The presented study is aimed at investigating the interaction of palatalization and intrinsic prosodic features of the vowel in CVC (consonant+vowel+consonant) syllables in Russian. The universal nature of intrinsic prosodic vowel features was confirmed with the data from the Russian language. It was found that palatalization of the consonants affects intrinsic fundamental frequency (IF0), intensity (I), and duration of the vowels in CVC syllables by modifying the vowel articulatory parameters such as vowel height and fronting. The obtained results are discussed in the light of opposing theories: those suggesting automatic control and those suggesting active control over intrinsic vowel features.
BeilR. (1962). Frequency analysis of vowels produced in a helium-rich atmosphere. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34, 347–349.
3.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2008). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer[Computer program]. Retrieved from www.praat.org
4.
BollaK. (1981). A conspectus of Russian speech sounds. Koln: Bohlau.
5.
BuderE.Stoel-GammonC. (2002). American and Swedish children’s acquisition of vowel duration: Effects of vowel identity and final stop voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1854–1864.
6.
BynonT. (1977). Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CavarM. E. (2004). Palatalization in Polish: An interaction of articulatory and perceptual factors (Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.)). Potsdam University, Potsdam.
8.
ChoiJ. (1995). An acoustic-phonetic underspecification account of Marshallese vowel allophony. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 323–347.
9.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). Sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
10.
ConnellB. (2002). Tone languages and universality of intrinsic F0: Evidence from Africa. Journal of Phonetics, 30(1), 101–129.
11.
DiehlR. (1991). The role of phonetics in the study of language. Phonetica, 48, 120–134.
12.
DiehlR.KingstonJ. (1991). Phonetic covariation of auditory enhancement: The case of [+voice]/[–voice] distinction. In EngstrandO.KylanderC. (Eds.), Current phonetic research paradigm: Implications for speech motor control (pp. 139–143). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
13.
DiehlR.KluenderK. (1989). On the objects of speech perception. Ecological Psychology, 1(2), 121–144.
14.
ElyanO. (1978). Sex differences in speech style. Women Speaking, 4, 4–8.
15.
EricsdotterC.EricssonA. (2001). Gender differences in vowel duration in read Swedish: Preliminary results. Lund Working Papers, 49, 34–37.
16.
EwanW.OhalaJ. (1979). Can intrinsic vowel F0 be explained by source/tract coupling?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(2), 358–362.
17.
FantG. (1964). Akusticheskaya teoriya recheobrazovaniya [Acoustic theory of speech production]. Moscow: Nauka.
18.
Fischer-JorgensenE. (1990). Intrinsic F0 in tense and lax vowels with special reference to German. Phonetics, 47, 99–140.
19.
FlanaganJ.CherryL. (1969). Excitation of vocal tract synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45, 764–769.
20.
FlanaganJ.LandgrafL. (1968). Self-oscillating source for vocal-tract synthesizers. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 16(1), 57–64.
21.
FlemmingE. S. (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London: Routledge.
22.
GiegerichH. (1992). English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Hadding-KochK.AbramsonA. (1964). Duration versus spectrum in Swedish vowels: Some perceptual experiments. Studia Linguistica, 18(2), 94–107.
25.
HalleM.ClementsG. (1983). Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
HalleM.JonesL. (1971). The sound pattern of Russian: A linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.
27.
HazanV.MarkhamD. (2004). Acoustic-phonetic correlates of talker intelligibility for adults and children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(5), 3108–3118.
28.
HillenbrandJ.GettyL.ClarkM.WheelerK. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099–3111.
29.
HondaK. (1983). Relationship between pitch control and vowel articulation. In BlessD.AbbsJ. (Eds.), Vocal fold physiology: Contemporary research and clinical issues (pp. 127–137). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
30.
HondaK. (2004). Physiological factors causing tonal characteristics of speech: From global to local prosody. Proceedings of Speech Prosody2004, Nara, Japan, 739–744.
31.
HondaK.FujimuraO. (1991). Intrinsic vowel F0 and phrase-final F0 lowering: Phonological vs. biological explanations. In GauffinJ.HammarbergB. (Eds.), Vocal fold physiology: Acoustic, perceptual, and physiological aspects of voice mechanisms (pp. 149–157). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.
32.
HooleP.HondaK.MuranoF.FuchsS.PapeD. (2004). Cricothyroid activity in consonant voicing and vowel intrinsic pitch. Proceedings of the International Conference on Voice Physiology and Biomechanics, Marseille, France.
33.
HooleP.MooshammerC. (2002). Articulatory analysis of the German vowel system. In AuerP.GillesP.SpiekermannH. (Eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente (pp. 129–152). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
34.
HouseA. (1961). On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(9), 1174–1178.
35.
HouseA.FairbanksG. (1953). The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustic characteristics of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(1), 105–113.
36.
IshizakaK.FlanaganJ. (1972). Synthesis of voiced sounds from two-masses model of the vocal cords. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 51, 1233–1268.
37.
JakobsonR.FantG.HalleM. (1961). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
JohnsonK. (2000). Adaptive dispersion in vowel perception. Phonetica, 57(2–4), 181–188.
39.
JohnsonK.MartinJ. (2001). Acoustic vowel reduction in Creek: Effects of distinctive length and position in the word. Phonetica, 58(1–2), 81–102.
40.
JonesD.WardD. (1969). The phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
KavitskayaD. (2006). Perceptual salience and palatalization in Russian. In GoldsteinL.WhalenD.BestC. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 8 (pp. 589–610). New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
42.
KeatingP. (1985). Universal phonetics and the organisation of grammars. In FromkinV., (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp. 115–132). Los Angeles, CA: Academic Press.
KingstonJ.DiehlR.KirkC.CastlemanW. (2008). On the internal perceptual structure of distinctive features: The [voice] contrast. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 28–54.
45.
KochetovA. (2002). Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic patterns: A case of contrastive palatalization. New York: Routledge.
46.
KochetovA. (2004). Perception of place and secondary articulation contrasts in different syllable positions: Language-particular and language-independent asymmetries. Language and Speech, 47(4), 351–382.
LindblomB. (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In OhalaJ.JaegerJ. (Eds.), Experimental phonology (pp. 13–14). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
58.
MohrB. (1971). Intrinsic variations in the speech signal. Phonetics, 23, 65–93.
59.
Ni ChiosainM.PadgettJ. (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In LombardiL. (Ed.), Constraints and representations: Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory (pp. 118–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
OhalaJ.EukelB. (1987). Explaining the intrinsic pitch of vowels. In ChannonR.ShockeyL. (Eds.), In honor of Ilse Lehiste (pp. 207–215). Dordrecht: Fortis.
61.
OhmanS. (1966). Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 39(1), 151–168.
62.
OrdinM. (2010). Palatalization and temporal organisation of CVC syllables in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 34(1), 57–65.
63.
PadgettJ. (2001). Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 187–218). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
64.
PadgettJ. (2003). The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In HoltE. (Ed.), Optimality Theory and language change (pp. 307–335). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
65.
PapeD.MooshammerC. (2006). Is intrinsic pitch language-dependent? Evidences from a cross-linguistic vowel pitch experiment (with additional screening of the listeners’ DL for music and speech). Proceedings of the ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop (ITRW) on Multilingual Speech and Language Processing, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
66.
ParkerS. (2008). Sound level protrusion as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 55–90.
67.
PetersonG.BarneyH. (1952). Control methods in the study of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24(2), 175–184.
68.
PetersonG.LehisteI. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(6), 693–703.
69.
PurcellE. (1979). Formant frequency patterns in Russian VCV utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(6), 1691–1702.
70.
RubachJ. (2000). Backness switch in Russian. Phonology, 17(1), 39–64.
71.
ShadleC. (1985). Intrinsic fundamental frequency of vowels in sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78(5), 1562–1567.
72.
SimpsonA. (2001). Dynamic consequences of differences in male and female vocal tract dimensions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(5), 2153–2164.
73.
SimpsonA. (2002). Gender-specific articulatory–acoustic relations in vowel sequences. Journal of Phonetics, 30(3), 417–435.
74.
SimpsonA. (2003). Possible articulatory reasons for sex-specific differences in vowel duration. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Speech Production, Sydney, 261–266.
75.
StevensK. (1972). The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articulatory-acoustic data. In DenesP. B.DavidE. E.Jr. (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view (pp. 51–66). New York: McGraw-Hill.
76.
StevensK. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 17(1), 3–46.
77.
StevensK.KeyserS. (2010). Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics, 38(1), 10–19.
78.
TaylorH. (1933). The fundamental pitch of English vowels. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 565–582.
79.
TernesE.Vladimirova-BuhtzT. (2005). Bulgarian. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (pp. 55–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
TernströmS.SundbergJ.ColldénA. (1988). Articulatory F0 perturbations and auditory feedback. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 187–192.
81.
VerhoevenJ.van HoofS. (2007). Intrinsic vowel pitch in Dutch and Arabic. Proceedings of the International Conference of Phonetic Sciences XVI, Saarbrücken, 1785–1788.
82.
WhalenD.GickB.KumadaM.HondaK. (1999). Cricothyroid activity in high and low vowels: Exploring the automaticity of intrinsic F0. Journal of Phonetics, 27(2), 125–142.
83.
WhalenD.GickB.LeSourdP. (1999). Intrinsic F0 in Passamaquoddy vowels. In PentlandD. H. (Ed.), Papers from the 30th Algonquian conference (pp. 417–428). Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
84.
WhalenD.LevittA. (1995). The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 349–366.
85.
WhalenD.LevittA.HsiaoP.SmorodinskyI. (1995). Intrinsic F0 of vowels in the babbling of 6-, 9- and 12-month-old French- and English-learning infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 2533–2539.
86.
WhitesideS. (1996). Temporal-based acoustic-phonetic patterns in read speech: Some evidence for speaker sex differences. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 26(1), 23–40.
87.
ZsigaE. (2000). Phonetic alignment constraints: Consonant overlap and palatalization in English and Russian. Journal of Phonetics, 28(1), 69–102.
