The variability of syllable patterns in Tashlhiyt Berber and Polish

- Analysis of the timing of word-initial clusters and its relation to distinct phonological syllable parses in Tashlhiyt Berber and Polish: articulographic data and simulation.
- Test the robustness of these stability patterns by adding variability to the system: Variability plays a different role in the two languages.
- Difference in the degree of sensitivity to variability is interpreted to be the result of language-specific regulatory mechanisms mediating between different levels of description, such as segmental context and prosodic marking of different pragmatic functions.

In this study we investigate the timing of word-initial clusters and its relation to distinct phonological syllable parses in Tashlhiyt Berber and Polish. To this end, we use experimental, articulographic data (steps 1 and 2) combined with computer-based simulation (step 3). In step 1, we test how temporal properties of consonantal clusters such as overlap can vary within a single language. In step 2, we relate articulatory coordination patterns to distinct phonological syllable parses, involving simple and complex onsets, in order to calculate stability indices for each language. In step 3, we test the robustness of these stability patterns by adding anchor variability to the system. The analysis reveals that variability plays a different role in the two languages. Tashlhiyt shows a tight cluster timing with low variability in overlap across clusters. The phonetic heuristics for Tashlhiyt reveal a simple onset parse with a phonetic outcome that is strikingly robust against temporally induced variability. In contrast, Polish shows a considerably high variability in overlap between the different cluster types. The phonetic heuristics for Polish reveal a general trend towards a complex onset parse, but this time the picture is less clear. Furthermore, the Polish timing patterns are more sensitive to anchor variability than Tashlhiyt. This difference in the degree of sensitivity to variability is interpreted to be the result of different language-specific regulatory mechanisms mediating between different levels of description, such as segmental context and prosodic marking of different pragmatic functions. Natural human communication requires both stability and variability regulated by different needs and constraints within a given language, leading to differing degrees of flexibility in the hierarchical network of local weights and clocks attached to the different constituents of the prosodic hierarchy.