Home Linguistics & Semiotics The acoustics of plosives and the formation of prosodic structure in Polish
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The acoustics of plosives and the formation of prosodic structure in Polish

  • Ewelina Wojtkowiak ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Geoffrey Schwartz ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: May 31, 2022
Folia Linguistica
From the journal Folia Linguistica Volume 56 Issue 2

Abstract

The aim of this acoustic study of voiced and voiceless word-initial plosives is to establish the nature of the relationship between prosodic positions, accent, and segmental phonetics in Polish. Four different acoustic parameters were investigated (VOT, pitch, F1, and preceding vowel’s duration). The results show rather modest effects of prosodic position. The findings are interpreted with reference to the prosodic typology posited in the Onset Prominence representational framework (OP), in which prosodic domains are not imposed from above but rather are formed according to opposing mechanisms of ‘submersion’ and ‘adjunction’. The findings support the claim that Polish belongs to the latter category, in which only modest effects of position are expected.

Keywords: laryngeal phonology; Onset Prominence; Polish; prosodic hierarchy; prosody-segment interactions
Corresponding author: Ewelina Wojtkowiak, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, ul. Grunwaldzka 6, 60-780 Poznań, Poland, E-mail:

Funding source: Polish National Science Centre

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2015/19/N/HS2/03395

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by a grant from the Polish National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), Project Number 2015/19/N/HS2/03395. We are grateful to Adam Olender for his help with data collection and the two anonymous reviewers whose valuable comments helped us immensely. Any remaining errors are our own responsibility.

  1. Declarations of interest: None.

Appendix A

Here we present the complete list of sentences that were produced by the participants of the present study. The list does not include filler sentences that followed the same pattern. The target words are bolded.

Target word Vowel Type Sentence English traslation
bawić [bavit͡ɕ]

‘to play/to entertain’ (inf.)		 [a] U-I W tym momencie się uczymy. Bawić możemy się po szkole. Right now we’re studying. Playing can wait till after school.
P-I Jeśli teraz się uczymy, bawić będziemy się po lekcjach. If we’re studying right now, we’ll play after school.
P-M Na tym szkoleniu uczymy bawić publiczność dowcipami. At this training we’re learning how to entertain the audience with some jokes.
bywać [bɨvat͡ɕ]

‘being’ (ger.)		 [ɨ] U-I Tak dziś postanowiliśmy. Bywać w kinie będziemy w piątki. That’s what we decided on today. Being in the cinema will be a Friday tradition.
P-I Choć tak postanowiliśmy, bywać w domu częściej jest trudno. Even though that’s what we decided on, being at home more often is difficult.
P-M Zgodnie postanowiliśmy bywać w pracy także w soboty. We all agreed on being at work also on Saturdays.
bochen [bɔxɛn]

‘a loaf’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɔ] U-I Codziennie go wypiekamy. Bochen żytniego chleba jest smaczny. We bake it every day. A loaf of rye bread is tasty.
P-I Zawsze gdy go wypiekamy, bochen pszennego chleba jest chrupki. Whenever we bake it, the loaf of wheat bread is crunchy.
P-M Od pokoleń wypiekamy bochen wiejskiego chleba na mące. For generations, we’ve been baking a loaf of rustic bread.
befsztyk [bɛfʂt͏ɨk]

‘a beefstake’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɛ] U-I Nieraz go tu zamawiamy. Befsztyk wołowy to ich specjalność. We often order this. The beefsteak is their specialty.
P-I Zawsze gdy go zamawiamy, befsztyk tatarski jest wysmażony. Every time we order it, the beefsteak is well-done.
P-M Tradycyjnie zamawiamy befsztyk wieprzowy z ziemniakami. As per usual we order a beefsteak with potatoes.
dawać [davat͡ɕ]

‘to give’ (inf.)		 [a] U-I Naprawdę to uwielbiamy. Dawać prezent jest bardzo przyjemnie. We really love this. Giving [someone] a gift is very nice.
P-I Jakkolwiek to uwielbiamy, dawać kwiatów nie można codziennie. However much we love this, giving flowers every day is unseemly.
P-M My najbardziej uwielbiamy dawać książki z okazji urodzin. We love giving people books for birthdays the most.
dywan [dɨvan]

‘a carpet’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɨ] U-I Niezbyt często go trzepiemy. Dywan zwykle tylko odkurzamy. We don’t beat it very often. The carpet is usually just vacuumed.
P-I Zawsze kiedy go trzepiemy, dywan kurzy się na wszystkie strony. Every time we beat it, the carpet spews out dust everywhere.
P-M Dwa razy w roku trzepiemy dywan małą trzepaczką z wikliny. Twice a year we beat the carpet using a small wicker carpet-beater.
dowód [dɔvut]

‘proof’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɔ] U-I Niezwłocznie go przedstawimy. Dowód wpłaty wyjaśni sprawę. We’ll present it at once. The proof of payment will explain everything.
P-I Gdy tylko go przedstawimy, dowód zbrodni obciąży sprawcę. As soon as we present it, the proof will incriminate the perpetrator.
P-M Na rozprawie przedstawimy dowód winy oskarżonego. During the trail we’ll present the proof that incriminates the perpetrator.
defekt [dɛfɛkt]

‘a glitch’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɛ] U-I W warsztacie go usuniemy. Defekt silnika nie jest poważny. We’ll fix this in the shop. The glitch in the engine isn’t serious.
P-I Jeśli go nie usuniemy, defekt czujnika wywoła spięcie. If we don’t fix it, the glitch in the sensor will cause short circuit.
P-M Na przeglądzie usuniemy defekt przewodu paliwowego. During the inspection will fix the glitch in the fuel line.
gafy [ɡafɨ]

‘ blunder’ (nom. pl.)		 [a] U-I Niekiedy je popełniamy. Gafy czasem nam się przydarzają. We make them from time to time. Blunders happen every so often.
P-I Kiedy już je popełniamy, gafy warto po prostu przemilczeć. If we actually make them, blunders are best left unmentioned.
P-M Nieświadomie popełniamy gafy podczas spotkań towarzyskich. Unbeknownst to us we make blunders during social occasions.
gyros [ɡɨrɔs]

‘gyros’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɨ] U-I Specjalnie go przyrządzamy. Gyros z papryką jest wyśmienity. We’re making it specifically for this occasion. Gyros with pepper is delicious.
P-I Zawsze gdy go przyrządzamy, gyros z indyka smakuje gościom. Every time we make it, turkey gyros is appreciated by the guests.
P-M W każdy wtorek przyrządzamy gyros z frytkami i warzywami. Every Tuesday we make gyros with chips and veggies.
gofry [ɡɔfrɨ]

‘a waffle’ (nom. pl.)		 [ɔ] U-I Od jutra je sprzedajemy. Gofry z jogurtem to u nas nowość. We’re starting the sale tomorrow. Waffles with yogurt are our novelty.
P-I Od kiedy je sprzedajemy, gofry z kokosem robią furorę. Ever since we started selling them, waffles with coconut have been a sensation.
P-M W naszym punkcie sprzedajemy gofry z polewą czekoladową. Here we sell waffles with chocolate sauce.
geny [ɡɛnɨ]

‘a gene’ (nom. pl.)		 [ɛ] U-I Zawodowo je badamy. Geny roślin to nasza działka. It’s our job to study them. The genes of plants is are our specialty.
P-I Dlatego iż je badamy, geny ptaków nie są nam obce. Since we study them, the genes of birds are familiar to us.
P-M W naszym ośrodku badamy geny ludzi chorych na raka. In this centre we study the genes of cancer patients.
pawła [pavwa]

‘Paul’ (gen. sg.)		 [a] U-I Wszyscy bardzo go lubimy. Pawła Lisa znamy od gimnazjum. We all like him very much. Paul Lis [we’ve] known since middle school.
P-I Chociaż bardzo go lubimy, Pawła Wilka nie cierpi nasz sąsiad. Even though we like him very much, Paul Wilk is not liked by our neighbour.
P-M Chyba najbardziej lubimy Pawła Sowę za jego dowcipy. It’s likely that our favourite thing about Paul Sowa is his sense of humour.
pychę [p͏ɨxɛw̃]

‘pride’ (acc. sg.)		 [ɨ] U-I Stanowczo je potępiamy. Pychę i butę trzeba piętnować. We strongly condemn this. Pride and arrogance has to be stigmatised.
P-I Jakkolwiek je potępiamy, pychę i zazdrość trudno jest zwalczyć. Although we condemn them, pride and envy is difficult to fight.
P-M Jednoznacznie potępiamy pychę i zawiść w każdym człowieku. We unequivocally condemn pride and envy in every person.
powód [pɔvut]

‘a cause’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɔ] U-I Niebawem go ustalimy. Powód śmierci wreszcie będzie znany. We’ll establish it soon. The cause of death will be known.
P-I Kiedy już go ustalimy, powód zgonu będzie oczywisty. Once we establish it, the cause of death will be obvious.
P-M W krótkim czasie ustalimy powód złego stanu gospodarki. In a very short time we’ll establish the cause of the poor state of the economy.
pewność [pɛvnɔɕt͡ɕ]

‘certainty’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɛ] U-I Wnikliwie ją oceniamy. Pewność teorii trzeba potwierdzić. We’re assessing it carefully. The certainty of this theory needs to be verified.
P-I Ilekroć ją oceniamy, pewność założeń nie jest wysoka. Whenever we evaluate it, the certainty of these assumptions is not very high.
P-M W przybliżeniu oceniamy pewność istnienia życia w kosmosie. We’re roughly assessing the certainty of extraterrestrial life.
taflę [taflɛw̃]

‘a tile’ (acc. sg.)		 [a] U-I Starannie ją polerujemy. Taflę szklaną należy wygładzić. We’re polishing it carefully. The glass tile needs smoothing.
P-I Zanim ją polerujemy, taflę lustra najpierw oczyszczamy. Before we Polish it, the glass tile needs to be cleaned.
P-M W przerwie meczu polerujemy taflę lodu całego lodowiska. During the break we Polish the tile of the entire ice rink.
tyfus [t͏ɨfus]

‘typhus’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɨ] U-I Dziś skutecznie go leczymy. Tyfus został już opanowany. Nowadays we successfully treat it. Typhus has been contained.
P-I Choć skutecznie go leczymy, tyfus nadal budzi przerażenie. Although we can successfully treat it, typhus still evokes fear.
P-M W dzisiejszych czasach leczymy tyfus dzięki antybiotykowi. Nowadays we treat typhus with antibiotics.
towar [tɔvar]

‘goods’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɔ] U-I Stale u nich kupujemy. Towar z przemytu jest bardzo tani. We always buy from them. The goods that come from smugglers are very cheap.
P-I Ilekroć go kupujemy, towar z importu jest uszkodzony. Whenever we buy them, the [imported] goods are damaged.
P-M Na bieżąco kupujemy towar z hurtowni po niskich cenach. We buy cheap goods from wholesalers on regular basis.
teflon [tɛflɔn]

‘teflon’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɛ] U-I W tym celu go stosujemy. Teflon zmniejsza przywieranie potraw. This is why we use it. Teflon reduces the risk of the food sticking to the pan.
P-I W miarę jak go stosujemy, teflon łatwiej da się zarysować. In the cause of its utilisation, teflon runs the risk of getting scratched.
P-M Przy produkcji stosujemy teflon jako powłokę patelni. In the process of production we use teflon as the pan’s coating.
kawior [kaviɔr] [a] U-I Niezbyt często go jadamy. Kawior z jesiotra jest rarytasem. We rarely eat it. Sturgeon caviar is a rarity.
P-I Zawsze kiedy go jadamy, kawior z łososia nieźle smakuje. Whenever we eat it, salmon caviar tastes good.
P-M Podczas bankietów jadamy kawior z mintaja jako przystawkę. At banquets we eat pollock fish caviar as a starter.
kęsy [kɛw̃sɨ]

‘a bite’ (nom. pl.)		 [ɛ] U-I Powoli je przeżuwamy. Kęsy chleba popijamy wodą. We chew them slowly. Bites of bread are washed down with water.
P-I W chwili gdy je przeżuwamy, kęsy ciasta się rozpływają. As we chew them, the bites of pie melt in our mouths.
P-M Bez pośpiechu przeżuwamy kęsy pizzy i rozmawiamy. We chew the bites of pizza without rush when talking.
kowno [kɔvnɔ]

‘Kaunas’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɔ] U-I Cały piątek je zwiedzamy. Kowno było stolicą Litwy. We have been seeing the sights all of Friday. Kaunas used to be the capital of Lithuania.
P-I Zawsze kiedy je zwiedzamy, Kowno robi na nas wrażenie. Every time we see the sights, Kaunas makes an impression.
P-M Według programu zwiedzamy Kowno zaraz po meczu w Wilnie. According to the programme we’re sightseeing Kaunas right after the game in Vilnius.
kefir [kɛfir]

‘kefir’ (nom. sg.)		 [ɛ] U-I Nawet chętnie go pijemy. Kefir smakuje nie najgorzej. We drink it relatively willingly. Kefir doesn’t taste that bad.
P-I Zawsze kiedy go pijemy, kefir mieszamy z owocami. Whenever we drink it, we mix kefir with fruit.
P-M Każdego ranka pijemy kefir smakowy do śniadania. Every day we drink flavoured kefir for breakfast.

Appendix B: Coefficient tables for statistical models

Table 13:

VOT of the voiceless plosives. Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 29.266 3.8726 7.557 <0.001 21.669 36.863
PI*accented 3.748 0.7385 5.075 <0.001 2.299 5.197
PI*unaccented 1.784 0.7360 2.423 0.016 0.340 3.227
UI*accented 1.979 0.7435 2.662 0.008 0.521 3.438
UI*unaccented 1.032 0.7377 1.399 0.162 −0.415 2.479
PM*accented 3.302 0.7428 4.446 <0.001 1.845 4.759
Speech_rate 0.126 0.4005 0.314 0.753 −0.660 0.912
Table 14:

VOT of voiced plosives. Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept −73.325 8.6478 −8.479 0.000 −90.290 −56.361
PI*accented −35.572 2.5734 −13.823 0.000 −40.621 −30.524
PI*unaccented −16.970 2.5734 −13.823 <0.001 −22.079 −11.861
UI*accented −28.136 2.5712 −10.943 0.000 −33.180 −23.092
UI*unaccented −7.613 2.5682 −2.964 0.003 −12.651 −2.575
PM*accented −34.586 2.5565 −13.528 0.000 −39.601 −29.570
Speech_rate 0.201 1.5205 0.132 0.895 −2.781 3.184
Table 15:

VOT of voiced plosives, ProsodicPosition*Voicing_break as fixed factor of interest. Intercept is phrase_medial*partially_prevoiced.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept −122.364 9.9562 −12.290 0.000 −141.896 −102.833
PI*fully_prevoiced 30.641 5.0932 6.016 0.000 20.649 40.632
PI*partially_prevoiced 3.937 6.2707 0.628 0.530 −8.365 16.238
UI*fully_prevoiced 39.297 5.0714 6.016 0.000 29.348 49.246
UI*partially_prevoiced 3.478 6.6804 0.521 0.603 −9.627 16.583
PM*fully_prevoiced 39.902 5.0670 7.875 0.000 29.962 49.842
Speech_rate −0.766 1.5968 −0.479 0.632 −3.898 2.367
Table 16:

VOT differences between pairs of voiced and voiceless plosives. Intercept is phrase-medial*accented*partially-prevoiced.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 157.210 5.9460 26.440 0.000 145.544 168.876
PI*unaccented*fully_prevoiced −40.117 6.2337 −6.435 <0.001 −52.347 −27.868
PI*unaccented*partially_prevoiced 2.439 9.7606 0.250 0.803 −16.711 21.589
PI*accented*fully_prevoiced −20.273 6.3015 −3.217 0.001 −32.636 −7.909
PI*accented*partially_prevoiced −2.368 7.5424 −0.314 0.754 −17.166 12.430
UI*unaccented*fully_prevoiced −48.128 6.2123 −7.747 <0.001 −60.317 −35.940
UI*unaccented*partially_prevoiced −6.285 12.0399 −0.522 0.602 −29.907 17.337
UI*accented*fully_prevoiced −30.310 6.2892 −4.819 <0.001 −42.650 −17.971
UI*accented*partially_prevoiced −2.894 8.2145 −0.352 0.725 −19.011 13.223
PM*unaccented*fully_prevoiced −54.502 6.1869 −8.809 0.000 −66.641 −42.364
PM*unaccented*partially_prevoiced −12.158 18.1277 −0.671 0.503 −47.725 23.408
PM*accented*fully_prevoiced −22.295 6.3229 −3.526 <0.001 −34.700 −9.889
Table 17:

Pitch at vowel onset following voiceless plosives. Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 3.463 0.0725 47.781 0.000 3.320 3.605
PI*accented −0.266 0.0539 −4.942 0.000 −0.372 −0.161
PI*unaccented −0.149 0.0535 −2.786 0.005 −0.254 −0.044
UI*accented −0.244 0.0537 −4.547 0.000 −0.350 −0.139
UI*unaccented −0.188 0.0543 −3.459 0.001 −0.294 −0.035
PM*accented −0.140 0.0535 −2.620 0.009 −0.245 −0.035
Table 18:

Pitch at vowel onset following voiced plosives. Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 2.057 0.0332 61.954 0.000 1.992 2.122
PI*accented 0.056 0.0192 2.901 0.004 0.018 0.093
PI*unaccented 0.160 0.0190 8.400 0.000 0.123 0.197
UI*accented 0.014 0.0190 0.728 0.467 −0.023 0.051
UI*unaccented 0.182 0.0190 9.558 0.000 0.144 0.219
PM*accented −0.068 0.0190 −3.596 0.000 −0.106 −0.031
Table 19:

Pitch difference between vowel onsets following voiced and voiceless plosives. Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 0.570 0.0291 19.564 0.000 0.513 0.627
PI*accented 0.135 0.0258 5.226 0.000 0.084 0.186
PI*unaccented 0.094 0.0257 3.649 0.000 0.043 0.144
UI*accented 0.063 0.0259 2.427 0.015 0.012 0.114
UI*unaccented 0.122 0.0261 4/665 0.000 0.071 0.173
PM*accented 0.022 0.0257 0.839 0.402 −0.029 0.072
Table 20:

F1 difference between vowel onsets following voiced and voiceless plosives Intercept is phrase_medial*unaccented.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 0.762 0.0493 15.436 0.000 0.665 0.858
PI*accented 0.027 0.0569 0.472 0.637 −0.085 0.139
PI*unaccented 0.060 0.0568 1.056 0.291 −0.051 0.171
UI*accented −0.052 0.0571 −0.919 0.358 −0.165 0.060
UI*unaccented 0.048 0.0575 0.829 0.407 −0.065 0.161
PM*accented 0.047 0.0566 0.834 0.404 −0.064 0.158
Table 21:

Preboundary lengthening of vowels. Intercept is phrase_medial.

Model term Coefficient Std. error t Significance 95% confidence interval
Lower Upper
Intercept 55.195 3.9731 13.892 0.000 47.403 62.987
PI 54.414 1.2640 43.050 0.000 51.935 56.892
UI 15.535 1.2639 12.291 0.000 13.056 18.014

References

Beckman, Jill, Michael Essen & Catherine Ringen. 2013. Evidence for laryngeal features: Aspirating versus true-voice languages. Journal of Linguistics 49(2). 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226712000424.Search in Google Scholar

Beckman, Jill, Pétur Helgason, Bob McMurray & Catherine Ringen. 2011. Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification. Journal of Phonetics 39. 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Beckman, Mary E. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267570000066x.Search in Google Scholar

Benguerel, André-Pierre & Janet D’Arcy. 1986. Time warping and the perception of rhythm in speech. Journal of Phonetics 14. 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30665-5.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Version 6.0.46. http://praat.org (accessed 22 January 2015).Search in Google 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. 121–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.001.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong & Patricia A. Keating. 2001. Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 29. 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0131.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong & Patricia A. Keating. 2009. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 37. 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong & Sun-Ah Jun. 2000. Domain-initial strengthening as featural enhancement: Aerodynamic evidence from Korean. Chicago Linguistics Society 36. 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1861893.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Hansook. 2003. Prosody-induced acoustic variation in English stop consonants. In Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens & Joaquin Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2662–2664. Barcelona: International Phonetic Association.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70. 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256.Search in Google Scholar

Cole, Jennifer S., Heejin Kim, Hansook Choi & Mark A. Hasegawa-Johnson. 2007. Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: Evidence from radio news speech. Journal of Phonetics 35. 180–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

Crosswhite, Katherine. 2003. Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Macedonian, Polish, and Bulgarian. In Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens & Joaquin Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 767–770. Barcelona: International Phonetic Association.Search in Google Scholar

Ćwiek, Aleksanda & Petra Wagner. 2018. The acoustic realization of prosodic prominence in Polish: Word-level stress and phrase-level accent. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018, 922–926. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-186Search in Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, Roberta & Tobias Scheer. 2015. Modular PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 593–624. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_x_00202.Search in Google Scholar

Dauer, RebeccaM. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing revisited. Journal of Phonetics 11. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30776-4.Search in Google Scholar

Dłuska, Maria. 1986. Fonetyka Polska [Polish phonetics]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Nakowe.Search in Google Scholar

Dogil, Grzegorz. 1999. The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Polish, Lithuanian, Spanish, and German. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 271–311. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Dogil, Grzegorz & Briony Williams. 1999. The phonetic manifestation of word stress. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 273–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197082.1.273Search in Google Scholar

Domahs, Ulrike, Johannes Knaus, Paula Orzechowska & Richard Wiese. 2012. Stress ‘deafness’ in a language with fixed word stress: An ERP study on Polish. Frontiers in Psychology 3. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00439.Search in Google Scholar

Fougeron, Cécile. 2001. Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics 29. 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0114.Search in Google Scholar

Fougeron, Cécile & Patricia A. Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 3728–3740. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418332.Search in Google Scholar

Francuzik, Katarzyna, Maciej Karpiński & Janusz Kleśta. 2002. A preliminary study of the intonational phrase, nuclear melody and pauses in Polish semi-spontaneous narration. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2002-61Search in Google Scholar

Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199267477.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss. 2000. ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554334.Search in Google Scholar

Hallgren, Kevin A. 2012. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutororials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8(1). 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023.Search in Google Scholar

Hanson, Helen 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/10.1121/1.3021306.Search in Google Scholar

Hayashi, Wendy, Chai-Shune Hsu & Patricia A. Keating. 1999. Domain-initial strengthening in Taiwanese: A follow-up study. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97. 152–156.Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Paul Kiparsky & Gilbert Youmans (eds.), Rhythm and meter, 201–260. Orlando: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-409340-9.50013-9Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1997. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hockey, Beth Ann & Zsuzsanna Fagyal. 1998. Pre-boundary lengthening: Universal or language-specific? The case of Hungarian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5(1). 71–82.Search in Google Scholar

Honeybone, Patrick. 2005. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications. In Marc van Oostendorp & Jeroen van der Weijer (eds.), The internal organization of phonological systems, 319–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110890402.317Search in Google Scholar

IBM Corporation. 2017. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 25.0. Armonk, New York: IBM Corp.Search in Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Columbus: Ohio State University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kager, René & Violeta Martínez-Paricio. 2018. The internally layered foot in Dutch. Linguistics 56. 69–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0037.Search in Google Scholar

Katsika, Argyro. 2016. The role of prominence in determining the scope of boundary-related lengthening in Greek. Journal of Phonetics 55. 149–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.12.003.Search in Google Scholar

Katz, William F., Cheryl M. Beach, Kathleen Jenouri & Sushama Verma. 1996. Duration and fundamental frequency correlates of phrase boundaries in productions by children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99(5). 3179–3191. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.414802.Search in Google Scholar

Keating, PatriciaA. 1979. A phonetic study of a voicing contrast in Polish. Providence, RI: Brown University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Keating, Patricia A. 1984. Phonetic and phonological representation of stop voicing. Language 60. 286–319. https://doi.org/10.2307/413642.Search in Google Scholar

Kirby, James & D. Robert Ladd. 2016. Effects of obstruent voicing on vowel F0: Evidence from “true voicing” languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140(1). 2400–2411. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4962445.Search in Google Scholar

Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2003. The phonology of stress in Polish. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Kuzla, Claudia & Mirjam Ernestus. 2011. Prosodic conditioning of phonetic detail in German plosives. Journal of Phonetics 39. 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.01.001.Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter. 2010. A course in phonetics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.Search in Google Scholar

Łukaszewicz, Beata. 2018. Phonetic evidence for an iterative stress system: The issue of consonantal rhythm. Phonology 35(1). 115–150.10.1017/S0952675717000392Search in Google Scholar

Malisz, Zofia & Petra Wagner. 2012. Acoustic-phonetic realization of Polish syllable prominence: A corpus study. Speech and Language Technology 14/15. 105–114.Search in Google Scholar

Malisz, Zofia & Marzena Żygis. 2015. Voicing in Polish: Interactions with lexical stress and focus. In Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. London: International Phonetics Association. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0963.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Malisz, Zofia & Marzena, Żygis. 2018. Lexical stress in Polish: Evidence from focus and phrase-position differentiated production data. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018, 1008–1012. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.10.21437/SpeechProsody.2018-204Search in Google Scholar

Nasukawa, Kuniya (ed.). 2020. Morpheme-internal recursion in phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501512582Search in Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Newlin-Łukowicz, Luiza. 2012. Polish stress: Looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional system. Phonology 29(2). 271–329.10.1017/S0952675712000139Search in Google Scholar

Nowak, Pawel Marcin. 2006. Vowel reduction in Polish. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ohde, Ralph N. 1984. Fundamental frequency as an acoustic correlate of stop consonant voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75. 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.390399.Search in Google Scholar

Rojczyk, Arkadiusz. 2019. Quality and duration of unstressed vowels in Polish. Lingua 217. 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.10.012.Search in Google Scholar

Rubach, Jerzy & Geert Booij. 1985. A grid theory of stress in Polish. Lingua 66. 281–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(85)90032-4.Search in Google Scholar

Rubach, Jerzy & Geert Booij. 1990. Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 427–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00135620.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A guide to morpho-syntax phonology interface theories: How extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238631Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2012. Chunk definition in phonology: Prosodic constituency versus phase structure. In Maria Bloch-Trojnar & Anna Bloch-Rozmej (eds.), Modules and interfaces, 221–253. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Search in Google Scholar

Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. The prosodic words is not universal but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46. 657–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226710000216.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2010. Phonology in the speech signal: Unifying cue and prosodic licensing. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46. 499–518.10.2478/v10010-010-0025-3Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2015. Who needs a nucleus? Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification in the Onset Prominence representational environment. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51(2). 247–290.10.1515/psicl-2015-0011Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2016. On the evolution of prosodic boundaries: Parameter settings for Polish and English. Lingua 171. 37–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.005.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2017. Formalizing modulation and the emergence of phonological heads. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2, art. 81. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.465.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2020. Asymmetrical cross-language interaction: Phonological implications. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 12. 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.19092.sch.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey & Daria Arndt. 2018. Laryngeal realism versus modulation theory: Evidence from VOT discrimination in Polish. Language Sciences 69. 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey, Ewelina Wojtkowiak & Bartosz Brzoza. 2019. Beyond VOT in the Polish laryngeal contrast. In Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences in Melbourne, 2383–2387. Melbourne: International Phonetic Association.Search in Google Scholar

Schwartz, Geoffrey, Kamil Kaźmierski & Ewelina Wojtkowiak. 2022. Perspectives on final laryngeal neutralization: New evidence from Polish. Phonology 38. 693–727.10.1017/S0952675721000373Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700000695.Search in Google Scholar

Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Alice Turk. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25. 193–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01708572.Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, Kenneth & Dennis Klatt. 1974. Role of formant transitions in the voiced-voiceless distinction for stops. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 55. 653–659. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1914578.Search in Google Scholar

Turk, Alice & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 35(4). 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry. 2010. A note on recursion in phonology. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Recursion and human language, 301–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219258Search in Google Scholar

Wojtkowiak, Ewelina. 2020. Prosody-segment interactions in the acoustics of Polish front vowels. Studies in Polish Linguistics 15(3). 151–175. https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920spl.20.007.12979.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, Richard, Stefan Frisch & David Pisoni. 1999. Speech perception. In John G. Webster (ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, 175–195. New York: Wiley.10.1002/047134608X.W6711Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-07-24
Accepted: 2022-02-04
Published Online: 2022-05-31
Published in Print: 2022-08-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. How do middle voice markers and valency reducing constructions interact? Typological tendencies and diachronic considerations
  4. The acoustics of plosives and the formation of prosodic structure in Polish
  5. Bi-absolutive constructions in Chechen
  6. Giving voice to space: the grammar of Northern Alta spatial roots
  7. Grammatically unstable placeholders and morpho-syntactic remedies: evidence from East Asian languages
  8. Nonconvergence toward the standard: the maintenance of a distinctive use of rhotics among the Santomean diaspora in Portugal
  9. Discussion
  10. Adpositions and their distribution: a reply to Zygmunt Frajzyngier’s ‘Toward a functional typology of adpositions: theoretical implications’
  11. Meaning encoded in the grammatical system: a rejoinder
  12. Review Article
  13. On Dixon’s ‘dangerous idea’
  14. Book Reviews
  15. Tibor Laczkó: Lexicalising clausal syntax: The interaction of syntax, the lexicon and information structure in Hungarian
  16. Juho Ruohonen and Juhani Rudanko: Infinitival vs gerundial complementation with afraid, accustomed, and prone: Multivariate corpus studies
  17. Laura Becker: Articles in the world’s languages
  18. Ana Werkmann Horvat: Layers of modality: On double modal constructions by the example of Croatian
  19. Veronika Hegedűs & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.): Syntax of Hungarian: postpositions and postpositional phrases
https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2022-2020
Keywords for this article
laryngeal phonology; Onset Prominence; Polish; prosodic hierarchy; prosody-segment interactions

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. How do middle voice markers and valency reducing constructions interact? Typological tendencies and diachronic considerations
  4. The acoustics of plosives and the formation of prosodic structure in Polish
  5. Bi-absolutive constructions in Chechen
  6. Giving voice to space: the grammar of Northern Alta spatial roots
  7. Grammatically unstable placeholders and morpho-syntactic remedies: evidence from East Asian languages
  8. Nonconvergence toward the standard: the maintenance of a distinctive use of rhotics among the Santomean diaspora in Portugal
  9. Discussion
  10. Adpositions and their distribution: a reply to Zygmunt Frajzyngier’s ‘Toward a functional typology of adpositions: theoretical implications’
  11. Meaning encoded in the grammatical system: a rejoinder
  12. Review Article
  13. On Dixon’s ‘dangerous idea’
  14. Book Reviews
  15. Tibor Laczkó: Lexicalising clausal syntax: The interaction of syntax, the lexicon and information structure in Hungarian
  16. Juho Ruohonen and Juhani Rudanko: Infinitival vs gerundial complementation with afraid, accustomed, and prone: Multivariate corpus studies
  17. Laura Becker: Articles in the world’s languages
  18. Ana Werkmann Horvat: Layers of modality: On double modal constructions by the example of Croatian
  19. Veronika Hegedűs & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.): Syntax of Hungarian: postpositions and postpositional phrases
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin-2022-2020/html
Scroll to top button