Linguist Forum
Specializations => Phonetics and Phonology => Topic started by: freknu on April 12, 2014, 07:30:51 AM
-
Is there any common usage of accepted convention of transcribing voiceless laryngealisation?
e.g. [lˠ] → [l̥ˠ] or [l̥ˣ]
Or would [ɫ̥ ɫ] be the preferred notation?
-
I don't think that laryngealization is necessarily voiced. So if /t/ is laryngealized it will be unvoiced, while /d/ would be voiced. So just follow from that. I would use whatever symbol is most appropriate for the main articulation and include the diacritic for secondary articulation as normal.
(Of course you might want to somehow indicate a distinction between laryngealization then devoicing versus devoicing then laryngealization, but I don't know that it's practical in IPA to do so or that it really would be intended that way anyway-- it represents pronuncations, that derivations.)
Edit: nevermind; see below.
-
I'm not quite clear on what you're describing as laryngealization. As I've always used the term, "laryngealization" describes the addition of glottal fry ("creaky voice"), which is itself a kind of non-modal voicing. Likewise, it can't really be unvoiced.
Are you talking about a secondary velar articulation perhaps?
-
Oh. I read [ˠ] above and substituted "velarization" in my head. I'm not sure on this one.
-
Hmm, now I'm getting confused as well :/
I am talking about what most English speakers would call a "dark l", according to wikipedia, a voiced velarised alveo... oh, now I get it.
I'm terribly sorry, the title of the topic was supposed to be "velarised", and the question is about voiceless "velarisation". Gee, do I feel silly!
:-[
So, for lambdic consonants there are 3-4 qualities: flap [ɽ̊ ɽ], approximant [l̥ l], velarised approximant [ɫ̥ ɫ](?), and possibly palatalised approximant [ʎ̥ ʎ](?).
Lambdic flap is the normal realisation.
Lambdic velarised approximant occurs next to [n t d s]
Lambdic palatalised approximant occurs following [i y ɛ œ]
Lambic plain approximant occurs initially and geminate
Thus you could analyse it as a phonemic /ɽ/ with an allophonic [l], with further secondary articulation (or allophones): velarisation [ɫ~lˠ] and palatalisation [ʎ~lʲ].
Should I use the discrete symbols [ɫ ʎ] or modifiers [lˠ lʲ]? I am especially curious because the lambdic can be voiceless as well as voiced. So would that mean that [l̥ˠ] would still be correct? The modifier doesn't indicate any voicing, only secondary articulation?
YES, I am once again delving quite a bit deeper than actually necessary, but that's going to happen now and again ;)
-
I think then that my original reply applies now :)
-
Velarization describes a process of adding a secondary closure during articulation. The closure itself does not characterize voice, so you can use the diacritic with both voiced and voiceless consonants.
As for using a diacritic versus an independent graph, the convention is to use the graph if the form is the primary expression of a phoneme but the diacritic if you are trying to indicate the result of a secondary phonotactic process.