Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Laboratory Phonology

Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology

Ed. by Cole, Jennifer

IMPACT FACTOR 2015: 0.667
Rank 85 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/

Sang-Im Lee-Kim / Lisa Davidson / Sangjin Hwang
Published Online: 2013-10-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0015


Articulatory and acoustic studies have provided evidence that in word- initial and word-final positions, English /l/ exhibits substantial differences in ‘darkness‐: dark [ɫ] in word-final position is produced with a more retracted tongue dorsum and lowered tongue body than light [l] in word-initial position. The darkness of intervocalic /l/, however, is variable. While Sproat and Fujimura (1993) argue that /l/ darkness is on a continuum strongly affected by duration, Hayes (2000) maintains that the morphological status of intervocalic /l/s should affect whether they are produced as light or dark variants. In this study, ultrasound imaging is used to investigate whether the morphological affiliation of the /l/ affects the degree of tongue dorsum retraction and tongue body lowering and the acoustic characteristics of /l/ darkness. Six American English speakers produced three types of stimuli which were predicted to increase in darkness in the following order: (1) when /l/ corresponded with the onset of a suffix (e.g., flaw-less), (2) when /l/ corresponded with the final position of the stem word (e.g., tall-est), and (3) when /l/ was the final consonant of a stem word (e.g., tall). For both articulatory and acoustic measures, the predicted order was upheld. The strongest articulatory correlate of darkness was tongue body lowering, and acoustic differences were mainly manifested in F1 and normalized intensity. Phonological implications of these findings are discussed.

About the article

Published Online: 2013-10-17

Published in Print: 2013-10-25

Citation Information: Laboratory Phonology, Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 475–511, ISSN (Online) 1868-6354, ISSN (Print) 1868-6346, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0015.

Export Citation

©[2013] by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Jason A. Shaw and Shigeto Kawahara
Journal of Phonetics, 2018, Volume 66, Page 100
Diana Archangeli, Jonathan Yip, Lang Qin, and Albert Lee
Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 2017, Volume 8, Number 1, Page 21
Scott Seyfarth, Marc Garellek, Gwendolyn Gillingham, Farrell Ackerman, and Robert Malouf
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2017, Page 1
Paul De Decker and Sara Mackenzie
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017, Volume 142, Number 1, Page 350
Patrycja Strycharczuk and James M. Scobbie
Laboratory Phonology, 2017, Volume 8, Number 1
Patrycja Strycharczuk and James M. Scobbie
Journal of Phonetics, 2016, Volume 59, Page 76
Alexei Kochetov and N. Sreedevi
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 2016, Volume 30, Number 3-5, Page 202
Jessica A. Barlow
Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, Volume 5

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in