Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Lexical Status and the Degree of /l/-darkening

  • Received : 2015.07.31
  • Accepted : 2015.09.20
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explores the degree of velarization of English word-final /l/ (i.e., /l/-darkness) according to the lexical status. Lexical status is defined as whether a speech stimulus is considered as a word or a non-word. We examined the temporal and spectral properties of word-final /l/ in terms of the duration and the frequency difference of F2-F1 values by varying the immediate pre-liquid vowels. The result showed that both temporal and spectral properties were contrastive across all vowel contexts in the way of real words having shorter [l] duration and low F2-F1 values, compared to non-words. That is, /l/ is more heavily velarized in words than in non-words, which suggests that lexical status whether language users encode the speech signal as a word or not is deeply involved in their speech production.

Keywords

References

  1. Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica, 49 (3-4), 155-180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261913
  2. Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1995). Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In Fredericka Bell-Berti & Lawrence J. Raphael (eds). Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues. New York: AIP Press.
  3. Carter, P. & Local, J. (2007). F2 variation in Newcastle and Leeds English liquid systems. Journal of International Phonetic Association, 37, 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100307002939
  4. Fox, R. A. (1984). Effect of Lexical Status on Phonetic Categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performances, 10(4), 526-540. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.4.526
  5. Ganong, W. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.110
  6. Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Halle, M. & Mohanan, K.P. (1985). Segmental Phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 57-116.
  8. Hall-Lew, L. & Fix, S. (2012). Perceptual coding reliability of (L)-vocalization in casual speech data. Lingua, 112(7), 794-809.
  9. Huffman, M. K. (1997). Phonetic variation in intervocalic onset /l/'s in English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 115-141. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0038
  10. Krishnan, S., Alcock, K. J., Mercure, E., Leech R., Barker, E., Karmiloff-Smith, A. & F. Dick. (2013). Articulating novel words: children's oromotor skill predicts non-word repetition ability. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 56(6): 1800-1812. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0206)
  11. Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in Phonetics. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace.
  12. Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I. (1996). The Sounds of the World's Languages. Blackwell: UK.
  13. Lange-Kuttner, C. Pulu, A.-A., Nylund, M., Cardona, S. & Garnes, S. (2013). Speech preparation and articulation time in bilinguals and men, International Journal of Speech & Language Pathology and Audiology, 1, 37-42.
  14. McMillan, C. T. & Corley, M. (Ms.) Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801998236
  15. Sproat, R. & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291-311.
  16. Turton, D. (2014). Some /l/s are darker than others: Accounting for variation in English /s/ with ultrasound tongue imaging. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(2), 189-198.
  17. Xu, Y. (2007). Speech as articulatory encoding of communicative functions. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrucken: 25-30.