Re: [tied] Further question on Polish

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Further question on Polish


> On 2006-05-30 11:59, Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:
>> Have you checked my page on Polish fricatives?
>>
>> http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/gram/uni/sibilants.html
>
> Quote:
>
>> The main
>> difference between /s/ and /s^/ is in the width of their openings –
>> the /s/ has the narrow opening while the /s^/ has the wide one. There
>> are also secondary differences: /s/ is mainly dental while /s^/ is
>> mainly alveolar, /s/ is dorsal while /s^/ is more coronal (but not
>> retroflex). Here we can say about a spoon-like shape of the tongue.
>> But they are recognized by Polish speakers by their acoustic features
>> (hissing – rustling) which depend on the width of their openings.
>
> I haven't got Puppel et al. (1977) in front of me. Is the corresponding
> Polish passage on your page a verbatim citation?

No, it is not. The "final note" is a synthesis from many sources, not a
citation from Puppel (Hence apparently it isn't seen clearly, I will detach
both parts of the chart). In fact, Puppel does not use the terms "apical",
"coronal" and "dorsal" at all.

> If so, it contains a
> surprising amount of terminological confusion, making the description
> almost incomoprehensible. Both /s/ and /s^/ are CORONAL (just that, not
> "more" or "less" coronal, since both are articulated with the front part
> of the tongue), and /s/ most certainly isn't DORSAL (which would
> properly mean "pronounced with the back of the tongue as the active
> articulator"). The reconstructed intended meaning is as follows: Pol.
> /s/ is more LAMINAL while Pol. /s^/ is more APICAL, though not SUBAPICAL
> ("retroflex" sensu stricto).
>
> Piotr

There is NOT ONE understanding of these terms in the literature (however I
thought that specialists know it perfectly...), and this is the source of
the problems now. Some authors seem to understand "coronal" as "articulated
with the apical and lateral parts of the tongue, or with the tongue blade"
(probably "laminal" + "apical" in the other sense that you use), and
"dorsal" as "articulated with the upper surface of the tongue". The term
"coronal", as used in this sense, and applied to <sz>, means the same as
"the narrowing is made by (...) the blade of the tongue". The term "dorsal",
as used in this (special) sense, points at the narrow character of the
opening. Of course, all of these CAN be confusing when compared with the
common sense which can be found in the "western" literature, and I am
considering changing the fragment of the text on my website.

My text, as it can be seen now, is in full concordance with one of the most
basic source on the Polish phonetics, "Fonetyka polska" by M. Dl/uska, PWN
Warszawa-Kraków 1981:

[s], [z] - ze,bowe dorsalne z wa,ska, szczelina, (dental dorsal with narrow
opening)

("artykulacja jest dorsalna, tj. górna, powierzchnia, je,zyka
przywieraja,ca, pl/asko", p. 86)
[the articulation is dorsal, i.e. with the upper surface of the tongue
clinging flatwise]

and

<sz, z./rz> - dzia,sl/owe koronalne z szeroka, szczelina, (alveolar coronal
with wide opening)

("[charakterystyczna, szczeline,] wytwarza (...) sam przedni brzeg je,zyka
sztorcem wygie,ty ku górze (artykulacja koronalna)", p. 86)
[the characteristic narrowing is made with the front ridge of the tongue
bent upright (coronal articulation)]

Unfortunately, I am not able to be responsible for all such differences in
understanding various terms. But I give the source, and I thought it is
easily to find. The book of Dl/uska is cited on my pages with bibliographic
data (as 3), and the main table (in the upper part of the page) contains the
term "dorsal" as used by Dl/uska towards <s, z> (and "coronal" towards <sz,
z.>).

Dl/uska is not the only one who reads the two terms in such a way. Now I
cannot show all the sources. However, German [s] and [z] are also termed
DORSAL (which seems to cause most your controverse) in "Großes Wörterbuch
der deutschen Aussprache", VEB Bibliograpisches Institut Leipzig, 1982. The
Polish and German [s] and [z] are commonly thought to be rather similar
(except German [s] can be apical while Polish one not - but it is not the
case). "Fonetyka kontrastywna je,zyka niemieckiego" by N. Morciniec, S.
Pre,dota, PWN Warszawa 1984, describes Polish (sic!) [s] as articulated with
praedorsum ("organem artykul/uja,cym jest (...) przednia cze,s'c' grzbietu
je,zyka (praedorsum)", p. 40), and a similar description is applied towards
the German [s] (even if the authors do not use the term "dorsal" or
"praedorsal" literally). To shatter possible controversy on "predorsal": the
most popular phonetic and grammar book for university students in Poland (by
J. Strutyn'ski) states that there are 3 kinds of dorsal sounds: predorsal,
mediodorsal, and postdorsal.

In addition to what I have already collected, it may also be interesting
that Strutyn'ski terms the <s> series "apical-dental", even if all other
sources emphasize that <s> is not apical in Polish. At the same time <sz> is
termed "predorsal-alveolar", and <s'> - "mediopalatal". I must add this to
my chart.

Grzegorz Jagodzin'ski

http://www.grzegorj.prv.pl/

http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/
http://grzegorj.webpark.pl/
http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/
http://grzegorj.freehost.pl/





Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com