[lax]

Counterpart

Feature System

Definition

The [lax] phonemes are sounds that are produced with less muscular effort,
reduced articulatory tension, and lower total energy compared to their [tense]
counterparts. They typically involve smaller deviations from the neutral
articulatory position, and their articulation often shows a tendency toward
centralization. In terms of perception, lax phonemes are generally less audible
than [tense] phonemes.

Purpose

The [tense]/[lax] opposition captures vowel qualities exemplified by English
/i / deed vs. /ɪ/ did. It also aimed to capture the voiced obstruents of English
/b, d, ɡ, tʃ, v, z/ (Jakobson, Halle, Fant 1968:36). In contrast, the voiceless
stops are [tense].

History

The feature [lax] has long been recognized primarily as the counterpart to
[tense], but its theoretical definition has remained vague and dependent on
comparative framing. Both Jakobson and Lotz (1949) and Jakobson, Halle,
Fant (1952) juxtapose [lax] with [tense], without it having an independent
definition. This oppositional framing reinforces Jakobson’s broader view that
distinctive features operate in binary opposition. Similarly, in The sound
pattern of English (SPE) (Chomsky & Halle 1968), the opposition is
represented as [tense] vs. [non-tense], indicating a privative interpretation of
the feature. Lax vowels, such as [ɪ], are described as having narrower tongue
restrictions and reduced articulatory precision compared to their [tense]
counterparts.
Perkell (1969), using X-ray motion films of speech, observes that [tense]
vowels maintain a stable pharyngeal width, while [lax] vowels show
variability, suggesting that the tongue is less constrained during the
articulation of lax vowels. He suggests that during the articulation of a lax
vowel, the tongue shape in the lower pharynx isn’t tightly controlled and can
easily be affected by the surrounding sounds, whereas tense vowels maintain a
more rigid tongue posture.

Clements and Halle (1983) also allude to [lax], associating it with less
muscular effort than [tense], though without offering a clear featural
specification. In typological contexts, the term has broader utility. Kim et al.
(2015) note that [lax] is used descriptively in Korean phonology and is often
rendered as [-tense], emphasizing its status as a negative or relational feature
rather than a primary one. Similarly, Anderson (2021:145) discusses the
[tense]/[lax] contrast in Danish obstruents, where initial /t/ and /d/ contrast

Similarly, Anderson (2021:145) discusses the [tense]/[lax] contrast in Danish obstruents, where initial /t/ and /d/ contrastwith post-vocalic /d/ and /ð/, interpretable as a distributional pattern of [tense] vs. [lax] consonants.

Some scholars have attempted to clarify the articulatory or phonological
underpinnings of [lax]. Lindau (1978) questions the consistency of tongue
root advancement as a basis for the [tense]/[lax] distinction. In a later work,
Lindau (1979) proposes defining [lax] as [-peripheral], highlighting the
centralizing tendency of such vowels in vowel space. Hawkins (1984) even
connects the [tense]/[lax] opposition to voicing distinctions. He proposes that
tense consonants align with the feature [voiceless] and [lax] ones with
[voiced]. Altogether, the feature [lax] remains theoretically unstable, often described
only by its contrast to [tense], variably grounded in articulatory, perceptual, or
distributional criteria across languages.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 2021. Phonology in the twentieth century: Second
edition, revised and expanded (History and Philosophy of the Language
Sciences 5). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Clements, G. N., & Morris Halle. 1983. The phonetics and phonology of
Semitic pharyngeals. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 33–82.

Jakobson, Roman, & Jean Lotz. 1949. Notes on the French phonemic pattern.
Word 5. 425–434. Reprinted in Phonological Studies. Berlin/Boston: De
Gruyter, 2002.

Kim, Hyunsoon, Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Mi-Ryoung Kim, & Juwon
Hwang. 2015. The feature [tense]. In Annie Rialland, Rachid Ridouane &
Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Features in phonology and phonetics, vol. 21,
159–178. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Lindau, M. 1978. Vowel features. Language 54. 541–563.

Lindau, M. 1979. The feature expanded. Journal of Phonetics 7. 163–176.

Perkell, Joseph S. 1969. Physiology of speech production: Results and
implications of a quantitative cineradiographic study. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Author

Bex Colley