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

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.558
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.813

CiteScore 2017: 0.56

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.403
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.876

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Prosodic strengthening in reference to the lexical pitch accent system in South Kyungsang Korean

Taehong Cho
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of English Language and Literature, The Hanyang Institute for Phonetics and Cognitive Sciences of Language, Hanyang University, Seongdong-gu, South Korea
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dong Jin Kim
  • Department of English Language and Literature, Hanyang University, Seongdong-gu, South Korea
  • Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sahyang Kim
Published Online: 2018-10-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-2008

Abstract

Theories of the phonetics-prosody interface suggest that prosodic strengthening that arises with prosodic structuring is not simply a low-level phonetic phenomenon, but it serves as a phonetic hallmark of a higher-order prosodic structure in reference to linguistic (phonological) contrast. The present study builds on this theoretical premise by examining acoustic realization of the phonological tonal contrast in the lexical pitch accent system of South Kyungsang (SK) Korean. Results showed that phonetic realization of F0 and the degree of glottalization (as reflected in spectral tilt measures such as H1-A1c and H1-A3c) of vowels in vowel-initial words were systematically modulated by the higher-order prosodic structure, and that the prosodic-structural modulation gave rise to distinct prosodic strengthening effects as a function of the source of prosodic strengthening. In particular, the prominence-induced strengthening (due to focus) entailed a phonetic polarizing effect on the F0 contrast in a way that enhances the phonological High vs. Low tone contrast. The boundary-induced strengthening effect, on the other hand, could be better understood as enhancing the phonetic clarity of prosodic junctures. The distinct prosodic strengthening effects were further evident in the way that glottalization was fine-tuned according to prosodic structure and phonological (tonal) contrast. Prosodic strengthening effects were also found to interact with intrinsic vowel height, implying that the low-level phonetic effect may be under speaker control in reference to higher-order prosodic and phonological contrast systems of the language. Finally, the results informed a theoretical debate regarding whether the Low tone that contrasts with the High tone in word-initial position should be considered lexically specified vs. post-lexical assigned.

Keywords: lexical pitch accent; tonal contrast; prominence; lexical contrast enhancement; contrastive focus; glottalization; South Kyungsang Korean; lexical vs. post-lexical tones; prosodic strengthening

References

  • Bang, Hye-Young, Morgan Sonderegger, Yoonjung Kang, Meghan Clayards & Tae-Jin Yoon. 2018. The emergence, progress, and impact of sound change in progress in Seoul Korean: Implications for mechanisms of tonogenesis. Journal of Phonetics 66. 120–144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barnes, Jonathan Allen. 2002. Positional neutralization: A phonologization approach to typological patterns. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.40, retrieved 11 May 2018 from http://www.praat.org/.

  • Chen, Yiya & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36(4). 724–746.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2006. Manifestation of prosodic structure in articulatory variation: Evidence from lip kinematics in English. In Louis Goldstein, Douglas H. Whalen & Catherine T. Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology 8, 519–548. New Haven, CT: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2008. Prosodic strengthening in transboundary V-to-V lingual movement in American English. Phonetica 65(1–2). 45–61. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2011. Laboratory phonology. In Nancy Kula, Engbert Doede Botma, Bert Botma & Kuniya Nasukawa (eds.), Bloomsbury companion to phonology, 343–368. London & New York: A&C Black.Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2015. Language effects on timing at the segmental and suprasegmental levels. In Melissa A. Redford (ed.), The handbook of speech production, 505–529. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2016. Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics-prosody interface. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(3). 120–141.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong & Sun-Ah Jun. 2000. Domain-initial strengthening as enhancement of laryngeal features: Aerodynamic evidence from Korean. Chicago Linguistics Society 36(1). 31–44.Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong & Patricia Keating. 2009. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 37(4). 466–485.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong, Daejin Kim & Sahyang Kim. 2017. Prosodically-conditioned fine-tuning of coarticulatory vowel nasalization in English. Journal of Phonetics 64. 71–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong & Peter Ladefoged. 1999. Variation and universals in VOT: Evidence from 18 languages. Journal of Phonetics 27(2). 207–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong, Yoonjeong Lee & Sahyang Kim. 2014. Prosodic strengthening on the /s/-stop cluster and the phonetic implementation of an allophonic rule in English. Journal of Phonetics 46. 128–146.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong & James M. McQueen. 2005. Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics 33(2). 121–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Choi, Jiyoun, Sahayng Kim & Taehong Cho. In preparation. The nature of the reduced VOT distance between aspirated and lenis stops in Seoul Korean. Seoul: Hanyang University.Google Scholar

  • Cole, Jennifer, Heejin Kim, Hansook Choi & Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2007. Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: Evidence from Radio News speech. Journal of Phonetics 35(2). 180–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(1). 491–504.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Jong, Kenneth. 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 32(4). 493–516.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Jong, Kenneth & Bushra Zawaydeh. 2002. Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: Patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 30(1). 53–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DiCanio, Christian, Joshua Benn & Rey Castillo García. 2018. The phonetics of information structure in Yoloxóchitl Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics 68. 50–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dilley, Laura, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Mari Ostendorf. 1996. Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics 24(4). 423–444.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fletcher, Janet. 2010. The prosody of speech: Timing and Rhythm. In William Hardcastle, John Laver & Fliona E. Gibbon (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 2nd edn., 521–602 Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Fougeron, Cécile 1999. Prosodically conditioned articulatory variations: A review. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97. 1–73.Google Scholar

  • Fougeron, Cécile & Patricia A. Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(6). 3728–3740.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Garellek, Marc. 2012. Glottal stops before word-initial vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 110. 1–23.Google Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew & Peter Ladefoged. 2001. Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics 29(4). 383–406.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hanson, Helen M., Kenneth N. Stevens, Hong-Kwang Jeff Kuo, Marilyn Y. Chen & Janet Slifka. 2001. Towards models of phonation. Journal of Phonetics 29 451–480.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hombert, Jean-Marie, John J. Ohala & William G. Ewan. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55(1). 37–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Honda, K., H. Hirai, S. Masaki & Y. Shimada. 1999. Role of vertical Larynx movement and cervical lordosis in F0 control. Language and Speech 42(4). 401–411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jun, Jongho, Jungsun Kim, Hayoung Lee & Sun-ah Jun. 2006. The prosodic structure and pitch accent of Northern Kyungsang Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(4). 289–317.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. Influence of microprosody on macroprosody: A case of phrase initial strengthening. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 92. 97–116.Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 1998. The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 15(2). 189–226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI ) labelling conventions: Version 3. Speech Sciences 7. 143–169, [Version 3.1 is published in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 99: 149-173].Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Intonational phonology of Seoul Korean revisited. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 104. 14–25.Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2006. Intonational phonology of Seoul Korean revisited. In Timothy Vance & Kimberly Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 14, 15–26. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2014. Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody, and macro-rhythm. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 520–540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-ah & Jihyeon Cha. 2015. High-toned [il] in Korean: Phonetics, intonational phonology, and sound change. Journal of Phonetics 51. 93–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kang, Yoonjung. 2014. Voice Onset Time merger and development of tonal contrast in Seoul Korean stops: A corpus study. Journal of Phonetics 45. 76–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keating, Patricia, Taehong Cho, Cécile Fougeron & Chai-shune Hsu. 2003. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI, 145–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Keating, Patricia & Stephanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2002. A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics (101). 112–156.Google Scholar

  • Keating, Patricia A. 1984. Phonetic and phonological representation of stop consonant voicing. Language 60(2). 286–319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keating, Patricia A. 1985. Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, 115–132. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael & Hyang-Sook Sohn. 1997. Phrasing and focus in Northern Kyungsang Korean. In Pier Marco Bertinetto (ed.), Certamen phonologicum III, 137–156. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael & Hyang-Sook Sohn. 2001. Accentual adaptation in North Kyungsang Korean. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 139–270. Massatusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Jieun. 2008. Focus realization: Not by focus-to-accent but prosodic structure. In Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow & Muhammad Abdurrahman (eds.), NELS 38: Proceedings of the 38th annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst: Createspace.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Jieun & Sun-Ah Jun. 2009. Prosodic structure and focus prosody of South Kyungsang Korean. Language Research 45(1). 43–66.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Sahyang, Jiseung Kim, and Taehong Cho. 2018. Prosodic-structural modulation of stop voicing contrast along the VOT continuum in trochaic and iambic words in American English. Journal of Phonetics 71. 65–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Sahyang & Taehong Cho. 2011. Articulatory Manifestation of Prosodic Strengthening in English /i/ and /I/. Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences 3(4). 13–21. The Korean Association of Speech Science.Google Scholar

  • Kingston, John & Randy L. Diehl. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70(3). 419–454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuzla, Claudia, Taehong Cho & Mirjam Ernestus. 2007. Prosodic strengthening of German fricatives in duration and assimilatory devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 35(3). 301–320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Laver, John. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics London 31. 1–186.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Dongmyung. 2005. Weight-sensitive tone patterns in loan words of South Kyungsang Korean. Paper presented at BLS 31, University of California at Berkeley, 18–20 February.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Dongmyung. 2009. The loanword tonology of South Kyungsang Korean. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Dongmyung & Stuart Davis. 2009. On the pitch-accent system of South Kyungsang Korean: A phonological perspective G. Language Research 45. 3–22.Google Scholar

  • Lehiste, Ilse & Gordon E. Peterson. 1961. Some basic considerations in the analysis of intonation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33(4). 419–425.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitterer, Holger. 2018. Not all geminates are created equal: Evidence from Maltese glottal consonants. Journal of Phonetics 66. 28–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe & Christer Gobl. 1997. The handbook of phonetic sciences. In William J. Hardcastle & John Laver (eds.), Voice source variation, 427–461. Cambridge, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Peterson, Gordon E & Harold L. Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24(2). 175–184.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet & David Talkin. 1992. Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In Gerard J. Docherty & D. Robert Ladd (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 1st edn., 90–117. Cambridge, New York & Victoria: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Raphael, LJ, GJ Borden & KS Harris. 2007. Speech science primer: Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech, 5th edn. Baltimore & Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar

  • Redi, Laura & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2001. Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics 29(4). 407–429.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Shue, Yen-Lian, Patricia Keating, Chad Vicenik & Yu Kristine. 2011. Voicesauce: A program for voice analysis. In Wai-Sum Lee & Eric Zee (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1946–1849. Hong Kong.Google Scholar

  • Shue, Yen-Liang 2010. The voice source in speech production: Data, analysis and models. Los Angeles: University of California. http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/voiceproject/Publications/shue_dissertation.pdf

  • Simpson, Adrian. P. 2009. Phonetic differences between male and female speech. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 621–640.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Solé, Maria-Josep & John J. Ohala. 2010. What is and what is not under the control of the speaker. Intrinsic vowel duration. In Cécile Fougeron, Barbara Kuehnert, Mariapaola Imperio & Nathalie Vallee (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 10, 607–655. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stevens, Kenneth N. 1977. Physics of Laryngeal Behavior and Larynx Modes. Phonetica 34. 264–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Whalen, Douglas H. & Andrea G. Levitt. 1995. The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics 23(3). 349–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Xu, Yi, Albert Lee, Santitham Prom-On & Fang Liu. 2015. Explaining the PENTA model: A reply to Arvaniti and Ladd. Phonology 32. 505–535.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Xu, Yi, Ching X. Xu & Zuejing Sun. 2004. On the temporal domain of focus. In Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds.), Proceedings of Internatinal Conference on Speech Prosody, 81–84. Nara, Japan.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-10-20


This work was supported in part by Global Research Network program through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant No. NRF-2016S1A2A2912410) awarded to T.C.


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-2008.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in