2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0095-4470(03)00005-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On durational correlates of word stress in Finnish

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Long vowels were longer in both primary stressed and secondary stressed syllables relative to unstressed syllables. The asymmetric lengthening of long but not short vowels accords with results for Finnish (Lehtonen 1970, Suomi andYlitalo 2004), although the Ingrian data differs from results from standard Finnish (Lehtonen 1970, Suomi and Ylitalo 2004, Suomi 2005) in failing to displaying lengthening of codas, either voiced or voiceless, in stressed syllables. Suomi and Ylitalo (2004), Suomi (2005), and Suomi et al (2007) interpret the lengthening of long vowels and coda consonants in stressed syllables as lengthening of the second mora, The lengthening of long but not short vowels plausibly also has a functional explanation: long vowels are free to lengthen without disturbing a phonemic contrast in duration whereas short vowels could infringe on the durational space of phonemic long vowels if they were to lengthen.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Long vowels were longer in both primary stressed and secondary stressed syllables relative to unstressed syllables. The asymmetric lengthening of long but not short vowels accords with results for Finnish (Lehtonen 1970, Suomi andYlitalo 2004), although the Ingrian data differs from results from standard Finnish (Lehtonen 1970, Suomi and Ylitalo 2004, Suomi 2005) in failing to displaying lengthening of codas, either voiced or voiceless, in stressed syllables. Suomi and Ylitalo (2004), Suomi (2005), and Suomi et al (2007) interpret the lengthening of long vowels and coda consonants in stressed syllables as lengthening of the second mora, The lengthening of long but not short vowels plausibly also has a functional explanation: long vowels are free to lengthen without disturbing a phonemic contrast in duration whereas short vowels could infringe on the durational space of phonemic long vowels if they were to lengthen.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Gordon (1997) replicates Lehiste's finding on primary stressed onset lengthening in his study of Estonian and also found that most reliable acoustic correlate to secondary stress in Estonian was the lengthening of the onset consonant. Lehtonen (1970), Suomi and Ylitalo (2004), and Suomi (2005) find that coda consonants in primary stressed syllables are also lengthened in Finnish, but that this lengthening is limited to voiced codas.…”
Section: Effects Of Stress On Consonant Durationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the fundamental duration equation (6), CVCVV longer than CVVCV requires that the average value of the (varying) syllable coefficient c SYLL must be greater for the first mora than for the third. This corresponds reasonably well with the conclusion of Suomi and Ylitalo (2004) that in a Finnish foot the "first two mora are lengthened." Note that if all other coefficients are held constant, then the first syllable (or mora) of CVCVV will also be longer than the last syllable of CVVCV, which actually is the case.…”
Section: An Example: Why Is Finnish Cvvcv Shorter Than Cvcvv?supporting
confidence: 91%
“…Other researchers have reported very similar data for these structures (eg. Suomi and Ylitalo 2004).…”
Section: An Example: Why Is Finnish Cvvcv Shorter Than Cvcvv?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%