In Luganda (Bantu, Uganda), a sequence of vowels in successive syllables (V.V) is not allowed. If the first vowel is high, the two vowels are joined together in a diphthong (e.g., i + a → i͜a). If the first vowel is non-high, it is deleted with compensatory lengthening of the second vowel in the sequence (e.g., e + a → aː). This paper presents an acoustic investigation of inter-word V#V sequences in Luganda. It was found that the vowel interval in V#V sequences is longer than that in V#C sequences. When the first vowel in V#V is non-high, the formant frequency of the outcome is determined by the second vowel in the sequence. When the first vowel is high, on the other hand, the sequence is realized as a diphthong, with the transition between the two formant patterns taking up most of the duration. The durational patterns within these diphthongs provide evidence against the transcription-based claim that these sequences are reorganized so that the length lies in the second vowel (/i#V/ → [jVː]). The findings bring into question a canonical case of compensatory lengthening conditioned by glide formation.
ArvanitiA.PelekanouT. (2002). Postlexical rules and gestural overlap in a Greek spoken corpus. In ClairisC. (Ed.) Recherches en Linguistique grecque: Actes du 5ème Colloque International de Linguistique grecque, Sorbonne, 13–15 septembre 2001, (pp. 71–74). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
2.
BaltazaniM. (2006). Focusing, prosodic phrasing and hiatus resolution in Greek. In GoldsteinL.WhalenD. H.BestC. T. (Eds.) Laboratory Phonology 8 (pp. 473–494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TillyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
4.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. Available at http://www.R-project.org.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2013). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.3.53. (Computer program). Available at http://www.praat.org/.
7.
BrownG. (1972). Phonological rules and dialect variation: A study of the phonology of Lumasaaba. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CasaliR. (1997). Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes. Language, 73, 493–533.
9.
CasaliR. (2011). Hiatus resolution. In van OostendorpM.EwenC. J.HumeE.RiceK. (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology, Volume III: Phonological processes, (pp. 1434–1460). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
10.
ClementsG. N. (1986). Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in LuGanda. In WetzelsL.SezerE. (Eds.) Studies in compensatory lengthening, (pp. 39–77). Dordrecht: Foris.
11.
ColeD. T. (1967). Some features of Ganda linguistic structure. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
12.
CollierR.Bell-BertiF.RaphaelL. J. (1982). Some acoustic and physiological observations on diphthongs. Language and Speech, 25(4), 305–323.
13.
DavidsonL.ErkerD. (2014). Hiatus resolution in American English: The case against glide insertion. Language, 90(2), 482–514.
14.
de ManriqueA. M. B. (1979). Acoustic analysis of the Spanish diphthongs. Phonetica, 36, 194–206.
15.
Di PaoloM.FaberA. (1990). Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tense-lax contrast in Utah English. Language Variation and Change, 2, 155–204.
16.
FranichK. (2014). Contour tones and prosodic structure in Medʉmba. In LuengH. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 102–124). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
17.
GayT. (1968). Effect of speaking rate on diphthong formant movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 1570–1573.
18.
GoldsmithJ. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
19.
GordonM. (2001). A typology of contour tone restrictions. Studies in Language, 25, 405–444.
20.
GordonM. (2002). A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language, 78, 51–80.
21.
GordonM.MunroP.LadefogedP. (2000). Some phonetic structures of Chickasaw. Anthropological Linguistics, 42(3), 366–400.
22.
GuthrieM. (1948). Bantu word division: A new study of an old problem. International African Institute Memorandum 22. London: Oxford University Press.
23.
HayesB. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 253–306.
24.
HayesB. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
HirataY.TsukadaK. (2009). Effects of speaking rate and vowel length on formant frequency displacement in Japanese. Phonetica, 66, 129–149.
27.
HockH. H. (1986). Compensatory lengthening: In defense of the concept “mora.”Folia Linguistica, 20, 431–460.
28.
HolbrookA.FairbanksG. (1962). Diphthong formants and their movements. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 5(1), 38–58.
29.
HualdeJ. I.SimonetM.TorreiraF. (2008). Postlexical contraction of nonhigh vowels in Spanish. Lingua, 118, 1906–1925.
30.
HubbardK. (1995). Toward a theory of phonological and phonetic timing: Evidence from Bantu. In ConnellB.ArvanitiA. (Eds.) Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology IV (pp. 168–187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HymanL.KatambaF. (1990). Final vowel shortening in Luganda. Studies in African Linguistics, 21, 1–59.
32.
HymanL.KatambaF. (1999). The syllable in Luganda phonology and morphology. In van der HulstH.RitterN. (Eds.) The syllable: Views and facts (pp. 349–416). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
33.
HymanL.KatambaF. (2010). Tone, syntax and prosodic domains in Luganda. In DowningL.RiallandA.BeltzungJ. M.PatinM. S.RiedelC. (Eds), Papers from the Workshop on Bantu Relative Clauses, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 53 (pp. 69–98). Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
34.
HymanL.KatambaF.WalusimbiL. (1987). Luganda and the strict layer hypothesis. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 87–108.
35.
IngriaR. (1980). Compensatory lengthening as a metrical phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 465–496.
36.
JaggersZ. S. (2018). Evidence and characterization of a glide-vowel distinction in American English. Laboratory Phonology, 9(1), 1–27.
37.
JonesD. (1960). An outline of English phonetics (9th ed.). Cambridge, UK: W. Heffer & Sons.
38.
KaisseE. (1977). Hiatus in Modern Greek. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge.
39.
KatambaF. (1985). A nonlinear account of the syllable in Luganda. In GoyvaertsD. L. (Ed.) African linguistics: Essays in memory of M. W. K. Semikenke (pp. 267–283). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
KimenyiA. (1979). Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu phonology. Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research Inc.
41.
KlattD. (1976). Linguistic uses of segment duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.
42.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2014). Tests in linear mixed effects models. (Computer program). Available at http://www.R-project.org.
43.
LabovW. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
44.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
45.
LebenW. (1980). A metrical analysis of length. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(3), 497–509.
46.
LehisteI. (1964). Acoustical Characteristics of Selected English Consonants. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Indiana University.
47.
LehisteI.PetersonG. E. (1961). Transitions, glides, and diphthongs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 268–277.
48.
LehtonenJ. (1970). Aspects of quantity in Standard Finnish. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Press.
49.
Lindau-WebbM. (1985). Hausa vowels and diphthongs. Studies in African Linguistics, 16, 161–182.
50.
MaddiesonI.EmmoreyK. (1985). Relationship between semivowels and vowels: Cross-linguistic investigations of acoustic difference and coarticulation. Phonetica, 42, 163–174.
51.
MaddiesonI.LadefogedP. (1993). Phonetics of partially nasal consonants. In HuffmanM.KrakowR. (Eds.) Nasals, nasalization and the velum (pp. 251–301). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
52.
MarinS. (2005). Complex nuclei in articulatory phonology: The case of Romanian diphthongs. In GessR. S.RubinE. J. (Eds.) Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics (pp. 161–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53.
McCarthyJ. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–417.
54.
MyersS. (2015). An acoustic study of Luganda liquid allophones. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 36(1), 67–92.
55.
MyersS.HansenB. (2005). The origin of vowel-length neutralization in vocoid sequences: Evidence from Finnish speakers. Phonology, 22, 317–344.
56.
NoonanM. (1992). A grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
57.
OddenD.OddenM. (1999). Kihehe syllable structure. In van der HulstH.RitterN. (Eds.) The syllable: Views and facts (pp. 417–445). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
58.
OrieO. O.PulleyblankD. (2002). Yoruba vowel elision: Minimality effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 101–156.
59.
PadgettJ.TabainM. (2005). Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica, 62, 14–54.
60.
PakM. (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.marjoriepak.com/
61.
PetersonG. E.LehisteI. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32 (6), 693–703.
62.
PikeK. L. (1947). On the phonemic status of English diphthongs. Language, 23(2), 151–159.
63.
PrinceA.SmolenskyP. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick. Retrieved from doi:10.7282/T34M92MV.
64.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.3.3. (Computer program). Available at http://www.R-project.org/.
65.
RenwickM. E. L. (2014). The phonetics and phonology of contrast: The case of the Romanian vowel system. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
66.
RosenthallS. (1997). The distribution of prevocalic vowels. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 139–180.
67.
StevickE. (1969). Pitch and duration in Ganda. Journal of African Languages, 8, 1–28.
68.
TuckerA. N. (1962). The syllable in Luganda: A prosodic approach. Journal of African Languages, 1, 122–166.
69.
VogelI.SpinuL. (2013). Vowel length in Luganda. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 12. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4812440.
70.
WhitneyW. D. (1896). A Sanskrit grammar, 3rd ed.Boston, MA: Ginn and Co.
71.
ZeeE. (1999). An acoustical analysis of the diphthongs in Cantonese. In OhalaJ.HasegawaY.OhalaM.GranvilleD.BaileyA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Volume 2 (pp. 1101–1104). Berkeley, CA: Linguistics Department, University of California.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
