1887
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2772-3720
  • E-ISSN: 2772-3739
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores to what extent lexical factors, such as minimal pairhood and wordedness, affect the realisation of laryngeal features of the word-final fricatives /s/ and /z/ in Hungarian in potentially neutralising contexts, and whether the observed acoustic differences are perceptually salient enough to distinguish underlying voicing in non-minimal pairs and in minimal pairs in semantically ambiguous contexts. We show that in devoicing contexts the contrast between /s/ and /z/ in minimal pairs is more likely to be upheld than in non-minimal pairs in production, and this difference seems to map onto perceptual contrast, also that complete neutralisation can be prevented in devoicing contexts by durational cues. In the voicing environment, the acoustic difference between the fricatives is less likely to map onto a contrast in perception, indicating neutralisation. In the devoicing context, little voicing is enough to categorise the fricative as voiced: listeners compensate for phonological changes that correspond to existing rules in their language rather than for those that are only coarticulatory in nature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00013.bar
2023-06-19
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baese-Berk, Melissa & Matthew Goldrick
    2009 Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes241. 527–554. 10.1080/01690960802299378
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802299378 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Zoltán G. Kiss
    2015 Why do sonorants not voice in Hungarian? And why do they voice in Slovak?InKatalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference, 65–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.14.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.03bar [Google Scholar]
  3. 2019 A fonetikai korrelátumok szerepe a zöngekontraszt fenntartásában. Beszédprodukciós és észleléses eredmények [The role of phonetic correlates in voicing contrast. Results from speech production and perception]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok311. 57–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2020 Neutralisation and contrast preservation: Voicing assimilation in Hungarian three-consonant clusters. Linguistic Variation201. 56–83. 10.1075/lv.16010.bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16010.bar [Google Scholar]
  5. 2021 The perception of voicing contrast in assimilation contexts in minimal pairs: Evidence from Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica681. 207–229. 10.1556/2062.2021.00473
    https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2021.00473 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Katalin Mády
    2012 The perception of voicing in fricatives. Paper presented at the9th Old World Conference in Phonology, Berlin, 18–21 January 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartoń, Kamil
    2020 MuMIn: Multi-model inference. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. R package version 1.43.17.
  8. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software671. 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker
    2021 lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘eigen’ and S4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. R package version 1.4–00.
  10. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2021 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. (www.praat.org)
  11. Bolker, Ben & David Robinson
    2021 Broom.mixed: Tidying methods for mixed models. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=broom.mixed. R package version 0.2.7.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Charles-Luce, Jan
    1993 The effects of semantic context on voicing neutralization. Phonetica501. 28–43. 10.1159/000261924
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261924 [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa, Paul & Ignatius Mattingly
    1981 Production and perception of phonetic contrast during phonetic change. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR 67/68. 191–196. 10.1121/1.386167
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.386167 [Google Scholar]
  14. Darcy, Isabel, Franck Ramus, Anne Christophe, Katherine Kinzler & Emmanuel Dupoux
    2009 Phonological knowledge in compensation for native and non-native assimilation. InFrank Kügler, Caroline Féry & Ruben Vijver (eds.), Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology, 265–309. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219326.265
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219326.265 [Google Scholar]
  15. Draxler, Christoph & Klaus Jänsch
    2004 SpeechRecorder – A universal platform independent multi-channel audio recording software. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 559–562. Lisbon.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. G. Kiss, Zoltán
    2013 Measuring acoustic correlates of voicing in stops and fricatives. InPéter Szigetvári (ed.), VLLXX: Papers presented to László Varga on his 70th birthday, 289–311. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University & Tinta Könyvkiadó/Tinta Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ganong, William F.
    1980 Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance61. 110–125. 10.1037/0096‑1523.6.1.110
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.110 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
    2013 Phonetic bias in sound change. InAlan C. L. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gilliéron, Jules
    1910 Étude de géographie linguistique XII – mots en collision. Le coq et le chat. Revue de philologie française41. 278–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldrick, Matthew, Charlotte Vaughn & Amanda Murphy
    2013 The effects of lexical neighbours on stop consonant articulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1341. 172–177. 10.1121/1.4812821
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812821 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gráczi, Tekla Etelka
    2010 A spiránsok zöngésségi oppozíciójának néhány jellemzője [Some properties of the voicing opposition of spirants]. Beszédkutatás 2010, 42–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hanson, Helen M., Richard S. McGowan, Kenneth N. Stevens & Robert E. Beaudoin
    1999 Development of rules for controlling the HLSyn speech synthesizer. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings, vol. 1. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 85–88. 10.1109/ICASSP.1999.758068
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1999.758068 [Google Scholar]
  23. Harrington, Jonathan, Felicitas Kleber & Ulrich Reubold
    2012 The production and perception of coarticulation in two types of sound changes in progress. InSusanne Fuchs, Melanie Weirich, Daniel Pape & Pascal Perrier (eds.), Speech planning and dynamics, 39–62. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Harris, John
    1994English sound structure. Oxford & Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hestvik, Arild & Karthik Durvasula
    2016 Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English. Brain and Language1521. 28–43. 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.10.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hwang, So-One K., Philip J. Mohanan & William J. Idsardi
    2010 Underspecification and asymmetries in voicing perception. Phonology271. 205–224. 10.1017/S0952675710000102
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675710000102 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jansen, Wouter
    2004 Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  28. 2007 Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing and assimilation in English. Language Sciences291. 270–293. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  29. Janson, Tore
    1983 Sound change in perception and production. Language591. 18–34. 10.2307/414059
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414059 [Google Scholar]
  30. Javkin, Hector R.
    1976 The perceptual basis of vowel duration differences associated with the voiced/voiceless distinction. Report of the Phonology Laboratory, UC Berkeley11. 78–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kharlamov, Viktor
    2014 Incomplete neutralisation of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences. Journal of Phonetics431. 47–56. 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kingston, John & Randy L. Diehl
    1994 Phonetic knowledge. Language701. 419–454. 10.1353/lan.1994.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0023 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kitahara, Mafuyu, Keiichi Tajima & Kiyoko Yoneyama
    2019 The effect of lexical competition on realization of phonetic contrasts: A corpus study of the voicing contrast in Japanese. In: Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain & Paul Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2749–2752. Melbourne, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kleber, Felicitas, Jonathan Harrington & Ulrich Reubold
    2012 The relationship between the perception and production of coarticulation during a sound change in progress. Language and Speech551. 383–405. 10.1177/0023830911422194
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422194 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kluender, Keith R., Randy L. Diehl & Beverly A. Wright
    1988 Vowel length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics161. 153–169. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30480‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30480-2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kulikov, Vladimir
    2022 Voice and emphasis in Arabic coronal stops: Evidence for phonological compensation. Language and Speech651. 73–104. 10.1177/0023830920986821
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920986821 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuzla, Claudia, Mirjam Ernestus & Holger Mitterer
    2010 Compensation for assimilatory devoicing and prosodic structure in German fricative perception. InCécile Fougeron, Barbara Kühnert, Mariapaola D’Imperio & Nathalie Vallée (eds.), Laboratory phonology101, 731–757. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110224917.5.731
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224917.5.731 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen
    2017 lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software821. 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lindblom, Björn
    1990 Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In: William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 403–440. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2037‑8_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson
    1964 A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word201. 384–422. 10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1967 Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech101. 1–28. 10.1177/002383096701000101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096701000101 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luce, Paul A. & David B. Pisoni
    1998 Recognizing spoken words: The neighbourhood activation model. Ear and Hearing191. 1–36. 10.1097/00003446‑199802000‑00001
    https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Makowski, Dominique, Mattan S. Ben-Shachar, Indrajeet Patil & Daniel Lüdecke
    2021 Automated results reporting as a practical tool to improve reproducibility and methodological best practices adoption, v. 0.5.0. CRAN. https://github.com/easystats/report
  44. Manuel, Sharon Y.
    1990 The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America881. 1286–1298. 10.1121/1.399705
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399705 [Google Scholar]
  45. Martinet, André
    1952 Function, structure, and sound change. Word81. 1–32. 10.1080/00437956.1952.11659416
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1952.11659416 [Google Scholar]
  46. Massaro, Dominic W. & Michael M. Cohen
    1983 Consonant/vowel ratio: An improbable cue in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics331. 502–505. 10.3758/BF03202904
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202904 [Google Scholar]
  47. Munteanu, Andrei
    2021 Homophony avoidance in the grammar: Russian nominal allomorphy. Phonology381. 401–435. 10.1017/S0952675721000257
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675721000257 [Google Scholar]
  48. Myers, Scott
    2012 Final devoicing: Production and perception studies. In: Tony Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara & Mariko Sugahara (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 148–180. London: Equinox Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Newman, Rochelle S.
    2003 Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: A preliminary report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1131. 2850–2860. 10.1121/1.1567280
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1567280 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ohala, John J.
    1981 The listener as a source of sound change. In: Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrik & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behaviour conference (CLS 17), 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Parker, Ellen M., Randy L. Diehl & Keith R. Kluender
    1986 Trading relations in speech and non-speech. Perception and Psychophysics391. 129–142. 10.3758/BF03211495
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211495 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pedersen, Thomas Lin
    2020 Patchwork: The composer of plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork. R package version 1.1.0.
  53. Pinget, Anne-France, René Kager & Hans van de Velde
    2020 Linking variation in perception and production in sound change: Evidence from Dutch obstruent devoicing. Language and Speech631. 660–685. 10.1177/0023830919880206
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919880206 [Google Scholar]
  54. Port, Robert F. & Jonathan Dalby
    1982 C/V ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Perception and Psychophysics21. 141–152. 10.3758/BF03204273
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204273 [Google Scholar]
  55. Port, Robert F. & Adam P. Leary
    2005 Against formal phonology. Language811. 927–964. 10.1353/lan.2005.0195
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0195 [Google Scholar]
  56. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2020 R: A language and environment for statistical computing; 4.0.2. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
  57. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2013 A counterexample to homophony avoidance. Diachronica301. 579–591. 10.1075/dia.30.4.05sam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.4.05sam [Google Scholar]
  58. Shultz, Amanda A., Alexander L. Francis & Fernando Llanos
    2012 Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1321. EL95–EL101. 10.1121/1.4736711
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4736711 [Google Scholar]
  59. Silverman, Daniel
    2012Neutralization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139013895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013895 [Google Scholar]
  60. Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
    2000The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Snoeren, Natalie D., Pierre A. Hallé & Juan Segui
    2006 A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French. Journal of Phonetics341. 241–268. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Snoeren, Natalie D., Juan Segui and Pierre A. Hallé
    2008 On the role of regular phonological variation in lexical access: Evidence from voice assimilation in French. Cognition1081. 512–521. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  63. Steriade, Donca
    1997 Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Manuscript. University of California Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Stevens, Kenneth N.
    1998Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan & Scott Jackson
    2013 High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition1281. 179–86. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  66. Wells, John C.
    1982Accents of English 1–3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611759
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611759 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund
    2019 Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software41. 1686. 10.21105/joss.01686
    https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 [Google Scholar]
  68. Yin, Sora Heng & James White
    2018 Neutralization and homophony avoidance in phonological learning. Cognition1791. 89–101. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.023 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00013.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jul.00013.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error