Phonetic imitation of coarticulatory vowel nasalization

2016 ◽  
Vol 140 (5) ◽  
pp. 3560-3575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgia Zellou ◽  
Rebecca Scarborough ◽  
Kuniko Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Vowel Nasalization

Vowel Nasalization in the Hulu Pahang Dialect

Jurnal Bahasa ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-230
Author(s):  
Mohd Tarmizi Hasrah
Keyword(s):  
Vowel Nasalization

scholarly journals Prosodically-conditioned fine-tuning of coarticulatory vowel nasalization in English

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 71-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taehong Cho ◽  
Daejin Kim ◽  
Sahyang Kim
Keyword(s):  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Vowel Nasalization

The role of the pharynx and tongue in enhancement of vowel nasalization: a real-time MRI investigation of French nasal vowels

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Carignan ◽  
Ryan K. Shosted ◽  
Maojing Fu ◽  
Zhi-Pei Liang ◽  
Bradley P. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Nasal Vowels ◽  
Vowel Nasalization

scholarly journals Modeling the emergence of a typological anomaly: Vowel nasalization in French

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 155
Author(s):  
Kristen Kennedy Terry ◽  
Eric Russell Webb
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
37Th Annual Meeting ◽  
Vowel Nasalization

Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (2013), pp. 155-169

scholarly journals Monolingual and bilingual children's processing of coarticulation cues during spoken word recognition

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1189-1206
Author(s):  
Félix DESMEULES-TRUDEL ◽  
Charlotte MOORE ◽  
Tania S. ZAMUNER
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Old English ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Spoken Word Recognition ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Phonetic Cues ◽  
Vowel Nasalization ◽  
English Monolingual

AbstractBilingual children cope with a significant amount of phonetic variability when processing speech, and must learn to weigh phonetic cues differently depending on the cues’ respective roles in their two languages. For example, vowel nasalization is coarticulatory and contrastive in French, but coarticulatory-only in English. In this study, we extended an investigation of the processing of coarticulation in two- to three-year-old English monolingual children (Zamuner, Moore & Desmeules-Trudel, 2016) to a group of four- to six-year-old English monolingual children and age-matched English–French bilingual children. Using eye tracking, we found that older monolingual children and age-matched bilingual children showed more sensitivity to coarticulation cues than the younger children. Moreover, when comparing the older monolinguals and bilinguals, we found no statistical differences between the two groups. These results offer support for the specification of coarticulation in word representations, and indicate that, in some cases, bilingual children possess language processing skills similar to monolinguals.

scholarly journals Effects of Biofeedback on Control and Generalization of Nasalization in Typical Speakers

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 1025-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth S. Heller Murray ◽  
Joseph O. Mendoza ◽  
Simone V. Gill ◽  
Joseph S. Perkell ◽  
Cara E. Stepp
Keyword(s):  
Visual Feedback ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Training Period ◽  
Less Invasive ◽  
Vowel Nasalization ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Linear Regressions

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of biofeedback on control of nasalization in individuals with typical speech. Method Forty-eight individuals with typical speech attempted to increase and decrease vowel nasalization. During training, stimuli consisted of consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) tokens with the center vowels /a/ or /i/ in either a nasal or nonnasal phonemic context (e.g., /mim/ vs. /bib/), depending on the participant’s training group. Half of the participants had access to augmentative visual feedback during training, which was based on a less-invasive acoustic, accelerometric measure of vowel nasalization—the Horii oral–nasal coupling (HONC) score. During pre- and posttraining assessments, acoustically based nasalance was also measured from the center vowels /a/, /i/, /æ/, and /u/ of CVCs in both nasal and nonnasal contexts. Results Linear regressions indicated that both phonemic contexts (nasal or nonnasal) and the presence of augmentative visual feedback during training were significant predictors for changes in nasalance scores from pre- to posttraining. Conclusions Participants were able to change the nasalization of their speech following a training period with HONC biofeedback. Future work is necessary to examine the effect of such training in individuals with velopharyngeal dysfunction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document