Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English

Dmitrieva, Olga; Llanos, Fernando; Shultz, Amanda A.; Francis, Alexander L.

doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2014.12.005

Cited by 68 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second recent study examined correlations between VOT and onset f0 in French and Italian stops. Kirby and Ladd (2015) found the same pattern in voiceless Italian stops as Dmitrieva et al (2015) found for English, i.e. longer VOTs with lower f0, but no correlations for French.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 72%

“…It has also been noted that the category correlation between voicing and onset f0 holds across languages despite very different implementations of the voicing contrast (e.g. Dmitrieva et al, 2015;see Kirby and Ladd, 2016 for a recent review of reasons for covariation between VOT and onset f0).…”

Section: Token-by-token Variation Of Multiple Cues Within Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is not clear whether this constitutes a particular kind of contextual variation (different from the within-category variation of interest here) or a single integrated cue for the listener. Most relevant to the current paper, a recent study by Dmitrieva et al (2015) examined correlations between VOT and onset f0 for Spanish and English. They found a weak negative trend between VOT and onset f0 for voiceless stops in English (longer VOTs with lower f0) and a weak positive correlation for voiced stops in English (shorter VOTs with lower f0).…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This could be due to physiological differences between talkers or simply due to individual preferences. Shultz et al (2012) used the same data as Dmitrieva et al (2015) to examine the relationship between production cue weights for f0 and VOT for individual talkers. They used linear discriminant analysis to compute coefficients for VOT and f0 for each talker.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Clayards¹

2017

Phonetica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Previous research found that individual talkers have consistent differences in the production of segments impacting the perception of their speech by others. Speakers also produce multiple acoustic-phonetic cues to phonological contrasts. Less is known about how multiple cues covary within a phonetic category and across talkers. We examined differences in individual talkers across cues and whether token-by-token variability is a result of intrinsic factors or speaking style by examining within-category correlations. Methods: We examined correlations for 3 cues (voice onset time, VOT, talker-relative onset fundamental frequency, f0, and talker-relative following vowel duration) to word-initial labial stop voicing in English. Results: VOT for /b/ and /p/ productions and onset f0 for /b/ productions varied significantly by talker. Token-by-token within-category variation was largely limited to speaking rate effects. VOT and f0 were negatively correlated within category for /b/ productions after controlling for speaking rate and talker mean f0, but in the opposite direction expected for an intrinsic effect. Within-category talker means were correlated across VOT and vowel duration for /p/ productions. Some talkers produced more prototypical values than others, indicating systematic talker differences. Conclusion: Relationships between cues are mediated more by categories and talkers than by intrinsic physiological relationships. Talker differences reflect systematic speaking style differences.

show abstract

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Token-by-token Variation Of Multiple Cues Within Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Clayards¹

2017

Phonetica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lorge (1967, as cited in Docherty 1992 reports that 41% of alveolar stops in initial position were prevoiced, but none of the bilabial stops were reported to be produced with prevoicing. Dmitrieva, Llanos, Shultz, and Francis (2015) also report that 31% of utterance-initial bilabial lenis stops were produced with negative VOT.…”

Section: Short-lag Vot (Voiceless Unaspirated)mentioning

confidence: 90%

Rate effects on Southern American English VOT

Morris

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study examines the effect of speaking rate on VOT durations of initial stops in Southern American English (SAE). English is claimed to have a twoway contrast between long-lag (fortis) and short-lag (lenis) stops, but lenis stops in SAE have been shown to be produced with prevoicing rather than short-lag VOT. This study examines whether SAE lenis stops are specified for privative voice or if prevoicing is an example of contrastive emphasis. Similar to rate effects found in other languages, the data here support the conclusion that SAE does have phonologically specified privative voice in the lenis stop.

show abstract

Phonetic cue weighting in perception and production

Schertz

Clare

2019

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech sound contrasts differ along multiple phonetic dimensions. During speech perception, listeners must decide which cues are relevant, and determine the relative importance of each cue, while also integrating other, signal-external cues. The comparison of cue weighting in perception and production bears on a range of theoretical issues including the processes underlying sound change, the time course of learning, the nature of cues, and the perception-production interface. Research examining the relative alignment of cue weighting across the modalities, on both a community and individual level, has revealed both parallels and asymmetries between the modalities. The extraordinarily wide range of ways that have been used to conceptualize and quantify cue weights reflects the inherent theoretical, methodological, and analytical differences between the two modalities. More consideration of the choices of analytical metrics, explicit discussion of the theoretical assumptions that underlie them, and systematic investigations of different types of cues will lead to more generalizable findings that can be incorporated into computational implementable models of speech processing. This article is categorized under:Linguistics > Language in Mind and Braincue weighting, phonetics, speech perception, speech production | INTRODUCTIONSpeech sound contrasts differ on multiple phonetic dimensions: for example, the English sounds /b/ and /p/ differ systematically in voice onset time (VOT, the amount of time between the stop release and onset of voicing), but also differ, albeit less reliably, in other dimensions including the duration of the stop closure and the fundamental frequency (f0, corresponding to perceived pitch) at the onset of voicing (Lisker, 1986). Phonetic cue weighting, or the relative use of these acoustic "cues," can be conceptualized and quantified in the context of both production and perception. For example, as shown in Figure 1, English speakers' productions of /b/ and /p/ show large and consistent differences in VOT, such that /b/ vs. /p/ category membership can by well-predicted using this cue alone. On the other hand, while /b/ is followed by a lower f0 than /p/ on average, this difference is much smaller and less consistent, such that f0 is only weakly predictive of category membership. This asymmetry between the two cues is reflected in perception: when asked to categorize sounds varying in aspiration duration and f0, listeners' responses are mainly determined by aspiration (the primary cue), with the value of f0 playing a secondary, albeit still detectable, role (Abramson & Lisker, 1985).

show abstract

Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English

Cited by 68 publications

References 48 publications

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Individual Talker and Token Covariation in the Production of Multiple Cues to Stop Voicing

Rate effects on Southern American English VOT

Phonetic cue weighting in perception and production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About