Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
English has multiple potential acoustic cues to coda stop voicing, including the duration of the preceding vowel, the coda closure duration, and, in some varieties, glottalisation. Glottalisation associated with coda stops appears to be a recent change to Australian English (AusE) with younger speakers using glottalisation more than older speakers in production. Here we report on a study designed to examine AusE-speaking listeners’ perception of cues to coda stop voicing. Listeners were presented with audio stimuli in which preceding vowel duration, coda closure duration, and the relative proportions of the rhyme that these occupy were manipulated and co-varied with the presence or absence of glottalisation. The results show that listeners used preceding vowel duration to cue coda stop voicing, and that coda closure duration was a weaker cue to voicing when not varied in conjunction with preceding vowel duration. In addition, glottalisation facilitated increased perception of coda voicelessness, even when paired with very long preceding vowels, which otherwise signal coda voicing. Although age-related differences in production have previously been reported, we found that both older and younger listeners used glottalisation similarly in perception. These results may provide support for a sound change led by a shift in perception.
Acknowledgements
Preliminary analyses of this work were presented at the 16th Conference of the Association for Laboratory Phonology (LabPhon16) in Lisbon, Portugal, the 2nd Workshop on Sociophonetic Variability in the English Varieties of Australia (SocioPhonAus 2018) in Brisbane, Australia, and the 19th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2018) in Hyderabad, India; we thank participants at these events for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Louise Ratko and Rebecca Holt for supplying their voices for the stimuli, Shuting Liu for assistance with Psyscope, Ulrich Reubold, Marc Garellek, Maria Paola Bissiri, and members of the MQ phonetics lab for their suggestions and/or feedback regarding stimulus design, and lab members of IPS Munich, particularly Jonathan Harrington and Eva Reinisch, for their thoughts, feedback, and comments on the interpretation of the results. We are also grateful to Peter Humburg for his statistical advice, and to Catherine T. Best, Linda Polka, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and comments.
Author contributions: Joshua Penney was responsible for experiment design, stimuli construction, data collection, statistical analyses, and manuscript preparation. Felicity Cox and Anita Szakay made substantial contributions to experiment design, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript preparation.
Statement of ethics: This research was approved by the Macquarie University Human Sciences Research Ethics Subcommittee (reference No. 5201819002273). All participants provided written informed consent and were either paid or received course credit for their participation.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Funding sources: This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship and an Australian Government Endeavour Research Fellowship to the first author and an Australian Research Council grant FT180100462 to the second author.
Manipulated intensity contour values according to acoustic landmarks
| Landmark | Intensity, dB |
|---|---|
| Onset of word | 15 |
| Onset of vowel | 65 |
| Offset of vowel | 60 |
| Coda closure midpoint | 15 |
| Coda burst | 25 |
| Offset of coda burst | 15 |
Note this figure illustrates results of source voiceless tokens. Proportion of voiced responses to vowel duration manipulation (left panel), coda closure duration manipulation (middle panel), and C/V ratio manipulation (right panel). Grey lines represent older speakers; black lines represent younger listeners. Solid lines represent non-glottalised condition; dashed lines represent glottalised condition. For the vowel duration and coda closure duration manipulations, duration increases from step 1 to step 9. For the C/V ratio manipulation, the proportion of the rhyme occupied by the vowel increases from step 1 (where it is equal with coda closure) to step 9 (where it dominates the rhyme).
Summary of mixed effects logistic regression model for vowel duration manipulation. Significant effects (at α = 0.05) are marked with asterisks
| β | OR | SE | z | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | –0.965 | 0.38 | 0.213 | –4.541 | <0.0001* |
| Step | –0.895 | 0.41 | 0.072 | –12.371 | <0.0001* |
| Condition | 2.639 | 14.00 | 0.326 | 8.095 | <0.0001* |
| Age | –0.035 | 0.97 | 0.232 | –0.152 | 0.880 |
| Vowel length | 0.235 | 1.27 | 0.225 | 1.048 | 0.295 |
| Vowel height | 1.300 | 3.67 | 0.228 | 5.708 | <0.0001* |
| Step: condition | 0.010 | 1.01 | 0.070 | 0.141 | 0.888 |
| Step: age | 0.133 | 1.14 | 0.074 | 1.798 | 0.072 |
| Condition: age | –0.617 | 0.54 | 0.359 | –1.721 | 0.085 |
| Step: vowel length | 0.052 | 1.05 | 0.073 | 0.710 | 0.478 |
| Condition: vowel length | 1.205 | 3.34 | 0.336 | 3.581 | 0.0003* |
| Step: vowel height | 0.250 | 1.29 | 0.040 | 6.298 | <0.0001* |
| Condition: vowel height | –0.790 | 0.45 | 0.236 | –3.349 | 0.001* |
| Age: vowel height | –1.257 | 0.29 | 0.286 | –4.395 | <0.0001* |
| Step: condition: age | 0.103 | 1.11 | 0.067 | 1.537 | 0.124 |
| Step: condition: vowel length | 0.084 | 1.09 | 0.061 | 1.383 | 0.167 |
| Step: condition: vowel height | –0.155 | 0.86 | 0.060 | –2.589 | 0.010* |
| Condition: age: vowel height | 1.150 | 3.16 | 0.273 | 4.220 | <0.0001* |
Summary of mixed effects logistic regression model for closure duration manipulation. Significant effects (at α = 0.05) are marked with asterisks
| β | OR | SE | z | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | –0.669 | 0.51 | 0.229 | –2.925 | 0.003* |
| Step | 0.115 | 1.12 | 0.034 | 3.440 | 0.001* |
| Condition | 3.570 | 35.51 | 0.338 | 10.572 | <0.0001* |
| Age | –0.418 | 0.66 | 0.291 | –1.435 | 0.151 |
| Vowel length | –0.448 | 0.64 | 0.306 | –1.464 | 0.143 |
| Vowel height | 1.247 | 3.48 | 0.204 | 6.124 | <0.0001* |
| Step: condition | –0.030 | 0.97 | 0.056 | –0.547 | 0.585 |
| Step: age | –0.040 | 0.96 | 0.039 | –1.025 | 0.305 |
| Condition: age | –0.776 | 0.46 | 0.373 | –2.083 | 0.037* |
| Step: vowel length | –0.003 | 1.00 | 0.041 | –0.070 | 0.944 |
| Condition: vowel length | 0.943 | 2.57 | 0.330 | 2.854 | 0.004* |
| Step: vowel height | –0.023 | 0.98 | 0.028 | –0.816 | 0.414 |
| Condition: vowel height | –1.713 | 0.18 | 0.238 | –7.199 | <0.0001* |
| Age: vowel height | –1.133 | 0.32 | 0.261 | –4.341 | <0.0001* |
| Age: vowel length | 0.626 | 1.87 | 0.367 | 1.709 | 0.087 |
| Step: condition: age | –0.011 | 0.99 | 0.052 | –0.213 | 0.832 |
| Step: condition: vowel length | 0.009 | 1.01 | 0.050 | 0.174 | 0.862 |
| Step: condition: vowel height | 0.038 | 1.04 | 0.049 | 0.763 | 0.446 |
| Condition: age: vowel height | 1.634 | 5.12 | 0.284 | 5.758 | <0.0001* |
| Step: age: vowel length | 0.001 | 1.00 | 0.050 | 0.013 | 0.989 |
Summary of mixed effects logistic regression model for C/V ratio manipulation. Significant effects (at α = 0.05) are marked with asterisks
| β | OR | SE | z | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | –0.130 | 0.88 | 0.259 | –0.501 | 0.617 |
| Step | –0.679 | 0.51 | 0.056 | –12.115 | <0.0001* |
| Condition | 2.747 | 15.60 | 0.354 | 7.754 | <0.0001* |
| Age | –0.557 | 0.57 | 0.330 | –1.686 | 0.0919 |
| Vowel length | –2.670 | 0.07 | 0.352 | –7.594 | <0.0001* |
| Vowel height | 1.616 | 5.03 | 0.224 | 7.210 | <0.0001* |
| Step: condition | 0.101 | 1.11 | 0.066 | 1.524 | 0.127 |
| Step: age | 0.106 | 1.11 | 0.057 | 1.865 | 0.062 |
| Condition: age | –0.420 | 0.66 | 0.437 | –0.961 | 0.336 |
| Step: vowel length | 0.068 | 1.07 | 0.055 | 1.238 | 0.216 |
| Condition: vowel length | 1.015 | 2.76 | 0.456 | 2.227 | 0.026* |
| Step: vowel height | 0.124 | 1.13 | 0.038 | 3.300 | 0.001* |
| Condition: vowel height | –0.751 | 0.47 | 0.231 | –3.250 | 0.001* |
| Age: vowel height | –1.123 | 0.33 | 0.281 | –3.993 | <0.0001* |
| Age: vowel length | 1.100 | 3.00 | 0.420 | 2.621 | 0.009* |
| Step: condition: age | –0.007 | 0.99 | 0.061 | –0.114 | 0.909 |
| Step: condition: vowel length | –0.058 | 0.94 | 0.056 | –1.027 | 0.304 |
| Step: condition: vowel height | –0.052 | 0.95 | 0.055 | –0.946 | 0.344 |
| Condition: age: vowel height | 0.766 | 2.15 | 0.270 | 2.837 | 0.005* |
| Condition: age: vowel length | 0.180 | 1.20 | 0.547 | 0.329 | 0.742 |
References
Abramson, A. S. (1977). Laryngeal timing in consonant distinctions. Phonetica, 34(4), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259888Search in Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar
Beddor, P. S. (2015). The relation between language users’ perception and production repertoires. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK, August 10–14.Search in Google Scholar
Bochner, J. H., Snell, K. B., & MacKenzie, D. J. (1988). Duration discrimination of speech and tonal complex stimuli by normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(2), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396827Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.37. www.praat.orgSearch in Google Scholar
Brunner, J., & Zygis, M. (2011). Why do glottal stops and low vowels like each other? In W. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 376–379). Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar
Burnham, D., Estival, D., Fazio, S., Viethen, J., Cox, F., Dale, R., et al.. (2011). Building an audio-visual corpus of Australian English: Large corpus collection with an economical portable and replicable black box. In P. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Dieraccini (Eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech 2011 (pp. 841–844). Florence, Italy.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-309Search in Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of consonant environment. Phonetica, 22(3), 129–59. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259312Search in Google Scholar
Cho, T., Whalen, D. H., & Docherty, G. (2019). Voice onset time and beyond: Exploring laryngeal contrast in 19 languages. Journal of Phonetics, 72, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Chong, A., & Garellek, M. (2018). Online perception of glottalized coda stops in American English. Laboratory Phonology, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.70Search in Google Scholar
Coetzee, A. W., Beddor, P. S., Shedden, K., Styler, W., & Wissing, D. (2018). Plosive voicing in Afrikaans: Differential cue weighting and tonogenesis. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.009Search in Google Scholar
Cox, F. (2006). The acoustic characteristics of /hVd/ vowels in the speech of some Australian teenagers. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600600885494Search in Google Scholar
Cox, F., & Palethorpe, S. (2007). An illustration of the IPA: Australian English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100307003192Search in Google Scholar
Cox, F., & Palethorpe, S. (2011). Timing differences in the VC rhyme of standard Australian English and Lebanese Australian English. In W. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 528–531). Hong Kong, 17–21 August.Search in Google Scholar
Cox, F., Palethorpe, S., & Miles, K. (2015). The role of contrast maintenance in the temporal structure of the rhyme. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK, 10–14 August.Search in Google Scholar
Creelman, C. D. (1962). Human discrimination of auditory duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34(5), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918172Search in Google Scholar
Crowhurst, M. J. (2018). The influence of varying vowel phonation and duration on rhythmic grouping biases among Spanish and English speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.001Search in Google Scholar
Davidson, L. (2016). Variability in the implementation of voicing in American English obstruents. Journal of Phonetics, 54, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.09.003Search in Google Scholar
Denes, P. (1955). Effect of Duration on the perception of voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27(4), 761–764. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908020Search in Google Scholar
Docherty, G. (1992). The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin, Germany: Foris. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872637Search in Google Scholar
Docherty, G., & Foulkes, P. (1999). Derby and Newcastle: Instrumental phonetics and variationist studies. In P. Foulkes & G. J. Docherty (Eds.), Urban Voices: Accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 47–71). London, UK: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Drager, K. (2010). Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00210.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fitch, H. L. (1981). Distinguishing temporal information for speaking rate from temporal information for intervocalic stop consonant voicing. Haskins Laboratories Status Report of Speech Research, SR-65, 1–32.Search in Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., & Brown, W. S.Jr. (1982). The voicing contrast between /p/ and /b/ as a function of stress and position in utterance. Journal of Phonetics, 10(4), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00954470(19)30999-4Search in Google Scholar
Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.002Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. (1992). Vowel duration and closure duration in voiced and unvoiced stops: There are no contrast effects here. Journal of Phonetics, 20(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00954470(19)30244-XSearch in Google Scholar
Garellek, M. (2011). The benefits of vowel laryngealization on the perception of coda stops in English. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 109, 31–39.Search in Google Scholar
Garellek, M. (2015). Perception of glottalization and phrase-final creak. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(2), 822–831. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4906155Search in Google Scholar
Gordeeva, O. B., & Scobbie, J. M. (2013). A phonetically versatile contrast: Pulmonic and glottalic voicelessness in Scottish English obstruents and voice quality. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100313000200Search in Google Scholar
Gruenenfelder, T. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (1980). Fundamental frequency as a cue to postvocalic consonantal voicing: Some data from speech perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 28(6), 514– 520. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198819Search in Google Scholar
Hanson, H. M. (2009). Effects of obstruent consonants on fundamental frequency at vowel onset in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(1), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3021306Search in Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Cox, F., & Evans, Z. (1997). An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 17(2), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609708599550Search in Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Kleber, F., & Reubold, U. (2008). Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(5), 2825–2835. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2897042Search in Google Scholar
Haslerud, V. C. D. (1995). The variable (t) in Sydney adolescent speech: A sociolinguistic study of phonological variation (Cand. Philol dissertation). University of Bergen, Norway.Search in Google Scholar
Hay, J., Warren, P., & Drager, K. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a mergerin-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Hejná, M., & Scanlon, J. (2015). New laryngeal allophony in Manchester English. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK, August 10–14.Search in Google Scholar
Higginbottom, E. (1964). Glottal reinforcement in English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 63(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1964.tb01010.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hogan, J. T., & Rozsypal, A. J. (1980). Evaluation of vowel duration as a cue for the voicing distinction in the following word-final consonant. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67(5), 1764– 1771. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.384304Search in Google Scholar
House, A. S., & Fairbanks, G. (1953). The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(1), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906982Search in Google Scholar
Huffman, M. K. (2005). Segmental and prosodic effects on coda glottalization. Journal of Phonetics, 33(3), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.02.004Search in Google Scholar
Ingram, J. C. L. (1989). Connected speech processes in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608908599410Search in Google Scholar
Jannedy, S., & Weirich, M. (2014). Sound change in an urban setting: Category instability of the palatal fricative in Berlin. Laboratory Phonology, 5(1), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0005Search in Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J., & Stevens, K. N. (2006). Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language, 82(1), 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0051Search in Google Scholar
Kingston, J., & Diehl, R. L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Language, 70(3), 419–454. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0023Search in Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59(5), 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380986Search in Google Scholar
Kleber, F., Harrington, J., & Reubold, U. (2012). The relationship between the perception and production of coarticulation during a sound change in progress. Language and Speech, 55(Pt 3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422194Search in Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1982). F0 in the production of lenis and fortis plosives. Phonetica, 39(4-5), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261663Search in Google Scholar
Kuang, J., & Cui, A. (2018). Relative cue weighting in production and perception of an ongoing sound change in Southern Yi. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.002Search in Google Scholar
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01Search in Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Delattre, P. C., & Cooper, F. S. (1958). Some cues for the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops in initial position. Language and Speech, 1(3), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383095800100301Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L. (1957). Closure duration and the intervocalic voiced-voiceless distinction in English. Language, 33(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/410949Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L. (1974). On explaining vowel duration variation. Glossa (London), 8, 233–246.Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L. (1975). Letter: Is it VOT or a first-formant transition detector? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 57(6 Pt 2), 1547–1551. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380602Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L. (1986). “Voicing” in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Language and Speech, 29(Pt 1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098602900102Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3), 384–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1967). Some effects of context on voice onset time in English stops. Language and Speech, 10(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096701000101Search in Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A.S. (1970). The voicing dimension: Some experiments in comparative phonetics. In B. Halá, M. Romportl & P. Janota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 563–567). Prague: Academia.Search in Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1985). Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration, and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78(6), 1949–1957. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392651Search in Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1970). The lenis-fortis opposition: Its physiological parameters. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47(6), 1588–1592. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912092Search in Google Scholar
Malisz, Z., Żygis, M., & Pompino-Marschall, B. (2013). Rhythmic structure effects on glottalisation: A study of different speech styles in Polish and German. Laboratory Phonology, 4(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0006Search in Google Scholar
Mathisen, A. G. (1999). Sandwell, West Midlands: Ambiguous perspectives on gender patterns and models of change. In P. Foulkes & G. J. Docherty (Eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 107–123). London, UK: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In C. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives (pp. 237–278). London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behaviour (pp. 178–203). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.10.1075/cilt.323.05ohaSearch in Google Scholar
Ohde, R. N. (1984). Fundamental frequency as an acoustic correlate of stop consonant voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 75(1), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.390399Search in Google Scholar
Penney, J., Cox, F., Miles, K., & Palethorpe, S. (2018). Glottalisation as a cue to coda consonant voicing in Australian English. Journal of Phonetics, 66, 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Penney, J., Cox, F., & Szakay, A. (2019). Glottalisation of utterance-final coda stops in Australian English unstressed syllables. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100319000045Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, G., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllabic nuclei in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908183Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1994). Knowledge of variation. In Papers from the Parasession on Variation, 30th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 232–256). Chicago, USA.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1995). Prosodic effects on glottal allophones. In O. Fujimura & M. Hirano (Eds.), Vocal fold physiology: Voice quality control (pp. 39–60). San Diego, CA: Singular.Search in Google Scholar
Pinget, A.-F. (2015). The actuation of sound change (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar
Pompino-Marschall, B., & Żygis, M. (2010). Glottal marking of vowel-initial words in German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 52, 1–17.10.21248/zaspil.52.2010.380Search in Google Scholar
Port, R. F. (1979). The influence of tempo on stop closure duration as a cue for voicing and place. Journal of Phonetics, 7(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31032-0Search in Google Scholar
Port, R. F. (1981). Linguistic timing factors in combination. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(1), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.385347Search in Google Scholar
Port, R. F., & Dalby, J. (1982). Consonant/vowel ratio as a cue for voicing in English. Perception & Psychophysics, 32(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204273Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.3.1). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
Raphael, L. J. (1972). Preceding vowel duration as a cue to the perception of the voicing characteristic of word-final consonants in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(4), 1296–1303. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912974Search in Google Scholar
Raphael, L. J. (1981). Durations and contexts as cues to word-final cognate opposition in English. Phonetica, 38(1-3), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1159/000260019Search in Google Scholar
Redi, L., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2001). Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0145Search in Google Scholar
Repp, B. H. (1982). Phonetic trading relations and context effects: New experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.81Search in Google Scholar
Roach, P. J. (1973). Glottalization of English /p/, /t/, /k/ and /ʧ/ – a reexamination. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 3(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300000633Search in Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., & Garellek, M. (2015). Coda glottalization in American English. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK, August 10–14.Search in Google Scholar
Small, A. M.Jr., & Campbell, R. A. (1962). Temporal differential sensitivity for auditory stimuli. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(3), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.2307/1419863Search in Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Demuth, K., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2012). The development of acoustic cues to coda contrasts in young children learning American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(4), 3036–3050. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3687467Search in Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tollfree, L. (1999). South East London English: Discrete versus continuous modelling of consonantal reduction. In P. Foulkes & G. J. Docherty (Eds.), Urban Voices: Accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 163–184). London, UK: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Tollfree, L. (2001). Variation and change in Australian consonants. In D. B. Blair & P. Collins (Eds.), Varieties of English around the world: English in Australia (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g26.06tolSearch in Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611759Search in Google Scholar
Westbury, J. R., & Keating, P. A. (1986). On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010598Search in Google Scholar
Wright, R. (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically-based phonology (pp. 34–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002Search in Google Scholar
Zlatin, M. A. (1974). Voicing contrast: Perceptual and productive voice onset time characteristics of adults. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56(3), 981–994. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1903359Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
