DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian by Natallia Litvin B.A., Minsk State Linguistic University, 2009 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Linguistics Natallia Litvin, 2014 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian by Natallia Litvin BA, Minsk State Linguistic University, 2009 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics) Supervisor Dr. John H. Esling (Department of Linguistics) Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics) Supervisor Dr. John H. Esling (Department of Linguistics) Departmental Member The present study aims to resolve previous disputes about whether or not non-palatalized consonants exhibit secondary velarization in Russian, and if so what this corresponds to articulatorily. Three questions are asked: 1) are Russian non-palatalized consonants velarized or not? If so, 2) what are the articulatory properties of velarization? and 3) how is the presence or absence of secondary velarization affected by adjacent vowels? To answer these questions, laryngeal and lingual ultrasound investigations were conducted on a range of non-palatalized consonants across different vowel contexts. The results of the study show that 1) Russian non- palatalized consonants are not pharyngealized in the sense of Esling (1996, 1999, 2005), 2) /l/ and /f/ are uvularized, 3) /s/ and /ʂ/ can feature either uvularization or velarization. The study also shows that secondary articulations of Russian non-palatalized consonants are inherent rather than dependent on vowel context. iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee .................................................................................................................. ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Background on velarization ........................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Velarization in contrast to palatalization ...................................................................... 4 2.2 Velarization vs. no velarization .................................................................................... 7 2.3 Velarization vs. pharyngealization vs. uvularization .................................................. 13 2.4 Velarization intrinsic to consonants vs. a result of adjacent vowels .......................... 18 2.5 Sources of disagreements ........................................................................................... 26 2.5.1 Velarization vs. no velarization ........................................................................... 26 2.5.2 Velarization vs. pharyngealization ...................................................................... 29 2.5.3 Intrinsic velarization vs. vowel effects ................................................................ 31 2.6 General summary ........................................................................................................ 33 2.6.1 Terminology used in our study ........................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 39 3.1 Lingual ultrasound: stimuli ......................................................................................... 41 3.1.1 Consonants used ................................................................................................. 41 3.1.2 Frequency data and the choice of adjacent vowels ............................................. 42 3.1.3 Syllables used (CV vs. VCV) .............................................................................. 47 3.2 Participants ................................................................................................................. 48 3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................... 49 3.4 Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 51 v 3.5 Laryngeal ultrasound: methodology ........................................................................... 62 3.5.1 Stimuli ................................................................................................................. 63 3.5.2 Participant............................................................................................................ 64 3.5.3 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 64 3.5.4 Analysis ............................................................................................................... 67 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 68 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 68 4.1 Laryngeal ultrasound .................................................................................................. 68 4.2 Lingual ultrasound: /l/ ............................................................................................... 73 4.3 /f/ ................................................................................................................................ 75 4.4 /s/ ............................................................................................................................... 78 4.5 /ʂ/ ................................................................................................................................ 82 4.6 General results ............................................................................................................ 86 Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 88 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 88 5.1 Consonant effects and previous studies ...................................................................... 88 5.2 Our hypothesis and the actual results ......................................................................... 95 5.3 Vowel effects .............................................................................................................. 97 5.4 Limitations & future studies ...................................................................................... 99 Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 101 References ................................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 112 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 113 vi List of Tables Table 1. Classification of Russian consonant phonemes and allophones. ...................................... 5 Table 2. Type of change consonants undergo under the influence of palatalization ...................... 6 Table 3. The ranking of Russian two-letter combinations ............................................................ 45 Table 4. The ranking of Cj-/e/ syllables ........................................................................................ 46 Table 5. Stimuli used for laryngeal ultrasound ............................................................................. 63 Table 6. The location of the maximal tongue body
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Acoustic Comparison of Russian and English Sibilant Fricatives
    An acoustic comparison of Russian and English sibilant fricatives Russian is known to have a 4-way place and secondary articulation contrast in voiceless sibilant fricatives, as, for example, in [sok] <сок> ‘juice’ vs. [sjok] <сёк> ‘whipped’ vs. [ʂok] <шок> ‘shock’ vs. [ʃjok] <щёк> ‘cheeks (gen.)’ (Avanesov 1972; Timberlake 2004). These consonants have been previously noted to be different from the corresponding English fricatives /s/ and /ʃ/. The classical phonetic descriptive account of Russian sounds by Jones & Ward (1969; pp. 125- 134) mentions that the Russian non-palatalized anterior /s/ has a “slightly lower pitch” compared to the English /s/, likely reflecting some constriction differences (laminal dental vs. apical alveolar) and presence or absence of secondary velarization. The Russian palatalized anterior /sj/ is noted to be similar to the (British) English /s/ + /j/ sequence (as in assume), yet also showing some differences in “pitch” (higher than in English). The Russian /ʂ/, according to the authors, exhibits a “characteristic ‘dark’ or ‘hollow’ property”, an apparent result of the raised tongue tip, flattened tongue body, and rounded lips. This makes the sound particularly different from English /ʃ/, which has a “somewhat palatalized” quality resulting from a moderate raising of the tongue front. The degree of palatalization of the English /ʃ/, according to Jones & Ward (1969), however, is substantially smaller than for the strongly palatalized Russian /ʃj/. This auditorily- based comparison is undoubtedly useful for learners of Russian, yet it is not clear which specific acoustic properties these description represents. For example, Jones & Ward’s the non-standard use of the term ‘pitch’ could refer to differences in spectral means of fricative noise or differences in the formants of an adjacent vowel.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is and What Is Not an Articulatory Gesture in Speech Production: the Case of Lateral, Rhotic and (Alveolo)Palatal Consonants
    What is and what is not an articulatory gesture in speech production: The case of lateral, rhotic and (alveolo)palatal consonants Daniel Recasens [email protected] Universitát Autònoma de Barcelona Gradus Revista Brasileira de Fonologia de Laboratório Vol. 1, nº 1 Dezembro de 2016 https://gradusjournal.com Bibtex: @article{recasens2016what, author = {Daniel Recasens}, journal = {Gradus}, month = {dec}, number = {1}, pages = {23–42}, title = {What is and what is not an articulatory gesture in speech production: The case of lateral, rhotic and (alveolo)palatal consonants}, volume = {1}, year = {2016}} Este texto pode ser livremente copiado, sob os termos da licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Interna- https://creativecommons.org/ cional (CC BY-NC 4.0). licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.pt_BR Gradus 1 (1) 24 Abstract Articulatory data are provided showing that, in lan- guages in which they have phonemic status, (alve- olo)palatal consonants, dark /l/ and the trill /r/ are articulated with a single lingual gesture instead of two independent tongue front and tongue body gestures. They are therefore simple, not complex segments. It is argued that tongue body lowering and retraction for dark /l/ and the trill /r/ is associated with manner of articulation re- quirements and with requirements on the implementation of the darkness percept in the case of dark /l/, and that tongue body raising and fronting for (alveolo)palatals results naturally from the contraction of the genioglossus muscle. These consonant units resemble truly complex palatalized and velarized or pharyngealized dentoalveo- lars regarding lingual coniguration and kinematics, as well as coarticulatory efects and phonological and sound change processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: Introduction to The
    PREVIEW OF THE IPA HANDBOOK Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet PARTI Introduction to the IPA 1. What is the International Phonetic Alphabet? The aim of the International Phonetic Association is to promote the scientific study of phonetics and the various practical applications of that science. For both these it is necessary to have a consistent way of representing the sounds of language in written form. From its foundation in 1886 the Association has been concerned to develop a system of notation which would be convenient to use, but comprehensive enough to cope with the wide variety of sounds found in the languages of the world; and to encourage the use of thjs notation as widely as possible among those concerned with language. The system is generally known as the International Phonetic Alphabet. Both the Association and its Alphabet are widely referred to by the abbreviation IPA, but here 'IPA' will be used only for the Alphabet. The IPA is based on the Roman alphabet, which has the advantage of being widely familiar, but also includes letters and additional symbols from a variety of other sources. These additions are necessary because the variety of sounds in languages is much greater than the number of letters in the Roman alphabet. The use of sequences of phonetic symbols to represent speech is known as transcription. The IPA can be used for many different purposes. For instance, it can be used as a way to show pronunciation in a dictionary, to record a language in linguistic fieldwork, to form the basis of a writing system for a language, or to annotate acoustic and other displays in the analysis of speech.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Oral Articulation of Vowel Nasality in the Light of the Independent Effects of Nasalization on Vowel Quality
    DOI: 10.17469/O2104AISV000002 CHRISTOPHER CARIGNAN An examination of oral articulation of vowel nasality in the light of the independent effects of nasalization on vowel quality In this paper, a summary is given of an experimental technique to address a known issue in research on the independent effects of nasalization on vowel acoustics: given that the separate transfer functions associated with the oral and nasal cavities are merged in the acoustic signal, the task of teasing apart the respective effects of the two cavities seems to be an intractable problem. The results obtained from the method reveal that the independent effects of nasal- ization on the acoustic vowel space are: F1-raising for high vowels, F1-lowering for non-high vowels, and F2-lowering for non-front vowels. The results from previous articulatory research performed by the author on the production of vowel nasality in French, Hindi, and English are discussed in the light of these independent effects of nasalization on vowel quality. Keywords: vowel nasality, vowel quality, articulation, acoustics, sound change. 1. Introduction A traditional characterization of vowel nasality adopts a seemingly binary classification of vowel sounds based on the relative height of the velum: nasal vowels are produced with a low velum position (and, thus, air radiation from both the oral and nasal cavities), where- as oral vowels are produced with a high velum position (and, thus, air radiation from the oral cavity alone). While it is unquestionably true that nasal vowels are produced with a lowered velum, this traditional characterization carries an implicit assumption about the state of the oral cavity for the production of a nasal vowel, i.e., that the nasal vowel maintains the same articulatory characteristics as its non-nasal counterpart in all aspects except for the height of the velum.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phonetic, Phonological, and Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Mara Language
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Spring 2010 A Phonetic, Phonological, and Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Mara Language Michelle Arden San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Arden, Michelle, "A Phonetic, Phonological, and Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Mara Language" (2010). Master's Theses. 3744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.v36r-dk3u https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3744 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PHONETIC, PHONOLOGICAL, AND MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF THE MARA LANGUAGE A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Linguistics and Language Development San Jose State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Michelle J. Arden May 2010 © 2010 Michelle J. Arden ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled A PHONETIC, PHONOLOGICAL, AND MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF THE MARA LANGUAGE by Michelle J. Arden APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY May 2010 Dr. Daniel Silverman Department of Linguistics and Language Development Dr. Soteria Svorou Department of Linguistics and Language Development Dr. Kenneth VanBik Department of Linguistics and Language Development ABSTRACT A PHONETIC, PHONOLOGICAL, AND MORPHOSYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF THE MARA LANGUAGE by Michelle J. Arden This thesis presents a linguistic analysis of the Mara language, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northwest Myanmar and in neighboring districts of India.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphophonemics of Vowel Compensatory Lengthening in Ekegusii
    International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 9 September 2013 The Morphophonemics of Vowel Compensatory Lengthening in Ekegusii Samwel Komenda a, Geoffrey M. Maroko b*, Ruth W. Ndung’u c Kenyatta University, P.O Box 43844 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Corresponding author Email: [email protected] Tel: 0 712 660 638 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract Literature shows that not much is known about the prosodic systems in Ekegusii, a Bantu language spoken by about 2.2 million people in south western Kenya. This paper presents an analysis of vowel compensatory lengthening in Ekegusii. Synchronic evidence for hiatus resolution strategies is provided in order to describe the vowels that are lengthened compensatorily and determine the morphological processes that trigger compensatory lengthening in Ekegusii. Guided by native speaker intuition and triangulation by other native speakers, data in the form of nominals and verbals were elicited from four Ekegusii texts and qualitatively analysed for emerging patterns. Findings revealed that all the seven basic Ekegusii vowels undergo compensatory lengthening when their phonetic environments are altered. Vowel compensatory lengthening is brought out as a surface realisation of the interaction of morphemes through the morphological process of prefixation. The lengthening is further seen as a conspiracy to eliminate ill-formed sequences created by prefixation. The height of the first vowel and whether it is followed
    [Show full text]
  • A Sociophonetic Study of the Metropolitan French [R]: Linguistic Factors Determining Rhotic Variation a Senior Honors Thesis
    A Sociophonetic Study of the Metropolitan French [R]: Linguistic Factors Determining Rhotic Variation A Senior Honors Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with honors research distinction in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University by Sarah Elyse Little The Ohio State University June 2012 Project Advisor: Professor Rebeka Campos-Astorkiza, Department of Spanish and Portuguese ii ABSTRACT Rhotic consonants are subject to much variation in their production cross-linguistically. The Romance languages provide an excellent example of rhotic variation not only across but also within languages. This study explores rhotic production in French based on acoustic analysis and considerations of different conditioning factors for such variation. Focusing on trills, previous cross-linguistic studies have shown that these rhotic sounds are oftentimes weakened to fricative or approximant realizations. Furthermore, their voicing can also be subject to variation from voiced to voiceless. In line with these observations, descriptions of French show that its uvular rhotic, traditionally a uvular trill, can display all of these realizations across the different dialects. Focusing on Metropolitan French, i.e., the dialect spoken in Paris, Webb (2009) states that approximant realizations are preferred in coda, intervocalic and word-initial positions after resyllabification; fricatives are more common word-initially and in complex onsets; and voiceless realizations are favored before and after voiceless consonants, with voiced productions preferred elsewhere. However, Webb acknowledges that the precise realizations are subject to much variation and the previous observations are not always followed. Taking Webb’s description as a starting point, this study explores the idea that French rhotic production is subject to much variation but that such variation is conditioned by several factors, including internal and external variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter X Positional Factors in Lenition and Fortition
    Chapter X Positional factors in Lenition and Fortition 1. Introduction This chapter sets out to identify the bearing that the linear position of a segment may have on its lenition or fortition.1 We take for granted the defi- nition of lenition that has been provided in chapter XXX (Szigetvári): Put- ting aside stress-related lenition (see chapter XXX de Lacy-Bye), the refer- ence to the position of a segment in the linear string is another way of identifying syllabic causality. Something is a lenition iff the effect ob- served is triggered by the specific syllabic status of the segment at hand. The melodic environment thus is irrelevant, and no melodic prime is trans- mitted between segments. Lenition thereby contrasts with the other family of processes that is found in phonology, i.e. adjacency effects. Adjacency may be defined physically (e.g. palatalisation of a consonant by a following vowel) or in more abstract terms (e.g. vowel harmony): in any event, as- similations will transmit a melodic prime from one segment to another, and only a melodically defined subset of items will qualify as a trigger. Posi- tional factors, on the other hand, are unheard of in assimilatory processes: there is no palatalisation that demands, say, "palatalise velars before front vowels, but only in word-initial position". Based on an empirical record that we have tried to make as cross- linguistically relevant as possible, the purpose of this chapter is to establish appropriate empirical generalisations. These are then designed to serve as the input to theories of lenition: here are the challenges, this is what any theory needs to be able to explain.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian
    An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian by Natallia Litvin B.A., Minsk State Linguistic University, 2009 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Linguistics Natallia Litvin, 2014 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee An Ultrasound Investigation of Secondary Velarization in Russian by Natallia Litvin BA, Minsk State Linguistic University, 2009 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics) Supervisor Dr. John H. Esling (Department of Linguistics) Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics) Supervisor Dr. John H. Esling (Department of Linguistics) Departmental Member The present study aims to resolve previous disputes about whether or not non-palatalized consonants exhibit secondary velarization in Russian, and if so what this corresponds to articulatorily. Three questions are asked: 1) are Russian non-palatalized consonants velarized or not? If so, 2) what are the articulatory properties of velarization? and 3) how is the presence or absence of secondary velarization affected by adjacent vowels? To answer these questions, laryngeal and lingual ultrasound investigations were conducted on a range of non-palatalized consonants across different vowel contexts. The results of the study show that 1) Russian non- palatalized consonants are not pharyngealized in the sense of Esling (1996, 1999, 2005), 2) /l/ and /f/ are uvularized, 3) /s/ and /ʂ/ can feature either uvularization or velarization. The study also shows that secondary articulations of Russian non-palatalized consonants are inherent rather than dependent on vowel context.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in African Linguistics Volume 21, Number 3, December 1990
    Studies in African Linguistics Volume 21, Number 3, December 1990 CONTEXTUAL LABIALIZATION IN NA WURI* Roderic F. Casali Ghana Institute of Linguistics Literacy and Bible Translation and UCLA A spectrographic investigation into the non-contrastive labialization of consonants before round vowels in Nawuri (a Kwa language of Ghana) sup­ ports the notion that this labialization is the result of a phonological, feature­ spreading rule and not simply an automatic transitional process. This as­ sumption is further warranted in that it allows for a more natural treatment of some other phonological processes in the language. The fact that labial­ ization before round vowels is generally not very audible is explained in terms of a principle of speech perception. A final topic addressed is the question of why (both in Nawuri and apparently in a number of other Ghanaian languages as well) contextual labialization does tend to be more perceptible in certain restricted environments. o. Introduction This paper deals with the allophonic labialization of consonants before round vowels in Nawuri, a Kwa language of Ghana.! While such labialization is gener­ ally not very audible, spectrographic evidence suggests that it is strongly present, * The spectrograms in this study were produced at the phonetics lab of the University of Texas at Arlington using equipment provided through a grant of the Permanent University Fund of the University of Texas system. I would like to thank the following people for their valuable comments and suggestions: Joan Baart, Don Burquest, Mike Cahill, Jerry Edmondson, Norris McKinney, Bob Mugele, Tony Naden, and Keith Snider. I would also like to express my appreciation to Russell Schuh and an anonymous referee for this journal for their helpful criticism of an earlier version, and to Mary Steele for some helpful discussion concerning labialization in Konkomba.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonology II: Derivations, Rules, Phonotactics
    Phonology II: derivations, rules, phonotactics John Goldsmith LING 20001 17 October 2011 () 17 October 2011 1 / 100 Generative phonology Outline 1 Generative phonology 2 Palauan 3 Derivations 4 Alternations and rule ordering 5 Phonotactics and syllable structure () 17 October 2011 2 / 100 Generative phonology Generative phonology The American structuralist approach to phonology was based on the idea that the right phonemic analysis of a language’s sounds could be — and must be — built up from the sounds and from the knowledge of when two words are in contrast. This approach kept the phonemic representation relatively close to the surface phonetic form. Because of that, there was a significant morphophonemic component to the grammar. Generative phonology challenged the idea that there was a difference between these two components, the morphophonological and the phonological. It said there was just one thing, and it called it phonology. () 17 October 2011 3 / 100 Generative phonology Palauan Noun my N our N Pab´ P@buk´ P@b@mam´ ashes mad´ m@dak´ m@d@mam´ eyes ker´ k@r´ık k@r@mam´ question Pur´ P@r´ık P@r@mam´ laughter Par´ P@rak´ P@r@mam´ price bu´P b@P´ık b@P@mam´ spouse du´P d@Pak´ d@P@mam´ skill bad´ b@duk´ b@dum´ @m rock () 17 October 2011 4 / 100 Generative phonology Palauan Noun my N our N Pab´ P@bu-k´ P@b@-mam´ Pab,´ P@bu,´ P@b@ mad´ m@da-k´ m@d@-mam´ mad,´ m@da,´ m@d@ ker´ k@r´ı-k k@r@-mam´ ker,´ k@r´ı,k@r@ Pur´ P@r´ı-k P@r@-mam´ Pur,´ P@r´ı, P@r@ Par´ P@ra-k´ P@r@-mam´ Par,´ P@ra,´ P@r@ bu´P b@P´ı-k b@P@-mam´ bu´P, b@P´ı, b@P@ du´P
    [Show full text]
  • Uvular Approximation As an Articulatory Vowel Feature
    Uvular approximation as an articulatory vowel feature Jonathan P. Evans Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica (Taipei) [email protected] Jackson T.-S. Sun Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica (Taipei) [email protected] Chenhao Chiu Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia [email protected] Michelle Liou Institute of Statistical Sciences, Academia Sinica (Taipei) [email protected] This study explores the phenomenon of uvularization in the vowel systems of two Heishui County varieties of Qiang, a Sino-Tibetan language of Sichuan Province, China. Ultrasound imaging (one speaker) shows that uvularized vowels have two tongue gestures: a rearward gesture, followed by movement toward the place of articulation of the corresponding plain vowel. Time-aligned acoustic and articulatory data show how movement toward the uvula correlates with changes in the acoustic signal. Acoustic correlates of uvularization (taken from two speakers) are seen most consistently in raising of vowel F1, lowering of F2 and in raising of the difference F3-F2. Imaging data and the formant structure of [l] show that uvular approximation can begin during the initial consonant that precedes a uvularized vowel. Uvularization is reflected phonologically in the phonotactic properties of vowels, while vowel harmony aids in the identification of plain–uvularized vowel pairs. The data reported in this paper argue in favor of a revision of the catalog of secondary articulations recognized by the International Phonetic Alphabet, in order to include uvularization, which can be marked with the symbol [ʶ] in the case of approximation and [X] for secondary uvular frication. 1 Introduction During uvular approximation, the tongue dorsum moves toward the uvula.
    [Show full text]