I've noticed that some words starting with /ɕ/ in (Chinese) Mandarin become /x/ in some dialects.
For example:
鞋 /ɕjɛ/ -> /xai/
下 /ɕja/ -> /xa/
How close are /ɕ/ and /x/ pronunciation-wise?
Does this kind of deviation make sense, logically?!
Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI've noticed that some words starting with /ɕ/ in (Chinese) Mandarin become /x/ in some dialects.
For example:
鞋 /ɕjɛ/ -> /xai/
下 /ɕja/ -> /xa/
How close are /ɕ/ and /x/ pronunciation-wise?
Does this kind of deviation make sense, logically?!
/ɕ/ -- voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant fricative
/x/ -- voiceless velar fricative
/ç/ -- voiceless palatal fricative
NOTE: /ç/ is a common allophone of /x/ in other languages (e.g. German).
Thus, what I suspect is happening is that in some dialects the tongue tip does not raise enough to the hard palate, but the body of the tongue is shifted toward either the hard palate or velum to compensate (i.e. differentiate it from a [ʃ] sound). This may be because the latter are easier to pronounce.
Source: Wikipedia
[ɕ] and [x] are not very close in pronunciation, articulatorily or acoustically. [x] and [χ] are fairly similar, and [ʃ ɕ ç] and fairly similar. Sumelic mentions that [ɕ] derives from /x/ or /s/, which happened relatively recently, and explains the orthographic velars in the spelling of Peking, Chungking, and the dental in Sinkiang.
Do you know for sure that the sound has changed from an earlier /ɕ/, or only that it corresponds to /ɕ/ in Mandarin? I ask because /ɕ/ in Mandarin is actually a merger of two older phonemes; it is derived from /x/ and /s/ in palatalizing environments. You might want to examine if this was a separate development of these sounds, rather than a development through /ɕ/ (which is also a possibility).