2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.10.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…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.}…”
Section: Universals and Variation In Vot: Evidence From 19 Languagesmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…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.}…”
Section: Universals and Variation In Vot: Evidence From 19 Languagesmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…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).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…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).…”
Section: Voicing and The Diachronic Development Of Registermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%