Article published in:
Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 230–245

Cross-regional differences in the perception of fricative devoicing

| Utrecht University

In Dutch, onset /v/ is becoming voiceless. Regional differences have been observed in the degree of devoicing and in the acoustic implementation of the /v/–/f/ contrast. We test whether these regional differences – reflecting different stages of the change in progress – are reflected in perception. We present the results of a speeded categorization task of stimuli that were systematically varied for periodicity and duration. Listeners were selected in three regions: West-Flanders (incipient phase), Randstad (intermediate phase) and Groningen (advanced phase). Twenty participants per region categorized 405 stimuli as v or f. Periodicity is a strong cue in all regions, duration only plays a minor role. Regional differences show up in the degree of categoricity and in uncertainty.

Published online: 10 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.19pin
References
Boersma, P., & Hamann, S
(2008) The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology, 25, 217–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, N., Griffiths, T., & Morgan, J
(2009) The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review, 116(4), 752–782. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S
(1997) Words and voices-perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In K. Johnson & J. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 33–66). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guenther, F., & Gjaja, M
(1996) The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1111–1121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K
(1997) Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, T. & V. Fridland
(2012) Variation in the production and perception of mid front vowels in the US Southern Vowel Shift. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 289–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, M., Van de Velde, H., & Van Hout, R
(2003) The devoicing of fricatives in Standard Dutch. In P. Fikkert & L. Cornips (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2003 (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P
(1991) Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 93–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittlerer, H
(2009) Research stuff. Retrieved from http://​www​.holgermitterer​.eu​/research​.htmlon04​/06​/2013.Google Scholar
Slis, I., & Cohen, A
(1969) On complex regulating voiced–voiceless distinction. Language and Speech, 12, 80–102.Google Scholar
Slis I., & Van Heugten, M
(1989) Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 6, 123–132.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R
(1989) Perception of voicing in Dutch two-obstruent sequences: Covariation of voicing cues. Speech Communication, 8, 17–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Harst, S
(2011) The vowel space Paradox. A sociophonetic study on Dutch. Utrecht: LOT dissertation.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, H., Gerritsen, M., & Van Hout, R
(1996) The devoicing of fricatives in standard Dutch. A real time study based on radio recordings. Language Variation and Change, 8(2), 149–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, V.J., & Van Houten, E
(1989) Vowel labeling consistency as a measure of familiarity with the phonetic code of a language or dialect. In M.E.H. Schouten, & P. Th. van Reenen (Eds.), New methods in dialectology (pp. 121–130). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar