Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
start [2022-09-15] – created - external edit 127.0.0.1start [2022-09-16] (current) Péter Szigetvári
Line 1: Line 1:
-= The role of paradigm structure in Hungarian morphology and phonology with typological comparisons+~~NOTOC~~
  
-research sponsored by NKFIH (#139271)+research sponsored by NKFIH (#142498)
  
 +{{ :8.jpg?420}}
 +
 +  ; PI
 +  : Péter Szigetvári
 +  ; participants
 +  : Katalin Balogné Bérces
 +  : Zsuzsanna Bárkányi
 +  : Zoltán G. Kiss
 +  : Bálint Huszthy
 +  : Péter Őri
 +  : Attila Starčević
 +  : Miklós Törkenczy
 +
 +== 0. Background
 +
 +**Laryngeal phonology** has experienced a significant surge in the past
 +decades. It has been discovered that the **two-way contrast of
 +obstruents** that many languages (e.g., English or Hungarian) exhibit
 +cannot simply be described in terms of "voiced" and "voiceless", other
 +categories (like aspiration and shortening of the preceding sonorant
 +interlude) are also at play. Therefore the labels "lenis" and "fortis"
 +are more appropriate. It causes some debate whether these categories
 +should be read off the sound signal (Laryngeal Realism; Harris 1994,
 +Honeybone 2002) or their identification should be based on phonological
 +patterns (Laryngeal Relativism; Cyran 2014).
 +
 +Phonology itself has seen a significant change in the same period, which
 +includes the more rigorous **empirical testing** of phonological
 +hypotheses. The proposed research wishes to contribute to this
 +functional-experimental approach of phonology by including evidence
 +based on measuring both natural speech data and corpora of textual data.
 +Speech data, however, normally exhibit a great deal of **variation,**
 +not only across individuals (inter-speaker variation) but also within
 +the data set coming from the same informant (intra-speaker variation),
 +therefore we expect our research to shed light on aspects of
 +**synchronic** language variation, too. Consequently, since data
 +analysis is an integral part of the proposal, the application of
 +**robust statistical models** will also be important to be able to make
 +well founded generalizations based on the collected sample data.
 +Methodologically, we will aim to follow reproducible "open research"
 +practices in which decisions concerning data and data processing are
 +much more transparent (Roettger et al. 2019).
 +
 +Laryngeal features and systems may also display **diachronic
 +variation**. Mainstream varieties of English seem to be historically
 +stable "fortis/lenis" languages, with hardly any processes affecting the
 +laryngeal specification of obstruents; however, a number of non-standard
 +**dialects** have developed patterns that deviate from the aspirating,
 +fortis/lenis system familiar from traditional descriptions of English:
 +some are "plain" voice languages like Hungarian, while others are
 +characterized by asymmetrical, voiced-only or voiceless-only patterns
 +(Wells 1982, Harris 1994, Iverson & Salmons 1999). We contend that to
 +fully understand the typology of two-way obstruent contrast in languages
 +as well as the nature of linguistic variation, we need a systematic
 +description and analysis of this synchronic dialectal variation (cf.
 +Balogné Bérces 2017), the explanation of which may, in turn, reside in
 +its historical emergence (Blevins 2004). Since such "deviant" varieties
 +of English seem to have typically arisen on the rims of English-speaking
 +areas (e.g., the Anglo-Scottish border and Scotland itself) and other
 +contexts of large-scale population mixing (e.g., southern US) where
 +heavy contact with other languages may have led to the blending of
 +typologically divergent laryngeal systems, the investigation of language
 +contact and the ensuing **transfer** of laryngeal features from one
 +language to another, i.e., in (second and third) **language
 +acquisition** becomes inevitable.
 +
 +**Linguistic variation** has become much more accessible with the use of
 +computers than before. This development has significantly increased the
 +possibilities for investigating patterns of variation, which often turn
 +out to be crucial in understanding linguistic phenomena. We encounter
 +significant variability in different historical stages of languages, in
 +geographical and social varieties (dialects and sociolects), as well as
 +in transfer phenomena in language learning. It is our intention to
 +examine all these domains of laryngeal variation.
 +
 +== 1. Empirical and theoretical contributions of the research 
 +
 +The approach we propose advocates the view that aspects previously
 +believed to be strictly external (or only indirectly relevant) to
 +phonology, such as phonetics (articulation, audition, perception,
 +phonetic variation), have a more direct influence on phonological
 +competence and sound patterning in general. We will aim to build upon
 +the findings of the extensive and continuously growing body of evidence
 +provided in the phonetically-grounded "laboratory" phonological
 +literature, with a particular focus on the **acoustic correlates** of
 +phonological contrast and the role of **speech** **perception** in
 +contrast and its neutralization (Ohala 1983, Steriade 1997, 1999, 2000,
 +2001, Hayes et al. 2004, Hume & Johnson 2001, Bod et al. 2003, Jansen
 +2004, etc.), as well as further developing our own previous research in
 +this area (e.g., Kiss & Bárkányi 2006, Bárkányi & Kiss 2009, 2010,
 +Bárkányi & G. Kiss 2015, 2019, 2020, 2021, G. Kiss & Szigetvári 2020).
 +
 +Our objective is to investigate, bring experimental and theoretical
 +evidence to the following specific research questions with a special
 +focus on **English and Hungarian.**
 +
 +=== 1.1. Reanalysing fortis and lenis
 +
 +English has been a very well-studied language, yet rigorous
 +experiment-based evidence is still surprisingly lacking in the
 +description of its laryngeal phonology. Stops after fortis [s] are
 +said to be voiceless and unaspirated. Does this environment extend to
 +other fortis fricatives (such as [f] or [ʃ])? Our research proposes
 +to experimentally investigate the acoustic properties of stops in this
 +position. Furthermore, what are the acoustic properties of stops before
 +an unstressed vowel? In words such as //piper, writer, hiker// the medial
 +stops are usually considered to be unaspirated, yet a preliminary result
 +(G. Kiss 2017) shows the opposite. Lindsey (2019) suggests that accents
 +(traditional RP, modern British English, and General American) differ in
 +this respect. We aim to more thoroughly investigate these issues, which
 +are highly relevant for the phonological classification of the English
 +obstruent system, as well as that of other "aspirating" languages, which
 +show a markedly different laryngeal patterning from "voicing" languages.
 +If our hypotheses are correct, most (perhaps all) fortis+fortis
 +obstruent clusters of English must be reanalysed as either fortis+lenis
 +or lenis+fortis, i.e., //strict// has to be analysed as /sdriɡt/, //cats//
 +as /katz/, and //left// as /levt/ (cf. similar claims made by Twaddell
 +1935, Davidsen-Nielsen 1969, about s+C clusters and by Jones 1967 about
 +the plural suffix). This allows a significant simplification of the
 +plural, 3rd person present and of the past tense allomorphy of English
 +(Szigetvári 2020). A recent experiment suggests that the superficially
 +identical obstruent clusters in //a**ct**ing// and //pa**cked** in// are, in
 +fact, different phonetically: [ɡt] and [kd], respectively (G. Kiss &
 +Szigetvári 2020).
 +
 +=== 1.2. The acoustic correlates of voicing
 +
 +Which are the (articulatory and acoustic) phonetic parameters that are
 +**correlates of the laryngeal contrast** of obstruents in English vs.
 +Hungarian? Both languages display phonetic devoicing in word-final
 +position, and our previous results (Bárkányi & G. Kiss 2019, 2020)
 +suggest for Hungarian that in such a case, concomitant acoustic features
 +may step up to maintain the laryngeal contrast, most typically
 +duration-related correlates (such as the length of preceding vowels).
 +This is a pattern that English also displays (known as "prefortis
 +clipping", Zimmerman & Sapon 1958, Laeufer 1992, de Jong 2004, Solé
 +2007), but experimental evidence is still largely lacking about the
 +extent of the durational differences in the two languages (e.g., is the
 +clipping more extensive in English than in Hungarian? If so, what can be
 +the reason for that difference? Has it got to do with the difference
 +between the two laryngeal systems: fortis/lenis vs. voiceless/voiced?).
 +Experimental evidence is also lacking for the role of other acoustic
 +correlates, such as glottalization, so-called low-frequency acoustic
 +features (f0 and F1), intensity (especially in the case of fricatives,
 +see (3) below), and the release noise of plosives.
 +
 +=== 1.3. Voicing assimilation in English vs. Hungarian
 +
 +Our proposal accepts that English lenis obstruents (as opposed to
 +Hungarian voiced obstruents) do not trigger voicing assimilation
 +(e.g., //update// is not [bd]) because they lack a phonologically active
 +"voicing" feature (Huber & Balogné Bérces 2010; Balogné Bérces 2017;
 +Balogné Bérces & Huszthy 2018). We aim to experimentally back up this
 +claim, with a special focus on fricatives, as they have been argued to
 +increase the phonetic voicing of a preceding obstruents (Jansen 2004),
 +although not causing neutralization. We would also like to investigate
 +the acoustic properties that maintain fricative contrast in English. If
 +fricatives cannot be aspirated and obstruents do not possess an active
 +voicing feature, the question remains what makes the contrast possible
 +in cases such as //fine--vine, sip--zip,// etc.? A related issue concerns
 +the categorical vs. gradient nature of laryngeal (partial)
 +neutralization. There is little agreement on the definition and
 +relevance of these two terms in the phonological literature (Ernestus
 +2011) and so we aim to systematically investigate how a potentially
 +neutralizing process such as voicing assimilation can be classified to
 +be categorical or gradient/coarticulatory based on the phonetic
 +properties and statistical distribution of the correlates of laryngeal
 +contrast, and whether a phonetically gradient process can be relevant
 +for phonological patterning, which is supposed to be categorical in
 +nature (Warner et al. 2004, 2006, Ernestus & Baayen 2007).
 +
 +=== 1.4. The role of speech perception in contrast and neutralization
 +
 +The functional approach of phonology argues that **speech perception**
 +plays a crucial role in shaping phonological systems (both synchronic
 +and diachronic). Our research hypothesis is that phonetic correlates are
 +only relevant to phonology as long as they are perceptually relevant,
 +too. Thus even if experimental evidence shows a statistically
 +significant difference between the acoustic correlates of phonological
 +voicing, if those differences are not systematically perceived by
 +speakers, they are not phonologically relevant. We aim to further
 +investigate the perceptual role of the correlates of laryngeal contrast
 +and its potential neutralization in the areas discussed in (1), (2) and
 +(3), especially in the case of voicing assimilation, another relatively
 +underresearched domain of speech perception research (Bárkányi & G. Kiss
 +2019).
 +
 +=== 1.5 The transfer of laryngeal features in (second and third) language acquisition
 +
 +Several different theories have been proposed to tackle the question of
 +how already acquired linguistic systems (L1 and L2) influence the
 +acquisition of successive languages. These fall into two main
 +categories: those that predict the wholesale transfer of features from
 +one of the earlier acquired languages (e.g. Bardel & Falk 2007, Rothman
 +2010, 2011, 2015), and those that hypothesize property-by-property
 +transfer where different features may be transferred from different
 +sources (e.g. Slabakova 2017, Westergaard et al. 2017). It is not clear
 +either whether it is the L1, the more dominant or the more similar
 +language with regard to the features in question that are transferred to
 +L3 (e.g. Khul & Iverson 1995).
 +
 +To date, most experimental evidence in support of the mentioned theories
 +relate to morphosyntactic phenomena, while the transfer of phonological
 +features to L3 remains relatively understudied. As for the acquisition
 +of voicing by adult learners, a number of studies deal with L2 English
 +or L2 Spanish in the production of native speakers of English. Other
 +interlanguages are much less explored. Studies on L3 laryngeal systems
 +are scarce (Simon & Leuschner 2010) .
 +
 +Since Hungarian and English represent different voicing systems (true
 +voice language with regressive voicing assimilation vs. aspirating
 +language with progressive voicing assimilation), laryngeal features and
 +the related phonological properties provide suitable testing ground for
 +the predictions of the above-mentioned models. We aim to analyse the
 +speech of native Hungarian learners who are proficient L2 English
 +speakers in L3 German (aspirating language with progressive voicing
 +assimilation) and L3 Spanish (voicing language with RVA and partial
 +sonorant voicing).
 +
 +=== 1.6 The diachronic aspect of laryngeal features of earlier English
 +
 +Lass (1975, 2000) and Ringe & Taylor (2014) claim that (pre-)Old English
 +had phonemically opposing voiceless and voiced stops (p b/v t d k g/ɣ),
 +as well as voiceless fricatives (*f *θ *s *h), but no voiced
 +fricatives phonologically, the voiceless ones undergoing inter-sonorant
 +voicing at some stage (*v *ð *z *ɦ) in stressed syllables. In other
 +words, the voiced fricatives are the allophones of the voiceless ones
 +(but cf. Fulk 2002, 2022). The modern phonemic opposition between f -- v
 +(//fine// vs //vine//), s -- z (//seal// vs //zeal//), etc. is the result of a
 +number of diachronic processes (such as the loss of word-final vowels in
 +Middle English, as in //bathe/graze//, the influx of French words
 +containing word-initial v, as in //very//, //virtue//, the voicing of
 +fricatives in function words/suffixes like //them//, //they//, //-s//, or some
 +less regular sources). The use of the feature voiceless/voiced in the
 +description of the obstruents of Old English needs reinterpretation
 +along fortis (marked)/lenis (unmarked), based on diachronic evidence
 +from West Germanic, as well as the modern continuations of Old English.
 +It is only in the 16th century that we finally have some semi-direct
 +evidence from orthoepists and spelling reformers like Hart (1569) that
 +words like //plum// are pronounced with audible breathing ('phlum'), this
 +probably being the first description of a fortis aspirated stop.
 +
 +However, simply translating voiceless fricatives into fortis fricatives
 +for (pre-)Old English is more problematic phonologically because now we
 +have fortis (i.e., marked) fricatives, and no lenis (i.e., unmarked)
 +fricatives in the system (cf. Honeybone 2005), which is unusual or
 +highly marked. No framework has fully considered (and worked out) the
 +opposite state of affairs, namely that Old English had lenis fricatives
 +(the unmarked series) that were phonetically devoiced word-initially
 +(//fōn//, phonologically /vo:n/ or /f^^0^^o:n/, cf. Honeybone 2005),
 +word-finally (//hlāf// /ɦla:v/) and when next to a fortis sound (*æfter*
 +/avtər/), but (passively) voiced in intersonorant position in a stressed
 +syllable (//lofu// /lɔvu/), or when next to a lenis stop (*hæfde*
 +/ɦavdə/). It is no surprise that Old English orthography does not
 +distinguish the two series in any systematic way (the letter ⟨v⟩
 +appearing only once in late Old English, <z> being unknown). One piece
 +of support for this claim comes from the pre-Old English merger of lenis
 +/v/ with the lenis labial stop in intervocalic positions (both found as
 +/v/, as in //oven, over//).
 +
 +The full-blown consequences of this move for (pre-)Old English have to
 +be carefully examined and weighed, especially as they interact with some
 +of the well-established diachronic regularities (e.g., the distribution
 +of stops and fricatives). The question of //how// and //when// the phonemic
 +status of fricative fortis-lenis pairs came into existence needs
 +clarification too, as we can see from (near) doublets that both members
 +of the opposition (can) survive (or appear) in the same environment:
 +//fox -- vixen, phial -- vial, Asia// (with either ʃ or ʒ), //spinach//
 +(with either tʃ or dʒ). This must point to dialectal variation in the
 +phonetic realization of the lenis fricatives in Middle (as well as Old)
 +English, probably stemming from an already diversified continental, West
 +Germanic area (cf. Lass 1991).
 +=== 1.7. Non-regular laryngeal systems in non-standard English varieties
 +
 +Like most Germanic languages, mainstream varieties of English (i.e., the
 +most well-known ones, including the standard accents) are unambiguously
 +classified as aspiration (fortis/lenis) systems (while Hungarian is
 +taken to be a voice system, also exhibiting Regressive Voice
 +Assimilation; RVA). A number of **non-standard varieties of English**,
 +however, appear to be RVA systems rather than aspiration languages, and
 +produce a tripartite typology of "plain" (Hungarian-type) voice
 +(Scottish English/Scots, Wells 1982, Iverson & Salmons 1999, etc.),
 +asymmetrical with lenisness/voicedness assimilation only (Durham
 +English, Kerswill 1987, Harris 1994), and asymmetrical with
 +fortisness/​voicelessness assimilation only ("Yorkshire Assimilation",
 +Wells 1982, Whisker-Taylor & Clark 2019, etc.). At the same time,
 +Yorkshire English (but not the others) has aspiration, whereas Durham
 +English (but not the others) has cross-word pre-sonorant voicing
 +(Balogné Bérces 2022). Our research aims to clarify **the historical
 +emergence of this dialectal variation**, and establish the exact
 +phonetic correlates (with data analysis) realizing and phonological
 +representations (with theoretical modelling) underlying the attested
 +laryngeal typology. Besides, we will examine the possibility of an
 +alternative analysis of these laryngeal systems, in which the
 +phonological representation of the obstruent series is assumed to be
 +identical in all language types, with the difference lying in the
 +phonological processes operating on the laryngeal component of the
 +segments as well as in the phonetic realization of the obstruent
 +categories (see Őri 2020a, 2020b). This will hopefully contribute to the
 +Laryngeal Realism/Laryngeal Relativism debate, too.
 +
 +== 2. Methodological aspects of the proposal
 +
 +Data and data analysis are crucial in an experiment-based approach to
 +phonology. Therefore, it is important to highlight several issues
 +concerning data gathering and analysis in phonology. What experimental
 +methods introduce the least bias in perceptual experiments? One of the
 +most problematic aspects of perceptual experiments is their sensitivity
 +to the research methods (e.g., force-choice "yes or no" tests bias
 +towards more categorical (and less gradient) responses). We aim to
 +address such methodological issues in this research, and propose
 +approaches that lessen bias. Data are "messy", and perhaps, phonetic and
 +phonological data are even "messier". Conventional statistical models
 +are highly problematic for acoustic and perceptual data for two main
 +reasons: they have a high amount of speaker variation (both within and
 +between speakers) and so-called "item" variation (different test items
 +may introduce different responses for the same phonological context).
 +Such variation has to be built into the statistical model before we can
 +reliably infer phonological conclusions (Kirby & Sonderegger 2018). The
 +other reason why phonetic data are often problematic is due to the
 +relatively low sample size, which is because of the difficulty of
 +recruiting enough subjects. Low sample size usually results in low
 +statistical power, thus less reliable conclusions: most experimental
 +studies in linguistics and psychology are underpowered. We aim to
 +counteract this problem by using **more robust statistical models**,
 +such as linear mixed-effects regression (LMER) models and relying on
 +**computer data simulation** (Wilcox & Rousselet 2018) before using
 +"real" speech data. More specifically, based on the methodology of
 +previous literature in the field of laryngeal phonology (sample size
 +used, models fitted, etc.), first we will set up simulated data sets
 +with different sizes and fit different LMER models to them, varying the
 +random and fixed variables in them, and then run power analyses on each
 +in order to get at the minimal sample size that can still be used to
 +produce a sufficiently powered study that can reliably reject the given
 +null hypothesis of the experiment. Data simulation overall can help
 +researchers justify the sample size chosen for the given study, among
 +others, it can help establish the smallest effect size of interest, the
 +minimal effect size that will be statistically significant, the effect
 +sizes that would be rejected based on a confidence interval around the
 +effect size, the ranges of effects a study has sufficient power to
 +detect based on a sensitivity power analysis, and the effect sizes that
 +are plausible in a specific research area (Maxwell et al. 2008,
 +Brysbaert & Stevens 2018).
 +Once the optimal minimal sample size has been arrived at based on
 +simulation, the experiment can proceed to collect real, nonsimulated
 +data of that sample size. If that is difficult to achieve by recruiting
 +enough participants, in the case of production-acoustic experiments, we
 +are planning to develop and employ various **web-scraping techniques**.
 +As far as the English data are concerned, one such technique will
 +involve collecting data from YouGlish (https://youglish.com)
 +automatically, making use of its extended captioning-based search query
 +functionality. This method can generate a randomized list of videos for
 +each test item (words, phrases) containing their YouTube ID for each
 +occurrence, together with the start time where they can be found in the
 +video. It is also possible to categorize the collected videos for
 +dialect (American, British, and Australian), word class, phrase class,
 +gender of speaker, and context of word, based on the language tags of
 +YouGlish. With the help of the generated list of video links, clips of
 +specified length will be automatically batch-downloaded corresponding to
 +each research item. The audio files will be extracted from these video
 +clips and will be converted to uncompressed wav files. These sound files
 +will then be fed into Praat (https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/) for the
 +various acoustic analyses relevant for the laryngeal investigations
 +(such as voicing durations, Voice Onset Time, segment durations, etc.).
 +An important advantage of this method is that it involves almost fully
 +automated batch data gathering, which saves a lot of time, leaves little
 +room for error, and makes it possible to potentially amass large
 +phonetic datasets.
 +As far as the **perception** experiments are concerned, we plan to carry
 +them out in person, or if that is not possible, via the internet. In
 +both cases, we will use Praat's ExperimentMFC module that has the
 +advantage that it can be run on the participant's computer as well, the
 +experiment leader does not need to be present in person, they can
 +live-monitor the progress of the experiment via the internet, too. The
 +advantage of this method is that it can run on all operating systems and
 +requires minimal training of the participant (Praat requires no
 +installation, and the participants will just need to select answers by
 +clicking on the computer screen). After completing the experiment,
 +participants will send the result files to us for analysis.
 +
 +<!--
 +== 3. Expected results of the research
 +
 +The expected results of the project will be disseminated at conferences
 +(e.g., OCP, MFM, RFP, SinFonIJA, LabPhon), published papers, a volume of
 +papers collecting the results of the research, two workshops and a
 +freely available, highly customizable online pronouncing dictionary of
 +current British English. This already available dictionary
 +(http://cube.elte.hu) partly implements the hypothesis elaborated above:
 +most monomorphemic fricative+plosive clusters are now represented as
 +\[sb\], \[sd\], \[sɡ\], \[fd\] in it (the output can be toggled to hide
 +or show this analysis). However, if further experimental evidence
 +supports the claim that English is best analysed as lacking
 +fortis+fortis clusters within a morpheme altogether, then the database
 +has to be rehauled to reflect this fundamental reanalysis of the English
 +obstruent system.
 +
 +== 4. The research team and funding
 +
 +The research team includes two senior experts in experimental phonology
 +(Zsuzsanna Bárkányi and Zoltán G. Kiss), senior experts in theoretical
 +phonology (Katalin Balogné Bérces, Péter Szigetvári, and Miklós
 +Törkenczy), as well as junior members specializing in historical
 +phonology (Attila Starčević) and L2/L3 research (Bálint Huszthy). A
 +pre-degree doctoral student (Péter Őri) completes the research team.
 +
 +We need funding primarily for hiring one member of the team (Őri,
 +expected to earn his PhD degree in 2022), conference attendance of
 +participants, the editorial and typographical works of the thematic
 +volume, office supplies, and computer hardware.
 +-->
 +
 +=== References
 +
 +Balogné Bérces, K. 2017. A News Feedem a Facebookon: fonológiaalapú
 +laringális nyelvtipológia. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 113: 147--166.
 +
 +Balogné Bérces, K. 2022. Accent boundaries and linguistic continua in
 +the laryngeal subsystems of English [Manuscript submitted for
 +publication]. PPCU Budapest.
 +
 +Balogné Bérces, K. and B. Huszthy. 2018. Laryngeal Relativism predicts
 +Italian. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting 4: 153--177.
 +
 +Bardel, C. and Y. Falk. 2007. The role of the second language in third
 +language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language
 +Research 23: 459--484.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2015. Why do sonorants not voice in
 +Hungarian? And why do they voice in Slovak? In: K. É. Kiss, B. Surányi
 +and É. Dékány (eds.): Approaches to Hungarian 14. Papers from the 2013
 +Piliscsaba Conference. Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins. 65--94.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2019. A fonetikai korrelátumok szerepe a
 +zöngekontraszt fenntartásában: beszédprodukciós és észleléses
 +eredmények. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 31: 57--102.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2020. Neutralisation and contrast
 +preservation: Voicing assimilation in Hungarian three-consonant
 +clusters. Linguistic Variation 20.1: 56--83.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2021. The perception of voicing contrast
 +in assimilation contexts in minimal pairs: Evidence from Hungarian.
 +Acta Linguistica Academica 68.1--2: 207--229.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. Kiss. 2009. Hungarian v: Is it voiced? In: R. M.
 +Vago and M. van Dikken (eds.): Approaches to Hungarian 11. Papers from
 +the 2007 New York Conference. Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins.
 +1--28.
 +
 +Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. Kiss. 2010. A phonetic approach to the phonology of
 +v: A case study from Hungarian and Slovak. In: S. Fuchs, M. Toda and M.
 +Żygis (eds.): Turbulent sounds. An interdisciplinary guide. Berlin & New
 +York: De Gruyter Mouton. 103--142.
 +
 +Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The emergence of sound
 +patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 +
 +Bod, R., J. Hay and S. Jannedy. 2003. Probabilistic linguistics.
 +Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 +
 +Brysbaert, M. and M. Stevens. 2018. Power analysis and effect size in
 +mixed effects models. Journal of Cognition 1: article 9, 1--20.
 +
 +Cyran, E. 2014. Between phonology and phonetics: Polish voicing. Berlin:
 +Mouton de Gruyter.
 +
 +Davidsen-Nielsen, N. 1969. English stops after initial /s/. English
 +Studies 4: 321--339.
 +
 +Ernestus, M. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory.
 +In: van Oostendorp et al. (eds.): The Blackwell companion to phonology.
 +Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 2115--2136.
 +
 +Ernestus, M. and R. H. Baayen. 2007. Intraparadigmatic effects on the
 +perception of voice. In: J. van de Weijer and E. J. van der Torre
 +(eds.): Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing -- Phonology, phonetics, and
 +psycholinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153--172.
 +
 +Fulk, R. D. 2001. Conditions for the voicing of Old English fricatives,
 +I: Phonology. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and
 +Semiotic Analysis 6: 55--77.
 +
 +Fulk, R. D. 2002. Conditions for the voicing of Old English fricatives,
 +II: Morphology and syllable structure. English Language and Linguistics
 +6.1: 81--104
 +
 +G. Kiss, Z. 2017. Aspiration of stops after fricatives in English:
 +Results from a pilot experiment. In P. Szigetvári (ed.): 70 snippets to
 +mark Ádám Nádasdy's 70th birthday. Budapest: Department of English
 +Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.
 +
 +G. Kiss, Z. and P. Szigetvári. 2020. Telling fortis and lenis apart in
 +English obstruent clusters. The Even Yearbook 14: 135--156.
 +
 +Harris, J. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
 +
 +Hart, J. 1569. Orthographie. London: William Seves.
 +
 +Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.). 2004. Phonetically based
 +phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 +
 +Honeybone, P. 2002. Germanic obstruent lenition: Some mutual
 +implications of theoretical and historical phonology. PhD thesis,
 +University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
 +
 +Honeybone. P. 2005. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case
 +of obstruent laryngeal specifications. In: Marc van Oostendorp and
 +Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.): The internal organization of phonological
 +segments. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 317--352.
 +
 +Huber, D. and K. Balogné Bérces. 2010. [voice] and/versus [spread
 +glottis] in the modified Leiden model. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57.4:
 +444--457.
 +
 +Hume, E. and K. Johnson (eds.). 2001. The role of speech perception in
 +phonology. New York: Academic Press.
 +
 +Iverson, G. K. and J. C. Salmons. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal
 +representation in Germanic. Phonology 12: 369--396.
 +
 +Iverson, G. K. and J. C. Salmons. 1999. Glottal spreading bias in
 +Germanic. Linguistische Berichte 178: 135--151.
 +
 +Jansen, W. 2004. Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory
 +phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Doctoral
 +dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
 +
 +Jones, D. 1967. The phoneme: Its nature and use (4th ed.). Cambridge: W.
 +Heffer & Sons.
 +
 +Jong, K. de 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English:
 +Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 32:
 +493--516.
 +
 +Kirby, J. and M. Sonderegger. 2018. Mixed-effects design analysis for
 +experimental phonetics. Journal of Phonetics 70: 70--85.
 +
 +Kerswill, P. E. 1987. Levels of linguistic variation in Durham. Journal
 +of Linguistics 23: 25--49.
 +
 +Kiss, Z. and Zs. Bárkányi. 2006. A phonetically-based approach to the
 +phonology of [v] in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53:
 +175--226.
 +
 +Lass, R. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
 +Press.
 +
 +Lass, R. 1991. Old English fricative voicing unvisited. Studia Anglica
 +Posnaniensia XXV-XXVII: 3--45.
 +
 +Lass, R. 2000. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the
 +English Language. Volume 3. 1476--1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University
 +Press. 56--186.
 +
 +Laeufer, C. 1992. Patterns of voicing-conditioned vowel duration in
 +French and English. Journal of Phonetics 20: 411--440.
 +
 +Lindsey, Geoff. 2019. English after RP: Standard British pronunciation
 +today. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 +
 +Maxwell, S. E., K. Kelley and J. R. Rausch. 2008. Sample size planning
 +for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annual
 +Review of Psychology 59: 537--563.
 +
 +Ohala, J. J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract
 +constraints. In: P. F. MacNeilage (ed.): The Production of Speech. New
 +York: Springer-Verlag. 189--216.
 +
 +Őri, Péter. 2020a. Same Element, Different Processes. Argumentum 16:
 +187--208.
 +
 +Őri, Péter. 2020b. An alternative laryngeal analysis of languages with
 +two obstruent series. The Even Yearbook 14: 91--133.
 +
 +Ringe, D. and A. Taylor. 2014. The development of Old English (Vol 2).
 +Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 +
 +Roettger, T. B., B. Winter and H. Baayen. 2019. Emergent data analysis
 +in phonetic sciences: Towards pluralism and reproducibility. Journal of
 +Phonetics 73: 1--7.
 +
 +Rothman, J. 2010. On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: Word
 +order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian
 +Portuguese. IRAL 48: 245--273.
 +
 +Rothman, J. 2011. L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological
 +determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research 27:
 +107--127.
 +
 +Rothman, J. 2015. Linguistic and cognitive motivation for the
 +typological primacy model of third language (L3) transfer: Considering
 +the role of timing of acquisition and proficiency in the previous
 +languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(2): 179--190.
 +
 +Slabakova, R. 2017. The scalpel model of third language acquisition.
 +International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6): 651--665.
 +
 +Solé, M.-J. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech: A
 +review of the literature. In: M.-J. Solé, P. S. Beddor and M. Ohala
 +(eds.): Experimental approaches to phonology. Oxford: Oxford University
 +Press. 302--321.
 +
 +Steriade, D. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal
 +neutralization. Manuscript. UCLA.
 +
 +Steriade, D. 1999. Alternatives to syllable-based accounts of
 +consonantal phonotactics. Ms. Also appeared in: O. Fujimora, B. Joseph
 +and B. Palek (eds.): Proceedings of the 1998 Linguistics and Phonetics
 +Conference. Prague: The Karolinum Press. 205--242.
 +
 +Steriade, D. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics--phonology
 +boundary. In: M. B. Broe and J. B. Pierrehumbert (eds.): Papers in
 +Laboratory Phonology 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313--335.
 +
 +Steriade, D. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilations: A
 +perceptual account. In: Hume & Johnson (2001: 219--250).
 +
 +Szigetvári, P. 2020. Emancipating lenes: A reanalysis of English
 +obstruent clusters. Acta Linguistica Academica 67: 39--52.
 +
 +Thurber, B. A. 2011. Voicing of initial interdental fricatives in Early
 +Middle English function words. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23.1:
 +65--81.
 +
 +Twaddell, W. F. 1935. On defining the phoneme. Language 11: 5--62.
 +
 +Warner, N., A. Jongman, J. Sereno and R. Kemps. 2004. Incomplete
 +neutralization and other subphonemic durational differences in
 +production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32:
 +251--276.
 +
 +Warner, N., E. Good, A. Jongman and J. A. Sereno. 2006. Orthographic vs.
 +morphological incomplete neutralization effects. Journal of Phonetics
 +34: 285--293.
 +
 +Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
 +Press.
 +
 +Westergaard, M., N. Mitrofanova, R. Mykhaylyk and Y. Rodina. 2017.
 +Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The
 +linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6):
 +666--682.
 +
 +Whisker-Taylor, K. and L. Clark. 2019. Yorkshire Assimilation: Exploring
 +the production and perception of a geographically restricted variable.
 +Journal of English Linguistics 2019: 221--248.
 +
 +Wilcox, R. R. and G. A. Rousselet. 2018. A guide to robust statistical
 +methods in neuroscience. Current Protocols in Neuroscience 82:
 +8.42.1--8.42.30.
 +
 +Zimmerman, S. A. and S. M. Sapon. 1958. Note on vowel duration seen
 +cross-linguistically. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
 +30(2): 152--153.
  
start.1663273117.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022-09-15 by 127.0.0.1