Hungarian v
-
Zsuzsanna Bárkányi
Abstract
The present article describes an acoustic study and a perception experiment that investigate the contrast of the fricatives f–v after sonorant consonants in word-final position in Hungarian. In earlier work (e.g. Kiss & Bárkányi 2006) we found that in this context Hungarian v is mostly realized unphonated with considerable frication noise. The present paper shows that although the voicing of v is (partially) lost, its phonological contrast with f is not completely neutralized – there are other phonetic parameters (e.g. vowel and fricative duration, center of gravity) that differentiate between f and v in this position. However, we also demonstrate that v in this position is not fully recoverable perceptually either, in other words the contrast is not robustly cued enough. The paper also argues that phonetic features (such as the duration ratio of vowels and fricative constriction) that have been thought to be “redundant” in the phonology of Hungarian f–v (and obstruents in general) before are actually crucial and perceptually beneficial for maintaining their contrast in phonetically impoverished contexts.
Abstract
The present article describes an acoustic study and a perception experiment that investigate the contrast of the fricatives f–v after sonorant consonants in word-final position in Hungarian. In earlier work (e.g. Kiss & Bárkányi 2006) we found that in this context Hungarian v is mostly realized unphonated with considerable frication noise. The present paper shows that although the voicing of v is (partially) lost, its phonological contrast with f is not completely neutralized – there are other phonetic parameters (e.g. vowel and fricative duration, center of gravity) that differentiate between f and v in this position. However, we also demonstrate that v in this position is not fully recoverable perceptually either, in other words the contrast is not robustly cued enough. The paper also argues that phonetic features (such as the duration ratio of vowels and fricative constriction) that have been thought to be “redundant” in the phonology of Hungarian f–v (and obstruents in general) before are actually crucial and perceptually beneficial for maintaining their contrast in phonetically impoverished contexts.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Foreword vii
- Hungarian v 1
- Eliminating factivity from syntax 29
- Negative quantifiers in Hungarian 65
- Polarity particles in Hungarian 95
- Experimental evidence for recursion in prosody 119
- Trochaic proper government, loose CV, and vowel ~ zero alternation in Hungarian 143
- Ablative causes in Hungarian 167
- Morphology or phonology? 197
- Adpositional preverbs, chain reduction and phases 217
- Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian 251
- Name index 277
- Subject index 279
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Foreword vii
- Hungarian v 1
- Eliminating factivity from syntax 29
- Negative quantifiers in Hungarian 65
- Polarity particles in Hungarian 95
- Experimental evidence for recursion in prosody 119
- Trochaic proper government, loose CV, and vowel ~ zero alternation in Hungarian 143
- Ablative causes in Hungarian 167
- Morphology or phonology? 197
- Adpositional preverbs, chain reduction and phases 217
- Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian 251
- Name index 277
- Subject index 279
