Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:19:01.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Revised Explanation of the Causes of Palatal Vowel Harmony Based on Psychoacoustic Spectra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Kari Suomi
Kari Suomi
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Department of Finnish and General Linguistics/Phonetics, Henrikinkatu 2, 20500 TURKU 50, Finland.
Get access

Abstract

Recent research on vowel perception has seriously questioned the perceptual relevance of the formant concept and the conventional method of specifying vowel quality in terms of the lowest formants. The phonetic basis of the theory of palatal vowel harmony suggested by the author (Suomi 1983) was stated in this framework and, moreover, some of the central concepts were defined only qualitatively. The present paper is a restatement of the phonetic motivation of palatal vowel harmony against a body of perceptually more realistic and quantitative data on Finnish vowels.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , June 1984 , pp. 41 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bladon, A. 1982. Arguments Against Formants in the Auditory Representation of Speech. In Carlson, R. and Granström, B. (eds.) 1982: The Representation of Speech in the Peripheral Auditory System. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press, pp. 95–102.Google Scholar
Bladon, A. & Lindblom, B. 1981. Modeling the Judgment of Vowel Quality Differences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69, 1414–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, R. & Granström, B. 1982. Towards an Auditory Spectrograph. In Carlson, R. and Granström, B. (eds.) 1982: The Representation of Speech in the Peripheral Auditory System. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press, pp. 109–114.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. 1978. Typology and Universals of Vowel Systems. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) 1978: Universals of Human Language. Volume 2. Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 93–152.Google Scholar
Fant, G. 1970. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Second printing. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. 1982. Speech Processing Strategies Based on Auditory Models. In Carlson, R. and Granström, B., (eds.) 1982. The Representation of Speech in the Peripheral Auditory System. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press, pp. 181–196.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1967. Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papçun, G. 1980. How Do Different People Say the Same Vowels? Discriminant Analyses of Four Imitation Dialects. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 48, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Plomp, R. 1970. Timbre as a Multidimensional Attribute of Complex Tones. In Plomp, R., and Smoorenburg, G. (eds.) 1970. Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing. Leiden: Sijthoff, pp. 397–411.Google Scholar
Plomp, R. 1975. Auditory Analysis and Timbre Perception. In Fant, G. and Tatham, M. (eds.) 1975: Auditory Analysis and Perception of Speech. London: Academic Press, pp. 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pols, L., Tromp, H. & Plomp, R. 1973. Frequency Analysis of Dutch Vowels from 50 Male Speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 53, 1093–1101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scharf, B. 1970. Critical Bands. In Tobias, J. (ed.) 1970: Foundations of Modern Auditory Theory. New York: Academic Press, pp. 157–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1982. On the Dissociation of Auditory and Phonetic Perception. In Carlson, R. and Granström, B. (eds.) 1982: The Representation of Speech in the Peripheral Auditory System. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Suomi, K. 1983. Palatal Vowel Harmony: A Perceptually Motivated Phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicker, E. & Feldtkeller, R. 1967. Das Ohr als Nachrichtenempfänger. Stuttgart: Hirzel.Google Scholar