Cover not available

In:Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 14: Papers from the 2013 Piliscsaba Conference
Edited by Katalin É. Kiss, Balázs Surányi and Éva Dékány
[Approaches to Hungarian 14] 2015
► pp. 147–165

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Abstractness or complexity?

The case of Hungarian /aː/

 | Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 | Eötvös Loránd University Budapest
Published online: 3 June 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.14.06gos
The purpose of this paper is to see if Hungarian /aː/, a well-behaved back vowel in terms of vowel harmony and of its phonological properties in general, is indeed a proper back vowel phonetically, too. Native speakers of this language (including some Hungarian linguists) have the impression that the vowel /aː/ is realised in present-day Hungarian more or less as a front vowel. However, there have been no reliable objective measurements to support or contradict that impression so far. In the present investigation it turns out that there is a historical change going on in Hungarian in the articulatory gesture of /aː/. The paper also offers some discussion as to whether that change in the phonetic makeup of this vowel should be reflected by its phonological analysis (feature composition). The dilemma we face is one between increased abstractness and increased complexity of analysis.
References (47)
References
Abari, Kálmán & Gábor Olaszy. 2012. A formánsmenetek rendszere CVC kapcsolatok magánhangzóiban a C képzési helyének függvényében [The system of vowel formant trajectories in CVC sequences depending on the place of articulation of the consonants]. In: Mária Gósy (ed.), Beszédkutatás 2012 [Speech Research 2012], 70–93. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet Kempelen Farkas Beszédkutató Laboratórium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beke, András & Tekla Etelka Gráczi. 2010. A magánhangzók semlegesedése a spontán beszédben [Vowel neutralisation in spontaneous speech]. In: Judit Navracsics (ed.), Nyelv, beszéd, írás. Pszicholingvisztikai tanulmányok I. [Language, speech, and writing. Studies in psycholinguistics, vol. I], 57–64. Veszprém: Pannon Egyetem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezdek, James C. 1981. Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2011. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [URL] (25 October 2011)
Bolla, Kálmán. 1995. Magyar fonetikai atlasz. A szegmentális hangszerkezet elemei [An atlas of Hungarian phonetics. Elements of segmental sound structure]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunner, Jana, Satrajit Ghosh, Philip Hoole, Melanie Matthies, Mark Tiede & Joseph Perkell. 2011. The influence of auditory acuity on acoustic variability and the use of motor equivalence during adaptation to a perturbation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54. 727–739. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dankovičová, Jana & Francis Nolan. 1999. Some acoustic effects of speaking style on utterances for automatic speaker verification. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29. 115–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diehl, Randy L., Björn Lindblom, Kathryn A. Hoemeke & Richard P. Fahey. 1996. On explaining certain male-female differences in the phonetic realization of vowel categories. Journal of Phonetics 24. 187–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1. 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1973. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelfer, Marylou Pausewang & Victoria A. Mikos. 2005. The relative contributions of speaking fundamental frequency and formant frequencies to gender identification based on isolated vowels. Journal of Voice 19. 544–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gósy, Mária. 2004. Fonetika, a beszéd tudománya [Phonetics, the science of speech]. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012a. BEA – A multifunctional Hungarian spoken language database. The Phonetician 105/106. 50–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012b. Az alsóbb nyelvállású magyar magánhangzók formánsszerkezete [The formant structure of Hungarian low vowels]. In: Mária Gósy (ed.), Beszéd, adatbázis, kutatások [Speech, database, research], 43–66. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gráczi, Tekla Etelka & Viktória Horváth. 2010. A magánhangzók realizációja spontán beszédben [The realisation of vowels in spontaneous Hungarian]. In: Mária Gósy (ed.), Beszédkutatás 2010 [Speech Research 2010], 5–16. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet Kempelen Farkas Beszédkutató LaboratóriumGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar.
Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Londe. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 821–862. 10.1353/lan.0.0169.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henton, Caroline. 1995. Cross-language variation in the vowels of female and male speakers. In: Kjell Elenius & Peter Branderud (eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 420–423. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James M. & Michael J. Clark. 2009. The role of f0 and formant frequencies in distinguishing the voices of men and women. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71. 1150–1166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In: Keith Johnson & John W. Mullenix (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–166. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn, Juliette, Nicolas Audibert, Jean-François Bonastre & Solange Rossato. 2011. Inter- and intra-speaker variability in French: an analysis of oral vowels and its implication for automatic speaker verification. In: Wai-Sum Lee & Eric Zee (eds.), Proceedings of the XVIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1002–1005. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kempelen, Wolfgang von. 1791. Mechanismus der menschlichen Sprache nebst der Beschreibung seiner sprechenden Maschine. Wien: J. V. Degen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kovács, Magdolna. 2004. Pros and cons about Hungarian [a:]. Grazer Linguistische Studien 62. 65–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. I. Internal factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H and H theory. In: William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–440. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Randy Diehl & Carl Creeger. 2009. Do ‘Dominant Frequencies’ explain the listener’s response to formant and spectrum shape variations? Speech Communication 51. 622–629. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magdics, Klára. 1965. A magyar beszédhangok akusztikai szerkezete [The acoustic structure of Hungarian speech sounds]. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 49. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mooshammer, Christine, Pascal Perrier & Susanne Fuchs. 2008. Speaker-specific patterns of token-to-token variability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123. 3076–3076. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Obleser, Jonas, Thomas Elbert, Aditi Lahiri & Carsten Eulitz. 2003. Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research 15. 207–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2012. The listener as a source of sound change (perception, production, and social factors). In Maria-Josep Solé & Daniel Recasens (eds.), The initiation of sound change, 21–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olaszy, Gábor. 1985. A magyar beszéd leggyakoribb hangsorépítő elemeinek szerkezete és szintézise [The structure and synthesis of the most frequent constitutive elements of Hungarian speech]. Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 121. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science 1. 267–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In: Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter, Péter Szigetvári & Miklós Törkenczy. 2012. Dark secrets of Hungarian vowel harmony. In: Eugeniusz Cyran, Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), Sound, structure and sense. Studies in memory of Edmund Gussmann, 491–508. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recasens, Daniel & Aina Espinosa. 2006. Dispersion and variability of Catalan vowels. Speech Communication 48. 645–666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shiller, Douglas M., Rafael Laboissière & David J. Ostry. 2002. Relationship between jaw stiffness and kinematic variability in speech. Journal of Neurophysiology 88. 2329–2340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slifka, Janet. 2005. Acoustic cues to vowel–schwa sequences for high front vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118. 2037. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szende, Tamás. 1999. Hungarian. In: Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 104–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tarnóczy, Tamás. 1965. Acoustic analysis of Hungarian vowels. Quarterly Progress and Status Report 1. 8–12. (Speech Transmission Laboratory–KHT, Stockholm).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós. 2011. Hungarian vowel harmony. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2963–2989. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós, Péter Szigetvári & Péter Rebrus. 2013. Harmony that cannot be represented. In Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár & Christer Platzack (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 229–252. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vértes, O. András. 1980. A magyar leíró hangtan története az újgrammatikusokig [The history of descriptive Hungarian phonology up to the Neogrammarians]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. Az artikuláció akusztikus vetülete [The acoustic projection of articulation]. In Kálmán Bolla (ed.), Fejezetek a magyar leíró hangtanból [Chapters from descriptive Hungarian phonetics], 155–165. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Fifth edition. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Siptár, Péter
2015. Neutrality and variation: what are they?. Theoretical Linguistics 41:1-2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue