Glen,
It all depends on whether we're discussing phonetics or phonology. There is a _distinctive feature_ of English obstruents for which the _abstract_ label [voice] is traditionally used, not without reason. [+ voice] consonants are pronounced with such a configuration of the glottis that could readily produce modal voice if the airflow rate were sufficient. In other words, speakers seem to _prepare_ their vocal folds for vibrating if they actually fail to carry their intention through.
Phoneticians point out that actual voicing is often absent (even completely absent) in the production of those sounds in English, and yet there are enough acoustic cues to enable the hearer to perceive the intended contrast (except when a full merger does take place, e.g. intervocalically in American accents). This is because other features (aspiration, affrication, interaction with adjacent sounds) are also perceptually significant. Such redundancy is normal in phonetics; it guarantees that the phonological encoding (in terms of distinctive features) is less vulnerable to accidental disturbance. Phoneticians may prefer to describe the typical allophones of /t/ and /d/ as respectively "fortis" and "lenis", but if we attempt to use these as distinctive features, we may also run into problems, since /t/ has lenis allophones as well (not to mention its glottalisation in some accents and other complications).
Like everybody else, I'm quite happy with [voice] as a conventional distinctive feature, provided that one keeps in mind and is ready to admit that (a) distinctive features are abstract and refer to "ideal" realisations, which may rarely if ever occur in actual speech, (b) the phonetic implementation of [voice] varies from accent to accent and from language to language, and phonological [voice] is not to be identified with modal voice as defined in terms of articulatory phonetics.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] More nonsense: Is English /d/ truely voiced?
> Thanks, Piotr, but aggravatingly for me, I'm not denying any of
> this! I accept what you're saying and I accept that there are such
> variants in English. I accept the other variants that have been
> shown on this List by other members as well.
>
> All I'm trying to say is that if you're going to refer to English
> /d/ as a "voiced stop" (and there is ample literature calling
> it such) then why would it be voiceless on a whole?? Are List
> members trying to convince me that the "English voiced stop"
> is a misnomer?? What on earth are people trying to convince me?
>
> From what I see, taking ALL the cases of a surface /d/ in ALL
> positions, in ALL dialects of English, the majority of cases
> should show that /d/ is voiced, whether "fully" or "partially"
> (whatever those vague terms mean) -- ie: [d], [td-] or [-dt],
> all technically voiced because voice occurs during closure.
>
> I object to saying that English /d/ is voiceless (ie: [t]).
> That's not common English. Again, I'm talking about English in
> GENERAL. Not about some specific dialect but about ALL dialects
> at once. Not about specific positions like initial either, but
> ALL positions in general. The OVERALL picture of /d/ in English
> is a voiced phoneme.