Lenition of |h| and glottal stop

Pierrehumbert, Janet B.; Talkin, David

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511519918.005

Cited by 195 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…English voiceless stops are generally produced with longer VOTs in prosodically stronger locations, and this has been taken to be one of the most robust phonetic cues of stress, accent and prosodic boundary that is associated with voiceless stop consonants (Lisker & Abramson, 1967;Cooper, 1991;Pierrehumbert & Talkin, 1992;Choi, 2003;Cole et al, 2003, among others). The longer VOT in prosodically stronger locations can be interpreted as a result of articulatory strengthening of the glottal abduction (opening) gesture associated with voiceless stops (Cooper, 1991;Pierrehumbert & Talkin, 1992;Cho & Keating, 2001). The prosodic lengthening of VOT in English for /t/ can thus be interpreted as resulting in enhancing contrast between /t/ and /d/.…”

Section: Language-specificity and Contrast Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cambier-Langeveld's (1999 study on the interaction between preboundary lengthening and accentual lengthening in Dutch did not factor in lexical stress. Furthermore, most studies that have investigated domain-initial strengthening (i.e., spatiotemporal expansion of domain-initial segments as compared to domain-medial ones) have been limited to stressed initial consonants (Pierrehumbert & Talkin, 1992;Fougeron & Keating, 1997;Cho, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, we compared how voiceless stops are acoustically realized in prosodically strong locations in Dutch with their realization in English. Voiceless stops in English are generally produced with longer voice onset times (VOTs) in prosodically stronger locations (i.e., in lexically stressed, phraseaccented and domain-initial syllables; see, e.g., Lisker & Abramson, 1967;Pierrehumbert & Talkin, 1992;Cooper, 1991;Choi, 2003;Cole, Choi, Kim, & Hasegawa-Johnson, 2003). Such an increase in VOT has been interpreted as one of the most robust consonantal phonetic cues to prosodic structure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress

Cho

McQueen

2005

Journal of Phonetics

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosodic influences on phonetic realizations of four Dutch consonants (/t d s z/) were examined. Sentences were constructed containing these consonants in word-initial position; the factors lexical stress, phrasal accent and prosodic boundary were manipulated between sentences. Eleven Dutch speakers read these sentences aloud. The patterns found in acoustic measurements of these utterances (e.g., voice onset time (VOT), consonant duration, voicing during closure, spectral center of gravity, burst energy) indicate that the low-level phonetic implementation of all four consonants is modulated by prosodic structure. Boundary effects on domain-initial segments were observed in stressed and unstressed syllables, extending previous findings which have been on stressed syllables alone. Three aspects of the data are highlighted. First, shorter VOTs were found for /t/ in prosodically stronger locations (stressed, accented and domaininitial), as opposed to longer VOTs in these positions in English. This suggests that prosodically driven phonetic realization is bounded by language-specific constraints on how phonetic features are specified with phonetic content: Shortened VOT in Dutch reflects enhancement of the phonetic feature {Àspread glottis}, while lengthened VOT in English reflects enhancement of {+spread glottis}. Prosodic strengthening therefore appears to operate primarily at the phonetic level, such that prosodically driven enhancement of phonological contrast is determined by phonetic implementation of these (language-specific) phonetic features. Second, an accent effect was observed in stressed and unstressed syllables, and was independent of prosodic boundary size. The domain of accentuation in Dutch is thus larger than the foot. prosodic category consisting of those utterances with a boundary tone but no pause, tokens with syntactically defined Phonological Phrase boundaries could be differentiated from the other tokens. This syntactic influence on prosodic phrasing implies the existence of an intermediate-level phrase in the prosodic hierarchy of Dutch. r

show abstract

Section: Language-specificity and Contrast Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress

Cho

McQueen

2005

Journal of Phonetics

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data are relevant to ongoing research ef forts to determine the ef fects of prosody on articulation (e . g ., Hardcastle , 1985 ;Beckman , Edwards & Fletcher , 1992 ;Pierrehumbert & Talkin , 1992) . The following two hypotheses are tested to determine how syllable af filiation af fects relative timing in clusters : (H5) Temporal coproduction in consonant sequences is greater if the consonants are tautosyllabic , less if they are heterosyllabic .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences

Byrd

1996

Journal of Phonetics

257

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, in Korean (as in English), voiceless aspirated stops have longer VOTs at the beginning of higher prosodic domains and under prominence (e.g., Cho & Keating, 2001, 2009Cho, Lee, & Kim, 2011;Keating et al, 2003;Pierrehumbert & Talkin, 1992). Cho and McQueen (2005) argued, in line with Keating (1984), that while voiceless stops can be phonologically specified with [ Àvoice] across languages, their phonetic realization is languagespecific.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonetic richness can outweigh prosodically-driven phonological knowledge when learning words in an artificial language

Kim

Cho

McQueen

2012

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tHow do Dutch and Korean listeners use acoustic-phonetic information when learning words in an artificial language? Dutch has a voiceless 'unaspirated' stop, produced with shortened Voice Onset Time (VOT) in prosodic strengthening environments (e.g., in domain-initial position and under prominence), enhancing the feature { À spread glottis}; Korean has a voiceless 'aspirated' stop produced with lengthened VOT in similar environments, enhancing the feature {þ spread glottis}. Given this crosslinguistic difference, two competing hypotheses were tested. The phonological-superiority hypothesis predicts that Dutch and Korean listeners should utilize shortened and lengthened VOTs, respectively, as cues in artificial-language segmentation. The phonetic-superiority hypothesis predicts that both groups should take advantage of the phonetic richness of longer VOTs (i.e., their enhanced auditory-perceptual robustness). Dutch and Korean listeners learned the words of an artificial language better when wordinitial stops had longer VOTs than when they had shorter VOTs. It appears that language-specific phonological knowledge can be overridden by phonetic richness in processing an unfamiliar language. Listeners nonetheless performed better when the stimuli were based on the speech of their native languages, suggesting that the use of richer phonetic information was modulated by listeners' familiarity with the stimuli.

show abstract

Lenition of |h| and glottal stop

Cited by 195 publications

References 0 publications

Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress

Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress

Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences

Phonetic richness can outweigh prosodically-driven phonological knowledge when learning words in an artificial language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About