The implications for speech perception of incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German

Kleber, Felicitas; John, Tina; Harrington, Jonathan

doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.10.001

Cited by 39 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roettger et al (2014) make a case for this, looking at near-neutralization of voicing in German. Several studies find small, but systematic differences in ostensibly neutralized word-final stops in German (Port et al, 1981;Port & Crawford, 1989;Charles-Luce, 1985;Kleber et al, 2010). Similar observations concerning near-neutralization have been made for voicing in Catalan (Dinnsen & Charles-Luce, 1984) and Russian (Kharlamov, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Whence the fuzziness? Morphological effects in interacting sound changes in Southern British English

Strycharczuk

Scobbie

2017

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fronting of the high-back /uː/ and /ʊ/, as currently seen in Southern British English (SBE), is a rare opportunity to study two similar sound changes at different stages of their phonetic development: /uː/-fronting is a more advanced change than /ʊ/-fronting. Since the fronting in both vowels is restricted from applying before a following final /l/ (e.g., in words like fool or pull), we can exploit the difference in the phonetic advancement of /uː/ and /ʊ/-fronting to illuminate the nature of 'fuzzy contrasts' affecting vowel+/l/ sequences in morphologically complex words. As recent results show that /uː/-fronting is partially limited in fool-ing (but not in monomorphemes like hula), we ask whether similar morphological constraints affect /ʊ/ followed by /l/ (e.g., bully vs. pull-ing). Simultaneously, we consider the question of what phonological generalization best captures the interaction between vowel fronting, /l/-darkening, and morphological structure. We present ultrasound data from 20 speakers of SBE representing two age groups. The data show that morphologically conditioned contrasts are consistent for /uː/+/l/, but variable and limited in size for /ʊ/+/l/. We relate these findings to the debate on morphology-phonetics interactions and the emergence of phonological abstraction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Whence the fuzziness? Morphological effects in interacting sound changes in Southern British English

Strycharczuk

Scobbie

2017

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the contrast between underlyingly voiced and voiceless segments is reduced (or partly neutralized) when they are 'devoiced', a trace of the underlying voicing distinction remains on the surface (Dinnsen and Garcia-Zamor, 1971 (in disyllables only); Taylor, 1975 (for some places of articulation); Mitleb, 1981a,b;Port and O'Dell, 1985;Smith et al, 2009;Kleber et al, 2010;Röttger et al, 2011Röttger et al, , 2014. In other words, German /ʁɑt/ is not identical to /ʁɑd/--even on the surface.…”

Section: / D/ 'Wh Eel'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acoustic studies finding incomplete neutralization in final devoicing have been conducted on a number of languages, including Afrikaans (van Rooy et al, 2003), Catalan (Dinnsen and Charles-Luce, 1984), Dutch (Warner et al, 2004, though see that article itself and Warner et al, 2006 for caveats;Ernestus andBaayen, 2006, 2007), German (Dinnsen and Garcia-Zamor, 1971;Taylor, 1975;Port and O'Dell, 1985;Mitleb, 1981a,b;Smith et al, 2009;Kleber et al, 2010;Röttger et al, 2014), Polish (Slowiaczek and Dinnsen, 1985;Slowiaczek and Szymanska, 1989), and Russian (Dmitrieva et al, 2010;Kharlamov, 2012Kharlamov, , 2014.…”

Section: Incomplete Neutralization Generallymentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperceptible incomplete neutralization: Production, non-identifiability, and non-discriminability in American English flapping

Braver

2014

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We defined this boundary as the 50% crossing in the identification results, which is the standard criterion in psychophonetic studies (cf. [40,62,[69][70][71]). Based on this criterion, and for the sibilants presented in isolation, the phoneme boundary from [ʃ] to [s] was located somewhere between stimuli 8 and 9 in the continuum.…”

Section: The Sibilant Continuummentioning

confidence: 99%

On the perception of “segmental intonation”: F0 context effects on sibilant identification in German

Niebuhr

2017

J AUDIO SPEECH MUSIC PROC.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In normal modally voiced utterances, voiceless fricatives like [s], [ʃ], [f], and [x] vary such that their aperiodic pitch impressions mirror the pitch level of the adjacent F0 contour. For instance, if the F0 contour creates a high or low pitch context, then the aperiodic pitch impression of the fricative in this context will also be high or low. This contextmatching effect has been termed "segmental intonation". While there is accumulating evidence for segmental intonation in speech production, less is known about if and how segmental intonation is actually integrated in the perception of utterance tunes. This question is addressed here in a perception experiment in which listeners identified target words ending in either [ʃ] or [s]. The two sibilants inherently create low or high aperiodic pitch impressions in listeners due to their characteristically different spectral energy distributions. The sibilants were preceded by high or low F0 contexts in the target words. Results show a clear F0-context effect. The context effect triggered more [ʃ] identifications in high-F0 and/or more [s] identifications in low-F0 contexts. The effect was larger for sibilants that were less clearly identifiable as either /ʃ/ or /s/. The effect represents strong supporting evidence that listeners in fact perceive the segmental intonation of fricatives and integrate its aperiodic pitch with the F0-based pitch when perceiving utterance intonation. Thus, the term "segmental intonation" is perceptually appropriate. Furthermore, the results are discussed with respect to reactiontime measurements and an additional effect of the quality of the adjacent vowel phoneme on sibilant identification.

show abstract

The implications for speech perception of incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German

Cited by 39 publications

References 32 publications

Whence the fuzziness? Morphological effects in interacting sound changes in Southern British English

Whence the fuzziness? Morphological effects in interacting sound changes in Southern British English

Imperceptible incomplete neutralization: Production, non-identifiability, and non-discriminability in American English flapping

On the perception of “segmental intonation”: F0 context effects on sibilant identification in German

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About