1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studies the contextual variation in the voicing properties of three-consonant clusters (CC#C) in Hungarian. We investigate the velar+alveolar stop clusters /kt/ and /ɡd/, and the alveolar fricative+stop clusters /st/ and /zd/ in potentially voicing-neutralising and assimilating contexts. We show that in these contexts, regressive voicing assimilation in Hungarian is categorical, but partially contrast preserving, and that stops and fricatives are not affected in the same way. Fricatives resist voicing before a voiced obstruent and are devoiced utterance-finally. This is a phonetically unfavourable position, therefore other duration-related cues step up to prevent complete laryngeal neutralisation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16010.bar
2020-01-09
2020-10-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Katalin Mády
    2012 The perception of voicing in fricatives. Paper presented at the9th Old World Conference in Phonology, 18–21 January, 2012, Berlin.
    [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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 65–94. 10.1075/atoh.14.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.03bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Zoltán Kiss
    2007 A phonetically-based approach to the phonology of [v]: A case study from Hungarian and Slovak. Paper presented at the4th Old World Conference in Phonology, 18–21 January, 2007, Rhodes, Greece.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1), 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2012 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. (Version 5.3.12) [Computer program]. Retrieved fromwww.praat.org/
  6. Burton, Martha & Karen Robblee
    1997 A phonetic analysis of voicing assimilation in Russian. Journal of Phonetics25. 97–114. 10.1006/jpho.1996.0037
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0037 [Google Scholar]
  7. Charles-Luce, Jan
    1985 Word-final devoicing in German: Effects of phonetic and sentential contexts. Journal of Phonetics13. 309–324. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30762‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30762-4 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1993 The effects of semantic context on voicing neutralization. Phonetica50. 28–43. 10.1159/000261924
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261924 [Google Scholar]
  9. Côté, Marie-Hélène
    2000 Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
  10. Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Jan Charles-Luce
    1984 Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation, and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics12. 49–60. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30850‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30850-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles & Zoe Field
    2012Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fourakis, Marios & Gregory Iverson
    1984 On the ‘incomplete neutralization’ of German final obstruents. Phonetica41. 140–149. 10.1159/000261720
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261720 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gráczi, Tekla Etelka
    2010 A spiránsok zöngésségi oppozíciójának néhány jellemzője [Some characteristics of the voicing contrast of fricatives]. InMária Gósy (ed.) Beszédkutatás 2010 [Speech research 2010]. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. 42–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1970 Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. International Journal of American Linguistics36(2). 123–145. 10.1086/465105
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465105 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hallé, Pierre A. & Martine Adda-Decker
    2011 Voice assimilation in French obstruents: Categorical or gradient?InJohn Goldsmith, Elizabeth Hume & Leo Wetzels (eds.) Tone and features: A festschrift for Nick Clements. Berlin & New York: Mouten De Gruyter. 149–175. 10.1515/9783110246223.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246223.149 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanson, Helen M., Richard S. McGowan, Kenneth N. Stevens and Robert E. Beaudoin
    1999 Development of rules for controlling the HLsyn speech synthesizer. InAcoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings, vol.1. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 85–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris, John
    1994English sound structure. Cambridge, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes, Bruce
    1999 Phonetically driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. InMichael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick Newmeyer & Kathleen Wheatly (eds.) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. vol. 1. 243–285. 10.1075/slcs.41.13hay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.41.13hay [Google Scholar]
  19. Hayes, Bruce & Donca Steriade
    2004 The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. InBruce Hayes, Robert M. Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–33. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486401.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. HLSyn (High Level Speech Synthesizer) Reference Manual
    HLSyn (High Level Speech Synthesizer) Reference Manual 1999 Sensimetrics Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackson, Philip J. B. & Christine H. Shadle
    2000 Frication noise modulated by voicing, as revealed by pitch-scaled decomposition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America108(4). 1421–1434. 10.1121/1.1289207
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1289207 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jansen, Wouter
    2004 Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  23. Jassem, Wiktor & Lutoslawa Richter
    1989 Neutralisation of voicing in Polish obstruents. Journal of Phonetics17. 317–325. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30447‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30447-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Javkin, Hector R.
    1976 The perceptual basis of vowel duration differences associated with the voiced/voiceless distinction. Report of the Phonology Laboratory, UC Berkeley1. 78–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kahlen-Halstenbach, Birthe
    1990 Zur psychologischen Realität der Auslautverhartung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für phonetische Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung43. 645–655.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kingston, John & Randy L. Diehl
    1994 Phonetic knowledge. Language70. 419–454. 10.1353/lan.1994.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0023 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kluender, Keith R., Randy L. Diehl & Beverly A. Wright
    1988 Vowel length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics16. 153–169. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30480‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30480-2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen
    2016 lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0–32. https://CRAN.R​-project.org/package=lmerTest
  29. Mády, Katalin & Zsuzsanna Bárkányi
    2015 Voicing assimilation at accentual phrase boundaries in Hungarian. InMaria Wolters, Judy Livingstone, Bernie Beattie, Rachel Smith, Mike MacMahon, Jane Stuart-Smith & Jim Scobbie (eds.). Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow. 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Markó, Alexandra, Tekla Etelka Gráczi & Judit Bóna
    2010 The realisation of voicing assimilation rules in Hungarian spontaneous and read speech: Case studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica57. 210–238. 10.1556/ALing.57.2010.2‑3.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.57.2010.2-3.3 [Google Scholar]
  31. Massaro, Dominic W. & Michael M. Cohen
    1983 Consonant/vowel ratio: An improbable cue in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics33. 502–505. 10.3758/BF03202904
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202904 [Google Scholar]
  32. Myers, Scott
    2012 Final devoicing: Production and perception studies. InTony Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara & Mariko Sugahara (eds.) Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox Press. 148–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Dell, Michael & Port, Robert F.
    1983 Discrimination of word final voicing in German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America73. Supplement 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ohala, John J.
    1983 The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. InPeter MacNeilage (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 189–216. 10.1007/978‑1‑4613‑8202‑7_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Parker, Ellen M., Randy L. Diehl & Keith R. Kluender
    1986 Trading relations in speech and non-speech. Perception and Psychophysics39. 129–142. 10.3758/BF03211495
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211495 [Google Scholar]
  36. Port, Robert F. & Jonathan Dalby
    1982 C/V ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Perception and Psychophysics2. 141–152. 10.3758/BF03204273
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204273 [Google Scholar]
  37. Port, Robert F. & Adam P. Leary
    2005 Against formal phonology. Language81. 927–964. 10.1353/lan.2005.0195
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0195 [Google Scholar]
  38. Port, Robert F., Fares Mitleb & Michael O’Dell
    1981 Neutralization of obstruent voicing in German is incomplete. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America70. Supplement 1. 10.1121/1.2018716
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2018716 [Google Scholar]
  39. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN3-900051-07-0. www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmidt, Lauren B. & Erik W. Willis
    2011 Systematic investigation of voicing assimilation of Spanish /s/ in Mexico City. InScott M. Alvord (ed.) Selected proceedings of the 5th conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
    2000The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Slowiaczek, Louisa M. & Daniel A. Dinnsen
    1985 On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics13. 325–341. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30763‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30763-6 [Google Scholar]
  43. Slowiaczek, Louisa M. & Helena J. Szymanska
    1989 Perception of word-final devoicing in Polish. Journal of Phonetics17. 205–212. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30430‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30430-9 [Google Scholar]
  44. Steriade, Donca
    1997 Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Manuscript. University of California Los Angeles.
  45. 2008 The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. InSharon Inkelas & Kristin Hanson (eds.) The nature of the word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 151–180. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stevens, Kenneth N.
    1998Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Strycharczuk, Patrycja
    2012 Phonetics – phonology interactions in pre-sonorant voicing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.
  48. Strycharczuk, Patrycja & Ellen Simon
    2013 Obstruent voice before sonorants. The case of West-Flemish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Available online. doi:  10.1007/s11049‑013‑9189‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9189-5 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vago, Robert M.
    1980The Sound Pattern of Hungarian. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wells, John Christopher
    2000Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wright, Richard
    2001 Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. InElizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 251–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2004 A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. InBruce Hayes, Robert M. Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34–57. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zsigri, Gyula
    1994 Magyar mássalhangzószabályok. [Rules for Hungarian consonants]. Doctoral dissertation. József Attila University (JATE), Szeged. (Published byJATE Press, Szeged 2006.).
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16010.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16010.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contrast , devoicing , Hungarian , neutralisation and voicing assimilation
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