Dimensions of Phonological Stress 2016
DOI: 10.1017/9781316212745.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prominence, Contrast, and the Functional Load Hypothesis: An Acoustic Investigation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
38
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
3
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, it is not subject to manipulation for prominence as it is in the other two languages. In fact, this follows the more general observation that properties used for lexical contrasts in a given language will be avoided as cues for other phenomena in the language so as to preserve their contrastive value [11].…”
Section: F0mentioning
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As such, it is not subject to manipulation for prominence as it is in the other two languages. In fact, this follows the more general observation that properties used for lexical contrasts in a given language will be avoided as cues for other phenomena in the language so as to preserve their contrastive value [11].…”
Section: F0mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…This is not to say that we found no acoustic effect of focus in the three languages. In fact, they all showed an increase in duration under focus, though it was not localized on a single syllable, as in a stress language (e.g., Greek [11]). Instead, in Indonesian and Korean, the last two syllables were lengthened; in Vietnamese, all three syllables were lengthened.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…One interpretation of the present findings is that there is actually more freedom to implement focus phonetically in unstressed syllables relative to stressed syllables, the latter of which already possess certain of the same features that mark corrective focus for the male speaker. In a cross-linguistic study of the acoustic interaction between focus and stress in four languages (Greek, Hungarian, Spanish, and Turkish), Vogel et al (2016) find differences between languages in the realization of stress under focus, even observing a reduction in the prominence of stress under focus.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Following Berinstein's (1979) work, various languages have been reported to conform to the predictions of the FLH. Other languages with contrastive vowel length which eschew duration as a cue to stress include Anejom (Lynch 2000), Bhojpuri (Shukla 1981), Creek (Martin 2011), Fijian (Dixon 1988), Halkomelem/Musqueam (Suttles 2004), Hungarian (White & Mády 2008, Vogel et al 2016, Konkow (Ultan 1967), Nisenan (Eatough 1999), and Palula (Liljegren 2008).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The exception to the language-specificity of many publications referencing the FLH is the ongoing work of the University of Delaware Stress Lab, whose website lists 15 languages that are being investigated with standardized methodology that separates word-level stress from sentence-level focus (sites.google.com/site/udstresslab/home). The results of the acoustic investigation of four of these languages (Greek, Hungarian, Spanish, and Turkish) are presented in Vogel et al (2016). The authors found results consistent with what they refer to as an extended version of the FLH: Hungarian, the language of the four with contrastive vowel length, was found not to use duration as a cue to stress (also see Vogel et al 2015), and Greek and Spanish were found to use different cues for word-level stress (F0, in both cases) and sentence-level focus (duration, in both cases).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%