This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| start [2022-09-16] – Péter Szigetvári | start [2022-09-16] (current) – Péter Szigetvári | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | = Laryngeal patterns in synchrony and diachrony | + | ~~NOTOC~~ |
| research sponsored by NKFIH (#142498) | research sponsored by NKFIH (#142498) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| == 0. Background | == 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 te## 0. Background | ||
| **Laryngeal phonology** has experienced a significant surge in the past | **Laryngeal phonology** has experienced a significant surge in the past | ||
| Line 157: | Line 152: | ||
| Our proposal accepts that English lenis obstruents (as opposed to | Our proposal accepts that English lenis obstruents (as opposed to | ||
| - | Hungarian voiced obstruents) do not trigger voicing assimilation (e.g., | + | Hungarian voiced obstruents) do not trigger voicing assimilation |
| - | *update* is not [bd]) because they lack a phonologically active | + | (e.g., |
| " | " | ||
| Balogné Bérces & Huszthy 2018). We aim to experimentally back up this | Balogné Bérces & Huszthy 2018). We aim to experimentally back up this | ||
| Line 257: | Line 252: | ||
| opposite state of affairs, namely that Old English had lenis fricatives | opposite state of affairs, namely that Old English had lenis fricatives | ||
| (the unmarked series) that were phonetically devoiced word-initially | (the unmarked series) that were phonetically devoiced word-initially | ||
| - | (//fōn//, phonologically /vo:n/ or /f^0^o:n/, cf. Honeybone 2005), | + | (//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* | word-finally (//hlāf// /ɦla:v/) and when next to a fortis sound (*æfter* | ||
| /avtər/), but (passively) voiced in intersonorant position in a stressed | /avtər/), but (passively) voiced in intersonorant position in a stressed | ||
| Line 369: | Line 364: | ||
| each research item. The audio files will be extracted from these video | each research item. The audio files will be extracted from these video | ||
| clips and will be converted to uncompressed wav files. These sound files | clips and will be converted to uncompressed wav files. These sound files | ||
| - | will then be fed into Praat (https:// | + | will then be fed into Praat (https:// |
| various acoustic analyses relevant for the laryngeal investigations | various acoustic analyses relevant for the laryngeal investigations | ||
| (such as voicing durations, Voice Onset Time, segment durations, etc.). | (such as voicing durations, Voice Onset Time, segment durations, etc.). | ||
| Line 663: | Line 658: | ||
| cross-linguistically. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America | cross-linguistically. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America | ||
| 30(2): 152--153. | 30(2): 152--153. | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | laryngeal specification of obstruents; however, a number of non-standard | ||
| - | **dialects** have developed patterns that deviate from the aspirating, | ||
| - | fortis/ | ||
| - | some are " | ||
| - | characterized by asymmetrical, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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## | ||
| - | |||
| - | **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 " | ||
| - | categories (like aspiration and shortening of the preceding sonorant | ||
| - | interlude) are also at play. Therefore the labels " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | laryngeal specification of obstruents; however, a number of non-standard | ||
| - | **dialects** have developed patterns that deviate from the aspirating, | ||
| - | fortis/ | ||
| - | some are " | ||
| - | characterized by asymmetrical, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | an unstressed vowel? In words such as //piper, writer, hiker// the medial | ||
| - | stops are usually considered to be unaspirated, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | show a markedly different laryngeal patterning from " | ||
| - | If our hypotheses are correct, most (perhaps all) fortis+fortis | ||
| - | obstruent clusters of English must be reanalysed as either fortis+lenis | ||
| - | or lenis+fortis, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | fact, different phonetically: | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | clipping", | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | Experimental evidence is also lacking for the role of other acoustic | ||
| - | correlates, such as glottalization, | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | containing word-initial v, as in //very//, //virtue//, the voicing of | ||
| - | fricatives in function words/ | ||
| - | less regular sources). The use of the feature voiceless/ | ||
| - | description of the obstruents of Old English needs reinterpretation | ||
| - | along fortis (marked)/ | ||
| - | 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 (' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | taken to be a voice system, also exhibiting Regressive Voice | ||
| - | Assimilation; | ||
| - | however, appear to be RVA systems rather than aspiration languages, and | ||
| - | produce a tripartite typology of " | ||
| - | (Scottish English/ | ||
| - | asymmetrical with lenisness/ | ||
| - | English, Kerswill 1987, Harris 1994), and asymmetrical with | ||
| - | fortisness/ | ||
| - | 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**, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | |||
| - | ## 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? | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | phonological data are even " | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | automatically, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | advantage that it can be run on the participant' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Törkenczy), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | eredmények. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 31: 57--102. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2020. Neutralisation and contrast | ||
| - | preservation: | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | Linguistics, | ||
| - | |||
| - | G. Kiss, Z. and P. Szigetvári. 2020. Telling fortis and lenis apart in | ||
| - | English obstruent clusters. The Even Yearbook 14: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | perceptual account. In: Hume & Johnson (2001: 219--250). | ||
| - | |||
| - | Szigetvári, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The | ||
| - | linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6): | ||
| - | 666--682. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Whisker-Taylor, | ||
| - | 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.## 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 " | ||
| - | categories (like aspiration and shortening of the preceding sonorant | ||
| - | interlude) are also at play. Therefore the labels " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | laryngeal specification of obstruents; however, a number of non-standard | ||
| - | **dialects** have developed patterns that deviate from the aspirating, | ||
| - | fortis/ | ||
| - | some are " | ||
| - | characterized by asymmetrical, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | an unstressed vowel? In words such as //piper, writer, hiker// the medial | ||
| - | stops are usually considered to be unaspirated, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | show a markedly different laryngeal patterning from " | ||
| - | If our hypotheses are correct, most (perhaps all) fortis+fortis | ||
| - | obstruent clusters of English must be reanalysed as either fortis+lenis | ||
| - | or lenis+fortis, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | fact, different phonetically: | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | clipping", | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | Experimental evidence is also lacking for the role of other acoustic | ||
| - | correlates, such as glottalization, | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | containing word-initial v, as in //very//, //virtue//, the voicing of | ||
| - | fricatives in function words/ | ||
| - | less regular sources). The use of the feature voiceless/ | ||
| - | description of the obstruents of Old English needs reinterpretation | ||
| - | along fortis (marked)/ | ||
| - | 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 (' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | taken to be a voice system, also exhibiting Regressive Voice | ||
| - | Assimilation; | ||
| - | however, appear to be RVA systems rather than aspiration languages, and | ||
| - | produce a tripartite typology of " | ||
| - | (Scottish English/ | ||
| - | asymmetrical with lenisness/ | ||
| - | English, Kerswill 1987, Harris 1994), and asymmetrical with | ||
| - | fortisness/ | ||
| - | 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**, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | |||
| - | ## 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? | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | phonological data are even " | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | automatically, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | advantage that it can be run on the participant' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Törkenczy), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | eredmények. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 31: 57--102. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2020. Neutralisation and contrast | ||
| - | preservation: | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | Linguistics, | ||
| - | |||
| - | G. Kiss, Z. and P. Szigetvári. 2020. Telling fortis and lenis apart in | ||
| - | English obstruent clusters. The Even Yearbook 14: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | perceptual account. In: Hume & Johnson (2001: 219--250). | ||
| - | |||
| - | Szigetvári, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The | ||
| - | linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6): | ||
| - | 666--682. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Whisker-Taylor, | ||
| - | 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. | ||
| - | ## 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 " | ||
| - | categories (like aspiration and shortening of the preceding sonorant | ||
| - | interlude) are also at play. Therefore the labels " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | laryngeal specification of obstruents; however, a number of non-standard | ||
| - | **dialects** have developed patterns that deviate from the aspirating, | ||
| - | fortis/ | ||
| - | some are " | ||
| - | characterized by asymmetrical, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | an unstressed vowel? In words such as //piper, writer, hiker// the medial | ||
| - | stops are usually considered to be unaspirated, | ||
| - | (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 " | ||
| - | show a markedly different laryngeal patterning from " | ||
| - | If our hypotheses are correct, most (perhaps all) fortis+fortis | ||
| - | obstruent clusters of English must be reanalysed as either fortis+lenis | ||
| - | or lenis+fortis, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | fact, different phonetically: | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | clipping", | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | Experimental evidence is also lacking for the role of other acoustic | ||
| - | correlates, such as glottalization, | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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 // | ||
| - | containing word-initial v, as in //very//, //virtue//, the voicing of | ||
| - | fricatives in function words/ | ||
| - | less regular sources). The use of the feature voiceless/ | ||
| - | description of the obstruents of Old English needs reinterpretation | ||
| - | along fortis (marked)/ | ||
| - | 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 (' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | taken to be a voice system, also exhibiting Regressive Voice | ||
| - | Assimilation; | ||
| - | however, appear to be RVA systems rather than aspiration languages, and | ||
| - | produce a tripartite typology of " | ||
| - | (Scottish English/ | ||
| - | asymmetrical with lenisness/ | ||
| - | English, Kerswill 1987, Harris 1994), and asymmetrical with | ||
| - | fortisness/ | ||
| - | 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**, | ||
| - | 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/ | ||
| - | |||
| - | ## 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? | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | phonological data are even " | ||
| - | 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 " | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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 | ||
| - | " | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | automatically, | ||
| - | 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), | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | advantage that it can be run on the participant' | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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:// | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Törkenczy), | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | eredmények. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 31: 57--102. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Bárkányi, Zs. and Z. G. Kiss. 2020. Neutralisation and contrast | ||
| - | preservation: | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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' | ||
| - | Linguistics, | ||
| - | |||
| - | G. Kiss, Z. and P. Szigetvári. 2020. Telling fortis and lenis apart in | ||
| - | English obstruent clusters. The Even Yearbook 14: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | |||
| - | 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: | ||
| - | perceptual account. In: Hume & Johnson (2001: 219--250). | ||
| - | |||
| - | Szigetvári, | ||
| - | 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, | ||
| - | Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The | ||
| - | linguistic proximity model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21(6): | ||
| - | 666--682. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Whisker-Taylor, | ||
| - | 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. | ||
| - | .** | ||