Variation in stop consonant voicing in two regional varieties of American English.

2008 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 2559-2559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Jacewicz ◽  
Robert Allen Fox ◽  
Samantha Lyle
2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Jacewicz ◽  
Robert Allen Fox ◽  
Samantha Lyle

This study is an acoustic investigation of the nature and extent of consonant voicing of the stop /b/ in two dialectal varieties of American English spoken in south-central Wisconsin and western North Carolina. The stop /b/ occurred at the juncture of two words such assmall bids, in a position between two voiced sonorants, i.e. the liquid /l/ and a vowel. Twenty women participated, ten representing the Wisconsin and ten the North Carolina variety, respectively. Significant dialectal differences were found in the voicing patterns. The Wisconsin stop closures were usually not fully voiced and terminated in a complete silence followed by a closure release whereas North Carolina speakers produced mostly fully voiced closures. Further dialectal differences included the proportion of closure voicing as a function of word emphasis. For Wisconsin speakers, the proportion of closure voicing was smallest when the word was emphasized and it was greatest in non-emphatic positions. For North Carolina speakers, the degree of word emphasis did not have an effect on the proportion of closure voicing. The results suggest different mechanisms by which closure voicing is maintained in these two dialects, pointing to active articulatory maneuvers in North Carolina speakers and passive in Wisconsin speakers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (5) ◽  
pp. 3711-3729
Author(s):  
Ewa Jacewicz ◽  
Lian J. Arzbecker ◽  
Robert A. Fox ◽  
Shuang Liu

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Löfqvist ◽  
Vincent L. Gracco

This paper reports two experiments, each designed to clarify different aspects of bilabial stop consonant production. The first one examined events during the labial closure using kinematic recordings in combination with records of oral air pressure and force of labial contact. The results of this experiment suggested that the lips were moving at a high velocity when the oral closure occurred. They also indicated mechanical interactions between the lips during the closure, including tissue compression and the lower lip moving the upper lip upward. The second experiment studied patterns of upper and lower lip interactions, movement variability within and across speakers, and the effects on lip and jaw kinematics of stop consonant voicing and vowel context. Again, the results showed that the lips were moving at a high velocity at the onset of the oral closure. No consistent influences of stop consonant voicing were observed on lip and jaw kinematics in five subjects, nor on a derived measure of lip aperture. The overall results are compatible with the hypothesis that one target for the lips in bilabial stop production is a region of negative lip aperture. A negative lip aperture implies that to reach their virtual target, the lips would have to move beyond each other. Such a control strategy would ensure that the lips will form an air tight seal irrespective of any contextual variability in the onset positions of their closing movements.


1986 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Westbury ◽  
Patricia A. Keating

A long recognized problem for linguistic theory has been to explain why certain sounds, sound oppositions, and sound sequences are statistically preferred over others among languages of the world. The formal theory of markedness, developed by Trubetzkoy and Jakobson in the early 1930's, and extended by Chomsky and Halle (1968), represents an attempt to deal with this problem. It is at least implicit in that theory that sounds are rare when (and because) they are marked, and common when (and because) they are not. Whether sounds are marked or unmarked depends – in the latter version of the theory, particularly – upon the ‘intrinsic content’ of acoustic and articulatory features which define them. There was, however, no substantive attempt among early proponents of the theory to show what it was about the content of particular features and feature combinations that caused them to be marked, and others not.


2012 ◽  
Vol 132 (3) ◽  
pp. 1937-1937
Author(s):  
Olga Dmitrieva ◽  
Amanda A. Shultz ◽  
Fernando Llanos ◽  
Alexander L. Francis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document