Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice

By Ingrid Piller

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice "prompts thinking about linguistic disadvantage as a form of structural disadvantage that needs to be recognized and taken seriously."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach

By Rudolf Botha

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach addresses the question: "How can we unravel the evolution of language, given that there is no direct evidence about it?"


The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.

Academic Paper


Title: Differences in EPG contact dynamics between voiced and voiceless lingual fricatives
Author: Marko Liker
Institution: University of Zagreb
Author: Fiona E Gibbon
Institution: University College Cork
Linguistic Field: Phonetics
Abstract: Achieving voicing during fricatives is complex because voicing and frication require opposite production strategies that must be managed effectively at the supralaryngeal level. Previous research has suggested that there are differences in tongue-to-palate contact patterns that are conditioned by voicing. However, findings have been restricted to a single time point and have been generally inconclusive. This study used electropalatography (EPG) to investigate differences in the dynamics of contact in voiced and voiceless lingual fricatives. Participants were six typically speaking Croatian adults. The speech material consisted of symmetrical VCV sequences, where C was / ʃ ʒ/. EPG measures were taken throughout the fricatives and indices were used to quantify place of articulation (CoG), groove width and target configuration onset. The EPG measures showed similar results for voiced and voiceless fricatives during their central portions. However, there were notable differences at the periphery of the fricative period, the most significant being that the voiceless fricatives reached a stable period in terms of tongue placement and groove configuration later than the voiced fricatives. The results support aerodynamic evidence that voiced and voiceless fricatives differ in the onset and the offset of turbulence.

CUP AT LINGUIST

This article appears IN Journal of the International Phonetic Association Vol. 43, Issue 1, which you can READ on Cambridge's site or on LINGUIST .



Add a new paper
Return to Academic Papers main page
Return to Directory of Linguists main page