Proposal for superscript diacritics for prenasalization, preglottalization and preaspiration

Keating, Patricia; Wymark, Daniel; Sharif, Ryan

doi:10.1017/s0025100319000057

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, word-initial glottalization is consistent with laryngeal constriction, of any degree. This also accords with the commonly held assumption that, across languages, stop pre-glottalization may be realized on a continuum of creaky voice to full glottal occlusion on a preceding voiced sound (Keating et al 2021).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…However, we also recognize that adopting conventions for transcribing these differences using the IPA poses certain challenges (see e.g. Keating et al 2021 for relevant discussion). One possibility is to use the following conventions, some of which are already occasionally used and others which represent a return to previously used conventions discussed in Section 1.3 above: Non-modal phonation that has relatively strong non-modal voicing throughout the target segment (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For glottalized sounds, additional confusion arises due to the use of both ‘glottal stop’ and ‘creaky voice’ symbols. Phoneticians generally call a sound ‘glottalized’ if it has any amount of laryngeal constriction, and symbolize it with a superscript [ˀ] (Keating, Wymark & Sharif 2021). Thus, a pre-glottalized alveolar stop is usually represented as [ˀt], but the common assumption is that the glottalization may be realized on a continuum of creaky voice to full glottal occlusion on a preceding voiced sound (Ashby & Przedlacka 2014, Garellek 2015, Seyfarth & Garellek 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…All transcriptions are broad phonemic transcriptions. Note that although we indicate prenasalization with superscript nasals, that is not official International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) use, but we use it for simplicity following Keating, Wymark & Sharif (2019). The sound /p/ is used in the language infrequently, though not limited to only borrowed words as (1) shows.…”

Section: Consonantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

San Sebastián del Monte Mixtec

Cortes¹,

Mantenuto²,

Steffman³

2023

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

San Sebastián del Monte Mixtec (SSM) (ISO:mks), also known as Tò’on Ndà’vi, is a language of the Mixtecan family, Otomanguean stock (Rensch 1976). The Mixtecan language family consists of Mixtec, Cuicatec and Trique, though Mixtec and Cuicatec are part of the same subgroup, also called Mixtecan (Josserand 1983: 99–101). SSM is part of the Mixteca Baja region of Oaxaca (Josserand 1983: 107). San Sebastián del Monte is a town in the Santo Domingo Tonalá municipality of Oaxaca State, Mexico, in the district of Huajuapan de León, 45 km southwest of Huajuapan de León (see Figure 1), with a population of approximately 2000 people (latitude: 17.677778, longitude: −98.021944).

show abstract