Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T03:35:13.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual constraints and phonological change: a study of nasal vowel height

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Patrice Speeter Beddor ,
Rena Arens Krakow  and
Louis M. Goldstein
Patrice Speeter Beddor
Affiliation:
Yale University and Haskins Laboratories
Rena Arens Krakow
Affiliation:
Yale University and Haskins Laboratories
Louis M. Goldstein
Affiliation:
Yale University and Haskins Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To address the claim that listener misperceptions are a source of phonological shifts in nasal vowel height, the phonological, acoustic and perceptual effects of nasalisation on vowel height were examined. We show that the acoustic consequences of nasal coupling, while consistent with phonological patterns of nasal vowel raising and lowering, do not always influence perceived vowel height. The perceptual data suggest that nasalisation affects perceived vowel height only when nasalisation is phonetically inappropriate (e.g. insufficient or excessive nasal coupling) or phonologically inappropriate (e.g. no conditioning environment in a language without distinctive nasal vowels). It is argued that these conditions, rather than the inherent inability of the listener to distinguish the spectral effects of velic and tongue body gestures, lead to perceptual misinterpretations and potentially to sound change.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 3 , May 1986 , pp. 197 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by NIH Grants HD-01994, HD-16591 and NS-07196. We thank Arthur Abramson, Björn Lindblom and John Ohala for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript and Carol Fowler for stimulating and encouraging the experimental work described here.

References

Abramson, A. S.Nye, P. W.Henderson, J. & Marshall, C. W. (1981). Vowel height and the perception of consonantal nasality. JASA 70. 329–339.Google Scholar
Ali, L.Gallagher, T.Goldstein, J. & Daniloff, R. (1971). Perception of coarticulated nasality. JASA 49. 538–540.Google Scholar
Beddor, P. S. (1982). Phonological and phonetic effects of nasalization on vowel height. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota. Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Beddor, P. S. (1984). Formant integration and the perception of nasal vowel height. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-77/78. 107–120.Google Scholar
Bedrov, Ya. A.Chistovich, L. A. & Sheikin, R. L. (1978). Frequency position of the ‘center of gravity’ of formants as a useful feature in vowel perception. Soviet Physics Acoustics 24. 275–278.Google Scholar
Benguerel, A.-P.Hirose, H.Sawashima, M. & Ushijima, T. (1977). Velar coarticulation in French: a fiberscopic study. JPh 5. 149–158.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (1975). Two studies on nasalization. In Ferguson et al. (1975). 27–48.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1971). Metarules and universal constraints on phonological theory. Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California, Berkeley 13. MC1-MC56.Google Scholar
Chistovich, L.A. & Lublinskaya, V. V. (1979). The ‘center of gravity’ effect in vowel spectra and critical distance between the formants. Hearing Research I. 185–195.Google Scholar
Chistovich, L. A.Sheikin, R. L. & Lublinskaya, V. V. (1979). ‘Centers of gravity’ and spectral peaks as the determinants of vowel quality. In Lindblom, B. & Öhman, S. (eds.) Frontiers of speech communication research. New York: Academic Press. 143–157.Google Scholar
Clumeck, H. (1976). Patterns of soft palate movements in six languages. JPh 4. 337–351.Google Scholar
Durand, M. (1956). Du rôle de l'auditeur dans la formation des sons du langage. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 52. 347–355.Google Scholar
Entenman, G. (1977). The development of nasal vowels. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1963). Assumptions about nasals. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 53–60.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A.Hyman, L. M. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.) (1975). Nasálfest: papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project.Google Scholar
Foley, J. (1975). Nasalization as universal phonological process. In Ferguson et al. (1975). 197–212.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1981). Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24. 127–139.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1983). Converging sources of evidence on spoken and perceived rhythms of speech: cyclic production of vowels in monosyllabic stress feet. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 112. 386–412.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1984). Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception and Psychophysics 36. 359–368.Google Scholar
Fujimura, O. & Lindqvist, J. (1971). Sweep-tone measurements of vocal-tract characteristics. JASA 49. 541–558.Google Scholar
Haden, E. F. & Bell, E. A. Jr. (1964). Nasal vowel phonemes in French. Lingua 13. 62–69.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A. G. (1947). En/an en français. Word 3. 39–47.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. & Stevens, K. N. (1985). Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the non-nasal–nasal distinction for vowels. JASA 77. 1560–1575.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. B. (1984). Velopharyngeal function in oral and nasal vowels: a cross-language study. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
House, A. S. & Stevens, K. N. (1956). Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 21. 218–232.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1972). Nasals and nasalization in Kwa. Studies in African Linguistics 3. 167–205.Google Scholar
Jonasson, J. (1971). Perceptual similarity and articulatory reinterpretation as a source of phonological innovation. Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm I. 30–42.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, H. (1986). Phonetic explanation for phonological universals: the case of distinctive vowel nasalization. In Ohala, J. J. (ed.) Experimental phonology. New York: Academic Press. 81–103.Google Scholar
Krakow, R. A.Beddor, P. S.Goldstein, L. M. & Fowler, C. A. (in preparation). Coarticulatory influences on the perceived height of nasal vowels.Google Scholar
Kunisaki, O. & Fujisaki, H. (1977). On the influence of context upon perception of voiceless fricative consonants. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute for Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo 11. 85–91.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P.Harshman, R.Goldstein, L. & Rice, L. (1978). Generating vocal tract shapes from formant frequencies. JASA 64. 1027–1035.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21. 1–36.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. (1970). why and how does vowel nasalization take place? Papers in Linguistics 2. 179–226.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1960). Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Lg 36. 222–229.Google Scholar
Mann, V. A. & Repp, B. H. (1980). Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]–[s] distinction. Perception and Psychophysics 28. 213–228.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1955). Economie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1965). Les voyelles nasales du français. Linguistique 2. 117–122.Google Scholar
Moll, K. L. (1962). Velopharyngeal closure on vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5. 30–37.Google Scholar
Mrayati, M. (1975). Etude des voyelles françaises. Bulletin de l'Institut de Phonétique de Grenoble 4. 1–26.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1971a). Monitoring soft palate movements in speech. Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California, Berkeley 13. JO1-JO15.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1971b). The role of physiological and acoustic models in explaining the direction of sound change. Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California, Berkeley 15. 25–40.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) Historical linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S.Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1986). Phonological evidence for top-down processing in speech perception. In Perkell, J. S. & Klatt, D. H. (eds.) Invariance and variability in speech processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 386–397.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J.Kawasaki, H.Riordan, C. & Caisse, M. (in preparation). The influence of consonant environment upon the perception of vowel quality.Google Scholar
Pandey, P. (1978). A physiological note on the effect of nasalization on vowel height. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 7. 217–222.Google Scholar
Passy, P. (1890). Etude sur les changements phonétiques. Paris: Librairie Firmin-Didot.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1880). Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer. Translated (1970) by Strong, H. A. as Principles of the history of language. College Park, Maryland: McGrath.Google Scholar
Pope, M. K. (1934). From Latin to Modern French. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, P.Baer, T. & Mermelstein, P. (1981). An articulatory synthesizer for perceptual research. JASA 70. 321–328.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, M. (1978). Nasal vowels. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 203–241.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (1973). A cross-language study of vowel nasalization. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 190–221.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N.G., Fant & S., Hawkins (forthcoming). Some acoustical and perceptual correlates of nasal vowels. In Channon, R. & Shockey, L. (eds.) Festschrift for Ilse Lehiste. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Straka, G. (1955). Remarques sur les voyelles nasales, leur origine et leur évolution en français. Revue de Linguistique Romane 19, 245–274.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1888). History of English sounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ushijima, T. & M., Sawashima (1972). Fiberscopic observation of velar movements in speech. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute for Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo 6, 25–38.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.) Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 97–195.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. (1981). Effects of vocalic formant transitions and vowel quality on the English [s]–[š] boundary. JASA 69, 275–282.Google Scholar
Wright, J. (1980). The behavior of nasalized vowels in the perceptual vowel space. Report of the Phonology Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley 5, 127–163.Google Scholar