Aspiration et activité glottale

Pétursson, Magnús

doi:10.1159/000259721

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results are limited to a single subject, and may thus contain speaker specific elements. They are, however, in good agreement with those obtained from another Icelandic speaker by Petursson (1976Petursson ( , 1978. Moreover, they also agree with other cross-language data, and would thus seem to exhibit some general aspects of laryngeal behavior in speech.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Concerning the phonetics of Icelandic, the differences in laryngeal activity between preaspirated, unaspirated, and postaspirated stops are similar to those presented by Petursson (1976). In one respect, the present material would seem to show some speaker specific traits in that peak glottal opening occurs close to, or coincides with, stop release in postaspirated stops.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…In one respect, the present material would seem to show some speaker specific traits in that peak glottal opening occurs close to, or coincides with, stop release in postaspirated stops. For the subject investigated by Petursson (1976), peak glottal opening precedes stop release by a longer interval for the same stops. This variation is also reflected in longer VOT values for this stop category in the present study, about 80 milliseconds compared to 40-50 milliseconds in Petursson's study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laryngeal Activity in Icelandic Obstruent Production

Löfqvist

Yoshioka

1981

Nordic Journal of Linguistic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laryngeal activity in the production of voiceless obstruents and obstruent clusters in Icelandicwas investigated by the combined techniques of transillumination and fiberoptic filming of the larynx. Contrasts of preaspirated, unaspirated, and postaspirated voiceless stops were found to be produced basically by differences in laryngeal-oral timing. In clusters of voiceless obstruents, one or more continuous laryngeal opening and closing gestures occurred depending on the segments in the cluster.Peak velocity of glottal abduction was higher for fricatives than for stops. This, and other differences in laryngeal adjustments and interarticulator timing between stops and fricatives, are most likely due to different aerodynamic requirements for stop and fricative production. The present results further question the usefulness of timeless feature descriptions for modeling speech production.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laryngeal Activity in Icelandic Obstruent Production

Löfqvist

Yoshioka

1981

Nordic Journal of Linguistic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, Cha'palaa has a phonemic glottal stop/ʔ/ [26] , and many of its interjection tokens feature this sound. Dutch and Icelandic have phonemic/h/in onset position [27] – [29] and many of their interjection tokens feature this sound. Lao has both/ʔ/and/h/as distinctive sounds in onset position [30] and the onsets of its OIR interjection vary between /ʔ/,/ h/, and zero.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is “Huh?” a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A word like Huh?–used as a repair initiator when, for example, one has not clearly heard what someone just said– is found in roughly the same form and function in spoken languages across the globe. We investigate it in naturally occurring conversations in ten languages and present evidence and arguments for two distinct claims: that Huh? is universal, and that it is a word. In support of the first, we show that the similarities in form and function of this interjection across languages are much greater than expected by chance. In support of the second claim we show that it is a lexical, conventionalised form that has to be learnt, unlike grunts or emotional cries. We discuss possible reasons for the cross-linguistic similarity and propose an account in terms of convergent evolution. Huh? is a universal word not because it is innate but because it is shaped by selective pressures in an interactional environment that all languages share: that of other-initiated repair. Our proposal enhances evolutionary models of language change by suggesting that conversational infrastructure can drive the convergent cultural evolution of linguistic items.

show abstract

“…Thus, Cha'palaa has a phonemic glottal stop/?/ [26], and many of its interjection tokens feature this sound. Dutch and Icelandic have phonemic/h/in onset position [27][28][29] and many of their interjection tokens feature this sound. Lao has both/?/and/h/as distinctive sounds in onset position [30] and the onsets of its OIR interjection vary between /?/,/ h/, and zero.…”

Section: Onsetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items

Dingemanse

Torreira

Enfield

2014

The Evolution of Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A word like Huh?-used as a repair initiator when, for example, one has not clearly heard what someone just said-is found in roughly the same form and function in spoken languages across the globe. We investigate it in naturally occurring conversations in ten languages and present evidence and arguments for two distinct claims: that Huh? is universal, and that it is a word. In support of the first, we show that the similarities in form and function of this interjection across languages are much greater than expected by chance. In support of the second claim we show that it is a lexical, conventionalised form that has to be learnt, unlike grunts or emotional cries. We discuss possible reasons for the cross-linguistic similarity and propose an account in terms of convergent evolution. Huh? is a universal word not because it is innate but because it is shaped by selective pressures in an interactional environment that all languages share: that of other-initiated repair. Our proposal enhances evolutionary models of language change by suggesting that conversational infrastructure can drive the convergent cultural evolution of linguistic items.

show abstract

Aspiration et activité glottale

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Laryngeal Activity in Icelandic Obstruent Production

Laryngeal Activity in Icelandic Obstruent Production

Is “Huh?” a Universal Word? Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items

Conversational Infrastructure and the Convergent Evolution of Linguistic Items

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About