No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts
, and Weenink
). “ Praat: Doing phonetics by computer
,” available online at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
(Last viewed July 10, 2015).
4. Buz, E. , Jaeger, T. F. , and Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). “ Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
5. Buz, E. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , and Jaeger, T. F. (2016). “ Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers' subsequent pronunciations,” J. Memory Lang.
6. Choi, J. , Cho, T. , Kim, S. , Baek, Y. , and Jang, J. (2015). “ Phonetic encoding of coda voicing contrast and its interaction with information structure in L1 and L2 speech,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
7. Clayards, M. , and Knowles, T. (2015). “ Prominence enhances voicelessness and not place distinction in English voiced sibilants,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
9. de Jong, K. J. (2001). “ Effects of syllable affiliation and consonant voicing on temporal adjustment in a repetitive speech-production task,” J. Speech, Lang., Hear. Res. 44(4), 826–840.
10. Derr, M. A. , and Massaro, D. W. (1980). “ The contribution of vowel duration, f0 contour, and frication duration as cues to the /juz/-/jus/ distinction,” Percept. Psychophys. 27(1), 51–59.
11. Goldrick, M. , Vaughn, C. , and Murphy, A. (2013). “ The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(2), EL172–EL177.
15. Kirov, C. , and Wilson, C. (2012). “ The specificity of online variation in speech production,” in Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan.
16. Lindblom, B. (1990). “ Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory,” in Speech Production and Speech Modeling, edited by W. Hardcastle and A. Marchal ( Springer, New York), pp. 403–439.
17. Maniwa, K. , Jongman, A. , and Wade, T. (2009). “ Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken English fricatives,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(6), 3962–3973.
18. Massaro, D. W. , and Cohen, M. M. (1977). “ Voice onset time and fundamental frequency as cues to the /zi/-/si/ distinction,” Percept. Psychophys. 22(4), 373–382.
20. Ohala, J. J. (1994). “ Acoustic study of clear speech: A test of the contrastive hypothesis,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 75–89.
21. Oviatt, S. , Levow, G.-A. , Moreton, E. , and MacEachern, M. (1998). “ Modeling global and focal hyperarticulation during human–computer error resolution,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(5), 3080–3098.
23. Silbert, N. , and de Jong, K. (2008). “ Focus, prosodic context, and phonological feature specification: Patterns of variation in fricative production,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(5), 2769–2779.
27. Stent, A. J. , Huffman, M. K. , and Brennan, S. E. (2008). “ Adapting speaking after evidence of misrecognition: Local and global hyperarticulation,” Speech Commun. 50(3), 163–178.
28. Stevens, K. N. , Blumstein, S. E. , Glicksman, L. , Burton, M. , and Kurowski, K. (1992). “ Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of voicing in fricatives and fricative clusters,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91(5), 2979–3000.
29. Uchanski, R. M. (2008). “ Clear speech,” in The Handbook of Speech Perception, edited by D. Pisoni and R. Remez ( Blackwell, Malden, MA), pp. 207–235.
Article metrics loading...
This study investigates the capacity for targeted hyperarticulation of contextually-relevant contrasts. Participants communicated target words with final /s/ or /z/ when a voicing minimal-pair (e.g., target dose, minimal-pair doze) either was or was not available as an alternative in the context. The results indicate that talkers enhance the durational cues associated with the word-final voicing contrast based on whether the context requires it, and that this can involve both elongation as well as shortening, depending on what enhances the contextually-relevant contrast. This suggests that talkers are capable of targeted, context-sensitive temporal enhancements.
Full text loading...
Most read this month