Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops

Abstract

This study explores acoustic correlates to the singleton vs. geminate stop length contrast in Japanese. The proposal examined is that multiple acoustic features covary with the stop length distinction and that these features are available in the signal as potential secondary cues. The results support the proposal, revealing the presence of several acoustic features covarying with the singleton vs. geminate contrast in both durational and non-durational domains. Specifically, the preceding vowel is longer, the following vowel is shorter, there are greater fundamental frequency and intensity changes from the preceding to the following vowel, and there is evidence of more creakiness in voice quality for geminate than singleton consonants. It is also demonstrated that the vowel durations, as well as fundamental frequency and intensity changes have fairly strong categorization power.

Geminate timing in Lebanese Arabic: the relationship between phonetic timing and phonological structure

“…This also suggests that V 1 duration does not provide very useful information for consonant quantity, although proportional durations (Figure 7) did show that V 1 contributes a smaller proportion of the overall duration of the word when the following consonant is a geminate. These results are similar to what is found for mora-timed language like Japanese (Idemaru and Guion 2008) whereby the consonant durational cue is sufficiently strong, rendering the duration of the preceding vowel less important for the singleton-geminate contrast. Syllable-timed languages, on the other hand (e.g., Italian or Madurese), are thought to have a less robust singleton-geminate durational difference and to show a durational inverse between the stop and the preceding vowel (e.g., Esposito and Di Benedetto 1999;Ham 2001).…”

“…This echoes findings that suggest that the primary cue for gemination is the duration of the consonant itself (Lahiri and Hankamer 1988;Esposito and Di Benedetto 1999;Arvaniti and Tserdanelis 2000;Ham 2001;Ladd and Scobbie 2004;Idemaru and Guion 2008;Ridouane 2010). …”

“…As for the vowel following the coda consonant (V 2 ), relatively little research has been carried out on its duration and on whether its length is influenced by whether the preceding consonant and first vowel (V 1 ) are short or long. In Finnish (Aoyama 2001), Japanese (Idemaru and Guion 2008), and Malayalam (Local and Simpson 1988), the V 2 has been found to be shorter in geminate than in singleton contexts, and shorter than V 1 in the geminate context. Local and Simpson (1988) explain these results by referring to the rhythmic properties of syllables in Malayalam.…”

“…This has been supported by evidence of vowel and/or consonant shortening in various languages (e.g., F. Al-Tamimi [2004] Hassan (2003) and Ghalib (1984) on Iraqi Arabic, Hansen (2003) on Persian, Homma (1981) on Japanese, Lahiri and Hankamer (1988) on Bengali and Turkish, McKay (1980) on Rembarrnga, and Tserdanelis and Arvaniti (2001) on Cypriot Greek. In languages like Persian (Hansen 2003), Finnish (Suomi and Ylitalo 2004), and Japanese (Idemaru and Guion 2008;Kingston et al 2009), the preceding vowel has actually been reported to be longer when preceding geminates than when preceding singletons. Due to the conflicting results regarding the role of preceding vowel length, the major cue for singleton and geminate distinction remains the duration of the consonant itself (Lahiri and Hankamer 1988;Esposito and Di Benedetto 1999;Arvaniti and Tserdanelis 2000;Ham 2001;Ladd and Scobbie 2004;Idemaru and Guion 2008;Ridouane 2010) or the ratio of the consonant to the preceding vowel (Pind 1999;Hansen 2004).…”

“…These include spectral characteristics of the preceding and/ or following vowels (e.g., more peripheral and/or closer preceding vowels), creaky and/or tense phonation, clearer consonantal resonance in sonorants, and sharper/firmer and flatter closures in stops (e.g., Hankamer et al 1988;Simpson 1988, 1999;Abramson 1991;Esposito and Di Benedetto 1999;Arvaniti and Tserdanelis 2000;Tserdanelis and Arvaniti 2001;Payne 2005Payne , 2006Ridouane 2007;Idemaru and Guion 2008). These manifestations suggest a tense/lax distinction that is thought to enhance the perceptual distance between singletons and geminates.…”