Article published in:Where Do Phonological Features Come From?: Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories
Edited by G. Nick Clements and Rachid Ridouane
[Language Faculty and Beyond 6] 2011
► pp. 131–172
Automaticity vs. feature-enhancement in the control of segmental F0
Several phonological oppositions are typically accompanied by F0 differences. F0 is higher following voiceless consonants than voiced; it is also higher for high than low vowels. Analysis of cricothyroid activity aimed to determine whether these F0 differences are automatic effects contingent on the basic articulatory manoeuvres required for the oppositions of voicing and vowel height, or whether the differences reflect active enhancement strategies. Results for both oppositions suggest a hybrid model: The articulatory contingency is at the heart of the F0 differences, but these differences may be reinforced by active laryngeal adjustments. Additional analysis focused on German tense vs. lax vowels. Higher cricothyroid activity in lax vowels could explain why these vowels do not follow typical intrinsic F0 patterns. Tentative support was found.
Published online: 28 July 2011
Cited by other publications
Berry, Jeff & Maura Moyle
Brunner, Jana & Phil Hoole
Dmitrieva, Olga, Fernando Llanos, Amanda A. Shultz & Alexander L. Francis
Koenig, Laura L., Susanne Fuchs & Jorge C. Lucero
Moisik, Scott R., Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins & John H. Esling
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.