Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2017 / Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English

Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English

Paper · 2017 · Danielle Turton

Summary

Turton asks whether the English contrast between light and dark /l/ is a true allophonic split or just two ends of a phonetic continuum. Earlier work disagreed. Judgement studies pointed to discrete variants, while articulatory studies such as Sproat and Fujimura (1993) and Lee-Kim et al. (2013) argued for gradience driven by duration or morphology. Turton recorded ultrasound tongue images from five speakers, each representing a different UK variety, and analysed close to 500 /l/ tokens across a deliberately broad set of phonological environments.

The data show that a single speaker can have categorical light and dark variants and also gradient phonetic effects layered on top of them. In one variety, coda /l/ goes further and loses its tongue-tip gesture (vocalization). Turton explains the patterns with the life cycle of phonological processes. A gradient phonetic effect stabilizes into a categorical rule, and that rule later shrinks to smaller domains (phrase, then word, then stem) without erasing the original gradient effect. The paper argues that the categorical-versus-gradient debate rests on a false dichotomy, and that narrow sets of test environments can hide real categories.

Key points

  • The method is ultrasound tongue imaging of about 500 tokens from five participants, one per UK variety, and the varieties discussed include RP, Manchester, London and Belfast.
  • The patterns for the RP, Manchester, London and Belfast speakers closely match existing sociolinguistic descriptions, although single speakers cannot stand for a whole community.
  • The London speaker's coda /l/ moves further along the lenition path and drops the tongue-tip gesture.
  • Varieties with no clear categorical allophony also showed no clear duration effect, so duration cannot explain darkness everywhere.
  • The prior work the paper engages with includes:
    • Sproat & Fujimura's X-ray microbeam study of 9 contexts.
    • Lee-Kim et al.'s ultrasound study of 3 contexts.
    • Lin's study of 11 speakers.
    • Yuan & Liberman's acoustic analysis of more than 20,000 tokens from the SCOTUS corpus, which the paper's results agree with.
  • The work was funded by AHRC grant AH/I015108/1.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. A single system can hold a discrete rule and a gradient residue together, so treating them as rivals leads to wrong conclusions about either one.
  • I2. Claims that a phenomenon is "purely gradient" can be artefacts of testing too few environments; the full span of contexts must be covered before concluding there are no categories.
  • I3. Pooled scalar judgements cannot tell a mixture of discrete choices made by different individuals apart from true gradience within one individual.
  • I4. Rules shrink in domain over time (phrase, then word, then stem), and dialects differ mainly in how far along this path they are.
  • I5. Strict modular interfaces, such as morphology never feeding phonetics directly, force simpler explanations and expose analyses that break the architecture.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tree): UD dialect conversion could apply hard categorical mapping rules and still keep a graded score for the cases that remain borderline, instead of forcing one mode.
  • I2 (learn): evaluation suites should deliberately cover the whole range of constructions, with negative controls, before declaring that a learned behaviour is smooth or absent.
  • I3 (learn): when several witness parsers agree only partially, inspect each witness's decisions rather than one averaged confidence, because an "uncertain" score may really be a few confident but conflicting votes.
  • I4 (tokens): morphology and repair rules could carry an explicit domain tag (phrase, word or stem), so dialect differences can be modelled as the same rule applied at a different level.
  • I5 (frames): each layer should read only its neighbour's output, so every frame decision traces back cleanly to the tree and stays explainable.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne · United Kingdom8 works · 588 citations

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 worksPsychology · 798 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 463 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 1,373 works

Cite

Cite as Danielle Turton. 2017. Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English. Laboratory Phonology 8.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/labphon.35

@inproceedings{turton2017categorical,
  title = {{Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English}},
  author = {Danielle Turton},
  booktitle = {Laboratory Phonology 8},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.5334/labphon.35},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.35}
}

References

75 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2012. Articulate Assistant Advanced Ultrasound Module User Guide, Version 2.14. Articulate Instruments Ltd. find
  2. Ash, S. 1982. The vocalization of /l/ in Philadelphia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. find
  3. Baayen, H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 ↗
  4. Baranowski, M. and Turton, D. 2015. Manchester English. In: Hickey, R. (Ed.) Researching Northern Englishes. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g55.13bar Baranowski, M. and Turton, D. 2016. Unstressed vowel backing in Manchester English. Paper given at the 7th Northern English Workshop, Edinburgh, 14th April 2016. ↗
  5. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic [Opacity and globality in phonological change]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester and Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Turton: Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2007. Diachronic phonology. In: de Lacy, P. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (p. 497–517). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Diachronic phonology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486371.022 ↗
  6. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2010, 2 December 2010. Morphologically conditioned phonetics? Not proven. Paper presented at On Linguistic Interfaces II, Belfast. find
  7. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2011. Cyclicity. In: Oostendorp, M. v, Ewen, C. J, Hume, E. and Rice, K. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (Vol. 4, p. 2019–2048). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. find
  8. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2012. Traces of change in synchronic phonology: English syllabification and the life cycle of lenition. Workshop at IV Seminário Internacional de Fonologia, Porto Alegre, 26 April 2012. find
  9. Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In: Honeybone, P. and Salmons, J. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology (p. 374–399). Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  10. Bermúdez-Otero, R. and Trousdale, G. 2012. Cycles and continua: on unidirectionality and gradualness in language change. In: Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (p. 691–720). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0059 ↗
  11. Boersma, P. 2011. A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. In: Benz, A. and Mattausch, J. (Eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory (p. 33–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.180.02boe ↗
  12. Boersma, P. and Hayes, B. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 45–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586 ↗
  13. Britain, D. 2009. One foot in the grave. Dialect death, dialect contact, and dialect birth in England. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2009, 121–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2009.019 Browman, C. P. and Goldstein, L. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In: Bell-Berti, F. and Raphael, L. J. (Eds.), Producing speech: contemporary issues. for Katherine Safford Harris (p. 19–33). New York: American Institute of Physics. ↗
  14. Carignan, C., Mielke, J. and Dodsworth, R. 2016. Tongue trajectories in North American English /æ/-tensing. The future of dialects: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XV, 1, 313. find
  15. Carter, P. 2002. Structured variation in British English liquids. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of York. find
  16. Carter, P. 2003. Extrinsic phonetic interpretation: spectral variation in English liquids. In: John Local, R. O. and Temple, R. (Eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology vi (p. 237–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  17. Carter, P. and Local, J. 2007. F2 variation in Newcastle and Leeds English liquid systems. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37(2), 183–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100307002939 Cho, T., Yoon, Y. and Kim, S. 2014. Effects of prosodic boundary and syllable structure on the temporal realization of CV gestures. Journal of Phonetics, 44, 96–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.007 Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. ↗
  18. Cohn, A. 1993. Nasalisation in English: phonology or phonetics. Phonology, 10, 43–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001731 ↗
  19. Cruttenden, A. (Ed.). 2008. Gimson’s pronunciation of English (7th ed.). London: Hodder. find
  20. Davidson, L. 2006. Comparing tongue shapes from ultrasound imaging using smoothing spline analysis of variance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2205133 Turton: Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English Delattre, P. and Freeman, D. C. 1968. A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics, 44, 29–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1968.6.44.29 ↗
  21. Ellis, L. and Hardcastle, W. J. 2002. Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: evidence from EPG and EMA data. Journal of Phonetics, 30(3), 373–396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0162 ↗
  22. Gick, B. 2003. Articulatory correlates of ambisyllabicity in English glides and liquids. In: Local, J., Ogden, R. and Temple, R. (Eds.), Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology vi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  23. Giles, S. B. and Moll, K. L. 1975. Cinefluorographic study of selected allophones of English /l/. Phonetica, 31, 206–227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000259670 ↗
  24. Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 2000. “Substance abuse” and “dysfunctionalism”: current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 157–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554334 Halle, M. and Mohanan, K. P. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 57–116. ↗
  25. Hall-Lew, L. and Fix, S. 2012. Perceptual coding reliability of (l)-vocalisation in casual speech 33 data. Lingua, 122(7), 794–809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.005 ↗
  26. Hardcastle, W. and Barry, W. 1989. Articulatory and perceptual factors in /l/ vocalisations in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 15(02), 3–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300002930 Hartigan, J. A. and Hartigan, P. 1985. The dip test of unimodality. The Annals of Statistics, 70–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176346577 ↗
  27. Hayes, B. 2000. Gradient well-formedness in Optimality Theory. In: Dekkers, J., Leeuw, F. v. d. and Weijer, J. v. d. (Eds.), Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition (p. 88–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  28. Hickey, R. 2005. Dublin English: current changes and their motivation. In: Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (Eds.), Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g35 ↗
  29. Holst, T. and Nolan, F. 1995. The influence of syntactic structure on [s] to [∫] assimilation. Papers in Laboratory Phonology, IV, 315–3333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511554315.022 Huffman, M. K. 1997. Phonetic variation in intervocalic onset /l/s in English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(2), 115–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0038 ↗
  30. Hughes, A., Trudgill, P. and Watt, D. 2012. English accents and dialects: an introduction to social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles. Routledge. find
  31. Huwaldt, J. A. 2010. Plot Digitizer. Available online at: plotdigitizer.sourceforge.net. find
  32. Johnson, K. 2011. Quantitative methods in linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. find
  33. Johnson, W. and Britain, D. 2007. L-vocalisation as a natural phenomenon: Explorations in sociophonology. Language Sciences, 29(2), 294–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2006.12.022 Kelly, J. and Local, J. 1986. Long-domain resonance patterns in English. In Institute of electronic engineers: Proceedings of the international conference on speech input/output (p. 304–308). ↗
  34. Kerswill, P. 1985. A sociophonetic study of connected speech processes in Cambridge English: an outline and some results. Cambridge papers in phonetics and experimental linguistics, 4(1987), 25–49. find
  35. Kerswill, P. and Wright, S. 1990. The validity of phonetic transcription: Limitations of a sociolinguistic research tool. Language Variation and Change, 2(03), 255–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000363 Turton: Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English Kiparsky, P. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1515/9783111666242 Kiparsky, P. 1988. Phonological change. In: Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey (Vols. 1, Linguistic theory: foundations, p. 363–415). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  36. Kiparsky, P. 2006. The amphichronic program vs. evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 32(2), 217–236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2006.015 ↗
  37. Kirkham, S. 2015. Ethnicity and phonetic variation in Sheffield English liquids. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. ↗
  38. Kirkham, S. and Wormald, J. 2015. Acoustic and articulatory variation in British Asian English liquids. Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow. find
  39. Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  40. Lawson, E., Stuart-Smith, J. and Scobbie, J. M. 2008. Articulatory insights into language variation and change: Preliminary findings from an ultrasound study of derhoticization in Scottish English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(2), 1524–1549. find
  41. Lee-Kim, S.-I., Davidson, L. and Hwang, S. 2013. Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 4(2), 475–511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0015 Lehiste, I. 1964. Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. Indiana research centre in anthropology, folklore and linguistics, 34, 10–50. ↗
  42. Lehiste, I. 1980. Phonetic Manifestation Of Syntactic Structure In English. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institue of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 14, 1–27. find
  43. Lin, S. 2011. Production and perception of prosodically varying inter-gestural timing in American English laterals.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. find
  44. Maechler, M. 2013. diptest: Hartigan’s dip test statistic for unimodality – corrected code [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=diptest (R package version 0.75–5). ↗
  45. McCafferty, K. 1999. Derry: between Ulster and local speech–class, ethnicity and language change. In: Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (Eds.), Urban voices: accent studies in the British Isles (pp. 246–264). London: Arnold. find
  46. Mielke, J., Baker, A. and Archangeli, D. 2010. Variability and homogeneity in American English /r/ allophony and /s/ retraction. Laboratory phonology, 10, 699–730. find
  47. Moisik, S. R. 2013. The epilarynx in speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria. find
  48. Myers, S. 2000. Boundary disputes: the distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. In: Burton-Roberts, N. Carr, P. and Docherty, G. (Eds.), Phonological knowledge: conceptual and empirical issues (p. 245–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  49. Nance, C. 2014. Phonetic variation in Scottish Gaelic laterals. Journal of Phonetics, 47, 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.07.005 ↗
  50. Nolan, F., Holst, T. and Kühnert, B. 1996. Modelling [s] to [∫] accommodation in English. Journal of Phonetics, 24, 113–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0008 ↗
  51. Olive, J. P., Greenwood, A. and Coleman, J. 1993. Acoustics of American English speech: a dynamic approach. New York: Springer Verlag. ↗
  52. Pierrehumbert, J. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In: Gussenhoven, C. and Warner, N. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, (p. 101–139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.101 Turton: Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English Pouplier, M. and Hoole, P. 2013. Comparing principal component analysis of ultrasound images with contour analyses in a study of tongue body control during German coronals. Paper presented at Ultrafest 6, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. ↗
  53. Ramsammy, M. 2015. The life cycle of phonological processes: accounting for dialectal microtypologies. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(1), 33–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12102 Scobbie, J. M. 1995. What do we do when phonology is powerful enough to imitate phonetics? comments on Zsiga. Phonology and phonetic evidence, papers in Laboratory Phonology I, 303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554315.021 ↗
  54. Scobbie, J. M. and Pouplier, M. 2010. The role of syllable structure in external sandhi: An EPG study of vocalisation and retraction in word-final English /l/. Journal of Phonetics, 38(2), 240–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.10.005 ↗
  55. Scobbie, J. M., Stuart-Smith, J. and Lawson, E. 2008. Looking variation and change in the mouth: developing the sociolinguistic potential of ultrasound tongue imaging. Final Research Report for ESRC Project RES-000-22-2032. Queen Margaret University. find
  56. Scobbie, J. M. and Wrench, A. A. 2003. An articulatory investigation of word final /l/ and /l/-sandhi in three dialects of English. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 15, 1871–1874. find
  57. Sproat, R. and Fujimura, O. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291–311. ↗
  58. Stone, M. 2005. A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 19(6–7), 455–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200500113558 ↗
  59. Strycharczuk, P. 2012. Sonorant transparency and the complexity of voicing in Polish. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 655–671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.05.006 ↗
  60. Strycharczuk, P. and Scobbie, J. M. 2015. Velocity measures in ultrasound data. Gestural timing of post-vocalic /l/ in English. Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences International Conference of Phonetic Science, Glasgow. find
  61. Strycharczuk, P. and Simon, E. 2013. Obstruent voicing before sonorants. the case of West-Flemish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31(2), 563–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9189-5 Tollfree, L. 1999. South-east London English: discrete versus continuous modelling of consonantal reduction. In: Foulkes, P. and Docherty, G. (Eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles (p. 163–184). London: Arnold. ↗
  62. Turton, D. 2014a. Variation in English /l/: Synchronic reflections of the life cycle of phonological processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester. find
  63. Turton, D. 2014b. Some /l/s are darker than others: accounting for variation in English /l/ with ultrasound tongue imaging. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(2). ↗
  64. Turton, D. 2015. Determining categoricity in English /l/-darkening: A principal component analysis of ultrasound spline data. Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences International Conference of Phonetic Science 2015, Glasgow. ↗
  65. Turton, D. 2016. Synchronic stratum-specific rates of application reflect diachronic change: morphosyntactic conditioning of variation in English /l/-darkening. Papers in Historical Phonology, 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1697 ↗
  66. Turton, D. and Baranowski, M. 2015. Absence of a blocking r[ʏɫ]?: the presence of /u/-fronting before /l/ in Manchester. Paper given at UKLVC, University of York, 1st–3rd September 2015. find
  67. Turton, D. and Ramsammy, M. 2012. /ɪ, ə/-lowering in Manchest[ʌ]: Contextual patterns of gradient variability. Paper given at the 20th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Manchester, 24th–26th May 2012. Turton: Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611759 Wickham, H. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 ↗
  68. Wrench, A. A. and Scobbie, J. M. 2003. Categorising vocalisation of English /l/ using EPG, EMA and ultrasound. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Speech Production (pp. 314–319). find
  69. Wright, S. 1989. The effects of style and speaking rate on /l/-vocalisation in Local Cambridge English. York Papers in Linguistics, 13, 355–365. find
  70. Wright, S. and Kerswill, P. 1989. Electropalatography in the analysis of connected speech processes. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 3(1), 49–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02699208908985270 Yuan, J. and Liberman, M. 2009. Investigating /l/ variation in English through forced alignment. In: INTERSPEECH 2009: 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brighton, UK, 6–10 September 2009 (p. 2215–2218). ↗
  71. Yuan, J. and Liberman, M. 2011. /l/ variation in American English: A corpus approach. Journal of Speech Sciences, 1(2), 35–46. find
  72. Zsiga, E. C. 1995. An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and postlexical palatalization in American English. In: Connell, B. and Arvaniti, A. (Eds.), Phonology and phonetic evidence: papers in laboratory phonology IV (p. 282–302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554315.020 ↗
  73. Zwicky, A. 1972. Note on a phonological hierarchy in English. Linguistic change and generative theory, 275, 301. find
  74. How to cite this article: Turton, D 2017 Categorical or gradient? An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening and vocalization in varieties of English. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 8(1): 13, pp. 1–31, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.35 ↗
  75. Copyright: © 2017 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/turton-2017-categorical-gradient-ultrasound-investigation-l/