Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-692xr Total loading time: 0.401 Render date: 2023-01-31T23:45:49.444Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

How is vowel production in Italian affected by geminate consonants and stress patterns?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2022

Lucia COLOMBO*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Italy
Michela INFANTI
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Italy
Joanne ARCIULI
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Lucia Colombo, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova Via Venezia, 8 35143 Padova, Italy. E-mail: lucia.colombo@unipd.it

Abstract

Italian vowels have a shorter duration before a geminate than before a singleton consonant, but a longer duration in syllables carrying stress. We asked whether children can produce the differentiation in vowel duration in singleton/geminate contexts reported for adults and whether their production changes depending on position of primary stress. Italian children (three-to-six-year-olds) and adults performed a nonword repetition. Each nonword appeared in four contexts, with the stressed/unstressed vowel preceding/following the singleton/geminate: /paˈpaso/, /papˈpaso/, ˈpapaso/, /ˈpappaso/. Acoustic analyses on the duration of the vowel preceding (V1) and following (V2) the medial consonant showed a type of consonant by age group interaction: the difference in vowel duration between children and adults was greater for geminate than singleton contexts, and was greater when the vowel carried stress. When V1 carried stress, its duration was shorter in the geminate than in the singleton in adults and older children, not in younger children.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akaike, H. (1998). Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In: Parzen, E., Tanabe, K. & Kitagawa, G. (Eds.), Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer Series in Statistics (Perspectives in Statistics). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15Google Scholar
Aldubai, N. A. (2015). The impact of geminates on the duration of the preceding and following vowels in ta’zi dialect. Arab World English Journal, 8 (1), 335358. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol6no1.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, G. D., & Hawkins, S. (1978). The development of phonological rhythm. In Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (Eds.), Syllables and Segments, pp. 173185. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Arciuli, J., & Ballard, K. (2017). Still not adult-like: lexical stress contrastivity in word productions of eight-to-eleven-years-old. Journal of Child Language, 44, 12741288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arciuli, J., & Colombo, L. (2016). An acoustic investigation of the developmental trajectory of lexical stress contrastivity in Italian. Speech Communication, 80, 2233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argiolas, F., Macrì, F., & Di Benedetto, M. G. (1995). Acoustic analysis of Italian [r] and [l]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 5, p. 3418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astruc, L., & Prieto, P. (2006). Acoustic cues of stress and accent in Catalan. In Hoffmann, R. & Mixdorff, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006 (pp. 337340). Dresden: TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften GmbH.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189208. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00019-4. PMID: 12742667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballard, K. J., Djaja, D., Arciuli, J., James, D. G. H., & van Doorn, J. (2012). Developmental trajectory for production of prosody: lexical stress contrastivity in children aged 3 to 7 years and in adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 55(6), 18221835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 148. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1980). The perception of stress by Italian speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 8(4), 385395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1981). Strutture prosodiche dell’Italiano: accento, quantitá , sillaba, giuntura, fondamenti metrici. Firenze: Academia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1985). A proposito di alcuni recenti contributi alla prosodia dell’italiano, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa serie III, 15, 581644.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., & Vivalda, E. (1978). Recherches sur la perception des oppositions de quantité en italien. Journal of Italian Linguistics 3, 97116.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat v. 6.0.28 [Computer software]. Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T., Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1984). The Formal Representation of Ambisyllabicity: Evidence from Danish, in Jones, C. and Sells, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS, 14, 3448.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., & Hulme, C. (1995). Modeling item length effects in memory span: No rehearsal needed? Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 594621. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1027Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., & Casadio, P. (1996). Il primo vocabolario del bambino: Guida all’uso del questionario MacArthur per la valutazione della comunicazione e del linguaggio nei primi anni di vita. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Colombo, L. (1992). Lexical stress effect and its interaction with frequency in word pronunciation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 9871003.Google Scholar
D’Imperio, M. R., & Rosenthal, S. S. (1999). Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian. Phonology, 16, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSimoni, F. G. (1974). Influence of consonant environment on duration of vowels in the speech of three-, six-, and nine- year-old children. Journal of Acoustical Society of America. 55, 362363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esposito, A., & Di Benedetto, M. G. (1999). Acoustical and perceptual study of gemination in Italian stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4, Pt 1), 20512062. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428056CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farnetani, E., & Kori, S. (1986). Effects of syllable and word structure on segmental durations in spoken Italian, Speech Communication 5,1, 1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fava, E., & Magno Caldognetto, E. (1976). Studio sperimentale delle caratteristiche elettroacustiche delle vocali toniche e atone in bisillabi italiani. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di “Studi di Fonetica e Fonologia” (Padova, 1–2 ottobre 1973), Roma: Bulzoni, 3579.Google Scholar
Gordon, M., & Roettger, T. (2017). “Acoustic correlates of word stress: A cross-linguistic survey.” Linguistics Vanguard, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 20170007. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, Zeki. (2003). Temporal compensation between vowel and consonant in Swedish & Arabic in sequences of CV:C & CVC: and the word overall duration, PHONUM 9, 4548.Google Scholar
Homme, Y. (1981). Durational relations between Japanese stops and vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 273281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infanti, M. (2018). Sviluppo delle caratteristiche fonologiche e acustiche dell’accento tonico e delle geminate in bambini dai 3 ai 6 anni. Master Thesis, Università di Padova.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145165). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, G. (2016). The influence of children’s exposure to language from two to six years: The case of nonword repetition. Cognition, 153, 7988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., & Redanz, N. J. (1993). Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development, 64, 675687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kent, R. D., & Forner, L. L. (1980). Speech segment duration in sentence recitations by children and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 8(2), 157168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T., Vihman, M. M., DePaolis, R. A., Whitaker, C. J., & Williams, M. N. (2010). The role of vocal practice in constructing phonological working memory. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53, 5, 12801293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khattab, G., & Al-Tamimi, J. (2008). Durational cues for gemination in Lebanese Arabic. Languages and Linguistics, 22, 3956.Google Scholar
Khattab, G., & Al-Tamimi, J. (2015). The acquisition of gemination in Lebanese-Arabic children In: The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: the University of Glasgow. ISBN 978-0-85261-941-4. Paper number 0870Google Scholar
Krämer, M. (2009). The phonology of Italian. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krull, D., Traunmüller, H., & Bertinetto, P. M. (2006). Local speaking rate and perceived quantity: an experiment with Italian listeners. Working Papers 52 (Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics), 8184.Google Scholar
Kunnari, S., Nakai, S., & Vihman, M. (2001). Cross-linguistic evidence for acquisition of geminates. Psychology of Language and Communication, 5, 1324.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. (1996). On the analysis of geminates in standard italian and italian dialects. In Hurch, B., & Rhodes, R.A. (Eds.), Natural Phonology. The State of the Art, 153188. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Luschützky, H. C. (1984). Remarks on segmental quantity in Italian, Wiener Linguistische Gazette 33–34, 105120.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification. In: Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, Academic Press, 203221Google Scholar
Mashaqba, B., Huneety, A., Al-khawaldeh, N., & Thnaibat, T. (2021). Geminate Acquisition and Representation by Ammani Arabic-Speaking Children. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 21, 219242. 10.33806/ijaes2000.21.1.13.Google Scholar
Mattei, M., & Di Benedetto, M. G. (2000). Acoustic analysis of singleton and geminate nasals in Italian. The European Journal of Language and Speech (EACL/ESCA/ELSNET), 111.Google Scholar
Mioni, A. M. (1973). Fonematica contrastiva. Bologna: Patron.Google Scholar
Olivucci, F., Pasqualetto, F., Vayra, M., & Zmarich, C. (2016). Lo sviluppo dell’accento lessicale nel bambino in età prescolare: una prospettiva fonetico-acustica. In Savy, R. & Alfano, I. (cur.), La fonetica nell’apprendimento delle lingue (pp. 209228). Milano: Officinaventuno.Google Scholar
Payne, E., Post, B., Astruc, L., Prieto, P., & Vanrell, M. M. (2012). Measuring child rhythm. Language and Speech, 55, 203229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickett, E. R., Blumstein, S. E., & Burton, M. W. (1999). Effects of speaking rate on the singleton/geminate consonant contrast in Italian. Phonetica, 56(3-4), 135157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137157). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranganathan, P., Pramesh, C. S., & Aggarwal, R. (2017). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Measures of agreement. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(4), 187191. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rinaldi, P., Barca, L., & Burani, C. (2004). A database for semantic, grammatical and frequency properties of the first words acquired by Italian children. Behavior, Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 525530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, R. (1995). Effect of familiarity on word duration in children’s speech: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 7684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, R. G., Petinou, K., Goffman, L., Lazowski, G., & Cartusciello, C. (1996). Young children’s production of syllable stress: An acoustic analysis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(5), 31923200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B. L. (1978). Temporal aspects of English speech production: a developmental perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 6, 3768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. L. (1992). Relationships between duration and temporal variability in children’s speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 21652174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B. L., Kenney, M. K., & Hussain, S. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of duration and temporal variability in children’s speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 23442349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinelli, G., Sulpizio, S., & Burani, C. (2017). Q2Stress: A database for multiple cues to stress assignment in Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 49(6), 21132126. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0845-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M., & Keren-Portnoy, T. (Eds.) (2013). The Emergence of Phonology: Whole-word Approaches and Cross-linguistic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511980503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M., & Majorano, M. (2017). The role of geminates in infants’ early word production and word-form recognition. Journal of Child Language, 44(1), 158184. doi:10.1017/S0305000915000793CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M. M., & Velleman, S. L. (2000). The Construction of a First Phonology. Phonetica, 57, 255266. doi: 10.1159/000028478CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, I. (1982). La sillaba come unità fonologica. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How is vowel production in Italian affected by geminate consonants and stress patterns?
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

How is vowel production in Italian affected by geminate consonants and stress patterns?
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

How is vowel production in Italian affected by geminate consonants and stress patterns?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *