Georgian, a South Caucasian language belonging to the Kartvelian
family,
is characterised by the ability of its consonants to combine in extensive
clusters. Among the possible combinations are a series of two-member
clusters which are argued to behave phonologically as single segments
(Tschenkeli 1958, Vogt 1958, 1971, Aronson 1982, 1991, Deprez 1988 and
others). They are known as ‘harmonic’ clusters, because the
laryngeal
quality is constant across the cluster. Its two members are both voiced
([dg bg dγ bγ]), both aspirated
([thkh tshkh
thχ tshχ]) or both ejective
([t'k' ts'k' p'k' t'q' ts'q']).
They can occur either word-initially or in word-medial
position. Harmonic clusters do not contrast with identical sequences of
segments, except for sequences formed at the junction of two words.
There is no evidence that across word boundaries harmonic clusters are
derived by some sort of restructuring.
The purpose of the present study is to review the phonological
arguments brought in the literature in favour of treating harmonic clusters
as single segments, and to look for acoustic evidence that would motivate
the distinction made between harmonic clusters behaving as single
segments, on the one hand, and simple sequences of consonants, on the
other hand. The study uses phonetic data to address the issue of
phonological representation. If the difference between a harmonic cluster
and a simple sequence of segments is present in the phonology, then it
should ideally also be visible in the acoustic signal, for example in the
presence or absence of a release burst, or in timing differences, as
suggested by previous studies of complex vs. simple segments in
various
languages (Maddieson & Ladefoged 1989, Maddieson 1989, 1990). The
results show that the treatment of Georgian harmonic clusters as complex
segments is not supported by the acoustic data.
The paper is organised as follows: § 2 presents the phonological
behaviour of consonant clusters in Georgian, § 3 reviews phonetic
evidence
for complex segments, and spells out the predictions made by the present
study. The acoustic study is described in § 4, followed by the presentation
and discussion of results in § 5. The conclusions and areas for further
study are presented in § 6.