Hubbry Logo
NasalizationNasalizationMain
Open search
Nasalization
Community hub
Nasalization
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nasalization
Nasalization
Nasalization
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Nasalised
◌̃
IPA number424
Encoding
Entity (decimal)̃
Unicode (hex)U+0303
Sound change and alternation
Metathesis
Lenition
Fortition
Epenthesis
Elision
Transphonologization
Assimilation
Dissimilation
Sandhi
Synalepha
Other types
This article contains phonetic transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA. For the distinction between [ ], / / and ⟨ ⟩, see IPA § Brackets and transcription delimiters.

In phonetics, nasalisation (or nasalization in American English) is the production of a sound while the velum is lowered, so that some air escapes through the nose during the production of the sound by the mouth.[1] An archetypal nasal sound is [n].

In the International Phonetic Alphabet, nasalisation is indicated by printing a tilde diacritic U+0303 ◌̃ COMBINING TILDE above the symbol for the sound to be nasalised: [ã] is the nasalised equivalent of [a], and [ṽ] is the nasalised equivalent of [v]. A subscript diacritic [ą], called an ogonek or nosinė, is sometimes seen, especially when the vowel bears tone marks that would interfere with the superscript tilde. For example, [ą̄ ą́ ą̀ ą̂ ą̌] are more legible in most fonts than [ã̄ ã́ ã̀ ã̂ ã̌].[citation needed]

Nasal vowels

[edit]
Main article: Nasal vowel

Many languages have nasal vowels to different degrees, but only a minority of world languages around the world have nasal vowels as contrasting phonemes. That is the case, among others, of French, Portuguese, Hindustani, Bengali, Nepali, Breton, Gheg Albanian, Hmong, Hokkien, Yoruba, and Cherokee. Those nasal vowels contrast with their corresponding oral vowels. Nasality is usually seen as a binary feature, although surface variation in different degrees of nasality caused by neighboring nasal consonants has been observed.[2]

Degree of nasality

[edit]

There are languages, such as in Palantla Chinantec, where vowels seem to exhibit three contrastive degrees of nasality: oral e.g. [e] vs lightly nasalised [ẽ] vs heavily nasalised [e͌],[3][4] although Ladefoged and Maddieson believe that the lightly nasalised vowels are best described as oro-nasal diphthongs.[5] Note that Ladefoged and Maddieson's transcription of heavy nasalisation with a double tilde might be confused with the extIPA adoption of that diacritic for velopharyngeal frication.

Nasal consonants

[edit]
Main article: Nasal consonant

By far the most common nasal sounds are nasal consonants such as [m], [n] or [ŋ]. Most nasal consonants are occlusives, and airflow through the mouth is blocked and redirected through the nose. Their oral counterparts are the stops[citation needed].

Nasalised consonants

[edit]

Nasalised versions of other consonant sounds also exist but are much rarer than either nasal occlusives or nasal vowels. The Middle Chinese consonant 日 ([ȵʑ]; [ʐ] in modern Standard Chinese) has an odd history; for example, it has evolved into [ʐ] and [ɑɻ] (or [ɻ] and [ɚ] respectively, depending on accents) in Standard Chinese; [z]/[ʑ] and [n] in Hokkien; [z]/[ʑ] and [n]/[n̠ʲ] while borrowed into Japan. It seems likely that it was once a nasalized fricative, perhaps a palatal [ʝ̃].

In Coatzospan Mixtec, fricatives and affricates are nasalized before nasal vowels even when they are voiceless. In the Hupa, the velar nasal /ŋ/ often has the tongue not make full contact, resulting in a nasalized approximant, [ɰ̃].[citation needed] That is cognate with a nasalised palatal approximant [ȷ̃] in other Athabaskan languages.

In Umbundu, phonemic /ṽ/ contrasts with the (allophonically) nasalised approximant [w̃] and so is likely to be a true fricative rather than an approximant.[further explanation needed] In Old and Middle Irish, the lenited ⟨m⟩ was a nasalised bilabial fricative [β̃].[6]

Ganza[7] has a phonemic nasalized glottal stop [ʔ̃] while Sundanese has it allophonically; nasalised stops can occur only with pharyngeal articulation or lower, or they would be simple nasals.[8] Nasal flaps are common allophonically. Many West African languages have a nasal flap [ɾ̃] (or [n̆]) as an allophone of /ɾ/ before a nasal vowel; voiced retroflex nasal flaps are common intervocalic allophones of /ɳ/ in South Asian languages.

A nasal trill [r̃] has been described from some dialects of Romanian, and is posited as an intermediate historical step in rhotacism. However, the phonetic variation of the sound is considerable, and it is not clear how frequently it is actually trilled.[9] Some languages contrast /r, r̃/ like Toro-tegu Dogon[10] and Inor. A nasal lateral has been reported for some languages, Nzema contrasts /l, l̃/,[11] Nemi contrasts /w, w̥, h, w̃, w̥̃, h̃/.

Other languages, such as the Khoisan languages of Khoekhoe and Gǀui, as well as several of the !Kung languages, include nasal click consonants. Nasal clicks are typically with a nasal or superscript nasal preceding the consonant (for example, velar-dental ⟨ŋ͡ǀ⟩ or ⟨ᵑǀ⟩ and uvular-dental ⟨ɴ͡ǀ⟩ or ⟨ᶰǀ⟩).[12] Nasalised laterals such as [‖̃] (a nasalised lateral alveolar click) are easy to produce but rare or nonexistent as phonemes; nasalised lateral clicks are common in Southern African languages such as Zulu. Often when /l/ is nasalised, it becomes [n].

True nasal fricatives

[edit]
Nasal fricative
◌̾
◌͋

Besides nasalised oral fricatives, there are true nasal fricatives, or anterior nasal fricatives, previously called nareal fricatives. They are sometimes produced by people with disordered speech due to velopharyngeal-port incompetence. The turbulence in the airflow characteristic of fricatives is produced not in the mouth but at the anterior nasal port, the narrowest part of the nasal cavity. (Turbulence can also be produced at the posterior nasal port, or velopharyngeal port, when that port is narrowed – see velopharyngeal fricative. With anterior nasal fricatives, the velopharyngeal port is open.)

An upright tilde is used for this in the extensions to the IPA: [n̾] is a voiced alveolar nasal fricative, with no airflow out of the mouth; this will generally occur when [n] is intended. [v̾] is an oral fricative with simultaneous nasal frication; this will generally occur when [v] is intended.

No known language makes use of nasal fricatives in non-disordered speech.

Denasalisation

[edit]
Partially denasalized
◌͊
IPA number654
Main article: Denasalisation

Nasalisation may be lost over time. There are also denasal sounds, which sound like nasals spoken with a head cold. They may be found in non-pathological speech as a language loses nasal consonants, as in Korean. [m͊] is a sound partway between [m] and [b].

Contextual nasalisation

[edit]

Vowels assimilate to surrounding nasal consonants in many languages, such as Thai, creating nasal vowel allophones. Some languages exhibit a nasalisation of segments adjacent to phonemic or allophonic nasal vowels, such as Apurinã.

Contextual nasalisation can lead to the addition of nasal vowel phonemes to a language.[13] That happened in French, most of whose final consonants disappeared, but its final nasals made the preceding vowels become nasal, which introduced a new distinction into the language. An example is vin blanc [vɛ̃ blɑ̃] 'white wine', ultimately from Latin vinum and blancum.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Works cited

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nasalization

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nasalization is a phonetic and phonological process whereby a speech sound is articulated with airflow passing through both the oral and nasal cavities, achieved by lowering the velum (soft palate) while maintaining an open or partially open oral tract. This results in nasal consonants, such as , , and [ŋ], where complete oral closure directs air exclusively through the nose, or in nasalized vowels and other segments, where simultaneous oral and nasal airflow imparts a nasal quality to the sound. The process is universal across human languages, though its realization varies, and it plays a key role in sound production, often arising through assimilation when nasal sounds influence adjacent vowels or consonants. In phonetics, nasalization involves precise articulatory mechanisms: the velum is lowered to couple the nasal cavity to the vocal tract, allowing nasal resonance while vocal folds vibrate for voiced sounds. Acoustically, it lowers the first formant frequency and introduces additional nasal formants, distinguishing nasalized sounds from their oral counterparts. Phonologically, nasalization can be contrastive, as in French where nasal vowels like [ɛ̃] in pain ("bread") contrast with oral [ɛ] in peine ("sorrow"), or allophonic, as in English where vowels before nasals, such as the [æ] in man, become nasalized without changing meaning. This distinction highlights the interface between phonetic implementation and phonological patterning, with nasalization frequently spreading regressively from a following nasal consonant in processes like vowel nasalization in English or regressive nasal harmony in languages like Guaraní. Nasalization has been studied extensively since ancient descriptions in the 5th century BCE, with modern research employing techniques like , fiberoscopy, and spectrography to analyze its production and perception. It is among the earliest sounds acquired by infants, reflecting its perceptual salience. Typologically, nearly all languages feature nasal , but contrastive nasal vowels occur in approximately 25% of languages, often evolving diachronically from oral vowels through nasal assimilation and loss of the conditioning nasal . Key areas of ongoing research include the physiological basis of nasal harmony, opacity effects in spreading, and cross-linguistic variation in neutral segments that block nasalization. In phonological theories, nasality is represented as a manner feature in feature geometry models.

Fundamentals

Definition and Overview

Nasalization is a phonetic process in which the production of a speech sound involves lowering the velum (), allowing airflow through the alongside the oral cavity, thereby modifying the sound's acoustic quality. This modification can affect vowels, resulting in nasal vowels, or consonants, producing nasal consonants, and contrasts with purely oral sounds where the velum remains raised to direct all airflow orally. In and , nasalization plays a key role in sound systems, influencing articulation, , and linguistic contrasts across diverse languages. The study of nasalization emerged within 19th-century phonetic research, building on earlier observations of nasal sounds dating back to ancient descriptions, but gaining systematic analysis through experimental and descriptive linguistics in . Key developments included contributions from linguists examining sound alternations in Slavic and other languages, such as Jan Baudouin de Courtenay's work in the 1870s on phonetic and phonemic distinctions. Globally, nasalization is widespread, with nasal consonants present in the vast majority of languages and phonemic nasal vowels occurring in about 25% of documented languages, as seen in like French and Polish, and in other families including some Austronesian and . A fundamental distinction exists between phonetic nasalization, which is and often coarticulatory—arising from contextual influences like adjacent nasal —and phonemic nasalization, where nasal serves as a contrastive feature distinguishing meaning, such as the opposition between [ɛ̃] and [ɛ] in French words like pain [pɛ̃] "bread" and peine [pɛn] "penalty". Typologically, nasalization contrasts oral sounds (velum raised) with nasal ones (velum lowered), and can be obligatory—required by phonological rules in certain contexts—or optional, varying by speaker or , as in regressive nasal spreading before nasal .

Articulatory and Acoustic Mechanisms

Nasalization is produced articulatorily by lowering the , or velum, which opens the velopharyngeal port and allows to pass through both the oral and nasal cavities simultaneously. This involves coordinated action of several muscles, primarily the levator veli palatini, which elevates the velum for oral sounds but relaxes to permit lowering during nasalization, and the tensor veli palatini, which tenses the velum to facilitate its movement. The palatopharyngeus and muscularis uvulae also contribute to fine-tuning the port's closure and opening, ensuring precise control over the division of between the nasal and oral tracts. As a result, a portion of the is shunted into the , creating a coupled resonance system that characterizes nasal sounds. Biomechanical factors significantly influence the execution of nasalization, including the timing and extent of velum lowering, which typically occurs over durations of 100-200 ms for the velum plateau in various positions. Velum lowering often precedes or synchronizes with other articulatory gestures, such as movements, depending on structure; for instance, anticipatory lowering in codas exhibits a lag of approximately 60-90 ms relative to articulation. position and oral cavity shape further modulate the process by altering the impedance and properties of the coupled tracts, with higher positions potentially constraining velum excursion due to biomechanical linkages via the . Acoustically, nasalization introduces additional spectral components due to the nasal cavity's , including nasal formants (poles) such as P0 around 250-450 Hz and P1 at 790-1100 Hz, alongside nasal zeros (anti-formants) that create destructive interference and dampen oral formants, particularly F1. These zeros, often located between 200-500 Hz for low vowels, reduce the of the first oral formant by 4-6 dB or more, while increasing low-frequency energy and widening formant bandwidths, such as F1 bandwidth by up to 150 Hz. Overall, the exhibits enhanced damping of higher oral formants and a steeper tilt, contributing to the muffled of nasalized sounds. Measurement techniques for quantifying nasalization include nasometry, which uses a Nasometer to compute nasalance as the ratio of nasal to total (nasal plus oral) acoustic energy, typically ranging from 10-50% in nasalized vowels and higher in full nasal consonants. Aerodynamic instruments like the Aerophone II measure nasal airflow and intraoral pressure to assess velopharyngeal opening size and airflow partitioning, often revealing nasal airflow contributions of 20-40% during nasalized segments. Spectrographic analysis further visualizes these effects by identifying damping, anti-formant notches, and increased low-frequency amplitude in wideband spectra. Perceptually, listeners detect nasality primarily through shifts in formant structure, such as the lowering of F1 and the introduction of anti-resonances that disrupt oral resonances, with changes as small as 6 dB in F1 sufficient to cue nasality in synthetic stimuli. These cues are robust across languages, though sensitivity varies with tilt and bandwidth widening, enabling differentiation from oral sounds even at moderate nasal levels.

Nasal Vowels

Characteristics and Formation

Nasal vowels form through the lowering of the velum during articulation, allowing airflow through both the oral and nasal cavities, which modifies the oral resonance and distinguishes them from oral s. This process often arises from coarticulation with adjacent s, where anticipatory velum lowering begins during the production in preparation for the , or from phonemic specification in languages where nasal s are contrastive units. In sequences of plus , nasalization can spread regressively, leading to the emergence of distinct nasal s over time through phonological derivation. Phonetically, nasal vowels exhibit acoustic traits such as altered frequencies compared to their oral counterparts, often with a lowered first (F1) in many languages due to the coupling of oral and nasal resonators that introduces anti-formants and nasal formants, damping higher frequencies; however, in French, nasal vowels show raised F1 due to greater vowel opening and centralization. For instance, in French, the oral mid-front /ɛ/ typically has an F1 around 600 Hz, while its nasal counterpart /ɛ̃/ shows a raised F1 near 670 Hz (female speakers), with F2 often lowered due to centralization. Additionally, nasal vowels often display increased duration; in Brazilian Portuguese, they are approximately 15% longer than oral vowels in nasal contexts, enhancing perceptual distinctiveness. In their phonemic role, nasal vowels serve as contrastive elements in several languages, creating minimal pairs that differentiate meaning. French exemplifies this with bon /bɔ̃/ "good" contrasting beau /bo/ "beautiful," where nasality on the vowel is phonemic. Similarly, Portuguese maintains phonemic nasal vowels, such as the five monophthongs in European Portuguese (/ɛ̃/, /ɐ̃/, /ɔ̃/, /ĩ/, /ũ/), and Polish features two nasal vowels (/ɛ̃/ as ę and /ɔ̃/ as ą) that contrast with orals in stressed syllables. Conversely, in English, nasalization is allophonic, occurring predictably before nasal consonants, as in hand pronounced [hæ̃nd], where the vowel /æ/ nasalizes without altering word meaning. Language-specific patterns highlight obligatory nasal harmony in Guaraní, where nasality spreads bidirectionally from a stressed nasal trigger (vowel or consonant), nasalizing all vowels, including those before nasal consonants, and creating a system of six nasal vowels mirroring the oral set. Historically, nasal vowels in French developed from mergers of oral vowels followed by nasal consonants during the Old French period (ca. 900–1300), where nasalization progressively distinguished them before the loss of final nasals. Cross-linguistically, nasal vowels vary by height and position, with front nasals like /ɛ̃/ and back nasals like /ɔ̃/ common; in tone languages such as Vietnamese, allophonic nasalization of vowels before nasal finals interacts with tones, with nasal airflow varying by tone type without disrupting tonal contrasts. Contrastive nasal vowels occur in about 20% of the world's languages.

Degrees of Nasality

Nasalization in vowels exhibits a gradient scale, ranging from partial to full nasality, primarily quantified by the proportion of nasal airflow relative to total airflow during production. Partial nasality typically involves 20-40% nasal airflow, as observed in contextually nasalized vowels adjacent to nasal consonants, such as pre-nasal vowels in American English where the velum lowers gradually, resulting in limited nasal coupling. In contrast, full nasality surpasses 50-60% nasal airflow, characteristic of phonemic nasal vowels like French /ɔ̃/, where the velum is substantially lowered throughout the vowel duration to allow dominant nasal resonance. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) denotes nasalization with a tilde diacritic (e.g., [ĩ] for lightly nasalized high vowels and [ẽ] for more heavily nasalized mid vowels), though the intensity is often contextually interpreted rather than strictly differentiated by symbol variation. Several factors influence the degree of nasality, including the duration and extent of velum lowering, the influence of adjacent , and inter-speaker variability. Longer durations of velum lowering correlate with increased nasal , as the prolonged opening of the velopharyngeal enhances nasal , with peak nasality occurring later in vowels adjacent to nasal codas. Adjacent nasal , particularly in pre-nasal contexts, strengthen nasalization by anticipatory coarticulation, leading to higher nasal percentages compared to post-nasal or non-adjacent positions. Speaker variability arises from anatomical differences, such as larger nasal cavities and vocal tracts in males, which can result in greater overall nasal and perceived nasality intensity relative to females. Perceptually, nasality becomes detectable when nasal airflow exceeds approximately 20-30% of total , marking the threshold for distinguishing nasalized vowels from oral ones in listener judgments. Excessive nasality, or hypernasality, occurs when airflow partitioning favors the beyond normal ranges (e.g., over 40% in oral contexts), often associated with speech disorders like velopharyngeal insufficiency, where inadequate velum closure leads to unintended . Typologically, degrees of nasality vary across languages, with weaker, contextual nasalization in (around 30-50% nasal in heterosyllabic contexts) contrasting stronger, phonemic nasalization in (over 60%, with distinct articulatory adjustments like body lowering for back vowels). Diachronic shifts can amplify nasality over time, as seen in languages like French, where historical vowel-nasal interactions have strengthened phonemic contrasts from earlier partial coarticulation. Experimental evidence from MRI studies confirms this continuum, revealing velum aperture sizes ranging from 0.3-0.8 cm² for nasalized vowels to larger openings (up to 1.0 cm² or more) in fully nasal productions, with quantifiable differences in port area correlating to and intensity. Recent using real-time MRI has further elucidated dynamic velum movements in production, such as in (as of 2022).

Nasal Consonants

Standard Nasal Stops

Standard nasal stops are occlusive consonants produced by creating a complete closure in the oral cavity while lowering the velum to allow through the , resulting in nasal resonance determined by the . The bilabial nasal /m/ involves closure at the lips, the alveolar nasal /n/ at the alveolar ridge behind the upper teeth, and the velar nasal /ŋ/ at the (velum). These consonants form part of the phonemic inventory in nearly all human languages, with /m/ occurring in approximately 902 languages, /n/ in 837, and /ŋ/ in 615, reflecting their near-universal presence. Examples include /m/ and /n/ in English words like "" and "no," and /ŋ/ in "sing." However, /ŋ/ is typically absent in word-initial position in many language families, including , where it does not occur at the beginning of words. Acoustically, nasal stops exhibit a characteristic low-frequency nasal murmur due to the resonance of the , with the first nasal (N1) around 200-300 Hz for /m/, rising to about 300-400 Hz for /n/, and varying between 250-350 Hz for /ŋ/, alongside antiresonances that dampen higher frequencies. In spectrograms, this murmur appears as a low-intensity band of energy, often accompanied by a voice bar representing the of voicing during the closure phase. Allophonic variations of nasal stops include prenasalized forms in , where a nasal is followed by a brief oral closure, as in [ᵐb], [ⁿd], and [ᵑɡ], functioning as single segments with extended nasal airflow. In Italian, geminate nasals like /nː/ in "anno" exhibit significantly longer durations—often 1.5 to 2 times that of single nasals—serving as the primary cue for phonological contrasts. Historically, nasal stops have undergone loss in certain contexts, leading to the development of nasal vowels in some languages through compensatory nasalization of preceding vowels, as seen in where intervocalic or final nasals were deleted. Areally, click languages of the family, such as !Xóõ and , feature a high frequency of nasal stops alongside nasalized clicks, with standard nasals /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ integrated into complex inventories that include up to three plain nasal stops.

Nasalized Approximants and Other Consonants

Nasalized are non-stop produced with a lowered velum, allowing through both the oral and nasal cavities during the articulation of an , without complete oral closure. Common types include the nasalized alveolar lateral [l̃], postalveolar approximant [ɹ̃], labiovelar approximant [w̃], and palatal approximant [j̃]. These sounds arise from coarticulatory effects where the velum lowers in anticipation or carryover from adjacent nasal elements, blending approximant manner with nasal resonance. Such nasalized approximants frequently occur as allophones in proximity to nasal consonants or vowels. In English, the lateral /l/ becomes nasalized [l̃] following a nasal stop, as in "milk" realized as [mɪl̃k], due to anticipatory nasal airflow. Phonemically, they appear in select languages; for instance, Burmese features a uvular nasal /ɴ/, a velar-uvular realization without full closure, contrasting with oral approximants in final positions. Standard nasal stops can trigger this nasalization through assimilation, though the resulting approximants maintain open airflow distinct from stops. Acoustically, nasalized approximants exhibit a broader formant structure compared to nasal stops, reflecting the combined oral-nasal resonance cavity. They display nasal poles and zeros in their spectra, similar to nasal vowels, which introduce anti-formants that dampen certain frequencies and create spectral complexity. For the nasalized lateral [l̃], the first formant (F1) typically lowers, akin to the effect observed in nasalized vowels, due to the expanded resonance space, while maintaining lateral-specific low-frequency energy from the side airflow. Laterals and nasals share spectral similarities, with zeros reducing overall intensity relative to vowels. As phonemes, nasalized approximants are rare, documented primarily in where velar nasals like Hupa /ŋ/ often surface as the nasalized [ɰ̃] due to incomplete closure, cognate with [j̃] in related varieties. They are more common in coarticulatory contexts across languages, such as Spanish where the alveolar nasal /n/ assimilates in place before palatals or velars, yielding [ɲ] or [ŋ]—the latter sometimes realized with -like lenition in rapid speech—enhancing nasal spread without full stop articulation. In pathological speech, hypernasal approximants emerge in conditions like cleft palate, where velopharyngeal insufficiency causes excessive nasal on approximants and vowels, leading to perceptibly hypernasal laterals or rhotics graded as moderate deviations. Dialectally, regional varieties exhibit nasalized rhotics [ɹ̃], particularly in coarticulatory environments near nasals, contributing to a perceived nasal quality in approximant realizations across certain accents.

Advanced Nasal Articulations

True Nasal Fricatives

True nasal fricatives, also referred to as nasalized fricatives, are consonants characterized by turbulent airflow generated at an oral constriction while the velum is lowered, allowing simultaneous nasal airflow. Unlike standard oral fricatives, the nasal component reduces intraoral pressure, making these sounds aerodynamically unstable and typologically rare across languages. They are distinguished from purely oral fricatives with secondary nasalization by the active involvement of nasal resonance in sustaining the articulation, often notated with a tilde (e.g., [s̃]) in the International Phonetic Alphabet extensions. No language is known to contrast true nasal fricatives phonemically in isolation, but they emerge contextually in nasal harmony systems or historical developments. The articulatory production of true nasal fricatives presents significant challenges due to the conflicting aerodynamic requirements of frication and nasal emission. Fricatives demand a high pressure differential across a narrow oral to produce , but lowering the velum diverts nasally, lowering oral and potentially extinguishing the fricative noise. This necessitates precise velum control to maintain just enough nasal venting for without fully disrupting the oral ; insufficient control results in approximant-like sounds rather than true s. Voiced variants, such as [ṽ] or [ð̃], are particularly difficult, as they require additional transglottal to sustain voicing amid the . These challenges explain their limited occurrence, often confined to specific phonological environments like nasal harmony domains. Examples of true nasal fricatives include phonemic realizations in Coatzospan , a Mesoamerican language, where in second-person familiar verb forms produces nasalized like [s̃] and [ʃ̃], as well as non- [ð̃] and [β̃]. Acoustically, true nasal fricatives exhibit high-frequency turbulent noise damped by , typically showing reduced in higher formants (above 2 kHz) compared to oral counterparts, with widened spectral peaks and anti-formant effects from nasal coupling. Spectrographic analyses from field studies on languages reveal these signatures: for instance, nasalized [s̃] in displays a broader noise spectrum with lowered intensity beyond 2500 Hz, distinguishing it from oral while risking perceptual overlap with . These acoustic properties arise from the nasal cavity's filtering, which attenuates high-frequency energy essential for salience. Typologically, true nasal fricatives are more frequently attested in languages, particularly in Mesoamerican families like , where nasal freely spreads through , contrasting with patterns that often block nasality at obstruents. This distribution may reflect areal influences in regions with robust nasal systems. Perceptually, their weakened frication can lead to confusion with nasal or stops, contributing to diachronic shifts (e.g., fricative weakening in harmony contexts) and highlighting their marginal role in phonological inventories.

Nasal Clicks and Other Rare Types

Nasal clicks represent a distinctive type of ingressive produced using a velaric , where the back of the forms a closure at the velum while the front creates an anterior seal, creating a that is released with nasal airflow escape through a lowered velum. In languages like Nama (a language), nasal clicks such as [!ŋ] arise from nasalized variants of basic clicks like [ǃ], involving a simultaneous pulmonic egressive component for the , which allows voicing and nasal resonance during the click burst. This dual —velaric ingressive for the click and pulmonic for the nasal—distinguishes them from standard pulmonic nasals. These sounds are primarily distributed in southern African languages, including Khoisan families like !Xóõ and ǂHoan, as well as borrowed into some Bantu languages such as Xhosa and Zulu, where nasal clicks function as phonemes contrasting with oral ones. Acoustically, nasal clicks exhibit unique low-frequency bursts around 200-500 Hz during the release, attributed to the nasal cavity resonance and the ingressive noise, which enhances their perceptual salience in noisy environments. Their evolutionary origins likely trace to ancient consonant shifts in proto-Khoisan systems, possibly from labial or coronal precursors, though direct pathways remain speculative due to limited historical records. Beyond clicks, other rare nasal articulations include the uvular nasal /ɴ/, which appears allophonically in Japanese as a realization of the moraic nasal /N/ in syllable-final position, articulated with the tongue root against the uvula and velum lowered for nasal airflow. In Dravidian languages such as Tamil and Telugu, the retroflex nasal /ɳ/ is phonemic, produced by curling the tongue tip backward to contact the while directing airflow through the , contrasting with alveolar /n/. In like Moroccan and Iraqi, pharyngeal fricatives such as /ħ/ and /ʕ/ are produced with significant nasal airflow due to velum lowering and epilaryngeal constriction, imparting a nasal quality to these consonants, though they remain fricatives rather than true nasals. These rarities are concentrated in Asian language families like Dravidian and Japonic, with limited spread elsewhere due to anatomical constraints on extreme tongue positioning and velar coordination, which increase articulatory complexity and learning difficulty in non-native contexts.

Phonological Processes

Contextual Nasalization

Contextual nasalization refers to the phonological process in which nasality from a nasal consonant spreads to an adjacent vowel or other sound, typically as a form of assimilation. This spreading enhances articulatory ease by aligning the velum position across segments. Assimilation can be regressive, where the preceding vowel nasalizes in anticipation of a following nasal consonant, or progressive, where nasality from a nasal consonant affects the subsequent vowel. Regressive assimilation is far more common cross-linguistically, as seen in English words like "hand," pronounced [hæ̃n̩d], where the low vowel /æ/ acquires nasalization before the alveolar nasal /n/. In Hindi, vowels preceding nasal consonants are similarly nasalized, such as in /bɑn/ "port," realized as [bɑ̃n], reflecting a regressive spread of the [nasal] feature. Progressive assimilation, though rarer, occurs in languages like Sundanese, an Austronesian language, where nasality spreads rightward from a nasal stop to following vowels and glides, as in /bənər/ realized with nasalized vowels after the nasal. In phonological theory, contextual nasalization is often formalized as the spreading of the [nasal] feature within feature geometry, where nasality is represented as a manner feature under the root node that delinks and reassociates to adjacent segments via autosegmental spreading. In Optimality Theory, this process arises from the interaction of markedness constraints favoring nasal agreement, such as *VN (prohibiting non-nasal vowels before nasals) outranking faithfulness constraints like IDENT-IO([nasal]), which penalize changes to nasality; for instance, /VN/ surfaces as [ṼN] to satisfy agreement while preserving the input nasal. Specific language examples illustrate this. In French, liaison contexts induce nasalization when a word-final nasal consonant links to a following vowel, as in "un ami" [œ̃.na.mi], where the liaison /n/ causes partial nasalization of the subsequent /a/. In , the rule applies robustly before nasals, often without deletion. Additionally, nasal deletion can accompany spreading, as in the historical development of "pão" [pɐ̃w] from Latin "panem," where the intervening nasal assimilated and was lost, leaving a phonemic nasal vowel. Diachronically, contextual nasalization frequently leads to the phonologization of nasal vowels through the loss of the triggering , a process evident in the evolution from to modern French. In , sequences like /an/ in "panem" nasalized the vowel before the nasal was deleted or reduced, yielding French "pain" [pɛ̃] with a phonemic nasal /ɛ̃/. This shift created contrastive nasal vowels in French, distinguishing them from oral counterparts. Variability in realization occurs across dialects and speech conditions; for example, exhibits stronger and more extensive nasalization than , with nasal vowels like /ɑ̃/ pronounced more openly and with greater velum lowering. Furthermore, speech rate influences the distance of nasal spread: slower rates allow greater anticipatory nasalization in English vowels before nasals, extending the temporal domain of velum lowering, while faster rates reduce it.

Denasalization and Neutralization

Denasalization refers to the phonological process whereby nasality in vowels or consonants is reduced or eliminated, primarily through the raising of the (velum) to close the velopharyngeal port and prevent nasal . This articulatory adjustment contrasts with nasalization by redirecting exclusively through the oral cavity, often occurring in response to phonological constraints or historical sound changes. In many cases, denasalization is accompanied by , where the duration of a preceding increases to offset the loss of a nasal segment, preserving structure. For instance, in historical English, nasal vowels derived from sequences like /an/ or /un/ underwent denasalization with vowel lengthening, as seen in the evolution from *mūþ to "mouth," where the nasal quality was lost while the vowel prolonged. Phonological neutralization involves the loss of nasal contrasts in specific environments, simplifying the sound inventory. A prominent synchronic example occurs in , where word-final nasal consonants delete, leaving behind nasalized vowels and neutralizing the distinction between underlying oral vowels followed by nasals and inherent nasal vowels; for example, underlying /limpã/ surfaces as [lĩːpɐ̃] with the nasal coda absorbed into the vowel. Historically, similar neutralizations appear in , such as , where nasal vowels like /ɑ̃ː/ denasalized to /ɑː/ in certain dialects, merging previously distinct nasal and oral categories. In Korean, regressive nasal assimilation affects obstruents before nasal consonants (e.g., /kap + m/ → [kam]), but nasality typically does not spread to the preceding vowel, resulting in partial neutralization without full nasal propagation. Typologically, denasalization contributes to vowel system simplification in languages lacking phonemic nasal vowels, such as , where vowels exhibit contextual nasalization only before nasal codas but maintain oral quality elsewhere, avoiding a dedicated nasal series. Perceptually, this process aligns with an oral bias observed in speech acquisition, where infants initially favor oral over nasal sounds, leading to delayed mastery of nasal contrasts and potential overgeneralization of oral forms. Clinically, denasalization techniques are employed in speech for hypernasal disorders, such as velopharyngeal insufficiency, using velum-raising exercises to reduce excessive nasal ; acoustic analysis (e.g., lowered F1 and F3 transitions) aids in assessing and recovering underlying nasality post-intervention.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350094280_Nasalization_an_overview_of_the_notion_and_research
  2. https://escholarship.org/content/qt75s541nd/qt75s541nd_noSplash_ad1f65f59d8f1c6f9fb3fb23e2c53275.pdf?t=s60jrt
  3. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2560
  4. https://wals.info/chapter/10
  5. https://escholarship.org/content/qt1xq3d5hr/qt1xq3d5hr_noSplash_f397562624ffd826fd14e62143b7cfba.pdf
  6. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1307547/full
  7. https://laits.utexas.edu/fi/html/pho/10.html
  8. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/55/2/255/110166/Nasal-Assimilation-Counterfeeding-and-Allomorphy
  9. https://dare.uva.nl/document/2/26908
  10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2021.02.005
  11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.10.002
  12. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5008854
  13. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1741&context=gradschool_theses
  14. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1917&context=hpt
  15. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/14408/20150378-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  16. https://www.csulb.edu/sites/default/files/2025/documents/Articulatory-Phonology-Routledge-Handbook.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221484514_French_nasal_vowels_acoustic_and_articulatory_properties
  18. https://wstyler.ucsd.edu/files/styler2017_jasa_onacousticalnatureofnasality.pdf
  19. https://jpl.letras.ulisboa.pt/article/id/5685/
  20. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/9/4601
  21. https://slam.lin.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/106/2020/01/2019English-Sounds-in-Context_-The-Pronunciation-of-Phonemes-and-Morphemes.pdf
  22. https://amerindia.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Kaiser-E.-Nasal-spreading-in-Paraguayan-Guarani%25CC%2581-Introducing-long-distance-continuous-spreading.pdf
  23. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/download/840/623/815
  24. https://hal.science/hal-00138758v2/document
  25. https://www.sas.rochester.edu/cls/assets/pdf/working/MA_thesis.pdf
  26. https://labphon.org/sites/default/files/labphon19/Papers/LabPhon19_paper_271.pdf
  27. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0769.pdf
  28. https://www.phonetik.uni-muenchen.de/Forschung/soundact/publications/cunha2024.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095447016301231
  30. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/150/2/979/615483/Acoustic-and-speaker-variation-in-Dutch-n-and-m-as
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics/article/is-vowel-nasalisation-phonological-in-english-a-systematic-review/44ACB2E5824C67BA61497CDBE94EB0EF
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6954066/
  33. https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/131/1/455/823133/Managing-the-distinctiveness-of-phonemic-nasal
  34. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/11180/34581707-MIT.pdf
  35. https://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jcoleman/consonant_acoustics.htm
  36. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-915-linguistic-phonetics-fall-2015/56c93bcc81ae77636b824daaeb43f160_MIT24_915F15_lec11.pdf
  37. https://www.eksss.org/archive/view_article?pid=pss-17-3-23
  38. https://wals.info/chapter/9
  39. https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~robh/howto.html
  40. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_0407.pdf
  41. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06960
  42. http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~ohala/papers/ohala_and_busa.pdf
  43. https://roa.rutgers.edu/content/article/files/1622_bennett_1.pdf
  44. http://dare.uva.nl/document/202612
  45. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9x90w7c9/qt9x90w7c9_noSplash_a35d99b2b1d4be7bde429a5f4987dd32.pdf
  46. https://apling.engl.iastate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/221/2016/06/Proceedings_3rd_PSLLT.pdf
  47. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/bitstreams/0a554a1e-a365-4c85-b47d-a62b909389fc/download
  48. https://www.surgery.medsch.ucla.edu/spl/papers/2003Eurospeech.pdf
  49. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-spanish-linguistics/spanish-sound-system/BEBD59F8D5AD39D19634EB41E792385B
  50. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14343551.pdf
  51. https://escholarship.org/content/qt00h9g9gg/qt00h9g9gg.pdf
  52. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1300&context=theses
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/phonology/article/clicks-concurrency-and-khoisan/0D57F5AE8BC655A8F2AC3F69CAB8AABE
  54. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004424357/BP000008.xml
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3598317/
  56. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/657768467.pdf
  57. https://www.isca-archive.org/interspeech_2018/kochetov18_interspeech.pdf
  58. https://www.isca-archive.org/interspeech_2012/zellou12_interspeech.pdf
  59. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-click-speech-is-rare/
  60. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/405-0800/roa-405-walker-3.pdf
  61. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110399981-010/html
  62. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/essentialsoflinguistics2/chapter/4-9-types-of-phonological-rules/
  63. https://www.masteryourfrench.com/french-pronunciation/nasal-vowels-liaisons/
  64. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Romance-languages/Vowels
  65. https://www.jumpspeak.com/blog/4-big-differences-canadian-french-vs-regular-french
  66. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002383099203500204
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/413316
  68. http://www.danielezrajohnson.com/johnson_2001.pdf
  69. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/1005-1208/1005-BISOL-0-0.PDF
  70. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/iuswrrest/api/core/bitstreams/cf2bf8c1-e98f-4c02-8120-04b646f332fa/content
  71. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featgeom/kuroda-korean-assim.pdf
  72. http://www.apsipa.org/proceedings/2020/pdfs/0000584.pdf
  73. https://frames.phil.uni-duesseldorf.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Perceptual-bias-in-learning-a-vowel-nasalization-pattern.pdf
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40229175/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.