In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German by Michael Jessen
  • Gisela Collischonn
Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. By Michael Jessen. (Studies in functional and structural linguistics 44.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. Pp. xx, 394.

A revised version of the author’s 1996 Cornell University PhD dissertation, this book argues for [tense] as the feature responsible for the contrast between tense and lax obstruents in German and in other Germanic languages (Dutch excepted). This binary feature has such diverse phonetic correlates as aspiration duration (basic correlate), stop closure, fricative, and preceding vowel duration (substitute correlates) which, however, can be assigned to a common denominator: the duration of the consonant as a whole.

Ch. 1 presents the theoretical grounding of the book. A functional perspective based on work by Roman Jakobson and his collaborators is explicitly adopted. Ch. 2 provides a review of the phonetic literature on the tense/lax opposition in German, and Chs. 3–4 present experiments which investigate the role of the acoustic correlates of the tense/lax opposition across contexts in that language.

In Ch. 5 different feature proposals for the distinction between tense and lax stops are discussed, like [voice] and [spread (glottis)]. Jessen rejects [voice] for German stops based on the preceding experiments which show that in several contexts both tense and lax stops are realized without voicing. As for [spread], though aspiration is found in the majority of contexts, J contends that it is not a reliable correlate throughout. The main advantage of [tense] is its contextual stability, that is, the same general phonetic denominator responds for the tense/lax opposition across all contexts.

While [voice] is considered part of the crosslinguistic feature inventory, though not implemented in the German stop system, J argues that [spread] is no longer necessary once one accepts [tense]. Since duration is the common denominator for the correlates of [tense], it is argued that gemination is also accounted for by [tense]. Crosslinguistic evidence is presented supporting the prediction that aspiration and gemination, being correlates of the same feature, cannot implement different oppositions within the same language.

In Ch. 6 it is argued that, with respect to the fricatives, [voice] and [tense] form a syncretism, i.e., the two features act in combination. This is supported with evidence from German phonotactics, child language, and aphasia, showing that fricatives are marked relative to stops.

Ch. 7 presents an experiment using the technique of transillumination, whereby movements of the glottis are registered by a phototransistor, and it is argued [End Page 375] that glottal opening must be coordinated to supralaryngeal activity to effect aspiration. Ch. 8 draws a conclusion, discusses controversial aspects of the proposal, and makes suggestions for future research. Although J professes a functionalist perspective, formalist interpretations are seriously considered. Consequences of the reintroduction of [tense] for feature geometric models, for the nonlinear representation of gemination, and for the rule vs. representation issue are addressed.

An appendix contains statistical results of the experiments. A comprehensive bibliography and a subject and a name index follow.

J accomplishes his task successfully, combining an exhaustive phonetic analysis with in-depth phonological theorizing.

Gisela Collischonn
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
...

pdf

Share