Semivowel
In
Classification
Semivowels form a subclass of
In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the diacritic attached to non-syllabic vowel letters is an inverted breve placed below the symbol representing the vowel: U+032F ̯ COMBINING INVERTED BREVE BELOW. When there is no room for the tack under a symbol, it may be written above, using U+0311 ̑ COMBINING INVERTED BREVE. Before 1989, non-syllabicity was represented by U+0306 ̆ COMBINING BREVE, which now stands for extra-shortness.
Additionally, there are dedicated symbols for four semivowels that correspond to the four close
Semivowel (non-syllabic) | Vowel (syllabic) |
---|---|
[j] (palatal approximant) | [i] (close front unrounded vowel) |
[ɥ] (labio-palatal approximant) | [y] (close front rounded vowel) |
[ɰ] (velar approximant) | [ɯ] (close back unrounded vowel) |
[w] (labiovelar approximant) | [u] (close back rounded vowel) |
In addition, some authors
Contrast with vowels
Semivowels, by definition, contrast with vowels by being non-syllabic. In addition, they are usually shorter than vowels.
It is unusual for a language to contrast a semivowel and a diphthong containing an equivalent vowel,[citation needed] but Romanian contrasts the diphthong /e̯a/ with /ja/, a perceptually similar approximant-vowel sequence. The diphthong is analyzed as a single segment, and the approximant-vowel sequence is analyzed as two separate segments.
In addition to phonological justifications for the distinction (such as the diphthong alternating with /e/ in singular-plural pairs), there are phonetic differences between the pair:[9]
- /ja/ has a greater duration than /e̯a/
- The transition between the two elements is longer and faster for /ja/ than /e̯a/ with the former having a higher F2 onset (greater constriction of the articulators).
Although a phonological parallel exists between /o̯a/ and /wa/, the production and perception of phonetic contrasts between the two is much weaker, likely because of lower lexical load for /wa/, which is limited largely to loanwords from French, and speakers' difficulty in maintaining contrasts between two back rounded semivowels in comparison to front ones.[10]
Contrast with fricatives/spirant approximants
According to the standard definitions, semivowels (such as [j]) contrast with fricatives (such as [ʝ]) in that fricatives produce turbulence, but semivowels do not. In discussing Spanish, Martínez Celdrán suggests setting up a third category of "spirant approximant", contrasting both with semivowel approximants and with fricatives.[11] Though the spirant approximant is more constricted (having a lower F2 amplitude), longer, and unspecified for rounding (viuda [ˈbjuða] 'widow' vs. ayuda [aˈʝʷuða] 'help'),[12] the distributional overlap is limited. The spirant approximant can only appear in the syllable onset (including word-initially, where the semivowel never appears). The two overlap in distribution after /l/ and /n/: enyesar [ẽɲɟʝeˈsaɾ] ('to plaster') aniego [ãˈnjeɣo] ('flood')[13] and although there is dialectal and idiolectal variation, speakers may also exhibit other near-minimal pairs like abyecto ('abject') vs. abierto ('opened').[14] One potential minimal pair (depending on dialect) is ya visto [(ɟ)ʝaˈβisto] ('already seen') vs. y ha visto [jaˈβisto] ('and he has seen').[15] Again, it is not present in all dialects. Other dialects differ in either merging the two or enhancing the contrast by moving the former to another place of articulation ([ʒ]), like in Rioplatense Spanish.
See also
- Diphthong
- Hiatus (linguistics)
- List of phonetics topics
- Mater lectionis
- Syllabic consonant
- Voiced labio-velar approximant
References
- ^ Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), p. 322.
- ^ Crystal (2008), p. 211.
- ^ a b Crystal (2008), pp. 431–2.
- ^ a b Martínez Celdrán (2004), p. 9.
- ^ Meyer (2005), p. 101.
- ^ a b c Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), p. 323.
- ^ Martínez Celdrán (2004), p. 8.
- ^ Cohen (1971), p. 51.
- ^ Chitoran (2002), pp. 212–214.
- ^ Chitoran (2002), p. 221.
- ^ Martínez Celdrán (2004), p. 6.
- ^ Martínez Celdrán (2004), p. 208.
- ^ Trager (1942), p. 222.
- ^ Saporta (1956), p. 288.
- ^ Bowen & Stockwell (1955), p. 236.
Sources
- Bowen, J. Donald; Stockwell, Robert P. (1955), "The Phonemic Interpretation of Semivowels in Spanish", Language, 31 (2): 236–240, JSTOR 411039
- Chitoran, Ioana (2002), "A perception-production study of Romanian diphthongs and glide-vowel sequences" (PDF), Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32 (2): 203–222, S2CID 10104718
- Crystal, David (2008), A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.), Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-5297-6
- ISBN 978-90-247-0639-6
- ISBN 0-631-19815-6.
- Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio (2004), "Problems in the Classification of Approximants" (PDF), Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34 (2): 201–210, S2CID 144568679, archived from the original(PDF) on 2010-07-11, retrieved 2015-02-14
- Meyer, Paul Georg (2005), Synchronic English Linguistics: An Introduction (third ed.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8233-6191-6
- Saporta, Sol (1956), "A Note on Spanish Semivowels", Language, 32 (2): 287–290, JSTOR 411006
- Trager, George (1942), "The Phonemic Treatment of Semivowels", Language, 18 (3): 220–223, JSTOR 409556
Further reading
- Ohala, John; Lorentz, James, "The story of [w]: An exercise in the phonetic explanation for sound patterns", in Whistler, Kenneth; Chiarelloet, Chris; van Vahn, Robert Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 577–599