The role of tongue position in laryngeal contrasts: An ultrasound study of English and Brazilian Portuguese

Voice onset time and beyond: Exploring laryngeal contrast in 19 languages

“…It is also noticeable that Brazilian Portuguese and American English belong to a ‘true voicing’ vs . an ‘aspirating language’ group, respectively, but the VOTs (taken from the same study, Ahn 2018a) are remarkably similar, both mapped on {vl. unasp.}…”

“…The 10 new submissions covered production data on the voicing contrast obtained from 270 speakers across 19 languages. Among the 19 languages studied are two languages whose voicing contrast has been well-documented in the literature: English appearing in two of the contributions (Ahn, 2018a with 8 speakers; Kim, Kim & Cho, 2018 with 11 speakers), and German, with three varieties appearing across two contributions (Swiss German: Ladd & Schmid, 2018 with 20 speakers; Bavarian and Saxon varieties of German: Kleber 2018 with 21 and 20 speakers, respectively). Other languages whose voicing contrast has not been fully understood despite the substantial number of their speakers include Brazilian Portuguese (Ahn, 2018a with 8 speakers); Thai (Kirby, 2018 with 12 speakers); Turkish (U Ünal-Logacev, Fuchs & Lancia, 2018 with 6 speakers); and Russian (Kharlamov, 2018 with 60 speakers).…”

“…Among the 19 languages studied are two languages whose voicing contrast has been well-documented in the literature: English appearing in two of the contributions (Ahn, 2018a with 8 speakers; Kim, Kim & Cho, 2018 with 11 speakers), and German, with three varieties appearing across two contributions (Swiss German: Ladd & Schmid, 2018 with 20 speakers; Bavarian and Saxon varieties of German: Kleber 2018 with 21 and 20 speakers, respectively). Other languages whose voicing contrast has not been fully understood despite the substantial number of their speakers include Brazilian Portuguese (Ahn, 2018a with 8 speakers); Thai (Kirby, 2018 with 12 speakers); Turkish (U Ünal-Logacev, Fuchs & Lancia, 2018 with 6 speakers); and Russian (Kharlamov, 2018 with 60 speakers). Languages that have received even less attention but are covered in this special collection include Lebanese Arabic (Al-Tamimi & Khattab, 2018 with 20 speakers), Vietnamese and Khmer (Kirby, 2018 with 14 speakers each); Yerevan (Eastern) Armenian (Seyfarth & Garellek, 2018 with 8 speakers), and 10 languages (two Iranian, seven Indo-Aryan languages and one isolated one) spoken in India with 48 speakers in total (Hussain, 2018).…”

Transphonologization of voicing in Chru: Studies in production and perception

“…Several compatible mechanisms have been proposed to account for this effect: 1) the higher f0 after voiceless obstruents could be attributable to an increased longitudinal tension of the vocal folds to suppress voicing (Löfqvist, Baer, McGarr, & Story, 1989;Hoole & Honda, 2011), 2) the lower f0 after voiced obstruents could be a secondary effect of lowering of the larynx to increase the transglottal pressure differential (Ohala, 1972;Ewan & Krones, 1974;Honda, Hirai, Masaki, & Shimada, 1999;Proctor, Shadle, & Iskarous, 2010;Hoole & Honda, 2011;Solé, 2018), or 3) there could be an auditory association between voicing and a 'low frequency effect' (Kingston & Diehl, 1994;Kingston, Diehl, Kirk, & Castleman, 2008). There is also acoustic and perceptual evidence that a lower F1 follows voiced stops (House & Fairbanks, 1953;Stevens & House, 1956;Stevens & Klatt, 1974;Lisker, 1975;Hillenbrand, Clark, & Nearey, 2001;Esposito, 2002), which could be attributed, again, to tongue-root advancement or larynx lowering to increase the transglottal pressure differential or the low frequency effect (Bell-Berti, 1975;Lindau, 1979;Kingston & Diehl, 1994;Hillenbrand, et al, 2001;Kingston et al, 2008;Brunelle, 2010;Ahn, 2018). Finally, the lengthening of vowels in the vicinity of voiced stops has been explained as an auditory strategy to create the impression of a shorter closure, thus favoring the perception of voicing (Kluender, Diehl, & Wright, 1988).…”

“…Several authors have proposed that the phonetic properties of register are phonologized consequences of articulatory strategies for circumventing the aerodynamic voicing constraint by increasing the transglottal pressure differential (Gregerson, 1976;Ferlus, 1979;Thurgood, 2002;Brunelle, 2010). Two such strategies that would have a direct impact on F1 are tongue root advancement, which causes a raising and a forward movement of the tongue body, and larynx lowering, which lengthens the back cavity responsible for F1 resonances (Bell-Berti, 1975;Lindau, 1979;Tiede, 1996;Fulop, Kari, & Ladefoged, 1998;Ahn, 2018). The spectral slope and f0 differences between registers would be additional, parallel, consequences of these two gestures (Ohala, 1972;Bell-Berti, 1975;Lindau, 1979;Fulop et al, 1998;Honda et al, 1999;Hoole & Honda, 2011), rather than being directly responsible for the development of F1 differences.…”