<i>F</i>1 structure provides information for final-consonant voicing

Summers, W. Van

doi:10.1121/1.396826

Cited by 39 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If this scenario is correct, these trading relations are a product of learned association and not integration. : Summers, 1988;cf. Fischer & Ohde, 1990;f 0 : Castleman & Diehl, 1996).…”

Section: Trading Relations Without Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast

Kingston

Diehl

Kirk

et al. 2008

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several fixed classification experiments test the hypothesis that F 1 , f 0 , and closure voicing covary between intervocalic stops contrasting for [voice] because they integrate perceptually. The perceptual property produced by the integration of these acoustic properties was at first predicted to be the presence of low frequency energy in the vicinity of the stop, which is considerable in [+voice] stops but slight in [−voice] stops. Both F 1 and f 0 at the edges of vowels flanking the stop were found to integrate perceptually with the continuation of voicing into the stop, but not to integrate with one another. These results indicate that the perceptually relevant property is instead the continuation of low frequency energy across the vowel-consonant border and not merely the amount of low frequency energy present near the stop. Other experiments establish that neither F 1 nor f 0 at vowel edge integrate perceptually with closure duration, which shows that only auditorily similar properties integrate and not any two properties that reliably covary. Finally, the experiments show that these acoustic properties integrate perceptually (or fail to) in the same way in non-speech analogues as in the original speech. This result indicates that integration arises from the auditory similarity of certain acoustic correlates of the [voice] contrast.

show abstract

“…If this scenario is correct, these trading relations are a product of learned association and not integration. : Summers, 1988;cf. Fischer & Ohde, 1990;f 0 : Castleman & Diehl, 1996).…”

Section: Trading Relations Without Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast

Kingston

Diehl

Kirk

et al. 2008

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relatively long vocalic segments that terminate with relatively low Fl offset frequencies cue voiced final stop consonants, whereas shorter segments with higher Fl offsets cue voiceless final stop consonants (Raphael, 1972;Summers, 1987Summers, , 1988Walsh & Parker, 1983;Wolf, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of vocalic cues to consonant voicing and native language background: The influence of experimental design

Crowther

Mann

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For native speakers of English and several other languages, preceding vocalic duration and F1 offset frequency are two of the cues that convey the stop consonant voicing distinction in word-. final position. For speakers learning English as a second language, there are indications that use of vocalic duration, but not F1 offset frequency, may be hindered by a lack of experience with phonemic (i.e., lexical) vowel length (the "phonemic vowel length account": Crowther & Mann, 1992). In this study, native speakers of Arabic, a language that includes a phonemic vowel length distinction, were tested for their use of vocalic duration and F1 offset in production and perception of the English consonant-vowel-consonant forms pod and pot. The phonemic vowel length hypothesis predicts that Arabic speakers should use vocalic duration extensively in production and perception. On the contrary, Experiment 1 revealed that, consistent with Flege and Port's (1981) findings, they produced only slightly (but significantly) longer vocalic segments in their pod tokens. It further indicated that their productions showed a significant variation in F1 offset as a function of final stop voicing. Perceptual sensitivity to vocalic duration and F1 offset as voicing cues was tested in two experiments. In Experiment 2, we employed a factorial combination of these two cues and a finely spaced vocalic duration continuum. Arabic speakers did not appear to be very sensitive to vocalic duration, but they were about as sensitive as native English speakers to F1 offset frequency. In Experiment 3, we employed a one-dimensional continuum of more widely spaced stimuli that varied only vocalic duration. Arabic speakers showed native-English-like sensitivity to vocalic duration. An explanation based on the perceptual anchor theory of context coding (Braida et al., 1984;Macmillan, 1987;Macmillan, Braida, & Goldberg, 1987) and phoneme perception theory (Schouten & Van Hessen, 1992) is offered to reconcile the apparently contradictory perceptual findings. The explanation does not attribute native-English-like voicing perception to the Arabic subjects. The findings in this study call for a modification of the phonemic vowel length hypothesis.The duration and first formant (Fl) offset frequency of vocalic segments have been widely studied as cues to final stop consonant voicing for native speakers of English. Relatively long vocalic segments that terminate with relatively low Fl offset frequencies cue voiced final stop consonants, whereas shorter segments with higher Fl offsets cue voiceless final stop consonants (Raphael,

show abstract

“…In terms of the effect on the spectrum both voicing and nasality are reflected in an increase of low frequency energy. Voicing in consonants is associated foremost with F0 perturbations (Kingston et al 2008;Winn et al 2013;Kirby & Ladd 2015), lowering of F1 (Stevens & Klatt 1974;Summers 1988;Kluender et al 1995;Kingston et al 2008), and an increase in the intensity of spectral low frequency energy (Kluender et al 1995). Similarly, nasality is manifested acoustically by the introduction and prominence of low frequency energy, and the dampening of higher frequency amplitude peaks (Kurowski & Blumstein 1993).…”

Section: Nasals Are More Salientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Melodic heads, saliency, and strength in voicing and nasality

Breit

2017

Volume 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Melodic Heads in Element Theory (Kaye et al. 1985; Harris & Lindsey 1995; Backley 2011) have long been associated with higher acoustic saliency of the headed prime’s properties (Lindsey & Harris 1990; Backley 1995; Harris & Lindsey 1995; et alia) and with the relative strength (e.g. alignment of melodic heads with strong positions and robustness of headed expressions against lenition) of a melodic head compared to a dependent (e.g. Backley & Nasukawa 2009). Following substantial work on the interaction of voicing and nasality (Nasukawa 1997, 2005; Ploch 1999; Botma 2004) it is commonly assumed that voicing and nasality are both represented by the same prime |L|, with dependent |L| encoding nasality and headed |L| encoding voicing. In this paper I counter some of the arguments for the universality of this implementation, and develop an alternative view of a unified voicing–nasality prime, in which voicing is encoded by dependent |L| and nasality by headed |L|. I show how this analysis is more consistent with both the saliency and strength arguments by considering arguments based on the represented acoustic patterns, positional strength, nasal sharing (nasal harmony within onset–nucleus pairs), and cross-linguistic biases against loss of nasality. Finally, I show how this account is compatible with a more restrictive, recursive view of the phonological interpretation component following the set theoretic model of Element Theory in Breit (2013). Based on these arguments I conclude that we have good reason to doubt the universality of Nasukawa (1997, 2005) and Ploch’s (1999) implementation; instead we must give serious consideration to the reverse option with headed |L| for nasality and dependent |L| for voicing. I suggest that there are two possible responses to this situation: we can either make the attempt to radically adopt the alternative, or we can adopt a more relativistic position (in the sense of Cyran 2011, 2014) which allows a choice between both options. This article is part of the Special Collection: Headedness in Phonology

show abstract

F1 structure provides information for final-consonant voicing

Cited by 39 publications

References 12 publications

On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast

On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast

Use of vocalic cues to consonant voicing and native language background: The influence of experimental design

Melodic heads, saliency, and strength in voicing and nasality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About