Phonological opacity

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Linguistics
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating and interpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internationalism Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

Phonological opacity is a phenomenon in phonology. Opacity exists when a phonological rule that exists in a given language appears to be contradicted by the surface structure (i.e., actual pronunciation) of words in the language. The term was first defined by Kiparsky^[1] in the following way:^[2]

A phonological rule P, ${\displaystyle A\rightarrow B/C{\underline {\quad }}D}$, is opaque if one of the following surface structures exists:

• instance of A in the ${\displaystyle C{\underline {\quad }}D}$ environment;
• instance of B created by P in an environment other than ${\displaystyle C{\underline {\quad }}D}$;

A common example is the interaction of the flapping of /t/ and the raising of /aɪ/ in Canadian English and other dialects. Before voiceless consonants such as [t], the diphthong /aɪ/ is raised to sound more like [ʌɪ], so the word write is pronounced [rʌɪt]. In some contexts between vowels, /t/ is replaced by the (voiced) flap [ɾ], so (for example) patting is pronounced [pæɾɪŋ], similar to padding. In words like writing, where /aɪ/ is followed by /t/ between vowels, both rules apply and the result is [rʌɪɾɪŋ]—with /aɪ/ raised to [ʌɪ] and /t/ flapped to [ɾ]. This output therefore has [ʌɪ] immediately followed by a voiced consonant, even though the rule that produces [ʌɪ] only applies before voiceless consonants. The interaction is thus opaque: [ʌɪ] is present on the surface in an environment that differs from the environment in which the rule that creates it applies.

Phonological opacity is often the result of the counterfeeding or counterbleeding order of two or more phonological rules, which is called "counter-feeding opacity" or "counter-bleeding opacity". An example of both can be seen in the future-marking suffix -en in the Yokutsan languages. Its vowel is supposed to be an underlying high vowel, though it surfaces as a mid vowel. Vowel rounding always applies before vowel lowering. Due to this order of phonological rules, the interaction of the suffix vowel with rounding harmony is opaque. There is still vowel harmony between the suffix vowel and a preceding high vowel as these vowels agree in roundedness, while a vowel with the feature [-high] would usually be exempt from rounding harmony. As a result of counter-bleeding opacity, the apparent motivation for the vowel harmony has disappeared here. Moreover, as a result of counter-feeding opacity, it cannot be told from the surface structure of the suffix vowel why it fails to harmonize in rounding with preceding mid vowels.^[3]