10 research outputs found

    Aerodynamic and durational cues of phonological voicing in whisper

    No full text
    International audienceThis study concerns the phonologization process of fine phonetic details in French, such as segmental durations used as a secondary phonetic information in obstruents voicing. Phonologization is expected when phonetic properties are at least partly dissociated from their physical conditioning. Due to a lack of a physical voicing constraint, the whisper could provide a new paradigm to study this process, by assessing the weight of physical vs linguistic conditioning of the segmental duration of obstruents as function of their phonological voicing. In many languages, the voiced obstruents show shorter durations than unvoiced ones. On the one hand, this phonetic durational difference is usually attributed to the Aerodynamic Voicing Constraint in the vibration of the vocal folds during obstruents. However, this duration contrast due to voicing specification is also phonetically preserved in production in whispered phonation, i.e. without any physical voicing due to the open glottis. On the other hand, it is largely seen as linguistically controlled, because of the important durational difference observed and the role of C duration in the perception of voicing contrast in modal or whispered speech. It is assumed that if the durational contrast of voicing in whisper is produced in absence of a physiological constraint, it would be the evidence of the phonologization of such fine phonetic details

    Contraste de voisement en parole chuchotée

    No full text
    International audienceVoicing contrast in whispered speech This paper presents analyses on the phonological voicing contrast in whispered speech, which is characterized by a semi-open configuration of the vocal folds preventing them from vibrating. In modal speech, in addition to vocal fold vibration, the contrast between voiced and unvoiced consonants is realized by other phonetic correlates: e.g. consonant and pre-consonantal vowel durations, intraoral pressure differences. Acoustic and aerodynamic analyzes show that these voicing correlates are preserved in whispered speech. These findings seem consistent with those showing that voiced contrast is maintained in perception despite the absence of vocal fold vibration.Ce travail porte sur le contraste phonologique de voisement en parole chuchotĂ©e qui se caractĂ©rise par une configuration semi-ouverte des cordes vocales empĂȘchant leur vibration. En parole modale, outre la vibration des cordes vocales, le contraste entre consonnes voisĂ©es et sourdes est supportĂ© par d'autres corrĂ©lats phonĂ©tiques : durĂ©es des consonnes et des voyelles, pression intraorale, entre autres. Les analyses acoustiques et aĂ©rodynamiques des consonnes voisĂ©es vs sourdes montrent que ces corrĂ©lats secondaires du voisement sont prĂ©servĂ©s en parole chuchotĂ©e, pouvant donner une assise Ă  la persistance de la perception de ce contraste malgrĂ© l'absence de vibration des cordes

    Segmental duration and voicing : impact of the laryngeal source

    No full text
    Les relations entre les propriĂ©tĂ©s phonĂ©tiques et les traits phonologiques sont l’objet de multiples propositions thĂ©oriques. Cette thĂšse s’intĂ©resse aux relations entre les durĂ©es consonantiques ou vocaliques et le trait de voisement des obstruantes en français. Notre objectif est d’analyser l’impact de l’organe phonatoire et de la source phonatoires sur les durĂ©es segmentales. Nous faisons l’hypothĂšse que les diffĂ©rences systĂ©matiques des durĂ©es segmentales corrĂ©latives au voisement ne sont pas dĂ©terminĂ©es uniquement par des contraintes physiologiques, mais pourraient ĂȘtre phonologisĂ©es. Nous avons sĂ©lectionnĂ© cinq types de phonation normale (modale et chuchotĂ©e) ou pathologique (voix Tucker, Ɠsophagienne et pseudo-chuchotĂ©e). Nous observons que quelle que soit la source, pĂ©riodique vs bruitĂ©e, les rĂ©sultats montrent des Ă©carts de durĂ©e similaires entre obstruantes sourdes et voisĂ©es, et, entre voyelles prĂ©cĂ©dant une obstruante sourde vs voisĂ©e. Concernant l’impact de l’organe phonatoire, les phonations non laryngĂ©es (Ɠsophagienne et pseudo-chuchotĂ©e) rĂ©duisent significativement, sans les neutraliser, les diffĂ©rences de durĂ©es segmentales liĂ©es au trait de voisement de l’obstruante. Cela indiquerait que, bien que ces variations systĂ©matiques soient en partie induites physiologiquement, elles restent robustes aux changements de condition de phonation, normales comme pathologiques. On peut donc penser que les durĂ©es segmentales covariantes avec le voisement peuvent constituer des informations linguistiques reprĂ©sentĂ©es au niveau phonologique et/ou lexicale, rejoignant ainsi les propositions de modĂšles phonologiques ancrĂ©s phonĂ©tiquement et moins abstractionnistes.The relation between the phonetic properties and phonological features are the object of many theoretical propositions. This thesis focus on the relationship between consonant and vocalic durations and the voicing feature of the consonant in French. Our objective is to investigate the impact of the phonatory organ and the phonatory source on the segmental durations. We suppose that the systematic differences in the segmental lengths correlative to voicing are not determined only by physiological constraints but could be phonologized. We have selected five kind of phonations : normal (modal and whispered) and pathological (Tucker, esophageal and pseudo-whispered voices). We observe that whatever the source (periodic vs noisy) the results show similar time differences between voiceless vs voiced consonants, and, between vowels preceding voiceless vs voiced consonants. Concerning the impact of the phonatory organ, in pathological phonations (esophageal and pseudo-whispered speech), the differences in segmental durations are reduced but not neutralized. This would indicate that, although these systematic variations are partly induced physiologically, they remain robust to change in the both phonation conditions (normal and pathological). We can therefore assume that the segmental durations covariant with voicing can constitute linguistic information represented at the phonological and / or lexical level, thus joining the propositions of phonetically based phonological models and less abstractionist models

    Duration as perceptual voicing cues in whisper

    No full text
    International audienceThis study concerns the production and the perception of the phonological voicing contrast in whispered speech in French.Whisper is a mode of phonation naturally used in order to reduce the perceptibility of speech, mainly substituting the periodic sound source of modal voice by a noisy sound source. Whispered voice induces many changes: (i) intensity lowering, frequency flattening and formant rising [1-6]; (ii) lengthening of speech units and speech rate decrease [3, 5-7]; (iii) increase of airflow and air consumption [8]; and (iv) some kind of hyperarticulation [9]. Concerning perception, segmental and suprasegmental information is generally well perceived, with a recognition level above the chance: (i) vowel identity [10]; (ii) consonant place and manner [11]; even (iii) intonation, accent [3, 6, 12] or tone [13]; and strikingly (iv) voicing feature [6, 11, 14-16], as it is targeted here for French.This study focuses on duration of pre-consonantal vowels and obstruents as secondary phonetic cues in production and perception of the phonological voicing in whispered speech, i.e. without phonetic (physiological and acoustic) voicing. In modal speech, these properties are part of numerous secondary phonetic cues commonly reported for voicing [17]. Duration of consonants and pre-consonant vowels are long frequently observed: (i) vowels are longer before voiced than voiceless consonants [2, 19, 20] and, (ii) voiceless obstruents are longer than voiced ones [2, 21, 22] (for a review and discussion).A first experiment on production confirms that the phonological voicing contrast is also realized in whisper. Alternatively in modal and whisper phonations, 4 French speakers read 12 non-sense and 12 lexical words embedded the voiced and unvoiced obstruents /b-p/, /t-d/, /k-g/, /f-v/, /s-z/ and /ʃ-ʒ/ in word-median position. The list-reading recordings were experimentally controlled: random order, fillers, anechoic room, etc.As in modal phonation, in whisper acoustic durations show that unvoiced consonants are significantly 31 ms longer than voiced ones. The difference between unvoiced and voiced fricatives reduces from modal (delta = 48 ms) to whisper (delta = 37 ms). For stops, the difference remains constant: 28 in modal speech and 26 ms in whisper. Similar significant differences are observed whatever the phonation mode for pre-consonantal vowels: delta = 11 ms before stops and delta =19 ms before fricatives. So, the durational differences associated with the phonological voicing contrast of obstruents are also kept in whisper production.In a second experiment on perception, durations of consonant-median closure and pre-consonantal vowel were acoustically manipulated to fit the duration of the counterpart member of a minimal pair (e.g. [d] to [t]
 and vice versa). The proportion of the temporal lengthening or shortening of segments were based on the empirical results of the production test. The perception test was experimentally controlled: stimuli, random order, fillers, intensity level, experimental materials, etc.First analyses show that the perception decreases slightly for whispered voiced obstruents (close to 90% of correct responses), but surprisingly very dramatically for unvoiced ones (around the chance level). Crucially, the results showed that consonant duration has more impact on the recognition of the voicing than vowel duration. These effects are cumulative, depending on the case. These results are discussed in relation to previous studies.Finally, to our knowledge, this study is the first attempt (at least in French) to clear duration effects on voicing perception in whisper. References[1]Schwartz, M. F., “Power spectral density measurements of oral and whispered speech,” J. of Speech and Hear. Res., 13: 445-446, 1970.[2]Lehiste, I., Suprasegmentals, MIT Press, 1970.[3]Faraco, M., Comparaison des intonations affirmative et interrogative en voix normale et chuchotĂ©e. PhD, UniversitĂ© de Provence, 1984.[4]Jovicic, S.T. and Saric, Z., “Acoustic analysis of consonants in whispered speech”, J. of Voice, 22(3): 263-274, 2008.[5]Vercherand, G., Production et perception de la parole chuchotĂ©e en français: analyse segmentale et prosodique, PhD, UniversitĂ© de Paris 7, 2010.[6]Sharifzadeh H. R., McLoughlin, I. V. and Russell, M. J., “A comprehensive vowel space for whispered speech”. J. of Voice, 26(2), e49-e56, 2012.[7]Schwartz, M. F., “Syllable duration in oral and whispered reading”, J. of the Acou. Soc. of Am., 41(5): 1367-1369, 1967.[8]Schwartz, M. F., “Air consumption, per syllable, in oral and whispered speech”. J. of the Acou. Soc. of Am., 43: 1448-1449, 1971.[9]Osfar, M. J. O., “Articulation of whispered alveolar consonants,” Master dissertation manuscript, University of Illinois, 2011.[10]Tartter, V. C., “Identifiability of vowels and speakers from whispered syllables,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 49(4): 365–372, 1991.[11]Tartter, V. C., “What’s in a whisper?”, J. of the Acou. Soc. of Am., 86(5): 1678–1683, 1989.[12]Heeren, W. and Heuven van, V., “Perception and production of boundary tones in whispered Dutch”, 10th Interspeech Proc., 2411-2414, 2009.[13]Jensen, M.C., “Recognition of word tones in whispered speech”, Word, 14: 186-196, 1958.[14]Dannenbring, G. L., “Perceptual discrimination of whispered phoneme pairs”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51: 979-985, 1980.[15]Munro, M J., “Perception of 'voicing' in whispered stops”. Phonetica, 47(3-4): 173-181, 1990.[16]Mills, T.I.P., Speech motor control variables in the production of voicing contrasts and emphatic accent, PhD, University of Edinburgh, 2009.[17]Lisker, L., “Voicing in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees”, Language and Speech, 29(1): 3-11, 1986.[18]Lisker, L., “On ‘explaining’ vowel duration variation”, Glossa, 8: 233-246, 1974.[19]Raphael, L. J., “The physiological control of durational differences between vowels preceding voiced and voiceless consonants in English”, J. of Phonetics, 3(1): 25–34, 1975.[20]Abdell-Beruh, N. B., “The stop voicing contrast in French sentences: contextual sensitivity of vowel duration, closure duration, voice onset time, stop release and closure voicing”, Phonetica, 61: 201-219, 2004.[21] Fowler, C. A., “Vowel duration and closure duration in voiced and unvoiced stops: there are no contrast effects here”, J. of Phonetics, 20: 143-165, 1992

    Laryngectomies et durées corrélatives au trait de voisement en français

    No full text
    International audienceLes pathologies laryngĂ©es provoquent d'importantes modifications de la parole et de la voix (Crevier-Buchman 2012), comme une baisse de l'intensitĂ©, de la vitesse d'Ă©locution, un enrouement, etc. ; mais surtout, elles entraĂźnent une grande irrĂ©gularitĂ©, voire une absence, de vibration des cordes vocales. Les perturbations phonatoires affectent principalement la rĂ©alisation correcte du voisement, trait essentiel dans les distinctions lexicales entre consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es, dĂ©gradant l'intelligibilitĂ© de la parole pathologique. Or, le contraste de voisement s'accompagne aussi dans la plupart des langues (Butcher 1992, Chen 1970) d'une diffĂ©rence systĂ©matique de durĂ©e entre consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es (plus longues) et entre les voyelles qui les prĂ©cĂšdent, notamment en français en production (Meynadier & Gaydina 2013) et en perception (Meynadier et al. 2013) de la parole chuchotĂ©e. Cette Ă©tude analyse dans quelle mesure l'ablation partielle ou totale de l'organe phonatoire affecte les diffĂ©rences systĂ©matiques de durĂ©e consonantique et vocalique liĂ©es au voisement phonologique, considĂ©rĂ©es en bonne partie comme physiologiquement conditionnĂ©es par la vibration glottique (Rothenberg 1968, Ohala 1983). Trois types de phonation suite Ă  une laryngectomie ont Ă©tĂ© sĂ©lectionnĂ©es : (TUCK) phonation laryngĂ©e aprĂšs laryngectomie partielle avec reconstruction de type Tucker ; (OESO) phonation oesophagienne aprĂšs laryngectomie totale et supplĂ©tive Ă  la voix laryngĂ©e ; (PCHU) phonation pseudo-chuchotĂ©e produite exclusivement au niveau des articulateurs supralaryngĂ©s et supplĂ©tive Ă  la voix oesophagienne. L'analyse porte sur la comparaison des durĂ©es acoustiques des voyelles prĂ©-consonantiques et des obstruantes selon leur voisement entre ces trois phonations pathologiques et les phonations contrĂŽles (laryngĂ©es non pathologiques) modale (MOD) et chuchotĂ©e (CHUCH). Une liste de mots incluant les obstruantes du français /b– p, t–d, k–g, f–v, s–z, ʃ–ʒ/ a Ă©tĂ© lue une fois par chaque sujet. Les dĂ©tails du corpus et des comparaisons statistiques sont donnĂ©s dans le Tableau 1. Les rĂ©sultats montrent que, dans toutes les phonations, les consonnes sourdes sont significativement plus longues que les voisĂ©es (Tableau 1). MalgrĂ© une diminution de la diffĂ©rence de durĂ©e observĂ©e lors du changement de la source acoustique (pĂ©riodique vs non pĂ©riodique) et/ou de l'organe phonatoire (laryngĂ©e vs non laryngĂ©), l'Ă©cart de durĂ©e entre les consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es est maintenu Ă  un taux important (Figure 1, ligne bleu). Ainsi, bien que ces variations systĂ©matiques des durĂ©es consonantiques soient en partie induites physiologiquement, elles restent robustes aux changements de condition de phonation, normales comme pathologiques. Les durĂ©es consonantiques covariantes du voisement pourraient ainsi constituer des informations linguistiques reprĂ©sentĂ©es au niveau phonologique et/ou lexical. Pour les voyelles, en revanche, la diffĂ©rence de durĂ©e vocalique due au voisement de la consonne subsĂ©quente reste robuste Ă  la modification de la source acoustique (MOD vs CHUCH vs TUCK), mais elle disparaĂźt lors de l'ablation du larynx (OESO et PCHU) (Figure 1, ligne rouge). Un conditionnement physiologique, comme la synchronisation entre le geste laryngĂ© et geste articulatoire pour la consonne suivante, pourrait ĂȘtre Ă  la source de ces diffĂ©rences de durĂ©es vocaliques dues au voisement de la consonne. Ainsi, durĂ©e consonantique et durĂ©e vocalique corrĂ©latives au trait de voisement pourrait rĂ©pondre en français Ă  des conditionnement diffĂ©rents : phonologique vs physiologique

    Is the voicing-dependant duration of obstruents physiological in French?

    No full text
    International audienceThe relation between phonetic properties and phonological features has been the object of many theoretical suggestions which attempt to link the acoustic signal and linguistic representations. Phonetic redundancy and covariation in phonological contrasts are central points in this questioning. A correlation between consonant durations and voicing has been widely documented across many languages. The durational redundancy or covariation in voicing is largely seen as supported by a physiological substratum, e.g. an aerodynamic constraint on vocal vibration making voiced obstruents shorter. However other work, for example on French, has shown that the difference in obstruent duration according to underlying voicing feature resists complete voice assimilation and total devoicing, as in whispered speech, arguing for linguistic conditioning. Here, the physiological vs. phonological conditioning of voicing-dependant durations of French obstruents was tested by comparing five normal and pathological phonations differing in the nature of the phonatory organ and source for voicing (see Figure 1): (i) MODal voice, i.e. periodic laryngeal phonation; (ii) WHIspered voice, i.e. non-periodic laryngeal phonation; (iii) TUCker voice due to a partial laryngectomy, i.e. non-periodic laryngeal phonation; (iv) ESOphageal voice due to a complete laryngectomy, i.e. non-periodic non-laryngeal phonation produced by an aerodynamic excitation of the esophagus; (v) Pseudo-WHIspered voice due to complete laryngectomy and no use of esophagus, i.e. non-periodic supralaryngeal voice produced by an aerodynamic excitation of only the vocal tract. Acoustical durations were measured from 6 pairs of voiced-voiceless obstruents, i.e. /b-p/, /t-d/, /k-g/ and /f-v/, /s-z/, /ʃ-ʒ/ in initial (for fricatives), medial and word-final positions of isolated lexical words read in random ordered lists (one repetition). Table 1 reports information about speakers and data for each phonation type. Statistical effect of Voicing (voiced vs. voiceless) was tested by three-way ANOVAs with Voicing, Articulation (stop vs. fricative) and Lexical Position as the fixed effects (Table 1). The statistical comparisons between MOD and other phonations were stated on Voicing and Phonation interaction in two-ways ANOVAs included only the data for the same obstruents in the same lexical position. Reported here as a pilot study: one P-WHI speaker was analysed but not statically compared with MOD; the other one was excluded because of its total unintelligibility. In all phonation types and word positions, the underlying voiced stops or fricatives are significantly shorter than the phonological voiceless obstruents. Table 1 shows that the voicing-dependant difference is significantly preserved regardless of phonatory organ and acoustical source type, as is confirmed by the absence of Voicing*Phonation interactions for every comparison with the MOD condition. To neutralize the speaking rate variation between speakers and conditions, mean ratio durations across speakers were calculated as the duration difference, i.e. voiceless consonant duration minus voiced consonant duration, divided by the voiceless consonant duration. Figure 1 shows a gradual reduction increasing with the distance from the production mechanism of modal voice used by healthy subjects. However any clear boundary seems match the change of the phonatory organ (laryngeal vs. non laryngeal) or of the phonatory source (periodic vs. non-periodic). Moreover, although phonetically reduced, the ratio of durational differences of the underlying voicing contrast remains fairly large (around 0.3). The physiological conditioning therefore seems to have only a limited effect, since the duration contrast overcomes the various physical constraints of the different phonatory mechanisms. The resistance of voicing-dependant durations to laryngectomies argues for an encoding of the systematic phonetic information at a phonological level and/or for a " phonetic knowledge " component in the grammar

    Contraste de voisement en parole de substitution aprĂšs laryngectomie partielle

    No full text
    International audienceCe travail porte sur la production du contraste de voisement en parole de substitution aprĂšs une laryngectomie partielle de Tucker emportant la totalitĂ© de la partie vibrante des deux cordes vocales (Giovanni 2008). La production des sons voisĂ©s est dĂšs lors particuliĂšrement difficile : le larynx rĂ©siduel produit une voix apĂ©riodique avec une F0 instable et un dĂ©voisement frĂ©quent et important des consonnes sonores (Crevier-Buchman, 2012).Dans le cadre d’un travail plus large sur les indices de voisement en parole chuchotĂ©e, caractĂ©risĂ©e par l’absence de vibration glottique, nous nous sommes intĂ©ressĂ©s aux indices secondaires temporels du voisement (Lisker, 1986). Une diffĂ©rence de durĂ©e entre les consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es, similaire Ă  celle observĂ©e en parole modale, a ainsi dĂ©jĂ  Ă©tĂ© mesurĂ©e par Vercherand (2010) et Meynadier & Gaydina (2012). Une Ă©tude analogue des voix de substitution est intĂ©ressante pour Ă©tudier la possibilitĂ© d’un maintien du contraste de voisement par les durĂ©es consonantiques et vocaliques Ă©galement aprĂšs une laryngectomie partielle. .Lors d’un bilan orthophonique, 9 patients et 5 sujets tĂ©moins ont enregistrĂ© un corpus composĂ© des occlusives du français en position intervocalique et inaccentuĂ©e. Pour les sujets opĂ©rĂ©s, les occlusives sourdes sont en moyenne acoustiquement plus longues (107ms) que les voisĂ©es (75ms). La voyelle post-consonantique est plus longue aprĂšs une occlusive voisĂ©e (101ms) qu’aprĂšs une sourde (88ms). Les voyelles prĂ©-consonantiques ne montrent par contre pas de diffĂ©rence significative.Nos rĂ©sultats permettent de discuter l’implication des indices phonĂ©tiques secondaires dans la perception du trait de voisement en parole de substitution

    Laryngectomies et durées corrélatives au trait de voisement en français

    No full text
    International audienceLes pathologies laryngĂ©es provoquent d'importantes modifications de la parole et de la voix (Crevier-Buchman 2012), comme une baisse de l'intensitĂ©, de la vitesse d'Ă©locution, un enrouement, etc. ; mais surtout, elles entraĂźnent une grande irrĂ©gularitĂ©, voire une absence, de vibration des cordes vocales. Les perturbations phonatoires affectent principalement la rĂ©alisation correcte du voisement, trait essentiel dans les distinctions lexicales entre consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es, dĂ©gradant l'intelligibilitĂ© de la parole pathologique. Or, le contraste de voisement s'accompagne aussi dans la plupart des langues (Butcher 1992, Chen 1970) d'une diffĂ©rence systĂ©matique de durĂ©e entre consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es (plus longues) et entre les voyelles qui les prĂ©cĂšdent, notamment en français en production (Meynadier & Gaydina 2013) et en perception (Meynadier et al. 2013) de la parole chuchotĂ©e. Cette Ă©tude analyse dans quelle mesure l'ablation partielle ou totale de l'organe phonatoire affecte les diffĂ©rences systĂ©matiques de durĂ©e consonantique et vocalique liĂ©es au voisement phonologique, considĂ©rĂ©es en bonne partie comme physiologiquement conditionnĂ©es par la vibration glottique (Rothenberg 1968, Ohala 1983). Trois types de phonation suite Ă  une laryngectomie ont Ă©tĂ© sĂ©lectionnĂ©es : (TUCK) phonation laryngĂ©e aprĂšs laryngectomie partielle avec reconstruction de type Tucker ; (OESO) phonation oesophagienne aprĂšs laryngectomie totale et supplĂ©tive Ă  la voix laryngĂ©e ; (PCHU) phonation pseudo-chuchotĂ©e produite exclusivement au niveau des articulateurs supralaryngĂ©s et supplĂ©tive Ă  la voix oesophagienne. L'analyse porte sur la comparaison des durĂ©es acoustiques des voyelles prĂ©-consonantiques et des obstruantes selon leur voisement entre ces trois phonations pathologiques et les phonations contrĂŽles (laryngĂ©es non pathologiques) modale (MOD) et chuchotĂ©e (CHUCH). Une liste de mots incluant les obstruantes du français /b– p, t–d, k–g, f–v, s–z, ʃ–ʒ/ a Ă©tĂ© lue une fois par chaque sujet. Les dĂ©tails du corpus et des comparaisons statistiques sont donnĂ©s dans le Tableau 1. Les rĂ©sultats montrent que, dans toutes les phonations, les consonnes sourdes sont significativement plus longues que les voisĂ©es (Tableau 1). MalgrĂ© une diminution de la diffĂ©rence de durĂ©e observĂ©e lors du changement de la source acoustique (pĂ©riodique vs non pĂ©riodique) et/ou de l'organe phonatoire (laryngĂ©e vs non laryngĂ©), l'Ă©cart de durĂ©e entre les consonnes sourdes et voisĂ©es est maintenu Ă  un taux important (Figure 1, ligne bleu). Ainsi, bien que ces variations systĂ©matiques des durĂ©es consonantiques soient en partie induites physiologiquement, elles restent robustes aux changements de condition de phonation, normales comme pathologiques. Les durĂ©es consonantiques covariantes du voisement pourraient ainsi constituer des informations linguistiques reprĂ©sentĂ©es au niveau phonologique et/ou lexical. Pour les voyelles, en revanche, la diffĂ©rence de durĂ©e vocalique due au voisement de la consonne subsĂ©quente reste robuste Ă  la modification de la source acoustique (MOD vs CHUCH vs TUCK), mais elle disparaĂźt lors de l'ablation du larynx (OESO et PCHU) (Figure 1, ligne rouge). Un conditionnement physiologique, comme la synchronisation entre le geste laryngĂ© et geste articulatoire pour la consonne suivante, pourrait ĂȘtre Ă  la source de ces diffĂ©rences de durĂ©es vocaliques dues au voisement de la consonne. Ainsi, durĂ©e consonantique et durĂ©e vocalique corrĂ©latives au trait de voisement pourrait rĂ©pondre en français Ă  des conditionnement diffĂ©rents : phonologique vs physiologique

    Dynamic Acoustic Evidence of Nasalization as a Compensatory Mechanism for Voicing in Spanish Apraxic Speech

    No full text
    International audienceThis paper is concerned with the phonetic realization of the voicing contrast by two Spanish speakers with surgery-related apraxia of speech and two matched control speakers. Specifically, it examines whether speakers with AOS, widely reported to have a deficit in laryngeal control, use nasal leak as a compensatory mechanism aimed at facilitating the initiation of voicing in word-initial stops. The results show that the two apraxic speakers produced prevoicing in /b d g/ in only one third of the cases (correctly identified as 'voiced'). In these cases, however, they exhibited significantly longer prevoicing than control subjects, and this a longer voiced portion was closely related to a longer nasal murmur. These results shed light on the compensation strategies used by apraxic subjects to achieve voicing. Differences in the intensity patterns of nasal and voiced stops indicate that apraxic speakers control the timing of velopharyngeal gesture, suggesting that apraxia is a selective impairment

    Compensatory mechanisms in apraxic speech. Preliminary acoustic evidence for the interaction between nasality and voicing

    No full text
    International audienceThis paper is concerned with the phonetic realization of the voicing contrast by two Spanish speakers with surgery-related apraxia of speech and two matched control speakers. Specifically, it examines whether speakers with AOS, widely reported to have a deficit in laryngeal control, use nasal leak as a compensatory mechanism aimed at facilitating the initiation of voicing in word-initial stops. The results show that apraxic speakers produce prevoicing in /b d g/ in only 1/3 of the cases (correctly identified as ‘voiced’). In these cases, however, they exhibit significantly longer prevoicing than control subjects; a longer voiced portion is closely related to a longer nasal murmur in the two apraxic speakers. These results suggest compensation strategies by apraxic subjects to achieve voicing. Differences in the intensity patterns of nasal and voiced stops indicate that apraxic speakers control the timing of velopharyngeal gesture, suggesting that apraxia is a selective impairment
    corecore