Talk:Japanese phonology

Devoicing: kishitsu?

I'm a native Japanese speaker and I've never pronounced 気質 kishitsu with the first i devoiced like in the example [kʲi̥ɕitsɯᵝ]. It's either [kʲiɕi̥tsɯᵝ] or [kʲi̥ɕi̥tsɯᵝ]. Is the opposite (as listed in the article) true for the majority of Japanese speakers, or is my pronunciation the more standard one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.236.124 (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think [kʲi̥ɕitsɯ] is more common, and you may be mistaking the palatalization in the first mora for voicing. Remember devoiced doesn't necessarily mean silent, it just means no vibration of the vocal cords. Since [k] is a stop and [ɕ] is a fricative, the transition between them (i.e. devoiced [i]) may sound just like [ç], which may trick one into thinking an actual vocoid is produced.

[kʲiɕi̥tsɯ], on the other hand, would render it indistinguishable from 既出 kishutsu. Although [kʲiɕɯ̥tsɯ] may still differ from [kʲiɕi̥tsɯ] in the lip shape, and, being a less common word, it may more often be enunciated as [kʲi̥ɕɯtsɯ]⁓[kʲiɕɯtsɯ], paralleling [kʲi̥ɕitsɯ], if you actually pronounce kishitsu as [kʲiɕi̥tsɯ], it should sound intermediate between kishitsu and kishutsu. Nardog (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Archiphoneme" status of /N/ and /Q/

As far as I know, /N/ and /Q/ are not archiphonemes. I'm pretty sure that whoever said they are doesn't understand what an archiphoneme is, this has confused like 5 people I know just because of this one page. To my knowledge, an archiphoneme involves the neutralization of phonemes - it's only relevant in cases when separate phonemes don't contrast in a specific position. "This can be seen as an archiphoneme in that it has no underlying place or manner of articulation, and instead manifests as several phonetic realizations depending on context" sounds incredibly wrong to me, and I think the editor got confused by the "limp, lint, link" example on the archiphoneme page, but that's completely different from what occurs with the moraic nasal. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2048:379A:7CE7:F522 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Since Japanese already has /m/ and /n/ (and /ŋ/ according to some analyses) in syllable-initial positions, the syllable-final (moraic) nasal is exactly a case "when separate phonemes don't contrast in a specific position" much like the "limp, lint, link" example in English. The gemination is also such a case in that, again because of the limited distribution of phonemes in syllable-final positions, out of e.g. /p, t, k/, only /t/ can occur in e.g. /ka_ta/ (*/kapta/, */kakta/).

I don't necessarily question the truth of what you say given it is indeed the case that literature doesn't usually refer to the "special moras" as archiphonemes (just that the notation using capital letters is "archiphonemic representation", e.g. Kubozono 2015:34). I'm just wondering why it's so and how the article can be improved accrodingly. Nardog (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the notation is the same, and I imagine that had also been a source of confusion, but it is indeed the case that /N/ is analyzed as a single phoneme, not an example of neutralization. I'm not an expert on any of this, just applying what I know from reading, but I can offer my understanding of the difference between the English example and what occurs in Japanese. In English, /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ regularly can and do occupy the coda alone, while only certain corresponding phonetic realizations can occur before certain consonants, something analyzed as a neutralization of phonemes. There's only one nasal phoneme available to fill the coda in Japanese, though, which doesn't even behave in a way that can be easily compared with one of /m/ or /n/. In a vacuum, the /N/ of /saN/, for instance, does not behave phonetically in a way which associates it with either of the two nasal phonemes that can appear in the onset. Just because /N/ surfaces as [m] or [n] in certain contexts does not mean that a distinction is being neutralized, because no distinction was available there in the first place. You can apply the same to /Q/ - there's no distinction to neutralize here either. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2517:CEC4:FBD3:9C18 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit circular, don't you think? /Phonemes/ are deduced from [phones], not the other way around. Just because /N/ surfaces as [m] or [n] in certain contexts does not mean that a distinction is being neutralized, because no distinction was available there in the first place. Well, there being no distinction available in certain contexts sure does sound like a case of neutralization. Otherwise, why is /N/ analyzed as a single phoneme in the first place then? In fact, linguists used to analyze the moraic nasal as allophones of /n/, and some still do (e.g. Kubozono). It's not that there is no neutralization because only /N, Q/ can occur in a coda, but that scholars felt necessity to posit /N, Q/ as separate phonemes precisely because there is neutralization. Anyway, here's an example of referring to /Q/ as an "archiphoneme". I think the article is correct after all. Nardog (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there is not a distinction "in certain contexts", there is no distinction in any context. What do you mean by "scholars felt necessity to posit /N, Q/ as separate phonemes precisely because there is neutralization"? How would neutralization prove their phonemicity? Neutralization is the dissolution of phonemic distinction, not the creation of new phonemes, it's shorthand for "one of several phonemes which are not distinct in this position". And even if you analyze /N/ as just /n/, which I do not believe is the prevailing view, that still doesn't make an archiphoneme? What distinction is supposed to be neutralized here? 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:2517:CEC4:FBD3:9C18 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If /N, Q/ are not shorthand for "one of several phonemes which are not distinct in this position", what are they? Why were they conceived of in the first place, if not for the convenience of having a shorthand for a nasal or obstruent with no defined place of articulation? What distinction is supposed to be neutralized here? Between /m/ and /n/, before /p, b, m/ and /t, d, n, r/ respectively, of course. Sure, coda nasals occur in other environments too, but they can just as (or slightly less) plausibly be analyzed as allophones of /m/ or /n/. /N/ is only posited out of analytical convenience/economy, not observable fact. So /Q/ is an even better example of an archiphoneme, in that all its realizations are shared by other phonemes. It can be disposed of and it'll be perfectly fine; now you only have to write /tt/ instead of /Qt/ and so on. Nardog (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't personally get that analysis (why should a phoneme require a primary place or even manner of articulation?), but that's obviously irrelevant. Upon rather cursory research and a couple of inquiries to people who have read more than me... It is, indeed, a stance that is taken by some linguists, but I'm pretty sure it requires a different definition of archiphoneme (an archiphoneme isn't a phoneme at all under typical usage, which appears to be backed up by Wikipedia's own section on it). In any case, it is not definitionally true that /N/ and /Q/ are archiphonemes, as you seem to be asserting. That is just one analysis with one set of definitions, which, as far as I can tell, is not a matter of consensus at all. The majority of authors don't refer to the special moras as archiphonemes at all, and all those I could find that do offer no real explanation. In my opinion that is clearly not reason to leave the article as-is on the subject, but instead reason to elaborate on the differing stances in the literature after further research. Can sources that actually explain be found? Can the article be edited to reflect different common analyses? 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:9CC0:FA6B:B9CA:B21D (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, a clarification to address an issue with your recent edit: the point of what I said previously is that not everyone treats /N/ as an archiphoneme, even when it is analyzed as just that - /N/. /N/ as /N/ does not necessarily mean /N/ is being called an archiphoneme - your assertion was false not because there are other analyses, but because the very same analysis does not require the label of archiphoneme. In fact, under the typical definition of "archiphoneme", the analysis of the moraic nasal as one would instead require that it could be both /m/ and /n/, it is just that some authors use a separate definition of archiphoneme that allows it to be a phoneme in its own right. 2601:4C4:C205:3C90:F4C7:BFD9:504D:297E (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Palatal consonants

Why is ひ written as /ç/ and not /hʲ/, while き is written as /kʲ/ and not /c/? --Saledomo (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)