading is implied for their approximant analogues, [j ɰ]. However, these sounds generally have little or no lip-spreading. The fricative letters with a lowering diacritic, ⟨ʝ˕ ɣ˕⟩, may therefore be justified for a neutral articulation between spread [j ɰ] and rounded [ɥ w].[14]
In articulation and often diachronically,
In addition to alternations, glides can be inserted to the left or the right of their corresponding vowels when they occur next to a hiatus.
- bioscoop → [bijɔskoːp] ('cinema')
- zee + en → [zeːjə(n)] ('seas')
- fluor → [flyɥɔr] ('fluorine')
- reu + en → [røɥə(n)] ('male dogs')
- Rwanda → [ruʋandɐ] ('Rwanda')[18]
- Boaz → [boʋas] ('Boaz')[18]
Similarly, vowels can be inserted next to their corresponding glide in certain phonetic environments.
Non-high semivowels also occur. In colloquial Nepali speech, a process of glide-formation occurs, where one of two adjacent vowels becomes non-syllabic; the process includes mid vowels so that [dʱo̯a] ('cause to wish') features a non-syllabic mid vowel.[19] Spanish features a similar process and even nonsyllabic /a/ can occur so that ahorita ('right away') is pronounced [a̯o̞ˈɾita].[20] It is not often clear, however, whether such sequences involve a semivowel (a consonant) or a diphthong (a vowel), and in many cases, it may not be a meaningful distinction.
Although many languages have
Approximants versus fricatives
In addition to less turbulence, approximants also differ from fricatives in the precision required to produce them.[25] When emphasized, approximants may be slightly fricated (that is, the airstream may become slightly turbulent), which is reminiscent of fricatives. For example, the Spanish word ayuda ('help') features a palatal approximant that is pronounced as a fricative in emphatic speech.[26] Spanish can be analyzed as having a meaningful distinction between fricative, approximant, and intermediate /ʝ ʝ˕ j/.[27] However, such frication is generally slight and intermittent, unlike the strong turbulence of fricative consonants.
For places of articulation further back in the mouth, languages do not contrast voiced fricatives and approximants. Therefore, the IPA allows the symbols for the voiced fricatives to double for the approximants, with or without a lowering diacritic.[citation needed]
Occasionally, the glottal "fricatives" are called approximants, since [h] typically has no more frication than voiceless approximants, but they are often phonations of the glottis without any accompanying manner or place of articulation.
Central approximants
Approximants with a dedicated IPA symbol are in bold.
- labiodental approximant[ʋ]
- linguolabial approximant [ð̼˕] (usually transcribed ⟨ð̼⟩)
- alveolar & post-alveolar approximant[ɹ]
- retroflex approximant [ɻ ] (a consonantal [ɚ])
- alveolo-palatal approximant[ɹ̠ʲ] or [j˖]
- palatal approximant [j] (a consonantal [i])
- velar approximant [ɰ] (a consonantal [ɯ])
- uvular approximant[ʁ̞] (usually transcribed ⟨ʁ⟩)
- pharyngeal approximant [ʕ̞] (a consonantal [ɑ]; usually transcribed ⟨ʕ⟩)
- epiglottal approximant[ʢ̞] (usually transcribed ⟨ʢ⟩)
- breathy-voiced glottal approximant[ɦ]
- creaky-voiced glottal approximant [ʔ̞]
Lateral approximants
In lateral approximants, the center of tongue makes solid contact with the roof of the mouth. However, the defining location is the side of the tongue, which only approaches the teeth, allowing free passage of air.
- voiced alveolar lateral approximant[l]
- retroflex lateral approximant[ɭ]
- alveolo-palatal lateral approximant[l̠ʲ] or [ʎ̟] (usually transcribed ⟨ȴ⟩)
- voiced palatal lateral approximant[ʎ]
- velar lateral approximant[ʟ]
- uvular lateral approximant[ʟ̠]
Coarticulated approximants
- Labialized retroflex approximant [ɻʷ]
- labialized palatal approximant [ɥ] (a consonantal [y])
- labialized velar approximant [w] (a consonantal [u])
- labialized uvular approximant [ʁʷ]
Voiceless approximants
Voiceless approximants are not recognized by all phoneticians as a discrete phonetic category. There are problems in distinguishing voiceless approximants from voiceless fricatives.
Phonetic characteristics
Fricative consonants are generally said to be the result of turbulent airflow at a place of articulation in the vocal tract.[29] However, an audible voiceless sound may be made without this turbulent airflow: Pike (1943) makes a distinction between "local friction" (as in [s] or [z]) and "cavity friction" (as in voiceless vowels like [ḁ] and [ɔ̥]).[30] More recent research distinguishes between "turbulent" and "laminar" airflow in the vocal tract.[31] It is not clear if it is possible to describe voiceless approximants categorically as having laminar airflow (or cavity friction in Pike's terms) as a way of distinguishing them from fricatives. Ball & Rahilly (1999) write that "the airflow for voiced approximants remains laminar (smooth), and does not become turbulent. Voiceless approximants are rare in the languages of the world, but when they do occur the airflow is usually somewhat turbulent."[32] Audible voiceless sounds may also be produced by means of turbulent airflow at the glottis, as in [h]; in such a case, it is possible to articulate an audible voiceless sound without the production of local friction at a supraglottal constriction. Catford (1977) describes such sounds, but classes them as sonorants.[33]
Distinctiveness
Voiceless approximants are rarely if ever distinguished phonemically from voiceless fricatives in the sound system of a language. Clark & Yallop (1995) discuss the issue and conclude "In practice, it is difficult to distinguish between a voiceless approximant and a voiceless fricative at the same place of articulation ... there is no evidence that any language in the world makes such a distinction crucial."[34]
Disagreement over use of the term
Voiceless approximants are treated as a phonetic category by (among others) Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), Catford (1977), and Bickford & Floyd (2006). However, the term voiceless approximant is seen by some phoneticians as controversial. It has been pointed out that if approximant is defined as a speech sound that involves the articulators approaching each other but not narrowly enough to create turbulent airflow, then it is difficult to see how a voiceless approximant could be audible.[35] As John C. Wells puts it in his blog, "voiceless approximants are by definition inaudible ... If there's no friction and no voicing, there's nothing to hear."[36] A similar point is made in relation to frictionless continuants by O'Connor (1973): "There are no voiceless frictionless continuants because this would imply silence; the voiceless counterpart of the frictionless continuant is the voiceless fricative."[37] Ohala & Solé (2010) argue that the increased airflow arising from voicelessness alone makes a voiceless continuant a fricative, even if lacking a greater constriction in the oral cavity than a voiced approximant.[38]
Occurrence in Western American English
Voiceless lateral approximants can occur after voiceless stops as allophone of its voiced counterpart, especially after the voiceless velar plosive /k/, in Western American English.[41]
Nasalized approximants
Examples are:
- nasal palatal approximant [j̃]
- nasal labialized velar approximant[w̃]
- voiceless nasal glottal approximant [h̃]
In Portuguese, the nasal glides [j̃] and [w̃] historically became /ɲ/ and /m/ in some words. In Edo, the nasalized allophones of the approximants /j/ and /w/ are nasal occlusives, [ɲ] and [ŋʷ].
What are transcribed as nasal approximants may include non-syllabic elements of nasal vowels or diphthongs.
See also
- Liquid consonant
- List of phonetics topics
- Semivowel
Notes
- ^ Ladefoged (1975:277)
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004:201), citing Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996)
- ^ a b Martínez-Celdrán (2004), p. 201.
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004:201), pointing to Ladefoged (1964:25)
- ^ Hall (2007), p. 316.
- ^ Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996:323), citing Maddieson & Emmorey (1985)
- ^ Rubach (2002:680), citing Kawasaki (1982)
- ^ Montreuil (2004:104)
- ^ Saporta (1956:288)
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004:202)
- ^ Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996:323)
- ^ Hallé et al. (1999:283) citing Delattre & Freeman (1968), Zawadzki & Kuehn (1980), and Boyce & Espy-Wilson (1997)
- ^ Both cited in Hamann (2003:25–26)
- ^ John Esling (2010) "Phonetic Notation", in Hardcastle, Laver & Gibbon (eds) The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, 2nd ed., p. 699.
- ^ Rubach (2002:672)
- ^ Rubach (2002:675–676)
- ^ Rubach (2002:677–678)
- ^ a b There is dialectal and allophonic variation in the realization of /ʋ/. For speakers who realize it as [ʋ], Rubach (2002:683) postulates an additional rule that changes any occurrence of [w] from glide insertion into [ʋ].
- ^ Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996:323–324)
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas & Carrera-Sabaté (2003:256–257)
- ^ "Ahn & Iverson (2006)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2010-12-31.
- ^ Listen to a recording Archived February 26, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Martin Ball & Joan Rahilly (2011) The symbolization of central approximants in the IPA. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 41 (2), p. 231–237.
- ISBN 978-0-8058-5363-6.
- ^ Boersma (1997:12)
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004:204)
- ^ Martínez-Celdrán, E. (2004) "Problems in the classification of approximants". Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34, 201–10.
- ^ a b There have been repeated requests that the IPA created dedicated symbols for [β̞] and [ð̞] – typically modifications of the base letters such as turned ⟨β⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ or reversed ⟨β⟩ and ⟨ð⟩ – but so far the IPA has deemed that there is insufficient need for them.
- ^ Ashby & Maidment (2005), pp. 56–7.
- ^ Pike (1943), pp. 71, 138–9.
- ^ Shadle (2000), pp. 37–8.
- ^ Ball & Rahilly (1999), pp. 50–1.
- ^ Catford (1977), pp. 122–3.
- ^ Clark & Yallop (1995), p. 48.
- ^ Akamatsu (1992), p. 30.
- ^ Wells, J. C. (7 April 2009). "[h]: Fricative or approximant?". John Wells' Blog. Retrieved 23 December 2020.
- ^ O'Connor (1973), p. 61.
- ^ Ohala & Solé (2010), p. 43.
- ^ Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), pp. 198–9.
- ^ Asu, Nolan & Schötz (2015), p. 5.
- ^ Grønnum (2005), p. 154.
References
- Akamatsu, Tsutomu (1992), "A critique of the IPA Chart" (PDF), Contextos, X (19–20): 7–42, archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09, retrieved 21 December 2020
- Asu, Eva Liina; Nolan, Francis; Schötz, Susanne (2015), "A comparative study of Estonian Swedish voiceless laterals: Are voiceless approximants fricatives?" (PDF), Proceedings: 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, University of Glasgow, ISBN 978-0-85261-941-4, archived(PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09
- Ashby, Michael; Maidment, John (2005), Introducing Phonetic Science, Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-00496-9
- Ball, Martin; Rahilly, Joan (1999), Phonetics: the Science of Speech, Arnold, ISBN 0-340-70010-6
- Bickford, Anita; Floyd, Rick (2006), Articulatory Phonetics (4th ed.), S.I.L. International, ISBN 1-55671-165-4
- Boersma, Paul (1997), "Sound change in functional phonology", Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interactions Between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives, The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics
- Boyce, S.; Espy-Wilson, C. (1997), "Coarticulatory stability in American English /r/", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101 (6): 3741–3753, PMID 9193061
- Catford, J. C. (1988), A Practical Introduction to Phonetics, Oxford University Press
- Catford, J. C. (1977), Fundamental Problems in Phonetics, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-85224-279-4
- Clark, John; Yallop, Colin (1995), An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (2nd ed.), Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-19452-5
- Delattre, P.; Freeman, D. C. (1968), "A dialect study of American R's by x-ray motion picture", Linguistics, 44: 29–68
- ISBN 87-500-3865-6
- Hall, T. A. (2007), "Segmental features", in de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–334, ISBN 978-0-521-84879-4
- Hallé, Pierre A.; Best, Catherine T.; Levitt, Andrea; Andrea (1999), "Phonetic vs. phonological influences on French listeners' perception of American English approximants", Journal of Phonetics, 27 (3): 281–306,
- Hamann, Silke (2003), The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes, Utrecht: LOT, ]
- Kawasaki, Haruko (1982), An acoustical basis for universal constraints on sound sequences (doctoral dissertation), University of California, Berkeley
- Ladefoged, Peter (1964), A Phonetic Study of West African Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Ladefoged, Peter (1975), A Course in Phonetics, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
- ISBN 0-631-19815-6.
- Maddieson, Ian; S2CID 46872676
- Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio (2004), "Problems in the classification of approximants", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34 (2): 201–210, S2CID 144568679
- Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio; Fernández-Planas, Ana Ma.; Carrera-Sabaté, Josefina (2003), "Castilian Spanish", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33 (2): 255–259,
- Montreuil, Jean-Pierre (2004), "From velar codas to high nuclei: phonetic and structural change in OT", Probus, 16: 91–111,
- O'Connor, J. D. (1973), Phonetics, Penguin
- ISBN 978-3-11-022657-7, archived from the original(PDF) on 2021-06-03, retrieved 2021-06-03
- Pike, Kenneth(1943), Phonetics, University of Michigan Press
- Rubach, Jerzy (2002), "Against subsegmental glides", Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (4): 672–687, S2CID 57566358
- Saporta, Sol (1956), "A Note on Spanish Semivowels", Language, 32 (2): 287–290, JSTOR 411006
- Shadle, Christine (2000), "The Aerodynamics of Speech", in Hardcastle, W. J.; Laver, J. (eds.), Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-18848-7
- Trask, Robert L. (1996), A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology, London: Routledge
- Zawadzki, P. A.; Kuehn, D. P. (1980), "A cineradiographic study of static and dynamic aspects of American English /r/", Phonetica, 37 (4): 253–266, S2CID 46760239