A typological study of Voice Onset Time (VOT) in Indo-Iranian languages

Hussain, Qandeel

doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.011

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Figure 1b, mean VOTs of aspirated (denti) alveolar stops in these languages are distributed over a wide range from 57 ms to 97 ms. Among these languages, 8 languages were studied by Hussain (2018) with a similar method. These languages also show a similar variation in mean VOT from 57 ms to 91.…”

Section: Universals and Variation In Vot: Evidence From 19 Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are, however, cases in which voicing contrast cannot be fully captured by VOT alone, or cases in which the phonetic nature of voicing contrast can be further illuminated along phonetic dimensions other than VOT such as voice quality and F0. Many of the Indo-Aryan languages (Hussain 2018) present such cases as they employ multiple distinctions made along the negative VOT dimension with voiced (unaspirated) stops in contrast with voiced aspirated stops and voiced implosives. Hussain (2018) suggests a number of possible phonetic correlates of the laryngeal distinction especially for the stops whose VOT values overlap substantially to the extent that no further distinction could be made along the negative VOT dimension.…”

Section: Beyond Votmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the Indo-Aryan languages (Hussain 2018) present such cases as they employ multiple distinctions made along the negative VOT dimension with voiced (unaspirated) stops in contrast with voiced aspirated stops and voiced implosives. Hussain (2018) suggests a number of possible phonetic correlates of the laryngeal distinction especially for the stops whose VOT values overlap substantially to the extent that no further distinction could be made along the negative VOT dimension. Ladd and Schmid (2018) pose another case in Swiss German in which VOT does not play a role in making the lenis-fortis distinction.…”

Section: Beyond Votmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other languages whose voicing contrast has not been fully understood despite the substantial number of their speakers include Brazilian Portuguese (Ahn, 2018a with 8 speakers); Thai (Kirby, 2018 with 12 speakers); Turkish (U Ünal-Logacev, Fuchs & Lancia, 2018 with 6 speakers); and Russian (Kharlamov, 2018 with 60 speakers). Languages that have received even less attention but are covered in this special collection include Lebanese Arabic (Al-Tamimi & Khattab, 2018 with 20 speakers), Vietnamese and Khmer (Kirby, 2018 with 14 speakers each); Yerevan (Eastern) Armenian (Seyfarth & Garellek, 2018 with 8 speakers), and 10 languages (two Iranian, seven Indo-Aryan languages and one isolated one) spoken in India with 48 speakers in total (Hussain, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Voice onset time and beyond: Exploring laryngeal contrast in 19 languages

Cho

Whalen

Docherty

2019

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this special collection entitled Marking 50 Years of Research on Voice Onset Time and the Voicing Contrast in the World’s Languages, we have compiled eleven studies investigating the voicing contrast in 19 languages. The collection provides extensive data obtained from 270 speakers across those languages, examining VOT and other acoustic, aerodynamic and articulatory measures. The languages studied may be divided into four groups: ‘aspirating’ languages with a two-way contrast (English, three varieties of German); ‘true voicing’ languages with a two-way contrast (Russian, Turkish, Brazilian Portuguese, two Iranian languages Pashto and Wakhi); languages with a three-way contrast (Thai, Vietnamese, Khmer, Yerevan Armenia, three Indo-Aryan languages, Dawoodi, Punjabi and Shina, and Burushaki spoken in India); and Indo-Aryan languages with a more than three-way contrast (Jangli and Urdu with a four-way contrast, and Sindhi and Siraiki with a five-way contrast). We discuss the cross-linguistic data, focusing on how much VOT alone tell s us above the voicing contrast in these languages, and what other phonetic dimensions (such as consonant-induced F0 and voice quality) are needed for a complete understanding of laryngeal contrast in these languages. Implications for various issues emerge: universal phonetic feature systems, effects of language contact on linguistic levelling, and the relation between laryngeal contrast and supralaryngeal articulation. The cross-linguistic VOT data also lead us to discuss how the distribution of VOT as measured acoustically may allow us to infer the underlying articulation and how it might be approached in gestural phonologies. The discussion on these multiple issues sparks new questions to be resolved, and provide indications of where the field may be best directed in exploring laryngeal contrast in voicing in the world’s languages.

show abstract

Section: Universals and Variation In Vot: Evidence From 19 Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beyond Votmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Beyond Votmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Voice onset time and beyond: Exploring laryngeal contrast in 19 languages

Cho

Whalen

Docherty

2019

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…/ / have been characterized as palatal (Arun 1961, Bhatia 1993) and palatoalveolar (Dulai & Koul 1980). Retroflex plosives are characterized by shorter closure duration, shorter release burst (or VOT) duration, and greater convergence of second and third formants from preceding vowels, compared to their dental counterparts (Hussain et al 2017, Hussain 2018. Retroflex and dental plosives produced in intervocalic contexts are illustrated in Figure 3.…”

Section: Obstruentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punjabi (Lyallpuri variety)

Hussain

Proctor

Harvey³

et al. 2019

Journal of the International Phonetic Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punjabi (Western, ISO-639-3 pnb) is an Indo-Aryan language (Indo-European, Indo-Iranian) spoken in Pakistan and India, and in immigrant communities in the UK, Canada, USA, and elsewhere. In terms of number of native speakers, it is ranked 10th among the world’s languages, with more than 100 million speakers (Lewis, Simons & Fennig 2016). Aspects of the phonology of different varieties of Punjabi have been described in Jain (1934), Arun (1961), Gill & Gleason (1962), Singh (1971), Dulai & Koul (1980), Bhatia (1993), Malik (1995), Shackle (2003), and Dhillon (2010). Much of this literature is focused on Eastern varieties, and the phonology of Western Punjabi dialects has received relatively less attention (e.g. Bahri 1962, Baart 2003, 2014).

show abstract