Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-bqjwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-08T12:02:46.192Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Contrast enhancement as motivation for closed syllable laxing and open syllable tensing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Benjamin Storme*
University of Lausanne


This paper proposes that closed syllable laxing and open syllable tensing of non-low vowels are motivated by conflicting strategies of contrast enhancement in vowel–consonant sequences. Laxing enhances the distinctiveness of consonant contrasts by allowing for more distinct VC formant transitions, in particular in sequences involving a non-low vowel followed by an oral labial/coronal/velar consonant (e.g. [p t k]). Tensing enhances the distinctiveness of vowel contrasts by providing more distinct formant realisations for vowels. Linguistic variation results from different ways of resolving the tension between maximising vowel dispersion and maximising consonant dispersion. Laxing typically applies before coda consonants as a way to compensate for the absence of good perceptual cues to place of articulation. The hypothesis that laxing enhances the distinctiveness of postvocalic place contrasts is supported by a study of mid-vowel laxing in French, which corroborates the general claim that perceptual contrast plays a role in shaping phonotactic restrictions.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)


This paper builds on Part I of Storme (2017c). For helpful feedback and discussion, I thank Edward Flemming, Michael Kenstowicz and Donca Steriade (my thesis supervisors), Adam Albright, Juliet Stanton, audiences at AMP 2014, OCP 2015 and Acoustics ’17, three Phonology reviewers, the associate editor and the editors.


Al Mozainy, Hamza Q. (1981). Vowel alternations in a Bedouin Hijazi Arabic dialect: abstractness and stress. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Alwan, Abeer, Jiang, Jintao & Chen, Willa (2011). Perception of place of articulation for plosives and fricatives in noise. Speech Communication 53. 195209.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia (1999). Standard Modern Greek. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29. 167172.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben (2014). Package ‘lme4’: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Version 1.1-7. Scholar
Becker-Kristal, Roy (2010). Acoustic typology of vowel inventories and Dispersion Theory: insights from a large cross-linguistic corpus. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter (1993). The perception of nasal vowels. In Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.) Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. Orlando: Academic Press. 171196.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (1993). Klamath laryngeal phonology. IJAL 59. 237279.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert (2003). Thao dictionary. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert (2013). The Austronesian languages. Revised edn. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert (2016). Kelabit-Lun Dayeh phonology, with special reference to the voiced aspirates. Oceanic Linguistics 55. 246277.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2017). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.29). Scholar
Botma, Bert & van Oostendorp, Marc (2012). A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years on. In Botma, Bert & Noske, Roland (eds.) Phonological explorations: empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues. Berlin: de Gruyter. 135154.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert, Sebregts, Koen & Smakman, Dick (2012). The phonetics and phonology of Dutch mid vowels before /l/. Laboratory Phonology 3. 273297.Google Scholar
Brunner, Jana & Żygis, Marzena (2011). Why do glottal stops and low vowels like each other? In Lee, Wai-Sum & Zee, Eric (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong 2011. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. 376379.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani (1992). Pitch and duration of yes-no questions in Nchufie. JIPA 22. 1226.Google Scholar
Cooper, Franklin S., Delattre, Pierre C., Liberman, Alvin M., Borst, John M. & Gerstman, Louis J. (1952). Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. JASA 24. 597606.Google Scholar
Coquillon, Annelise & Turcsan, Gabor (2012). An overview of the phonological and phonetic properties of Southern French: data from two Marseille surveys. In Gess et al. (2012). 105–127.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2012). Laurentian French (Quebec): extra vowels, missing schwas and surprising liaison consonants. In Gess et al. (2012). 235–274.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre C. (1958). Unreleased velar plosives after back-rounded vowels. JASA 30. 581582.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre C. (1969). L'R parisien et autres sons du pharynx. The French Review 43. 522.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre C., Liberman, Alvin M. & Cooper, Franklin S. (1955). Acoustic loci and transitional cues for consonants. JASA 27. 769773.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna & Faber, Alice (1990). Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tense–lax contrast in Utah English. Language Variation and Change 2. 155204.Google Scholar
Dudas, Karen (1976). The phonology and morphology of Modern Javanese. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 15681578.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2005). A phonetically-based model of vowel reduction. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2007). Stop place contrasts before liquids. In Trouvain, Jürgen & Barry, William J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. 233236.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2008). The realized input. Ms, MIT. Available (February 2019) at Scholar
Fujimura, O., Macchi, M. J. & Streeter, L. A. (1978). Perception of stop consonants with conflicting transitional cues: a cross-linguistic study. Language and Speech 21. 337346.Google Scholar
Gendrot, Cédric & Adda-Decker, Martine (2005). Impact of duration on F1/F2 formant values of oral vowels: an automatic analysis of large broadcast news corpora in French and German. Interspeech 2005: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Lisbon. 24532456.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall, Lyche, Chantal & Meisenburg, Trudel (eds.) (2012). Phonological variation in French: illustrations from three continents. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan & Wilson, Ian (2006). Excrescent schwa and vowel laxing: cross-linguistic responses to conflicting articulatory targets. In Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, Douglas & Best, Catherine T. (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology 8. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 635659.Google Scholar
Gottfried, Terry L. & Beddor, Patrice Speeter (1988). Perception of temporal and spectral information in French vowels. Language and Speech 31. 5775.Google Scholar
Halle, M., Hughes, G. W. & Radley, J.-P. A. (1957). Acoustic properties of stop consonants. JASA 29. 107116.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Oi-kan Yue (1972). Phonology of Cantonese. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohulin, Lou & Kenstowicz, Michael (1979). Keley-i phonology and morphophonemics. South-East Asian Linguistic Studies 4. 241254.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (1985). Ambisyllabicity in Dutch. In Bennis, Hans & Beukema, Frits (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris. 5766.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). ‘Abstract’ vowel harmony in Kàlɔ̀ŋ: a system-driven account. In Sauzet, Patrick & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.) Typologie des langues d’Afrique et universaux de la grammaire. Vol. 1. Paris: L'Harmattan. 85112.Google Scholar
Iverson, Paul, Kuhl, Patricia K., Akahane-Yamada, Reiko, Diesch, Eugen, Tohkura, Yoh'ich, Kettermann, Andreas & Siebert, Claudia (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition 87. B47B57.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar, C. Fant, M. & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho (2004). Place assimilation. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5886.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho (2011). Positional effects in consonant clusters. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 11031123.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1990). Dutch schwa in moraic phonology. CLS 26:2. 241255.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah (2012). Compression effects in English. JPh 40. 390402.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (2010). Vocale incerta, vocale aperta. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 48. 2550.Google Scholar
Koops, Robert (2009). A grammar of Kuteb: a Jukunoid language of East-Central Nigeria. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Bruun & Bojesen Christensen, Rune Haubo (2015). lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effect models. R package (version 2.0-25). Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan & Lindblom, Björn (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839862.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona (1978). Vowel features. Lg 54. 541563.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. JASA 35. 17731781.Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh (1999). Perceiving final voiceless stops without release: effects of preceding monophthongs versus nonmonophthongs. Phonetica 56. 4455.Google Scholar
Lovegren, Jesse (2013). Mungbam grammar. PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan (1963). Detection and recognition. In Duncan Luce, R., Bush, Robert R. & Galanter, Eugene (eds.) Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley. 103189.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press. 203221.Google Scholar
Martin, Pierre (2002). Le système vocalique du français du Québec: de l'acoustique à la phonologie. La linguistique 38:2. 7188.Google Scholar
Marty, Paul (2012). The role of release bursts in final stop perception. CLS 48. 487501.Google Scholar
Ménard, Lucie, Schwartz, Jean-Luc & Aubin, Jérôme (2008). Invariance and variability in the production of the height feature in French vowels. Speech Communication 50. 1428.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott & Hansen, Benjamin B. (2007). The origin of vowel length neutralization in final position: evidence from Finnish speakers. NLLT 25. 157193.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Noël & Fagyal, Zsuzsanna (2008). Acoustic aspects of vowel harmony in French. JPh 36. 127.Google Scholar
Niedermann, Max (1985). Phonétique historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990a). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 258275.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990b). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS 26:2. 319338.Google Scholar
Ohala, Manjari & Ohala, John J. (2001). Acoustic VC transitions correlate with degree of perceptual confusion of place contrast in Hindi. In Grønnum, Nina & Rischel, Jørgen (eds.) To honour Eli Fischer-Jørgensen: Festschrift on the occasion of her 90th birthday, February 11th, 2001. Copenhagen: Reitzel. 265284.Google Scholar
O'Hara, Charlie (2014). Searchable Klamath dictionary. Version 0.5. Electronic database. Available (February 2019) at Scholar
Paulian, Christiane (1986). Les voyelles en nù.kàlɔ̀ŋὲ: sept phonèmes, mais … Cahiers du LACITO 1. 5665.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Scholar
Recasens, Daniel & Espinosa, Aina (2006). Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech Communication 48. 645666.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A. & Diehl, Randy L. (1999). The relative perceptual distinctiveness of initial and final consonants in CVC syllables. JASA 106. 15551565.Google Scholar
Robinson, Laura C. (2008). Dupaningan Agta: grammar vocabulary, and texts. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i.Google Scholar
Schokkin, Gerda H. (2014). A grammar of Paluai: the language of Baluan Island, Papua New Guinea. PhD dissertation, James Cook University.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Boë, Louis-Jean, Badin, Pierre & Sawallis, Thomas R. (2012). Grounding stop place systems in the perceptuo-motor substance of speech: on the universality of the labial–coronal–velar stop series. JPh 40. 2036.Google Scholar
Shepard, Roger N. (1972). Psychological representation of speech sounds. In David, Edward E. & Denes, Peter B. (eds.) Human communication: a unified view. New York: McGraw-Hill. 67113.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet (2017). Constraints on the distribution of nasal-stop sequences: an argument for contrast. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Staubs, Robert, Becker, Michael, Potts, Christopher, Pratt, Patrick, McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (2010). OT-Help 2.0. Software package. Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1997). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Available (February 2019) at Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel Jay & Kawasaki, Haruko (1986). Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Perkell, Joseph S. & Klatt, Dennis H. (eds.) Invariance and variability in speech processes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 426449.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Sharon, Manuel Y. & Matthies, Melanie (1999). Revisiting place of articulation measures for stop consonants: implications for models of consonant production. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California. 11171120.Google Scholar
Storme, Benjamin (2017a). The effect of schwa duration on pre-schwa mid-vowel lowering in French. In Jesney, Karen, O'Hara, Charlie, Smith, Caitlin & Walker, Rachel (eds.) Supplemental Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Scholar
Storme, Benjamin (2017b). The loi de position and the acoustics of French mid vowels. Glossa 2(1):64. Scholar
Storme, Benjamin (2017c). Perceptual sources for closed-syllable vowel laxing and derived-environment effects. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sussman, Harvey M., Bessell, Nicola, Dalston, Eileen & Majors, Tivoli (1997). An investigation of stop place of articulation as a function of syllable position: a locus equation perspective. JASA 101. 28262838.Google Scholar
Sussman, Harvey M., Hoemeke, Kathryn A. & Ahmed, Farhan S. (1993). A cross-linguistic investigation of locus equations as a phonetic descriptor for place of articulation. JASA 94. 12561268.Google Scholar
Topping, Donald M. (1973). Chamorro reference grammar. With the assistance of Bernadita C. Dungca. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1987). The sounds of French: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke (1984). The syllable in Dutch, with special reference to diminutive formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Winitz, Harris, Scheib, M. E. & Reeds, James A. (1972). Identification of stops and vowels for the burst portion of /p, t, k/ isolated from conversational speech. JASA 51. 13091317.Google Scholar
Wivell, Richard (1981). Kairiru grammar. MA thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Elmer P. (1971). Hiligaynon reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3457.Google Scholar
Yallop, Colin (1982). The phonology of Javanese vowels. In Halim, Amran, Carrington, Lois & Wurm, S. A. (eds.) Papers from the 3rd International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Vol. 2: Tracking the travellers. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 299319.Google Scholar
Zanten, Ellen van (1989). The Indonesian vowels: acoustic and perceptual explorations. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Storme supplementary material

Storme supplementary material 1

Download Storme supplementary material(File)
File 45 KB