Palatalisation in Mandarin

[atitarev]

Hello,

I've got a phonetical question.

Can someone shed some light on palatalisation of consonants in modern Mandarin, please. When referring to Mandarin it is often a different thing compared to Slavic languages.

What I am interested in is not the sound changes - gi - ji, kyu - qiu (if you compare changes Cantonese- Mandarin) but whether the modern Mandarin consonants are palatalised and which ones they are and what positions.

Consonants k, g don't appear in palatalised positions because they change their quality and becaome different consonants.

I am pretty sure the following consonants are palatalised in front of "i": qi, ji, xi.

I am not so sure about these:

ni bi pi di ti li mi

(EDIT: added mi)

E.g. is the quality of "n" in 你 the same as in English "knee" or is it [n' + ǐ] ? [n'] meaning "n" is palatalised (in Slavic language terminology they are called "soft", e.g. "нь").

I think they are palatalised because the sound like their Russian equivalents to me (if we forget aspiration and voiced/voiceless) but can someone confirm, please?

If someone has a background in Slavic languages, they will know what I mean (but bi and pi do not apply to Czech/Slovak!, they are not palatalised).

Thanks in advance,

Anatoli

[Altair]

I find your question quite interesting, because I have always been puzzled by the architecture of the Mandarin sound system. There seems to be a three-way contrast between labialized, plain, and palatized consonants (e.g., duan vs. dan vs. dian), but the contrast seems to break down in places (e.g., suan vs. san vs. xian vs. xuan). There also seems to be a relationship between velar, retroflex, palatal, and dental sounds; but again, where do sounds like "c" and "z" fit in??

As to your question, I have a minor familiarity with Russian phonology and its opposition of "soft" and "hard" consonants. I also have a slight familiarity with Irish phonology, which has a similar opposition of "slender" and "broad" consonants.

To my ear, the sounds you have asked don't seem "palatized." Mandarin "ni3" seems to rhyme more with English "knee" than with Russian "nichyevo" ("nothing"). Mandarin "di4" sounds like German "die," and not at all like the similar sound in Russian "gospodin" ("Lord?").

As I understand it, Russian generally does not have "plain" consonants. If consonants are not palatized, I thought that they are often labialized (i.e., accompanyied with slight lip rounding). I have read about Irish phonology more recently than Russian. In Irish, broad consonants are generally slightly velarized or labialized.

Since Mandarin does have "plain" consonants and lacks a simple opposition between palatized and labialized/velarized consonants, I would doubt that secondary palatization is a factor, any more than it is in English.

I have read a fair amount about Mandarin phonology, but do not recall reading anything about secondary palatization of consonants, as in Slavic or Celtic languages. Could it be that the quality of the Mandarin vowel is tricking your ear? Do you know any non-Slavic European languages with a "ni" sound? If so, do you hear a palatized?, or a plain consonant?

[atitarev]

Thanks, Altair.

I didn't know Celtic languages have palatalisation, very interesting.

To my ear, Mandarin ni3 has a palalised "n" like in Russian "ничего" or Japanese 二 (ni). Japanese and Korean have a lot of palatalised sounds. In Japanese they all precede -i or -ya, -yo, -yu. The other consonant I forgot to mention is "m", so Chinese 秘密 mìmì sounds to me like Japanese 耳 (mimi) - "m" sounds palatalised in front of "i".

I have Russian background but I have acquired a quite a standard English accent when speaking English. To me, Mandarin "ni3" and English "knee" are quite different, the English n is hard, despite the long "ee" but Chinese is softened.

I haven't found any authoritative resource on that though.

Are there are other opinions?

[Gulao]

When really look at it, I pronounce t, d, etc. as palatized before high front medials (yi, yu). This is more because it is more difficult for me to move from a non-palatized consonant to a high front vowel, though.

Ultimately, I'd say they probably do, as there is no distinction between [t] and [t'] in Chinese, so they're free to become such an allophone, and when such things make pronunciation easier, they tend to happen.