Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:15:41.778Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue true
  • English
  • Français

Regional differences in the perception of a consonant change in progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

Anne-France Pinget ,
René Kager  and
Hans Van de Velde
Anne-France Pinget*
Affiliation:
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University
René Kager
Affiliation:
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University
Hans Van de Velde
Affiliation:
Fryske Akademy, Leeuwarden
*
Corresponding author: Anne-France Pinget, a.c.h.Pinget@uu.nl, Tel: +31 30 253 6049, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Universiteit Utrecht, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study aims at testing whether there are regional differences in the perception of the labiodental fricative contrast in Dutch. Previous production studies have shown that the devoicing of initial labiodental fricatives is a change in progress in the Dutch language area. We present the results of a speeded identification task in which fricative stimuli were systematically varied for two phonetic cues, voicing and duration. Listeners (n=100) were regionally stratified, and the regions (k=5) reflect different stages of this sound change in progress. Voicing turned out to be the strongest categorization cue in all regions; duration only played a minor role. Regional differences showed up in the perception of the consonantal contrast that matched regional differences in production reported in previous studies. The addition of random slopes in the mixed model regression showed the importance of within-regional variation.

Keywords

perceptionsound changefricativesdevoicingregional variationlink perception-production
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 2016 , pp. 65 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

References

Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255-278.Google Scholar
Benkí, José R. 2005. Perception of VOT and first formant onset by Spanish and English speakers. In James Cohen, Kara McAlister, Kellie Rolstad, Jeff MacSwan (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 240–248. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke. 2008. The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25. 217-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2014. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/ (2 December 2014).Google Scholar
Debrock, M. 1977. An acoustic correlate of the force of articulation. Journal of Phonetics 5. 61-80.Google Scholar
Debrock, M. 1978. Is the fortis-lenis feature really redundant in Dutch? Leuvense Bijdragen 67. 457-472.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola & Boersma, Paul. 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 4):551-585.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola, Simon, Ellen & Mitterer, Holger. 2012. The perception of English front vowels by North Holland and Flemish listeners: Acoustic similarity predicts and explains cross-linguistic and L2 perception. Journal of Phonetics 40. 280-288.Google Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H., Griffiths, Tom L. & Morgan, James L.. 2009. The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review 116. 4):752-782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flege, James Emil, Takagi, Naoyuki & Mann, Virginia. 1996. Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of /r/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99. 1161-1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Robert Allen, Flege, James Emil & Munro, Murray J.. 1995. The perception of English and Spanish vowels by native English and Spanish listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(4). 2540-2550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fry, Dennis Butler, Abramson, Arthur S., Eimas, Peter D. & Liberman, Alvin M.. 1962. The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and Speech 5(4). 171-189.Google Scholar
Gandour, Jackson T. & Harshman, Richard A.. 1978. Crosslanguage differences in tone perception: A multidimensional scaling investigation. Language and Speech 21(1). 1-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, Stephen D. 1997. Words and voices—perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In Keith Johnson & John W. Mullennix (eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing, 33-66. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guenther, Frank H. & Gjaja, Marin N.. 1996. The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100. 1111-1121.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G., Flege, James Emil, Akahane-Yamada, Reiko & Pruitt, Jesica C.. 2000. An investigation of current models of second language speech perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception of English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107. 2711-2724.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G., Harada, Tetsuo & Clark, J. J.. 2004. Early and late Spanish-English bilinguals’ acquisition of English word stress patterns. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7. 207-226.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Bremmer, Rolf H.. 1983. Voiced fricatives in Dutch: Sources and present-day usage. North-Western European Language Evolution 2. 55-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A., Chang, Yueh-Chin & Best, Catherine T.. 2004. Identification and discrimination of Mandarin Chinese tones by Mandarin Chinese vs. French listeners. Journal of Phonetics 32. 395-421.Google Scholar
Hirata, Yukari. 2004. Training native English speakers to perceive Japanese length contrasts in word versus sentence contexts. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 116(4). 2384-2394.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1983. Sound change in perception and production. Language. 18-34.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Keith Johnson & John W. Mullennix (eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing. 145-165. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler & Fridland, Valerie. 2012. Variation in the production and perception of mid front vowels in the US Southern Vowel Shift. Journal of Phonetics 40(2). 289-306.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail, Van de Velde, Hans & Hout, Roeland van. 2003. The devoicing of fricatives in standard Dutch. In Paula Fikkert & Leonie Cornips (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 2003. 93-104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics 50(2). 93-107.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, Karen A., Lacerda, Francisco, Stevens, Kenneth N. & Lindblom, Björn. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255. 606-608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of language change: Internal factors (Vol. 1). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Broadbent, Donald E.. 1957. Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29(1). 98-104.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Harris, Katherine S., Hoffman, H. S. & Griffith, B. C.. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54(5). 358.Google Scholar
McAllister, Robert, Flege, James Emil & Piske, Thorsten. 2002. The influence of L1 on the acquisition of Swedish quantity by native speakers of Spanish, English and Estonian. Journal of Phonetics 30(2). 229-258.Google Scholar
Mitterer, Holger. 2009. Research stuff. http://www.holgermitterer.eu/research.html. (2 December 2014).Google Scholar
Pinget, Anne-France. 2015. The actuation of sound change. Utrecht: Utrecht University, LOT series PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David B. 1975. Auditory short-term memory and vowel perception. Memory & Cognition 3(1). 7-18.Google Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. 1984. Categorical perception: Issues, methods, findings. Speech and Language: Advances in basic research and practice 10. 243-335.Google Scholar
Slis, Iman H. & Cohen, Antonie. 1969. On complex regulating voiced–voiceless distinction. Language and Speech 12(2). 80-102.Google Scholar
Slis, Iman H. & Heugten, Marieke van. 1989. Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 6. 123-132.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2011. Collecting data on phonology. In W. Maguire & A. McMahon (eds.), Analysing Variation in English, 7-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R. J. H. 1989. Perception of voicing in Dutch two-obstruent sequences: Covariation of voicing cues. Speech Communication 8. 17-25.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R. J. H. & Slis, Iman H.. 1985. Perception of Assimilation of Voice as a Function of Segmental Duration and Linguistic Context. Phonetica 42. 25-38.Google Scholar
Van der Harst, Sander. 2011. The vowel space paradox. A sociophonetic study on Dutch. Utrecht: Utrecht University, LOT series PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Hans, Gerritsen, Marinel & van Hout, Roeland. 1996. The devoicing of fricatives in standard Dutch: A real time study based on radio recordings. Language Variation and Change 8(2). 149-175.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Hans, van Hout, Roeland & Gerritsen, Marinel. 1997. Watching Dutch Change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1(3). 361-391.Google Scholar
Van Reenen, Pieter T. 1994. Driemaal /r/ in de Nederlandse dialecten. Taal en Tongval 46. 54-72.Google Scholar
Van Reenen, Pieter T. & Wattel, Evert. 1992. De uitspraak van /s/ en /z/ voor klinker in het Nederlands: zes eeuwen variatie. In Bennis Hans & Jan W. de Vries (eds.), De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands, Een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper, 291-309. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.Google Scholar
Willis, Clodius. 1972. Perception of vowel phonemes in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, and Buffalo, New York: An application of synthetic vowel categorization tests to dialectology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15. 246-255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed