Lusoga (Lutenga)

Nabirye, Minah; Verhoeven, Jo; Schryver, Gilles‐Maurice de

doi:10.1017/s0025100315000249

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded prosodic glottal stops if they were described as occurring variably (‘optionally, sometimes’) before word-initial vowels (e.g. Lusoga; Nabirye, de Schryver & Verhoeven 2016), but included them if they were described as always occurring predictably before word-initial vowels (e.g. Bohemian Czech; Šimáčková, Podlipský & Chládková 2012), even if they were not transcribed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voicing of glottal consonants and non-modal vowels

Garellek¹

2021

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in voicing is common among sounds of the world’s languages: sounds that are analyzed as voiceless can undergo voicing, and those analyzed as voiced can devoice. Among voiceless glottal sounds in particular, voicing is widespread: linguists often expect the voiceless glottal stop [ʔ] and fricative [h] to be fully voiced, especially between vowels. In this study, we use audio recordings from Illustrations of the International Phonetic Alphabet published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association to explore the extent to which glottal consonants and non-modal (breathy and creaky) vowels differ in terms of percentage voicing and voicing intensity in three phrasal positions. We find that voiceless [h] is only slightly less voiced than voiced [ɦ] in initial position. Between two vowels, both [h] and [ɦ] are as voiced as breathy vowels. Glottal stops and creaky vowels are both characterized by high percentages of voicing, but they differ in voicing intensity: in all phrasal positions, glottal stops generally have periods of strong and weak voicing, whereas creaky vowels are strongly voiced. In contrast, vowels described as ‘rearticulated’, ‘checked’, or ‘glottalized’ show similar drops in voicing intensity to glottal stops. We interpret these results through an articulatory lens: glottal consonants and non-modal vowels are both modulations in phonation resulting from laryngeal constriction and vocal fold spreading. We argue further that, because voicing during [ʔ] and [h] is largely predictable from respiratory and prosodic constraints, many cases of [ʔ] and [h] can be considered phonetically underspecified for voicing.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voicing of glottal consonants and non-modal vowels

Garellek¹

2021

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Proposal for superscript diacritics for prenasalization, preglottalization and preaspiration

Keating¹,

Wymark²,

Sharif³

2019

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The IPA currently does not specify how to represent prenasalization, preglottalization or preaspiration. We first review some current transcription practices, and phonetic and phonological literature bearing on the unitary status of prenasalized, preglottalized and preaspirated segments. We then propose that the IPA adopt superscript diacritics placed before a base symbol for these three phenomena. We also suggest how the current IPA Diacritics chart can be modified to allow these diacritics to be fit within the chart.

show abstract

Blowing in the wind: Using ‘North Wind and the Sun’ texts to sample phoneme inventories

Baird¹,

Evans²,

Greenhill³

2021

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language documentation faces a persistent and pervasive problem: How much material is enough to represent a language fully? How much text would we need to sample the full phoneme inventory of a language? In the phonetic/phonemic domain, what proportion of the phoneme inventory can we expect to sample in a text of a given length? Answering these questions in a quantifiable way is tricky, but asking them is necessary. The cumulative collection of Illustrative Texts published in the Illustration series in this journal over more than four decades (mostly renditions of the ‘North Wind and the Sun’) gives us an ideal dataset for pursuing these questions. Here we investigate a tractable subset of the above questions, namely: What proportion of a language’s phoneme inventory do these texts enable us to recover, in the minimal sense of having at least one allophone of each phoneme? We find that, even with this low bar, only three languages (Modern Greek, Shipibo and the Treger dialect of Breton) attest all phonemes in these texts. Unsurprisingly, these languages sit at the low end of phoneme inventory sizes (respectively 23, 24 and 36 phonemes). We then estimate the rate at which phonemes are sampled in the Illustrative Texts and extrapolate to see how much text it might take to display a language’s full inventory. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for linguistics in its quest to represent the world’s phonetic diversity, and for JIPA in its design requirements for Illustrations and in particular whether supplementary panphonic texts should be included.

show abstract

Lusoga (Lutenga)

Abstract: This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Voicing of glottal consonants and non-modal vowels

Voicing of glottal consonants and non-modal vowels

Proposal for superscript diacritics for prenasalization, preglottalization and preaspiration

Blowing in the wind: Using ‘North Wind and the Sun’ texts to sample phoneme inventories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About