The so-called
voiceless palatal-velar fricative (also called a
voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative,
voiceless postalveolar and velar fricative, or
voiceless coarticulated velar and palatoalveolar fricative) covers a range of similar sounds used in most
dialects of
Swedish and transcribed as . In Swedish, they are commonly referred to as the
sje-sound, based on one of the more common spellings. They have very similar acoustic properties, not dissimilar from the sound of southern Dutch or German
ch after
e or
i, and feature distinct
labialization. The
International Phonetic Association describes as "simultaneous and ", but this claim is disputed among
phoneticians, including at least one former president of the IPA.
[Peter Ladefoged, The Sounds of the World's Languages.]Features
Features of the voiceless palatal-velar fricative:
- Its phonation type is voiceless, which means it is produced without vibrations of the vocal cords.
- It is an oral consonant, which means air is allowed to escape through the mouth.
- It is a central consonant, which means it is produced by allowing the airstream to flow over the center of the tongue, rather than the sides.
Occurrence
This sound has been reported in certain dialects of
Swedish, where it is most often known as the "sje"-sound.
- Its place of articulation varies over Swedish regions, and is not agreed upon (see references). It has been variously found to be:
- * velar and postalveolar, meaning it is articulated simultaneously with the tongue dorsum (i.e. the back part of the tongue) approximating the velum (i.e. the soft palate) (like ) and just behind the teeth (like ). However, doubly articulated fricatives are very difficult to pronounce or to hear, and many linguists doubt that they exist.
- * Lindblad describes the second common variant of Swedish as velar. The difference between it and is not clear, but it may have less friction (), or be further forward (), or both.
- * A number of intermediate possibilities between these extremes.
- * Other articulations have been described as well, with no obvious standard emerging.
Consider the following comments by
Peter Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson: