Article published In:
Approaches to Hungarian 18: Special issue of the Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:1 (2023)
Edited by Donka F. Farkas, Gábor Alberti and Balázs Surányi
[Journal of Uralic Linguistics 2:1] 2023
► pp. 549
References
Baese-Berk, Melissa & Matthew Goldrick
2009Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 241. 527–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Zoltán G. Kiss
2015Why do sonorants not voice in Hungarian? And why do they voice in Slovak? In Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi & Éva Dékány (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba conference, 65–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019A fonetikai korrelátumok szerepe a zöngekontraszt fenntartásában. Beszédprodukciós és észleléses eredmények [The role of phonetic correlates in voicing contrast. Results from speech production and perception]. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 311. 57–102.Google Scholar
2021The perception of voicing contrast in assimilation contexts in minimal pairs: Evidence from Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica 681. 207–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bárkányi, Zsuzsanna & Katalin Mády
2012The perception of voicing in fricatives. Paper presented at the 9th Old World Conference in Phonology, Berlin, 18–21 January 2012.
Bartoń, Kamil
2020MuMIn: Multi-model inference. [URL]. R package version 1.43.17.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
2015Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 671. 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker
2021lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘eigen’ and S4. [URL]. R package version 1.4–00.
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
2021Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. ([URL])
Bolker, Ben & David Robinson
2021Broom.mixed: Tidying methods for mixed models. [URL]. R package version 0.2.7.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, Jan
1993The effects of semantic context on voicing neutralization. Phonetica 501. 28–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, Paul & Ignatius Mattingly
1981Production and perception of phonetic contrast during phonetic change. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR 67/68. 191–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darcy, Isabel, Franck Ramus, Anne Christophe, Katherine Kinzler & Emmanuel Dupoux
2009Phonological knowledge in compensation for native and non-native assimilation. In Frank Kügler, Caroline Féry & Ruben Vijver (eds.), Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology, 265–309. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Draxler, Christoph & Klaus Jänsch
2004SpeechRecorder – A universal platform independent multi-channel audio recording software. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 559–562. Lisbon.Google Scholar
G. Kiss, Zoltán
2013Measuring acoustic correlates of voicing in stops and fricatives. In Péter Szigetvári (ed.), VLLXX: Papers presented to László Varga on his 70th birthday, 289–311. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University & Tinta Könyvkiadó/Tinta Publishing House.Google Scholar
Ganong, William F.
1980Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 61. 110–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
2013Phonetic bias in sound change. In Alan C. L. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilliéron, Jules
1910Étude de géographie linguistique XII – mots en collision. Le coq et le chat . Revue de philologie française 41. 278–288.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew, Charlotte Vaughn & Amanda Murphy
2013The effects of lexical neighbours on stop consonant articulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1341. 172–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gráczi, Tekla Etelka
2010A spiránsok zöngésségi oppozíciójának néhány jellemzője [Some properties of the voicing opposition of spirants]. Beszédkutatás 2010, 42–56.Google Scholar
Hanson, Helen M., Richard S. McGowan, Kenneth N. Stevens & Robert E. Beaudoin
1999Development of rules for controlling the HLSyn speech synthesizer. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings, vol. 1. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 85–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Felicitas Kleber & Ulrich Reubold
2012The production and perception of coarticulation in two types of sound changes in progress. In Susanne Fuchs, Melanie Weirich, Daniel Pape & Pascal Perrier (eds.), Speech planning and dynamics, 39–62. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Harris, John
1994English sound structure. Oxford & Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild & Karthik Durvasula
2016Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English. Brain and Language 1521. 28–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, So-One K., Philip J. Mohanan & William J. Idsardi
2010Underspecification and asymmetries in voicing perception. Phonology 271. 205–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Wouter
2004Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A laboratory phonology approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
2007Phonological ‘voicing’, phonetic voicing and assimilation in English. Language Sciences 291. 270–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janson, Tore
1983Sound change in perception and production. Language 591. 18–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Javkin, Hector R.
1976The perceptual basis of vowel duration differences associated with the voiced/voiceless distinction. Report of the Phonology Laboratory, UC Berkeley 11. 78–92.Google Scholar
Kharlamov, Viktor
2014Incomplete neutralisation of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences. Journal of Phonetics 431. 47–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kingston, John & Randy L. Diehl
1994Phonetic knowledge. Language 701. 419–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, Mafuyu, Keiichi Tajima & Kiyoko Yoneyama
2019The effect of lexical competition on realization of phonetic contrasts: A corpus study of the voicing contrast in Japanese. In: Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain & Paul Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2749–2752. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Kleber, Felicitas, Jonathan Harrington & Ulrich Reubold
2012The relationship between the perception and production of coarticulation during a sound change in progress. Language and Speech 551. 383–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Keith R., Randy L. Diehl & Beverly A. Wright
1988Vowel length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics 161. 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Vladimir
2022Voice and emphasis in Arabic coronal stops: Evidence for phonological compensation. Language and Speech 651. 73–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuzla, Claudia, Mirjam Ernestus & Holger Mitterer
2010Compensation for assimilatory devoicing and prosodic structure in German fricative perception. In Cécile Fougeron, Barbara Kühnert, Mariapaola D’Imperio & Nathalie Vallée (eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 1, 731–757. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen
2017lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 821. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn
1990Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In: William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 403–440. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson
1964A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 201. 384–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech 101. 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luce, Paul A. & David B. Pisoni
1998Recognizing spoken words: The neighbourhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 191. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makowski, Dominique, Mattan S. Ben-Shachar, Indrajeet Patil & Daniel Lüdecke
2021Automated results reporting as a practical tool to improve reproducibility and methodological best practices adoption, v. 0.5.0. CRAN. [URL]
Manuel, Sharon Y.
1990The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 881. 1286–1298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André
1952Function, structure, and sound change. Word 81. 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. & Michael M. Cohen
1983Consonant/vowel ratio: An improbable cue in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 331. 502–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munteanu, Andrei
2021Homophony avoidance in the grammar: Russian nominal allomorphy. Phonology 381. 401–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott
2012Final devoicing: Production and perception studies. In: Tony Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara & Mariko Sugahara (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 148–180. London: Equinox Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Rochelle S.
2003Using links between speech perception and speech production to evaluate different acoustic metrics: A preliminary report. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1131. 2850–2860. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1981The listener as a source of sound change. In: Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrik & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behaviour conference (CLS 17), 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Parker, Ellen M., Randy L. Diehl & Keith R. Kluender
1986Trading relations in speech and non-speech. Perception and Psychophysics 391. 129–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Thomas Lin
2020Patchwork: The composer of plots. [URL]. R package version 1.1.0.
Pinget, Anne-France, René Kager & Hans van de Velde
2020Linking variation in perception and production in sound change: Evidence from Dutch obstruent devoicing. Language and Speech 631. 660–685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F. & Jonathan Dalby
1982C/V ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Perception and Psychophysics 21. 141–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F. & Adam P. Leary
2005Against formal phonology. Language 811. 927–964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2020R: A language and environment for statistical computing; 4.0.2. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Sampson, Geoffrey
2013A counterexample to homophony avoidance. Diachronica 301. 579–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shultz, Amanda A., Alexander L. Francis & Fernando Llanos
2012Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1321. EL95–EL101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Daniel
2012Neutralization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2000The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snoeren, Natalie D., Pierre A. Hallé & Juan Segui
2006A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French. Journal of Phonetics 341. 241–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeren, Natalie D., Juan Segui and Pierre A. Hallé
2008On the role of regular phonological variation in lexical access: Evidence from voice assimilation in French. Cognition 1081. 512–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1997Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Manuscript. University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N.
1998Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan & Scott Jackson
2013High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 1281. 179–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C.
1982Accents of English 1–3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund et al.
2019Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 41. 1686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, Sora Heng & James White
2018Neutralization and homophony avoidance in phonological learning. Cognition 1791. 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar