2012
DOI: 10.1075/cilt.323.05oha
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The listener as a source of sound change

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
267
2
17

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 258 publications
(299 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
13
267
2
17
Order By: Relevance
“…2 Tokens with coronal onsets, referred to here as /Tuw/, as in two, do, show moderate fronting, with the mean in the center of the vowel space on the F2 dimension. This suggests that the fronting of the vowel first started in this environment, likely as an effect of coarticulation with a preceding coronal consonant (Hall-Lew, 2011;Harrington, Kleber, & Reubold, 2008;Ohala, 1981). This differentiation between coronal and noncoronal onsets is also seen in the speech of Jim R., born in 1922, with noncoronal tokens (/Kuw/, as in goose, boot, food) showing less fronting than /Tuw/ ( Figure 2).…”
Section: Fronting Of Goosementioning
confidence: 70%
“…2 Tokens with coronal onsets, referred to here as /Tuw/, as in two, do, show moderate fronting, with the mean in the center of the vowel space on the F2 dimension. This suggests that the fronting of the vowel first started in this environment, likely as an effect of coarticulation with a preceding coronal consonant (Hall-Lew, 2011;Harrington, Kleber, & Reubold, 2008;Ohala, 1981). This differentiation between coronal and noncoronal onsets is also seen in the speech of Jim R., born in 1922, with noncoronal tokens (/Kuw/, as in goose, boot, food) showing less fronting than /Tuw/ ( Figure 2).…”
Section: Fronting Of Goosementioning
confidence: 70%
“…Like Myers and Hansen's (2007) account, the present account of phonological word-final vowel shortening can be classified as a listener-driven phonetic account of sound change, advocated most notably by Ohala (1981), with a number of followers (e.g., Beckman et al 1992;Guion 1998;Jacewicz, Fox, and Salmons 2006). In this view, some sound changes result from ambiguity in the speech signal arising from phonetic conditioning factors such as coarticulation.…”
Section: Listener-driven Account Of Sound Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this view, the differences 7 Kawahara (2011aKawahara ( , 2011b speculates about why Japanese speakers find the devoicing of non-OCPviolating geminates more natural than that of OCP-violating singletons. Beyond the speculation presented there, yet another possibility is that a constraint against voiced geminates is a phonetically natural one (Ohala 1983), whereas OCP[voice] in Japanese is not (Kawahara 2008;Ohala 1981). In fact, there is evidence that children acquiring Japanese show a stage in which they apparently do not show the effect of OCP [voice] (Fukuda and Fukuda 1994), implying that this constraint may have to be learned rather than being innate.…”
Section: 32mentioning
confidence: 99%