User:Grover cleveland/Semivowel

In phonetics and phonology, a semivowel is a sound that is phonetically equivalent to a vowel sound but functions as the syllable boundary rather than nucleus.^[1]

Classification[edit]

Semivowels form a subclass of approximants.^[2]^[3] Although "semivowel" and "approximant" are sometimes treated as synonmys,^[4] most authors agree that not all approximants are semivowels, although the exact details may vary from author to author. For example, Ladefoged and Maddieson consider that the labiodental approximant is not a semivowel,^[5], while Martínez-Celdrán proposes that it should be considered a semivowel.^[6]

Types of semivowel[edit]

Martínez-Celdrán lists four semivowels according to what he calls "the established classification": they correspond to the four close cardinal vowel sounds:^[7]

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^[5]^[6] consider the rhotic approximants [ɹ],[ɻ] to be semivowels corresponding to R-colored vowels such as [ɚ]. As mentioned above, the labiodental approximant [ʋ] is considered a semivowel in some treatments, but not others.

In some languages, such as Nepali, there exist semivowels correponding to mid-vowels. For example, colloquial Nepali has [e̯], which contrasts with the closer [j].^[5]

Contrast with vowels[edit]

Semivowels, by definition, contrast with vowels by being non-syllabic. In addition, they usually contrast at the phonetic level by being shorter than vowels.^[2]. In some languages, (Amharic, Yoruba, and Zuni), studies have shown that semivowels are produced with a narrower constriction in the vocal tract than their corresponding vowels.^[5] Nevertheless, in some cases semivowels may be effectively interchangeable with vowels. For example, the English word "fly" can be considered either as consisting phonetically of an open syllable ending in a diphthong [flaɪ], or as a closed syllable ending in a semivowel [flaj].^[8]

Contrast with fricatives/spirant approximants[edit]

According to the standard definitions, semivowels (such as [j]) contrast with fricatives (such as {IPA|[ʝ]}}) in that fricatives produce turbulence, while 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.^[9] Though the spirant approximant is more constricted (having a lower F2 amplitude), longer, and unspecified for rounding (e.g. viuda [ˈbjuða] 'widow' vs ayuda [aˈʝʷuða] 'help'),^[10] 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 [ẽ̞ɲˈɟʝe̞saɾ] ('to plaster') aniego [ãnje̞ɣo̞] ('flood')^[11] and, although there is dialectal and ideolectal variation, speakers may also exhibit other near-minimal pairs like abyecto ('abject') vs abierto ('opened').^[12] One potential minimal pair (depending on dialect) is ya visto [(ɟ)ʝaˈβisto̞] ('I already dress') vs y ha visto [jaˈβisto̞] ('and he has seen').^[13] Again, this is not present in all dialects. Other dialects differ in either merging the two or in enhancing the contrast by moving the former to another place of articulation (e.g. [ʒ]).

Contrast between close and mid semi-vowels[edit]

Samoan also contrasts close semivowels with mid ones:^{[citation needed]}

Samoan ’ai [ʔai̯] ('probably')
Samoan ’ae [ʔae̯] ('but')
Samoan ’auro [ʔau̯ɾo] ('gold')
Samoan ao [ao̯] ('a cloud')

Romanian contrasts the diphthong /e̯a/ with /ja/, a perceptually similar approximant-vowel sequence. The diphthong is analyzed as a single segment while 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:^[14]

/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 (i.e. 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 due to a lower lexical load for /wa/ (which is limited largely to loanwords from French) and a difficulty in maintaining contrasts between two back rounded glides in comparison to front ones.^[15]

Transcription[edit]

Semivowels may be transcribed in IPA either using dedicated symbols (j, w, etc.) or by adding the non-syllabic diacritic to a vowel sound (e̯, o̯, etc.)

References[edit]

^ Ladefoged and Maddieson, p. 322
^ ^a ^b Crystal, David (2003). A dictionary of linguistics & phonetics (fifth ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 413. ISBN 0631226648.
^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004), p. 9
^ Studienbücher, Narr; Meyer, Paul Georg (2005). Synchronic English Linguistics: An Introduction (third ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. p. 101. ISBN 3823361910.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Ladefoged and Maddieson, p. 323
^ ^a ^b Martínez-Celdrán (2004), p. 8
^ Martínez-Celdrán, p. 9
^ Cohen, Antonie (1971). The phonemes of English: a phonemic study of the vowels and consonants of standard English (third ed.). Springer. p. 51. ISBN 9024706394.
^ Martínez-Celdrán, p. 6
^ Martínez-Celdrán (2004:208)
^ Trager (1942:222)
^ Saporta (1956:288)
^ Bowen & Stockwell (1955:236)
^ Chitoran (2002:212-214)
^ Chitoran (2002:221)

Bibliography[edit]

Bowen, J. Donald; Stockwell, Robert P. (1955), "The Phonemic Interpretation of Semivowels in Spanish", Language, 31 (2), Linguistic Society of America: 236–240, doi:10.2307/411039
Chitoran, Ioana (2002), "A perception-production study of Romanian diphthongs and glide-vowel sequences", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32 (2): 203–222, doi:10.1017/S0025100302001044
Ladefoged, Peter; Maddieson, Ian (1996). The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-19815-6.
Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio (2004), "Problems in the Classification of Approximants", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34 (2): 201–210, doi:10.1017/S0025100304001732
Saporta, Sol (1956), "A Note on Spanish Semivowels", Language, 32 (2), Linguistic Society of America: 287–290, doi:10.2307/411006
Trager, George (1942), "The Phonemic Treatment of Semivowels", Language, 18 (3), Linguistic Society of America: 220–223, doi:10.2307/409556