VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

Sylvia Moosmüller
previous segment (adjustment of constriction degree vs. no adjustment of constriction
degree).
5.3.1. The vowel /i/
/s/ shows the least variability among the alveolar consonants (Hoole et al. 1990), i.e. it
is quite resistant to coarticulation. The vowel /i/ is attributed high coarticulatory
resistance as well (Recasens 1999, Fowler & Brancazio 2000) 101 . Recasens (1999)
shows that the palatal contact is higher in the vicinity of /i/ as compared to /a/ and /u/,
i.e. consonants are palatalised in the vicinity of a palatal vowel. Palatalization is a
process common in many languages (see e.g. Fant 1970 for Russian), and Wood (1996)
gives a detailed description of the articulatory movements involved in the palatalization
of alveolar consonants in Bulgarian:
"The palatal tongue body gesture of a front vowel in Bulgarian is thus phased in two
different ways relative to the occlusion of an adjacent alveolar stop. To palatalize the closure
flank the palatal posture of the assimilating vowel is held until the end of the pre-stop vocoid
segment before being withdrawn. To palatalize the release flank, the palatal approach of the
post-stop vowel is activated already during the preceding vocoid segment and continues
during the alveolar occlusion in order to be in place at the release. The two different phasings
indicate preplanning of this assimilation." (Wood 1996: 158)
However, palatalization, a natural phonological process, can also be suppressed 102 :
Wood (1975a, 1991c) could show that in Swedish palatalization of alveolar consonants
is consistently avoided by implementing a pharyngeal movement:
"This pharyngeal maneuver in apical [s] is clearly not a coarticulatory or assimilatory anticipation
of a pharyngeal vowel since it occurs in every instance with nonpharyngeal vowels
(...), and not when adjacent to a pharyngeal vowel (...)." ('Wood 1991c: 288)
Wood (1996) concludes on his Swedish subjects:
"Their alveolar consonants included a pharyngeal tongue body gesture that was antagonistic
to the palatal tongue body gesture of an adjacent front vowel, and the two gestures were
implemented sequentially rather than coproduced simultaneously." (Wood 1996: 159)
101
The notion of coarticulatory resistance, has, however, to be questioned (see Moosmüller
2007b).
102
See Stampe (1979), Donegan & Stampe (1979) for the suppression of natural phonological
processes.
150