-1. Introduction.
-1.1. Généralités sur les habitudes de prononciation.
-Histoire d'après Borissoff (2011):
[...] Laver (1978) commenced his article by quoting Isidor of Seville (560: 636) who noted some obvious differences in the speech of different peoples. In his Etymologiae he made this observation:
[Also, all the Eastern nations press (together) their speech and words in their throats as the Hebrews and the Syrians. All the Mediterranean nations thrust (hit, knock) their speech (on)to the palate as the Greeks and the people of Asia Minor. All the Western nations, break their words on the teeth, as the Italians and the Spaniards22 ] (Lindsay; 1911, IX, 8). (Borissoff, 2011: 10?)
[...] we find in the Tractatus de Loquela of John Wallis (1616-1703) this comparison of the German and French pronunciation:
[...] the English as it were push forward the whole of their pronunciation into the front part of the mouth, [...]. The Germans, on the other hand, retract their pronunciation to the back of the mouth and the bottom of the throat, [...] (Kemp; 1972, 209-210). (Borissoff, 2011: 11)
A more general observation of pronunciation habits can be found in An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language by John Wilkins (1614: 1672):
Some pronounce more deeply guttural, as the Welsh and the Eastern people, the Hebrews, and Arabians, etc. Others seem to thrust their words more forwards, towards the outwards parts of the mouth, as the English; others more inward towards the palate, as the French; [...] (Wilkins; 1668, Cited by Laver, 1978, 3).
Similar accounts were common with Cooper (1685), Bayley (1758) and other English linguists copiously cited in Laver (1978). What unites them is a general impressionistic view on the characteristic phonetic aspects of various languages as a manifestation of different habits or manners of pronunciation. (Borissoff, 2011: 11)
-Au-delà des phonèmes:
"Les divers éléments phonétiques de chaque idiome forment un système où tout se tient. Les personnes qui ont appris à prononcer une langue étrangère ont pu s'en rendre compte: ce n'est pas seulement parce qu'il prononce mal le th ou les consonnes finales que le Français est inintelligible en parlant l'anglais, c'est que ni la position des lèvres, ni celle de la langue ne sont les mêmes pour parler les deux langues, et que pas une seule des voyelles n'est rigoureusement identique dans les deux." (Meillet, Les lois phonétiques, 1893: 318-319)
"If asked why different languages sound different, a layperson might answer that different languages use different sounds (i.e. they have different phonemes). A linguist would add that different languages use sounds differently (i.e. they have different phonologies). However, there is another factor that also plays a part in the sound of a language. As far back as 350 years ago (Wallis 1653 : 1972) people sensed that when speaking a foreign language, one’s articulators – the tongue, jaw, lips, etc. – seemed to have a whole different underlying or default posture than the one used for one’s native language." (Wilson, 2006: 1)
"There are, on the other hand, surprisingly few systematic comparisons of habitual pitch span differences between speakers of different languages or regional varieties, although such differences are often reported anecdotally, suggesting that people perceive them. For example, there is strong anecdotal evidence that people perceive differences between speakers of British English and German. British speech is often perceived as ‘überspannt und zu stark aufgedreht’ [over- exaggerated and over-excited] (Eckert and Laver, 1994) or even ‘aggressive’ (Gibbon, 1998) by German listeners. Conversely, German speech may sound ‘bored’ or ‘unfriendly’ to British listeners (Gibbon, 1998)." (Mennen, 2010: 26)
-1.2. Le concept de "base d'articulation" et ses avatars.
-Histoire du concept: Cf. Kelz (1971); Laver (1975); Jenner (2001)
-Origines: 19-20 s.: Sievers, Viëtor, Sweet, Jespersen
"Artikulationsbasis" / "basis of articulation" (Francke)
>> база артикуляционная, basis of articulation, base d’articulation Articulationsbasis, base de articulación, 基本的音作部位发动, artikuliacijos bazė, ...
"Operationsbasis" (Sievers 1876)
"organic basis" (Sweet 1877)
"Mundlage" (Storm 1881)
"articulatory basis" (Graff 1932)
"articulatory setting" (Honikman 1964)
"voice quality" (Laver 1980)
"voice setting" (Esling and Wong 1983)
"vocal setting", "voice set" (Pennington 1996)
"Both Sievers and Franke mentioned Artikulationsbasis in passing without giving it much attention so it would have probably remained largely unnoticed if not for Wilhelm Viëtor who dedicated to it three paragraphs of his Elements of phonetics and orthoepy of German, English and French (1887)." (Borissoff, 2011: 14)
-Artikulationsbasis:
Kelz definiert die Artikulationsbasis als “Disposition aller Teile des Artikulationsmechanismus und ihr Zusammenwirken beim Artikulationsprozeß, d.h. das motorische Verhalten der Artikulateren unmittelbar vor und während des Sprechprozesses” (1974: 226).
Ich definiere den mehrdeutigen Begriff der Artikulationsbasis “als jene typische Indifferenzlage der Sprechwerkzeuge, die durch den geringsten Aufwand für alle in einer gegebenen Sprache zu erwarteden Artikulationen bestimmt ist.” (Birkhan, 1979: 106)
Birkhan, Helmut J. R. 1979. Die Auffälligkeit und das Universale: über die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Anwendung des ZIPFschen Gesetzes in der diachronischen Phonologie. In: Brogyanyi, Bela, ed. Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the occasion of his 65th nirthday, Part 1. John Benjamins. 77-121.
Gil Fernández, J. (2007: 537): Base de articulación o disposición articulatoria es "la disposición de todas las partes del mecanismo del habla y su acción conjunta destinadas a realizar una emisión natural en una lengua dada"
Quilis, A. (1999: 464): "Base de articulación es el conjunto de hábitos articulatorios y de características acústicas que afectan a todos los elementos del plano de la expresión de una lengua y le imprimen carácter propio"
-Articulatory setting:
"the gross oral posture and mechanics, both external and internal, requisite as a framework for the comfortable. economic and fluent merging and integrating of the isolated sounds into that harmonious cognizable whole which constitutes the established pronunciation of a language" (Honikman, 1964: 276-7).
In addition to differences between individual consonants, one can also consider other characteristics of consonant articulations which have to do with the articulatory setting of a particular language. This term refers to shapings of the speech organs which are continuous throughout the speech process. Setting varies from one language to another and, within the same language, from one accent to another.
To give just a few examples:
- Spanish is characterised by a dental setting (tongue-tip against front teeth) which means that sounds such as /t d n s l/ are dental rather than alveolar. (This, together with syllable-timed rhythm (see Section B6), is perhaps why English speakers have been known to refer to Spanish as sounding rather like a ‘machine gun with a lisp’!)
- Portuguese has semi-continuous nasalisation – something also found in much American English (see Section C1). European Portuguese also has notable velarisation (not obvious in the Brazilian variety).
- In Hindi and other Indian languages there is a retroflex setting so that many articulations are made with the tip of the tongue curled back against the alveolar ridge (see pp. 194–5). This retroflex setting is also a well-known feature of almost all varieties of Indian English.
- Many types of Arabic have tongue-root retraction producing a pharyngealised setting.
Collins, Beverley; Mees, Inger M. 2013. Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. Routledge. 3.
-Voice setting:
"The voice setting, which is manifested in the nature and volume of the breath stream passing through the glottis and in the posture of the articulalors, can be thought of as the prosodic foundation on which intonation is pronounced. The general intonation pattern then sets the bounds for the rhythmic pattern of an utterance, Within this rhythmic pattern, individual stressed syllables occur and these, in turn, set the context for the production of the individual segments of speech." (Pennington, 1996: 157)
-Bibliographie:
Borissof, Constantine Leo. 2011. Basis of articulation and articulatory setting in pronunciation teaching: Focusing on English and Russian. M.A., University of London.
Catford, J. C.; Pisoni, D. B. 1970. Auditory vs. articulatory training in exotic sounds. Modern Language Journal 54. 477-481.
Eisen, Barbara. 2001. Phonetische Aspekte zwischensprachlicher Interferenz: Untersuchungen zur Artikulationsbasis an Häsitationspartikeln nicht-nativer Sprecher des Deutschen. Frankfurt/Main: P. Lang.
Gil, Juana. 2005. Implicaciones fonológicas de la base de articulación. In: Filología y lingüística. Estudios ofrecidos a Antonio Quilis. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Vol. 1. 219-252.
Honikman, B. 1964. Articulatory settings. In: Abercrombie, D.; Fry, D. B.; MacCarthy, P. A. D.; Scott, N. C.; Trim, J. L. M., eds. In honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday 12 September 1961. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 73-84.
Kedrova, G. E.; Borissoff, C. L. 2013. The concept of 'basis of articulation' in Russia in the first half of the 20th century. Historiographia Linguistica 40. XX.
Kelz, Heinrich. 1971. Articulatory basis and second language teaching. Phonetica 24. 193-211.
Kelz, Heinrich. 1974. Artikulationsbasis und phonetische Beschreibungsparameter. Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Kommunikationsforschung und Phonetik der Universität Bonn 50. Hamburg: Buske. 217-238.
Koerner, E. F. K. 2004. Essays in the history of linguistics. John Benjamins.
Krech, Hans. 1954. Zur Artikulationsbasis der deutschen Hochlautung. Language Typology and Universals 7-8. 92-107.
Laver, J. 1978. The concept of articulatory settings: an historical survey. Historiographia Linguistica, No. 5: 1-14.
Laver, J. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laver, J. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Nolan, F. 1983. The phonetic bases of speaker recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig, Breitkopf & Härtel.
Wilhelm, Stephan. 2012. Prosodie et correction phonétique. La Clé des Langues. [http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/prosodie-et-correction-phonetique-partie-2--171334.kjsp?RH=CDL_ANG120300]
-Extraits de Esling (1982):
The ESL teacher should be aware of a number of voice quality settings in languages other than English. Honikman (1964) discusses setting features for French, Russian, Indian and Pakistani languages, German, Turkish and Persian. She describes a typical setting of French as rounded, with tongue blade and fronted articulation, with slightly open jaw setting. German is also characterized as lip-rounded. Russian, in contrast, is close in jaw setting, with spread lips and fronted (palatal) articulation. Indian and Pakistani languages are described as having open lips and jaw, with retroflex articulation of the tongue. Turkish and Persian are cited as examples of languages where articulation is performed primarily by the tongue tip. These descriptions are restricted to features which can be identified both auditorily and visually. Only labial, mandibular, and front lingual settings are evaluated.
In addition to open rounding, French accents often have a habitual backing of the tongue -uvularization, or pharyngalization in some cases. Nasal voice3 lowered larynx3 breathy or whispery voice, and often a relatively high pitch range are common features of French. Since some of these features are also found in a variety of accents of English, it may be that they pose no problem for the French speaker learning English. In fact, features such as lowered larynx and breathy or whispery phonation may be a positive asset, ranking relatively high in sociolinguistic prestige in English, and giving what is recognized as a French accent higher status among foreign accents in English.
German accents, because of their historical proximity to English both since Anglo-Saxon times and in North American colonial development, may also share many of the setting features found in dialects of English. Therefore, lip rounding may be one of the few noticeable differences between German and English settings, although accents of Durham or Northumberland in the north of England also have this feature in common with German. Dialects of German also vary considerably, but characteristic features often include uvularization and combinations of degrees of raised larynx and faucal constriction in many northern accents, or lowered larynx and expanded pharynx in many southern accents. As in the case of French, these settings may carry varying degrees of prestige in an English-speaking community, presumably improving the image of the speaker in areas where the same features are found in familiar, socially prestigious varieties of English. Extreme open rounding, fronted, palato-alveolarized tongue position, and whispery creaky voice in Norwegian or Swedish are another example of this.
Russian accents, in contrast, often combine the features mentioned above, close jaw, spread lips, and palatalized tongue position, with faucal constriction -tightening of the upper pharynx. If this setting is unfamiliar to English speakers, it may prove an obstacle to intelligibility or to social interaction.
The voice quality features used in these descriptions are adapted from Laver (1980:158-161,165) and listed below.
-Supralaryngeal voice quality settings
--labial
open rounding / close rounding / spread lips
--mandibular
open jaw position / close jaw position / protruded jaw
--lingual (tip/blade)
tip articulation / blade articulation / retroflex articulation
--lingual (tongue body)
dentalized / alveolarized / palato-alveolarized / palatalized / velarized / uvularized / pharyngalized / laryngo-pharyngalized
--faucal
faucal constriction
--pharyngeal
pharyngeal constriction
--velo-pharyngeal
nasal / denasal
--longitudinal
labial protrusion / labiodentalized / raised larynx / lowered larynx
-Laryngeal voice quality settings
--simple phonation types
modal voice / falsetto / whisper / creak
--compound phonation types
whispery voice / creaky voice / breathy voice / harsh voice
it will be useful to review some of the different voice quality settings that characterize dialects of English. These include: (1) nasal voice, close jaw and creaky voice; where a quasi-permanent nasality, habitually close position of the jaw, and constant or intermittent creaky, or very low-pitched, phonation combine to produce a voice quality characteristic of the accents of many British speakers; (2) velarized tongue body position; which may be thought of as a characteristic of Liverpool speech, or other parts of Lancashire, where the tongue assumes a velarized position throughout the whole of a person's speech; (3) uvularized
tongue body position and lowered larynx; characteristic of many Yorkshire accents, where the tongue is held further back in the mouth than in much Lancashire speech, and the larynx is kept slightly lower; (4) protruded jaw and harsh voice; which characterize the mandibular setting and phonation type of vernacular Edinburgh dialect; (5) breathy voice and nasal voice; characteristic of Glasgow, where phonation is typically breathier than in other varieties of Scots, and the voice is nasalized throughout; (6) retroflex articulation and spread lips; found in accents of Northern Ireland, where the tongue tip is often retroflexed slightly and the lips are spread, that is, the space between the lips is expanded horizontally, and often vertically as well.
In the United States, for example, a broad model of voice "... quality setting might include the following features:
(1) spread lips
(2) open jaw
(3) palatalized tongue body position
(4) retroflex articulation
(5) nasal voice
(6) lowered larynx
(7) creaky voice
Openness is common in American English but not, according to Honikman (1964:75), in British English. The stereotype that Americans speak as though chewing gum has its origins in this setting feature. Accents in many American television programs visually reinforce both spreading and openness.
Esling, John H. 1982. Pronunciation considerations in ESL: Voice quality settings. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle 2:1. XX.
-1.3. Critiques.
Abel, Fritz. 1982. Gegen den Begriff der Artikulationsbasis. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 219. 19-33.
Nollmeyer, Olaf. 2012. Probleme der Idee einer Indifferenzlage im Sprechen: Kritische Analyse einer wenig hinterfragten Idee in der Sprechwissenschaft und Stimmtherapie. Forum Logopädie Heft 4:26. 2-7.
-Ternes (1976):
Die Artikulationsbasis im Sinne von sprachspezifischen Artikulationsgewohnheiten ist ein “schwammiges phonetisches Konzept” (Thurow 1974: 30), das nicht präzise definiert ist und für dessen Ermittlung, Messung und Beschreibung es keine verbindlichen Kriterien gibt.
Wir zitieren zwei charakteristische Beispiele von zwei namhaften Wissenschaftlern - nicht um diese Personen zu diskreditieren, sondern um auf die Gefahren einer solchen Betrachtungsweise aufmerksam zu machen: (91)
Sievers (1893: 106): “Um dagegen den richtigen Klangcharakter der sächsischen Mundarten (...) zu treffen, muss die ganze Zunge angestrafft werden und der Kehlkopf bei stärkerem Exspirationsdruck energischer articuliren. Daher macht auch diese Mundart einen harten, etwas schreienden Eindrück gegenüber dem dumpfen, fast verdrossen und theilnahmslos zu nennenden Charakter der hessischen Mundart.”
Ternes, Elmar. 1976. Probleme der kontrastiven Phonetik. Buske Verlag. [90-97]
-Une variable individuelle?:
Häusler (1962, 214) betont, dass die spezifischen Eigenschaften einer Sprache von der Ruhelage oder relativen Ruhelage der Sprechorgane und von Besonderheiten in den Artikulationsbewegungen eines Sprechers abhängen.
Scovel (1988).
-1.4. Paramètres.
-Position neutre / de repos:
Neutral position, resting position, inter-utterance/inter-speech posture (ISP)
1. Language specific neutral position of speech organs.
2. Language specific resting position of speech organs.
3. Language specific starting (anticipatory) position of speech organs.
4. Optimal working position of speech organs.
5. Nexus (summation) of language speciic articulatory movements.
6. Language specific overall arrangement and manoeuvring of the speech organs.
7. General direction of movements during speech.
The first four definitions refer to some static "position" and may be grouped together. The three latter ones refer to speech dynamics. If these are regarded as one, it would leave us with the contrasting pair: "neutral (starting, optimal) position" versus "nexus, overall arrangement, general direction" which may be further simplified to "static" vs. "dynamic". (Borissoff, 2011: 6)
-Voyelles neutres / d'hésitation:
"The present work deals with autonomous fillers in a multilingual context. The question addressed here is whether fillers are carrying universal or language-specific characteristics. Fillers occur frequently in spontaneous speech and represent an interesting topic for improving language-specific models in automatic language processing. Most of the current studies focus on few languages such as English and French. We focus here on multilingual fillers resulting from eight languages (Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, French, German, Italian, European Portuguese, American English and Latin American Spanish). We propose thus an acoustic typology based on the vocalic peculiarities of the autonomous fillers. Three parameters are considered here: duration, pitch (F0) and timbre (F1/F2). We also compare the vocalic segments of the fillers with intra-lexical vowels possessing similar timbre. In this purpose, a preliminary study on French language is described." (Candea, al., 2005)
Candea, Maria; Vasilescu, Ioana; Adda-Decker, Martine 2005. “Inter- and intra- language acoustic analysis of autonomous fillers”, Proceedings of DiSS’05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop.
Vasilescu, Ioana; Adda-Decker, Martine. 2004. Hésitations autonomes dans 8 langues : une étude acoustique et perceptive, Workshop MIDL04, Paris F.
Vasilescu, Ioana; Adda-Decker, Martine. 2005. Perceptual salience of language-specific acoustic differences in autonomous fillers across eight languages, Interspeech 2005 Lisboa, Portugal.
Vasilescu, Ioana; Adda-Decker, Martine. 2008. On the acoustic and prosodic characteristics of vocalic hesitations across languages. (http://www.limsi.fr/Individu/madda/publications/PDF/IOS.pdf) (date of access: 12 Feb. 2012)
Pour les huit langues étudiées ici (Français, Espagnol, Italien, Portugais, Anglais, Allemand, Arabe moyen-oriental et Chinois mandarin)
Nous nous sommes proposé d’étudier s’il existe un rapport entre voyelles d’hésitations et voyelles du système vocalique. Nous avons vu (cf. 2.3) que l’italien admet une voyelle d’hésitation autour de la voyelle centrale [œ], qui n’est pas présente dans son système vocalique. Toutes les huit langues étudiées admettent cependant comme voyelle support au moins une voyelle présente dans leur système vocalique.
les langues ayant des hésitations autonomes de timbre similaire au français (arabe, allemand, portugais) entraînent des taux de confusion élevés pouvant aller jusqu’à 39% en moyenne alors que les langues dont la voyelle support est de timbre différent à celle du français (par exemple, l’espagnol) sont discriminées à plus de 80%. De plus, des tests statistiques (t-test appariés, p<0,0001) montrent que les auditeurs ont significativement mieux reconnu l’anglais, l’espagnol, l’italien et le chinois que l’arabe, le portugais et l’allemand par rapport au français.
-Position, mouvement, vitesse des articulateurs:
-English // French (Honikman, 1964: 81).
Jaws: Loosely closed (not clenched) // Slightly open
Lips: Neutral; moderately active // Rounded; vigorously active in spreading and rounding
State of oral cavity: Relaxed // Cheeks contracted
Main consonant articulation: Tip-alveolar // Blade-dental
Tongue:
--Anchorage: To roof laterally // To floor centrally
--Tip: Tapered // Untapered
--Body: Slightly concave to roof // Convex to roof
--Underside: Concave to roof // Neutral
This noticeable lack or, rather, near-lack of activity of almost closed jaws together with relatively unvigorous lip-rounding are essential features of good, unaffected, everyday English utterance: they are part and parcel of the articulatory setting requisite for normal English, just as the vigorous lip-rounding of French and German, the close-spread lips of Russian, the slack lips and loosely apart jaws of Indian languages are essentials of the external articulatory settings for those languages. (Honikman 1964: 74?)
-Usage du pharynx:
With regard to the pharynx, this is generally relaxed in French and English, there being no contraction of the pharyngeal muscle, whereas in Arabic, and frequently in German (especially in men), pharyngeal contraction is usual. (Honikman 1964: 78?)
-Fréquence et densité des articulations selon le lieu d'articulation:
(cf. Borisoff, 2011, etc.)
-Ratio consonnes/voyelles, voisement, etc.:
Most of the speech sounds (vowels and most of the consonants) are voiced. The degree of voicing however greatly varies from one language to the next. A study by Catford has shown that French is voiced 78% of the time, while Chinese (Canton) only 41% (English: 72%, Russian: 61%, and Alkhaz: 56%) (Vaissière, 1997)
-1.5. Applications en diachronie.
-Sievers.
Wir haben also mit Rücksicht auf die Hauptfactoren der Lautbildung (S. 26 u. O) zu unterscheiden: Lautwandel 1. durch Veränderung der Ansatzrohrarticulation (z. B die allmähliche Verschiebung der Vocalreihen, Uebergang von tönenden Medien in tönende Spiranten und umgekehrt), 2. durch Veränderung der Kehlkopf-articulation (z. B. Uebergänge tönender Laute in tonlose und umgekehrt), und 3. durch Veränderung der Exspiration (z. B. Uebergang von Lenis in Fortis [Media in Tenuis] und umgekehrt, ferner alle vom exspiratorischen Accent abhängigen Lautwandlungen). (Sievers, 1881: 199)
Als die einfachste von allen ist wohl der Uebergang von Vocalen mit starker Lippen-thätigkeit in solche mit passiver Lippe (und umgekehrt) voranzustellen [...]. Mit dieser Veränderung hängt der Wegfall der Vermittelungsvocale ü, ö (s. S. 70) zusammen. (Sievers, 1881: 200)
Diphthongirungen einfacher Vocale [...]. (Sievers, 1881: 202)
English, German, Italian, Polish and many other languages resemble English in pressure of contact; Danish, on the other hand, appears to be following in the direction of Spanish, where plosive contact has gradually weakened over the ages to such an extent that, except after nasal consonants, the contact has altogether disappeared, with the result that weak (homorganic) fricatives and even frictionless continuants have resulted and now replace the plosives in these two languages. In many of the languages of India and Pakistan bilabial contact is generally very weak, the lips only just touch but do not press together. This, no doubt, is due to the jaw setting (see below). (Honikman 1964: 78?)
[...] man noch nicht mit genügender Sicherheit ausmachen kann, wie weit die Vermischung mit dem Araukanischen der Sprachentwicklung eine besondere Richtung gegeben habe. Als Wesentlichstes scheint sich die Verschiebung der Artikulationsbasis nach hinten und damit zusammenhängend eine sehr geringe Lippentätigkeit zu ergeben, beides Erscheinungen, die das Chilenische mit dem Araukanischen teilt und also wohl von jenem übernommen haben kann. Der umgekehrten Annahme steht die Tatsache entgegen, daß das araukanische Lautsystem in sehr viel höherem Grade ein auf hinterer Artikulation und fast völligem Mangel an Lippentätigkeit beruhendes ist als das chilenische. Im einzelnen äußert sich diese chilenische Artikulations weise darin, daß neben den reinen dentalen auch apikale Verschlußlaute auftreten und daß bilabiales / anstelle von labiodentalem tritt. Eine weitergehende Beeinflussung etwa in der Weise, daß dem Araukanischen eigene Laute an Stelle der nächst-verwandten spanischen treten, ohne daß sich das aus der veränderten Artikulationsbasis von selbst ergäbe, oder eine Anpassung der dem Araukanischen fremden Laute ist nicht nachzuweisen. Zwar besitzt das Araukanische kein r, wohl aber einen verwandten apikalen Reibelaut und dieser selbe Laut vertritt das spanische rr; einfaches apikales r vor d, t, n, s wird stark reduziert und zugleich paßt sich der zweite Laut dem r in der Artikulationsstelle an, wird also ebenfalls apikal; tr ergibt einen unreinen apikalen, dem c ähnlichen Explosivlaut; allein diese Behandlung des r und der r-Gruppen läßt sich, wie gesagt, aus der neuen Artikulationsbasis deuten. Der Beweis dafür wird namentlich dadurch geliefert, daß die spanischen stimmhaften Explosivlaute im Chilenischen geblieben sind, obschon das Araukanische ihnen keine Entsprechungen zur Seite stellt, vielmehr stimmhafte Explosive gar nicht kennt. (Meyer-Lübke, 1909: 206)
Es ist endlich auf dem Wege der Experimentalphonetik die Artikulationsbasis der einzelnen romanischen Sprachgruppen festzustellen, zu untersuchen, welche Erscheinungen der Lautentwicklung sich speziell aus dieser Artikulationsbasis erklären, und ob es sich, sei es durch Vergleichung des Lautsystems des vorrömischen Substrats, sei es durch die geographische Ausdehnung, Avahrscheinlich machen läßt, daß diese spezielle Form der Artikulationsbasis der Mischung mit einem nichtromanischen Volke direkt oder indirekt zuzuschreiben sei. (Meyer-Lübke, 1909: 219)
-Critiques:
"so wichtig freilich Veränderung der Artikulationsbasis für den Sprachwandel zu sein scheint, so unpräzise sind Aussagen darüber bis heute geblieben." (Dressler & Grosse 1972: 68)
"I would suggest, however, that [these] phonetic changes are motivated solely by phonetics, not frequency, but that they affect frequent items first because it is the frequent wors that make up the substance of casual speech." (Hooper, 1976: 100)
"Nel concetto di base articolatoria è dunque bell'e compresa la regolarità o generalità del processo fonetico. La teoria del Wechssler non è dunque che una volgarissima tautologia. Si faccia la prova d'invertirla, e verrà a dire lo stesso: tutti i cambiamenti fonetici (che siano generali e senza eccezione) portano ad uno spostamento della base d'articolazione o viceversa. Tutto ciò che è senza eccezione è senza eccezione! Anche noi siam pronti a giurare su questa sorte di leggi fonetiche." (Vossler, 1908: 75)
Dressler, W.; Grossu, A. 1972. Generative Phonology und idg. Lautgeschichte. IF 77.
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1909. Einführung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Heidelberg: Winter.
Vossler, Karl. 1908. Positivismo e idealismo nella scienza del linguaggio. Bari: G. Laterza & figli.
-2. Descriptions de langues individuelles.
-Anglais, français, allemand.
[...] Viëtor described articulation bases of French and German (French and English in the German version (Viëtor; 1887)) in a rather broad way. For instance the French BA was formulated as follows: The French mode of articulation is more definite, more 'narrow' than ours: the tongue is in general much further forward in the mouth. The lips are very active: they are strongly rounded or protruded, or the corners of the mouth are well drawn back; and the mouth is smartly opened. The timbre of the voice is bright and clear; and there is enough modulation to make us easily distinguish the musical intervals. The exhalation of breath is more uniform than in English (or German), and indeed tends to increase in force as it goes on (Viëtor; 1899, 99). (Borissoff, 2011: 15)
[The Organic Basis of Henry Sweet] Although in the chapter titled Synthesis Sweet provided some detailed comparison of articulatory habits of English, Scottish, Saxon German, German and French, nowhere in the text did he use any specific term for these phenomena, including them under the “voice quality (timbre)” title. (Borissoff, 2011: 16)
184. Every language has certain general tendencies which control its organic movements and positions, constituting its organic basis or basis of articulation. A knowledge of the organic basis is a great help in acquiring the pronunciation of a language.
185. In English we flatten and lower the tongue, hollow the front of it, and draw it back from the teeth, keeping the lips as much as possible in a neutral position. The flattening of the tongue widens our vowels, its lowering makes the second elements of our diphthongs indistinct, front-hollowing gives a dull resonance which is particularly noticeable in our l, its retraction is unfavourable to the formation of teeth-sounds, and favours the development of mixed vowels, while the neutrality of the lips eliminates front-round vowels. Our neutral tongue-position is the low-mixed or mid-mixed one of the vowels in further. [] In French everything is reversed. The tongue is arched and raised and advanced as much as possible, and the lips articulate with energy. French therefore favours narrowness both in vowels and consonants, its point-consonants tend to dentality, and, compared with the English ones, have a front-modified character, which is most noticeable in the l, while the rounded vowels are very distinct.
187. The German basis is a compromise between the English and French, standard North German approaching more to the French. (Sweet, Primer of phonetics, 1892:69-70)
The relative frequency of sounds in a language determines the general setting of the articulatory organs. The general peculiarities of all the utterances in a language that characterize speech movements as a whole make up the basis of articulation. In some languages, the lips remain largely passive, in others the whole level of the tongue may be quite high and yet in others it may be low. In French, the tongue is more tense and the movements are quicker than in English. Furthermore, the lips are quite active in French. One can conclude that French is usually spoken from a high and tense forward basis of articulation. English is spoken from a relatively low and relaxed basis of articulation, which can be explained, for example, by the relatively high frequency of /ə/ and /I/, which make up 19% of the relative frequency of sounds, and by the existence of final lenis consonants. German tends to be between English and French as far as the basis of articulation is concerned. (Dretzke, 1998: 191)
Dretzke, Burkhar. 1998. Modern British and American English pronunciation: A basic textbook. UTB.
(!!Canadian French)
[...] French speakers exhibiting significantly greater lower lip protrusion, pharynx width and tongue tip to alveolar distances (p = 0.0015), while English speakers had significantly greater upper lip protrusion and tongue height (p = 0.0279). [...] It is additionally interesting to note that velum and jaw positions were not significantly different across these languages. [...] A notable observation from these results is that French speakers had: (1) greater pharynx width (advanced tongue root), (2) greater tongue tip-to-alveolar ridge distance (retractedllowered tongue tip), (3) greater tongue body-to-palate distance (lowered tongue body), and (4) an almost significantly higher jaw position. The vocal tract thus appears to be more open all along its length during the French speakers' ISPs than during the English speakers', despite the jaw being higher. These factors conspire to give the obviously false impression at first glance that French speakers' tongues are smaller than those of English speakers. A more likely explanation for this difference may be that the French AS has a substantial constriction in a region not measured in this study (e.g., the uvular region). Another possible factor that may underlie this (or any) apparent difference in midsagittal area is lateral expansionlcontraction of the tongue, which may be another important parameter to consider in future studies of AS. (Gick & al., 2004: 226)
Honikman [1964, p. 81] observed that whereas in English the tongue body is anchored 'to [the] roof laterally', in French it is anchored 'to [the] floor centrally', and whereas the tongue tip is 'tapered' in English, it is 'untapered' in French. Because the present experiment relies on X-ray data, we can only discuss indirectly off-midline observations such as these. However, recall from the results of experiment 1 that in French both the tongue body and tongue tip are significantly lower than in English. This agrees with Honikman's [1964] statement that in French the tongue is anchored to the floor of the mouth. Further, if the English AS has a tapered tongue tip, given that the tongue is VOlume-preserving, we may expect this narrowing of the tongue anterior (depending on the length and degree of the narrowing) to cause a greater constriction towards the upper or rear wall of the vocal tract (i.e., tongue body or tongue tip moving toward the palate, or tongue root retracting into the pharynx). The present results agree with all three of these scenarios for tongue position: English has a narrower pharynx width, a higher tongue body, and a higher tongue tip. As for lip position, Honikman [1964, p. 81] observes that in English the lips are in neutral position and are 'moderately active', while in French the lips are rounded and are 'vigorously active in spreading and rounding'. Assuming that 'rounding' here can be interpreted as lip protrusion, Honikman's [1964] description corresponds with the lower lip findings of experiment 1, but does not agree with our findings for the upper lip. (Gick & al., 2004: 229-230)
As discussed in the 'Introduction' section of this paper, it may be that a language's neutral 'schwa' vowel is produced with the articulators in a configuration that is closest to that language's underlying AS. Story and Titze [2002] found that the shape of the vocal tract affects the quality of the voice, especially of the neutral vowels. Thus, if there is an underlying default articulatory configuration specific to a given language, it could explain variations in the phonetic characteristics of schwa across different languages. In support of this view is the observation that schwa in English and French are produced differently. Price [1991, p. 77] points out that French schwa is 'pronounced rather further forward in the mouth and with noticeably rounded lips' than English schwa, while Gick [2002a] finds that American English schwa is produced with a retracted tongue root. These differences in English and French schwa correspond closely with differences in ISP observed in this paper, where the tongue root is more retracted (i.e. the pharynx width is smaller) in English than in French, and the lower lip is more protruded in French than in English. However, it is also clear from previous work on English that schwa is not simply a vocalized instance of the ISP. (Gick & al., 2004: 230-231)
Epstein, Melissa Ann. 2002. Voice quality and prosody in English. Ph.D., University of California. [http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/re-search/mae_diss.pdf]
Gick, Brian; Wilson, Ian; Koch; Karsten; Cook, Clare. 2004. Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetic 61. 220-233.
Honikman, B. 1964. Articulatory settings. In: Abercrombie, D.; Fry, D. B.; MacCarthy, P. A. D.; Scott, N. C.; Trim, J. L. M., eds. In honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday 12 September 1961. 73-84.
Vockeradt, Werner. 1925. Die deutsche und die englische Artikulationsbasis. Greifswald: Emil Hartmann.
Wilson, I. L. 2006. Articulatory settings of French and English monolingual and bilingual speakers. Ph.D., University of British Columbia. [http://web-ext.u-aizu.ac.jp/~wilson/Wilson2006PhD.pdf]
-Albanais.
Buchholz, Oda; Fiedler, Wilfried. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB.
-Allemand.
The German basis of articulation is described by Wängler (1974: 167f) in terms of tongue, lip, jaw and velum settings. Generally, the articulation is more active than, for example, in English. In contrast to English, the dorsum tends to be kept in a convex shape, the apex seeks contact with the lower front teeth, and the tongue as a whole tends to be fronted, a setting which disfavours velarisation. The lips articulate forcefully both in spreading and in rounding, and rounding is connected with lip protrusion. The jaw and the velum, too, are rather active. Relatively strong overall muscular tension and high subglottal air pressure favour strong aspiration and fricativity. Non-gliding vowel qualities are also characteristic. (Hammarberg, 2009: 74)
Differences in the basis of articulation are largely responsible for residual foreign accents in speakers who have a fair degree of accuracy in the pronunciation of the individual sounds o f a language. Such differences between English and German are:
1 Articulatory tension: German is pronounced with greater articulatory tension (G. die Artikulationsspannung) than English, i.e. the muscles in the various articulators are more tense, or in non-technical terms: the pronunciation of German is more forceful than that of English.
2 Lip movement is more pronounced in German than in English. This applies particularly to vowels such as [u:] and [y:], which are articulated with strongly rounded and protruding lips (G. stark gerundete und vorgestülpte Lippen) in German. There is also a high degree of lipspreading (G. Spreizung der Lippen) for sounds like [i.]. In English, on the other hand, lip movements are much less vigorous and strong lip-rounding is avoided.
3 Tongue position: German has more extreme tongue positions as a result of the greater articulatory tension (point 1), leading to different vowel qualities from those of English. For example, the tongue is more raised and more fronted for the [i:] sound in German than in English.
4 Position of the glottis: closure of the glottis, i.e. a glottal stop [?], before initial vowels is a typical feature of German pronunciation which differs markedly from English. [...]
5 Position of the soft palate: in contrast to French with its large number of nasal vowels, English and German both have a raised soft palate for all sounds except the nasal consonants. The only difference between English and German on this point is that nasal vowels are retained in varieties of educated German pronunciation of French loan words to a far greater extent than in English [...]
(Hall, 2003: 21-22)
Hall, Christopher. 2003. Modern German pronunciation: An introduction for speakers of English. Manchester University Press. [2.5 Basis of articulation]
Unter Artikulationsbasis versteht man „eine ganz bestimmte Lagerung und Bewegungsart der aktiven Teile der Artikulationsorganr, die für die gesamte Kautbildung einer Sprache charakteristisch sind“ [Ebd.].
Die deutsche Artikulationsbasis weist die folgenden charakteristischen Merkmale auf:
- leichte Öffnung und Rundung der Lippen, die locker von den Zähnen abgehoben sind;
- leichte Öffnung der Zahreihen;
- der Zungenkörper liegt im vorderen Teil des Mundraums;
- die Zungenspitzenkontaktstellung;
- relativ große Kieferöffnung;
- der Kehlkopf ist in lockerer Tiefstellung [Ebd.: 16].
Die rhythmisch-intonatorische Basis des Deutschen wird durch die folgenden Merkmale gekennzeichnet:
- die stoßende rückhafte Ausatmung bei der deutschen Artikulation bewirkt eine stoßende, rückhafte Bewegung der artikulierenden Organe bei der Silbenbildung, ein ausgeprägtes Nebemeinander von Silben, schroffe Übergänge von einer Artikulationsstellung zur anderen;
- Kontrast von betonten und unbetonten Silben;
- Was die Sprechtonhöhe angeht, gebrauchen die Deutschen hauptsächlich den mittleren und den tiefen Bereich.
(Akulova, 2011)
Akulova, E. V. = Акулова, Е. В. 2011. Grundlagen der Phonetik: Лекции по теоретической фонетике немецкого языка. Саратов.
"Certains étrangers, particulièrement des Allemands, ont un jeu des lèvres et des joues extraordinaire, comme s’ils mâchaient quelque chose avec effort; Il semble qu’ils font un travail énorme pour articuler les sons. Mais tout cela est purement extérieur, leur (sic) muscles ne sont pas tendus, et le travail intérieur est très faible. En français le travail s’accomplit presque entièrement à l’intérieur, et il y est intense, les muscles étant tendus à outrance; mais presque rien n’en apparaît au dehors, les joues sont presque immobiles, les lèvres ne font que s’entr’ouvrir, le visage reste calme, et tout cela contribue à la suprême élégance de la diction française." Grammont (1963: 5)
Versuche ich als Mitteldeutscher z.B. eine prägnant norddeutsche Mundart wie etwa die holsteinische zu sprechen, so muß ein für allemal die Zunge etwas zurückgezogen und verbreitet werden; hat man diese Basis, einmal gefunden versteht man sie beim Wechsel verschiedener Laute festzuhalten, so folgen die charakterisrischen Lautnuancen der Mundart alle von selbst. (Sievers 1901: 114)
[Attempting to speak e.g. the pithy North-German dialect such as Holstein, I as a Central German speaker, should first of all make the tongue somewhat withdrawn and broadened; once the correct position, to some extent the Operationsbasis, is found and understood as being the same when switching between different vowels, characteristic sound nuances of the dialect will follow all by themselves 20] (Sievers; 1876). (Borissoff, 2011: 10)
-Allemand vs. dialectes suisses alémaniques:
- Die Lippen werden relativ stark bewegt, sollen aber bei den Vokalen nicht breit gezogen werden, weil diese dadurch grell und flach klingen. Sie sollen sich leicht von den Zähnen abheben und für alle Vokale ausser "E" und "I" eine mehr runde Stellung einnehmen.
- Auch der Unterkiefer muss gut beweglich sein und darf keinesfalls feststehen, weil sonst Artikulation und Stimme beeinträchtigt werden. Er soll nicht vorgeschoben werden, und die Schneidezähne behalten etwa die Stellung zueinander, die sie in der Ruhelage einnehmen. Sie verändern nur ihren senkrechten Abstand voneinander.
- Die Zunge soll - ausser bei einigen Konsonanten - mit ihrem Vorderrand locker an den unteren Schneidezähnen liegen. Dadurch wird der Schlundraum erweitert, und der Kehldeckel kann sich gut aufrichten. Beim Zurückziehen der Zunge wird der Schlundraum verengt, der Kehldeckel behindert und die gesamte Artikulationsbasis ungünstig verändert.
- Das Gaumensegel liegt bei den meisten Einzellauten dem Passavant`schen Wulst* an. Beim zusammenhängenden ökonomischen und guten Sprechen kann zwar eine kleine Lücke zwischen Rachenwand und Velum bleiben, die Stimme ist jedoch auch ohne solche Lücke klangvoll und tragfähig, wie die Ergebnisse vieler Forscher zeigen.
- Als letzte Voraussetzung für jene Artikulationsbasis, die als Grundlage der deutschen Hochsprache die Gewähr für eine gute, gleichmässige Aussprache gibt, muss ein natürlicher, verhältnismässig tiefer Stand des Kehlkopfes gefordert werden, wie er sich bei voller Entspannung des Ansatzrohres zwanglos ergibt. (Dardel, 2008: 36)
Dardel, Brigitta. 2008. Konsonanten und ihre Beziehungen zu den Vokalen. Diplom-Arbeit.
*Dieling, Helga. 1992. Phonetik im Fremdsprachenunterricht Deutsch. Berlin.
Hoole, P.; Mooshammer, C. 2002. Articulatory analysis of the German vowel system, in P. G. . H. S. P. Auer, ed. Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Tübingen: Niemeyer. 129-152.
*Wängler. 1974
-Anglais.
Voice setting typical of the English spoken by an American male adult (Esling/Wong, 1983: 90)
1. spread lips
2. open jaw
3. palatalised tongue body position
4. retroflex articulation
5. nasal voice
6. lowered larynx
7. creaky voice
-Dialectes:
Setting can also vary noticeably from one language variety to another. Just within British English we can find several examples: West Country English (e.g. Bristol) often has a type of retroflex setting; South Wales English has a tendency towards palatalisation; whilst Liverpool English is velarised (Scouse is popularly termed ‘adenoidal’, presumably in reference to the voice quality induced by the velar setting). Pharyngealisation is characteristic of English as spoken in much of North Wales.
Collins, Beverley; Mees, Inger M. 2013. Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. Routledge. 3.
-Arabe.
Ajami Alotaibi, Yousef(?); Muhammad, Ghulam. 2010. Study on pharyngeal and uvular consonants in foreign accented Arabic for ASR. Computer Speech & Language 24:2. 219-231.
*Al Ani, Salman H. 1970. Arabic phonology: An acoustical and physiological investigation. The Hague: Mouton.
Bin-Muqbil, Musaed S. 2006. Phonetic and phonological aspects of Arabic emphatics and gutturals. Ph.D., University of Wisconsin.
*Hassan, Zeki Majeed; Heselwood, Barry, eds. 2011. Instrumental Studies in Arabic Phonetics. John Benjamins.
Laufer, Asher; Baer, Thomas. 1988. The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and in Arabic. XX.
*Odisho, Edward Y. 1973. The role of the rear section of the vocal tract in Baghdadi Arabic. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Leeds University.
*Odisho, Edward Y. 1996. Emphasis: A salient feature of the articulatory setting of Arabic. Ms.
Saadah, Eman. 2011. The production of Arabic vowels by English L2 learners and heritage speakers of Arabic. Ph.D., University of Illinois.
-Arménien.
Die Artikulationsbasen des Deutschen und des Armenischen zeigen eigentümliche Besonderheiten und stimmen nur zum Teil überein. Es sind allgemeine artikulatorische Tendenzen, die in jeder der beiden Sprachen anders verlaufen und solche Erscheinungen zeigen, welche die andere Sprache nicht kennt. Die deutsche Artikulationsweise unterscheidet sich von der armenischen im allgemeinen durch folgende Eigentümlichkeiten:
- größere Intensität der Wortbetonung, was stärkere Reduktion der unbetonten Vokale (besonders im Auslaut) nach sich zieht,
- stärkere Lippenspannung bei der Artikulation der langen Vokale,
- die Behauchung (Aspiration) der stimmlosen Verschlusslaute (Explosivlaute) vor allem im Anlaut vor akzentuierten Vokalen (auch in den betonten auslautenden Silben),
- die Unterscheidung zwischen der Länge und der Kürze der Vokale, die als distinktive Merkmale auftreten können,
- die Opposition geschlossen – offen innerhalb des Vokalismus (mit gleicher distinktiver Funktion),
- die Rundung der Vorderzungenvokale [i:], [e:], [i], [ε], zu [y:], [ø], [Y], [oe]. Die Rundung ist hier ein distinktives Merkmal und in der Schrift durch den Umlaut bezeichnet.
- der stärkere (als im Armenischen) Verfall der Intonation am Ende des Wortes oder des Aussagesatzes, und schließlich
- der harte Stimmeinsatz bei den silbenanlautendenVokalen.
(Gabrielyan, 2004: 29)
Gabrielyan, Jura. 2004. Die Interferenz der muttersprachlichen Artikulationsbasis auf die deutsche Aussprache armenischer Sprecher. IDS Sprachreport 2. 28-32.
*Godson, Linda Isaacson. 2003?. Phonetics of language attrition: Vowel production and articulatory setting in the speech of Western Armenian heritage speakers. Ph.D., University of California.
-Baltiques (langues).
*Eckert, Rainer; Bukevičiūtė, Elvira-Julia; Hinze, Friedhelm. 1994. Die baltischen Sprachen: eine Einführung. Leipzig: Langenscheidt. [table]
-Biélorusse.
-Artikulationsspannung: Charakteristisch für die Lautbildung im Weißrussischen ist eine allgemeine Ungespanntheit bzw. Entspannung der Sprechorgane (Sjameska 1999, 100). [...]
-Kieferöffnungsweite: Durch die geringe Sprechspannung ist dem Weißrussischen eine geringe Kieferöffnungsweite bei den Vokalen eigen, währen diese im Deutschen relativ groß ist. Am meisten betrifft das den Vokal [a:]. Die gespannten deutschen Vokale werden mit höherer Zungenlage gebildet als die ungespannten, bei deren Art ikulation die Zunge tiefer liegt. Im Vergleich zum Deutschen ist die Mundartikulation im Weißrussischen weniger konstant.
-Lippentätigkeit: Die Lippen spielen im Weißrussisch en eine passive Rolle. Das Deutsche zeichnet sich dagegen durch eine aktive Lippenbewegung aus (Nork/Adamova 1976, 29). Das wird insbesondere bei den gerundeten Vokalen deutlich.
Die weißrussischen gerundeten Vokale werden weniger labialisiert als die deutschen Vokale [...]
-Zungenstellung: Bei der Artikulation weißrussischer Vokale befindet sich die Zunge in einer eher hinteren Stellung. Dagegen ist für das Deutsche überwiegend Kontakt mit den unteren Schneidezähnen während der Lautbildung festzustellen (Nork/Adamova 1976,25; 28 ; Krech et al. 1982, 18; Dieling 2003, 3). Das Deutsche ist durch eine ausgeprägtere vordere Lage der Vokalartikulation als das Weißrussische gekennzeichnet. Charakteristisch für die meisten weißrussischen Laute ist die Bildung in der Mille der Mundhöhle bei allgemein hoher Zungenhebung. Nur wenige Laute werden im hinteren Teil des Sprechapparats gebildet (SjameSka 1999, 100). Die deutsche Lautbildung erstreckt sich allerdings von den Lippen Ober das gesamte Artikulationsgebiet bis zu den Stimmtippen. Der Hauptteil der Laute entsteht im vorderen Teil des Mundraumes, was mit allgemeinen phonetischen Merkmalen der deutschen Standardaussprache korreliert (Dieling 2003, 13).
-Gaumensegel: Im Weißrussischen wird der weiche Gaumen bei der Realisation der Vokale hochgehoben und liegt fest am hinteren Teil des Rachens, so dass der Eingang in den Nasenraum vollkommen geschlossen ist. Daher geht die Luft nur durch den Mundraum, so dass weißrussische Vokale ohne nasalierte Aussprache realisiert werden. Bei der Bildung deutscher Vokale wird der weiche Gaumen zwar hochgehoben, schließt jedoch nicht vollständig den Eingang in den Nasenraum, so dass sich zwischen dem weichen Gaumen und dem Rachen ein enger Schlitz bildet. Dadurch erhalten deutsche Vokale eine leichte nasalierte Aussprache (Nork/Adamova 1976, 25; 29). Das Gaumensegel wird dabei nur zur Bildung der Nasalkonsonanten gesenkt [Krech et al. 1982, 18).
-Monophthonge/Diphthonge: Während das deutsche Vokalsystem sowohl über Monophthonge als auch über Diphthonge - einsilbige Verbindungen mit gleitender Artikulation - verfügt (vg\. 3.3.3.1), unterscheidet das Weißrussische nur einfache Vokale.
-Quantität/Qualität der Vokale: Für die weißrussische Sprache ist das Vorhandensein von quantitativer Reduktion der Vokale typisch. Nichtakzentuierte Vokale sind im Weißrussischen ungefähr um das Doppelte kürzer als akzentuierte. Sie behalten jedoch ihre Qualität und werden deutlich ausgesprochen (SjameSka 1999, 101). [...]
-Rundung der Vokale: Für die deutschen Vokale ist eine stärkere Lippenrundung typisch. Grund dafür sind die acht gerundeten Vokale und die Opposition ungespannt/gespannt. Für die gespannten deutschen Vokale ist eine starke und kräftige Lippenrundung typisch. Die weißrussischen Vokale werden im Vergleich zu den deutschen ungespannten stärker gerundet, im Vergleich zu den deutschen gespannten hingegen weniger gerundet. Im Weißruss ischen sind nur hintere gerundete Vokale vorhanden (vgl. 3.3.1.2).
(Nossok, 2009: 45-46)
Die deutsche Sprache zeichnet sich im Vergleich zu den slawischen Sprachen durch ein großes Vokal- und ein eher kleines Konsonanteninventar aus. Das Weißrussische dagegen verfügt über eine hohe Anzahl von Konsonanten und relativ wenige Vokale. Die wortunterscheidende Funktion wird im Weißrussischen hauptsächlich von den Konsonanten getragen. Sie spielen in dieser Sprache eine größere funktionel le Rolle, weshalb man das Weißrussische als konsonantischen ([...]) Sprachtyp bezeichnen kann: (Nossok, 2009: 47)
Nossok, Swetlana. 2009. Kontrastive phonologische und phonetische Analyse Weißrussisch-Deutsch und Analyse interferenzbedingter Ausspracheabweichungen. Peter Lang. [42-57]
-Catalan.
Recasens, daniel. 2010. Differences in base of articulation for consonants among Catalan dialects. Phonetica 67. 201-218.
-Chinois.
D’une manière générale, le français se distingue du chinois, sur le plan du mode de l’articulation, par une exceptionnelle tension musculaire ; et en ce qui concerne l’impression acoustique, par le caractère bien timbré («pur»), et nettement délimité des sons. Les voyelles gardent le même timbre au cour d’une émission, les consonnes sont homogènes, on perçoit parfaitement leur début et leur fin (Léon & Léon 1964). Or la tension musculaire est généralement lâche en chinois. C’est pourquoi on a parfois l’impression qu’un chinois parle comme s’il avait un bonbon dans la bouche, voire «la bouche pleine», tellement sa prononciation peut apparaître relâchée et floue. (Shen X., 1991)
Shen, Xiaonan Susan. 1991. Les systèmes phonétiques du français et du chinois. Contrastes 20-21. 47-56.
-Coréen.
As a preliminary to the discussion of the vowels it will be well to note what is meant by the term, normal pose, or, as it is sometimes called, “organic basis,” or “basis of articulation.” These all refer to that characteristic attitude of the vocal organs, as produced by their positions and tensions, which prevails among any given race, while they are in the act of speaking their language. It might be termed the musical “key” of the language. The points to be observed in determining this are, whether the lips are forward, back, or neutral, whether the throat is open or rather shut, the tongue high or low, front or back, and whether the organs are tense or lax.
The imitation of the involuntary grunt, “uh,” which occurs between the words of an unready speaker, is the best key to his normal pose. So too, if one will make a Korean open his mouth and give with open jaw the vowels 아, 어, 으, and compare the position of the tongue in saying the English “a” (ah), it will be a great help to securing the correct normal pose. The high back tongue and shut throat which is, with high tension, so characteristic of Korean speech, makes one wonder that any one can speak Korean without getting a “preacher’s sore throat.” (Underwood, 1914: 422-3, Appendix A)
Laver (1980, 44-45) proposed to take as a reference point the long-term average speech position of the approximate centre of mass of the tongue (Fig. 13). This model is generally correct but, probably, too simplistic. It may give a deceptive idea of a single centre of gravity universal for all languages and create an impression of the tongue being a round blob by not taking into consideration the two articulatory centres (TB and TBL) and their non-symmetrical interaction. (Borissoff, 2011: 37)
The research by Kedrova et al. (2007) provides some confirmation of this theory. Because ISPs in Russian were not found to be very informative and were subject to being obscured by various factors, Kedrova et al. (2007) attempted to determine, what they called "[the general articulatory setup]" analysing cross-linguistically articulatory profiles of cardinal vowels.
Comparing such contrastive languages as Russian and Korean, they discovered that in Korean the articulation of all vowels was "[considerably more oriented towards the posterior part of the oral cavity (more pharyngeal) than the articulation of their Russian analogues [...]]". Importantly, the difference was not in the position of the TBL system but in the gross positioning of the TB system:
[[...] namely the shift of the main mass of the tongue into the pharyngeal region and the convex shape of the posterior part of the dorsum distinguished Korean vowels articulation from their corresponding Russian analogues] (Kedrova et al.; 2007).
These results largely correspond to the diagram in Skalozub (1979) shown in Fig.6 and provide some additional support for the validity of ISP in determining the BA. (Borissoff, 2011: 38)
The three tongue body shapes (very approximately!) correspond to the three recognised tongue "settings": retracted (as in English), neutral (as in Russian) and advanced (as in French and German). Each of these positions has a specific effect on the performance of the corresponding TBL system.
The advantage of this approach is in its predictive capability. For example, from the point of view of the economy of speech gestures principle, it is obvious that in a language with the predominantly laryngealised (backed) centring the TBL would not be in an ideal position to produce dental stops since its natural function is lifting and lowering the blade.
From this backed BA it would be more economical to articulate them with the tip of the tongue on the alveoli as in English or Korean.
This theory finds confirmation in empirical research. For example, Kedrova et al. (2007) noted that the back gravitated tongue articulation in Korean caused some distinct velarisation of the Korean [i] which agrees with the above model. Comparing the parameters of Korean and Russian consonants Kedrova et al. mentioned that they were also affected by this specific TB backness. While in Russian consonants tend to be dorsal, articulated in the front (dental) with only two velars, Korean has five distinct velars including the tense (faucalized) [k] and its dorsals are alveolar, some are even post-alveolar which also agrees with the model shown in Figs. 11 & 12.
As for vowels (and liquids), since the BA affects the shape of the vocal tract, changing in a specific way its resonance parameters, this would lead to a systemic change in their formant patterns. (Borissoff, 2011: 39)
++
Kedrova, G. Y.; Zakharov, L. M.; Pirogov, Y. A.; and Anisimov, N. V. 2006. Contrastive study of the MRI representation of Russian vowel articulation (against French, German and Korean analogues). In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Acoustical Conference - EAA Symposium ACOUSTICS, 4-6 October, 2006, Slovakia. 33-36.
Кедрова, Г.; Анисимовым, Н.; Захаровым, Л.; Пироговым, Ю. 2007. О некоторых физических коррелятах артикуляторной базы языка (сопоставительное исследование артикуляторных моделей гласных звуков русского и корейского языков по результатам МРТ-экспериментов) [On some physical correlations of the articulatory base of a language (comparative study of articulatory models of vowel sounds of Russian and Korean by the results of MRI experiments)]. In: Теория и практика звучащей речи: сборник научных статей / Theory and practice of sounding speech. Vilnius / Вильнюс.
[Kedrova] A comparative study of corresponding data referring to other languages (German, French and Korean) showed more open character of front and mid-vowels in Russian (more substantial against German vocal system and much less evident for the French articulation patterns); marked shift backwards into pre-faringeal zone, of general configurations of Korean articulation base for the vocals (noticeable even on the contour of front vowel [i], while most evident contrast was observed for the Russian [a]); greater labialization and more close articulation of the German back vowel [u] against its Russian counterpart; more shifted backwards articulation of the Russian vowel [u] in comparison to the French analogue; apparent center-oriented position of the Russian mixed vowels [e] and [o] compared to other languages.
-Rest position.
The purpose of the this article was to determine the ideal Korean phonemes for the mandibular rest position. The subjects were 30 dentists and dental students who had normal occlusion and speech patterns. To determine the amount of mandibular opening, MKG was used for this study. The results were as follows:
1. The average mandibular rest position of Korean were~0.75(0.55)㎜ in horizontal plot(X), and~1.21(0.54)mm in vertical plot(Y).
2. The ideal medial sounds for the mandibular rest position were“ 으”“, 우”and“ 이”.
3. The ideal Korean consonants for the mandibular rest position were affricatives (ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅉ)and fricatives (ㅅ, ㅆ), vowels were back closed vowels (ㅡ, ㅜ).
4. The last consonants were affected by the proceeding vowels.
5. In Korean, the vowels were the most important factors that determine the rest position of mandible.
Lee, Jae Bong [이재봉]; Chang, Wan Shik [장완식]. 1985. 한글의 첫소리, 가운데 소리, 끝소리의 발성과 하악 안정위에 관한 연구 [A study on the mandibular rest position initial, medial]. 대한 치과 보철학회지23. XX-81.
-Vowels.
The normalized vowel spaces of American English and Korean differ from each other. In Figs. 1 and 2, the Korean vowel space appears wedge-shaped with [i, a, u] at the corners; the American English vowel space looks more rectangular with [i, u, ae A] at the corners. The Korean vowel space shows an expansion of high vowels while the English vowel space shows an expansion of the low vowels. Korean female [e] and [E] are close together, suggesting that Korean female speakers might not make a distinction between these vowels. (Yang B., 1996: XX)
-Tense consonants.
Looking at the languages of the world, most languages with more than one velar stop exhibit a two-way contrast, which is mainly based on a laryngeal mechanism, either voicing or aspiration (Maddieson (1984). However, a few languages, such as Korean, exhibit a three-way contrast. From a motor control perspective the rarity of these languages could be explained by the great accuracy in laryngeal control required for a three-way contrast to be maintained. The fact that these languages have been able to maintain this contrast throughout their diachronic evolution suggests that their native speakers were able to develop robust motor control strategies that ensure the production of a three-way contrast in all phonetic contexts and under all speaking conditions. Speakers of these languages can be assumed to have elaborated supralaryngeal control strategies that are concomitant with the laryngeal control strategy. (XX???)
As Cho, Jun & Ladefoged (2002) have discussed, however, a large body of studies has uniformly suggested that difference in VOT or degree of aspiration is not a primary cue, but just one of many phonetic correlates, so that listeners are often able to differentiate the stops even without VOT cues present in the speech signal (Han, 1996; Cho, 1995, 1996; Kim, Beddor & Horrocks, 2002), and that the young generation of Korean speakers do not seem to rely on VOT cues at all to distinguish between the aspirated and lenis stops (Silva, 2006).
[] The term fortis is used with diverse meanings (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996), but it often refers to either articulatory or respiratory strength engaged in speech production. In describing the sounds of the world’s languages, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) characterize the unaspirated Korean stop series /p*, t*, k*/ as fortis being driven by elevated ‘respiratory’ force. This is quite a rare event at a segmental level since the increased respiratory force, as they commented, is usually associated with prominence (e.g., stress or accent) at a suprasegmental level (cf. Ladefoged, 2001). The respiratory force is assumed to be reflected in heightened subglottal pressure which accompanies the more constricted glottis with stiff vocal folds (thus also termed “pressed”) along with tenser walls of the vocal tract (Dart, 1987). Its acoustic consequences are often reflected in the following vowel with a higher F0, abrupt intensity build-up, relatively undamped harmonics, and smaller or often negative H1-H2 and H1-F2 (see Cho, et al., 2002 for a review and references therein).
The lenis stop series /p, t, k/, on the other hand, are produced with none of those properties, and as opposed to the respiratory force, respiratory lenition appears to be responsible for some of the lenis stop characteristics such as a lower F0, gradual intensity build-up, more damped harmonics and breathiness which are all attributable to lax vocal folds. Finally, while the aspirated stop series /p?, t?, k?/, as the term indicates, are characterized primarily by a substantial amount of aspiration (longer VOT), they share some properties with fortis stops, especially in a higher F0 in the following vowel, which may again be caused by the tension of the vocal folds. However, the source of the glottal tension associated with aspirated stops is different from that for fortis stops in that the former is primarily due to heightened intraoral pressure caused by open (spread) glottis and longer duration of the stop closure while the latter is due to respiratory force as discussed above.
[] A handful of articulatory studies have suggested that articulatory closure duration is longer and the linguopalatal contact (between the tongue tip/blade and the palate for alveolar stops) is larger for fortis and aspirated denti-alveolar stops /t*,th/ than for the lenis /t/ (Shin, 1997; Cho & Keating, 2001); and lip muscle activities increase with fortis and aspirated labial stops /p*,ph/ (Kim, 1965) than the lenis /p/. More recently, in an articulatory study (with two speakers) examining the tongue body movement for velar stops in Korean, Brunner, Fuchs, Perrier & Kim (2003) argued that closure duration is the most important articulatory parameter as it makes a clear three-way distinction with the fortis being longest, the aspirated being intermediate and the lenis being shortest (cf. Brunner, Fuchs & Perrier, submitted).
[] Öhman’s explanation on the consonant-vowel dependency was primarily based on the degree to which the tongue body is involved in both the consonantal and vocalic articulations, so that the dependency was greater for the velar consonant (which involves the tongue body as its primary articulator) but smaller for the apical consonant (which involve the tongue tip as its primary articulator).
[] The peak velocity also revealed a significant consonant effect with a two-way distinct pattern of /p*,p?/</p/, showing slower tongue body movement for the fortis and aspirated stops. It is now evident in both the lip opening and tongue movement data that articulatory characteristics of three-way contrastive stops influence the neighboring vocalic articulation at the supralaryngeal level.
[] These results in Japanese, English and Korean, taken as a whole, have implications for language-specific rhythmic structure and gestural coordination systems. Japanese and American English differed in their rhythmic structures—i.e., mora-timed versus stress-timed. Korean is yet different from these two, as it is known to be syllable-timed. The unusual threeway durational contrast in Korean makes it even more different. An important implication can then be drawn: the coordination of lip and tongue movements is invariantly maintained regardless of the rhythmic structure of the language as well as whether the language employs two-way (in Japanese) or three-way durational contrast (in Korean) for the lip closing constriction (see Löfqvist, 2006, for relevant discussion).
(Son, M. J.)
-Liquids.
As with QF and BM, the posterior (tongue body raising) gesture of the Korean liquid is absent in prevocalic position. Korean is unusual, however, in that the posterior gesture is also absent in intervocalic position. As for timing lag in postvocalic position, results show that these two gestures are simultaneous for one subject and that there is a negative lag between the gestures for the other subject (this is the only case of postvocalic negative lag among speakers and languages). (Gick, XX)
Recent articulatory-based studies in English have found that /l/ is articulated using two lingual gestures: tongue tip raising and tongue dorsum retraction (Sproat & Fujimura 1993; Browman & Goldstein 1995). Having two lingual gestures is one of the unique characteristics of laterals since the tongue tip gesture is consonantal and tongue body/dorsum gesture is vocalic. This has been claimed to be an articulatory indication of /l/ as a sonorant consonants.
Korean /l/ also comprises two lingual gestures: tongue tip raising and tongue body raising (palatalization). While these two gestures are used for the final allophones, only the tongue tip gesture is apparent in the (syllable-) initial allophones because it is reduced to a flap in Korean. In other words, the initial allophone of Korean /l/ lacks a vocalic gesture, hence no tongue body gesture is present (Gick et al. 2001; Oh & Gick 2002).
[] While both high vowels and the final /l/ share a similar vocalic gesture, the initial allophone, a flap, does not have any vocalic gesture. If a flap were to appear word-initially, it would confront articulatory conflict with a high vowel [i] or [j] that is palatalized, resisting palatalization (Walsh-Dickey 1997). Therefore, [i] or [j] appears word-initially. (Oh S.Y., XX)
Oh, Sunyoung. XX. Articulatory characteristics of Word-initial /l/ in Korean.
Oh, Sunyoung; Gick, Bryan. 2002. An ultrasound study of articulatory gestures of Korean /l/. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Sciences. Seoul, Korea.
-Dravidiennes (langues).
Savithri, S. R.; Jayaram, M.; Rajasudhakar, R.; Venugopal, M. B. XX. A comparative study of basis of articulation in Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages. XX.
-Espagnol.
It must be said here that a comparison of laxness between two languages is not only quantitative but also qualitative, so to speak. For instance, English is certainly more lax than Spanish, but it is differently lax. The English type of laxness gives aspiration to the voiceless plosives and increases the acoustic impression of explosion ; the Spanish type, on the contrary, adds no expiration and minimizes the acoustic impression of explosion to such an extent that a German ear will easily take the Spanish voiceless plosive for voiced or even fricative consonants. (Delattre, 1966: 177)
This soft, mild quality of Spanish voiceless plosives-which causes a Germanic ear to take them for voiced-comes both from the weakness of the pressure exercised in the contact of the organs that form the occlusion, and from the early voicing in correlation with the explosion. (Delattre, 1966: 185)
[...] para el criterio de un anglohablante - en cuyo idioma la relajación alcanza un grado tal que da lugar a un timbre impreciso de las vocales y hasta a la diptongación - es aceptable la tesis de Quilis y Fernández que "en el sistema vocálico castellano apenas si es posible hablar de vocales relajadas" (pág. 51). Sin embargo, si ponemos el español en contraste con otros idiomas, donde la relajación es un fenómeno desconocido (con el oheco, por ejemplo), el problema planteado entra en otras correlaciones adquiriendo así otra proyección; la enseñanza de las realizaciones relajadas de las vocales se hace entonces absolutamente indispensable, Esta necesidad no es tan imperiosa para la pronunciación de los estudiantes mismos que, realizando todos los vocales como claras, no se harán incomprensibles. Además, siendo su pronunciación lenta y esmerada, el fenómeno de relajación en estas condiciones no debería producirse. Creemos, no obstante, que la enseñanza de la fonética de un idioma no puede suprimir el segundo aspecto de la intercomunicación, o sea la percepción y apreciación por el oyente de la realidad fónica, pues no se trata solamente de pronunciar bien, sino también de descifrar e interpretar la serie de sonidos de una enunciación rápida y menos esmerada. (Lubomír Bartoš. Review of A. Quilis-J. A. Fernández: Curso de fonética y fonología españolas para estudiantes angloamericanos, C. S. I. C , Madrid, 1964, 202 p.)
La lengua española general tiene una base de articulación sonora, es decir, tiene predominio de la sonoridad. De los sonidos, 77.41% es sonoro, de los cuales las vocales representan 47.55% y las consonantes sonoras, 29.85% (Quilis, 1999: 79). En el chino mandarín los sonidos sonoros son relativamente pocos pues, además de las vocales, sólo existen cinco consonantes sonoras: [ l ], [ m ], [ n ], [ ŋ ], [ ζ ], por tanto, en el aprendizaje de la pronunciación del español los estudiantes chinos deben prestar mayor atención a la pronunciación de los fonemas sonoros. (Cao Y.F., 2007: 92)
[...] there is a certain degree of confusion, as well as disagreement among the best known authorities on the subject of Spanish pronunciation, which, according to Colton, seems to be due to the fact that the Castilian pronunciation appears to be in a period of transition with respect to the pronunciation of a number of vowels and consonants, as well as to quantity and division of syllables. However, Josselyn is rather inclined to attribute it to the Spanish basis of articulation, which is more lax than that of any other Romance language. He says, for example, at the very outset of his Etudes de phonetique espagnole that this lax articulation leads to a considerable variation in the pronunciation of the same individual and tends to render the absolute classification of vowels difficult. On the other hand, it is this characteristic that, in my opinion, permits the Spanish articulation to become so harmonious, elegant, and soft. (Hamann, 1919: 125)
The action of the organs of speech is, in general, less energetic in Spanish than in French and in the stressed syllables of English and German, but much more precise and definite, especially in the pronunciation of the vowels, than in the weakly stressed syllables of English words, in which, as a rule, only the consonants are sounded distinctly, the vowels being slurred over and even dropped, whereas in Spanish the vowels remain clear and full, but the consonants become lax. This may be seen by comparing the Spanish with the English pronunciation of the following words, which have the same spelling and meaning in both languages: honor, pastor, vulgar, universal, adorable, cf. also pronunciation (E.): pronunciación (S.). This clear-cut articulation of Spanish is due, in my opinion, to the manner of expelling breath in the production of the Spanish sounds, more uniformly and less intermittently than in English. On the other hand this uniformity in expelling breath accounts for the greater uniformity of Spanish vowels with respect to quality and quantity, as well as for the absence of the vanishing sound which is so characteristic of the English long vowels, as in 'too, know, say, see.' Compare with these the Spanish words: tu, no, se, sí. (Hamann, 1919: 125)
Another sign of laxity is also found in the articulation of the frequent sounds for 'u' and 'i' ('y'), without the accent mark, before a vowel, when they become the semi-vowels [w], [j], as in cual [w], labial [j]. (Hamann, 1919: 126)
The action of the glottis is not very energetic either and no glottal stop precedes the initial vowels as in German; hence there is a tendency in vowel linking to convert two or three adjoining vowels into a monosyllabic group without losing the characteristic shade of each vowel as in la unión: laurel, yo he ido a Europa. Two vowels of the same kind regularly form a single vowel in ordinary speech, as in la Habana, que el, alcohol, angulo oscuro; while in rapid speech, as well as in singing, weakly stressed vowels are regularly absorbed, for the stronger the syllabic accent, the more likely is the vowel to disappear, as 'e' in sabe usted, de otra manera, me ha visto. (Hamann, 1919: 127)
Vowel quantity obeys phonetic laws in Spanish, does not follow historic or etymological traditions, and does not serve to distinguish words from each other as in English hip: heap; let: late. Hence, it will be found that vowels are not lengthened to the same extent as those of other languages. (Hamann, 1919: 127)
Owing to the smaller tension of the vocal chords the general pitch of Spanish sounds is much lower than in French. (Hamann, 1919: 127)
Cao, Yufei (Elisa). 2007. Un estudio contrastivo de los fonemas oclusivos entre español y chino: Reflexiones sobre la enseñanza de la fonética española a estudiantes chinos. México y la Cuenca del Pacífico 10:28. 91-98.
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. Stages of Old French phonetic changes observed in Modern Spanish. In: Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 175-205.
*Gil, Juana. 2007. Fonética para profesores de español: de la teoría a la práctica. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
(Montes de Oca, Domingo Román & al. 2000. Manual de introducción al estudio fonético y fonológico: Con especial énfasis en el análisis acústico del habla. Santiago.
Hamann, Fred A. 1919. Phonetics as a basis for teaching Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 4. 123-131.
*Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos. [76-80]
*Quilis, Antonio. 1999. Estructura silábica y base de articulación. In: [Eduardo Forastieri Braschi, Julia Cardona, Humberto López Morales, Amparo Morales de Walters], coord. Estudios de lingüística hispánica: homenaje a María Vaquero. 462-465.
Szalek, Jerzy. 2008. Las aproximantes españolas, entre la teoria y la práctica [Spanish "aproximantes" - between theory and practice]. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 35. 267-274.
Trujillo Sáez, Fernando; González Vázquez, Antonio; Cobo Martínez, Pablo. 2002. Nociones de fonética y fonología para la práctica educativa. Grupo Editorial Universitario.
-Finnois.
If we compare the basis of articulation in Finnish to that of Western European languages we notice that in Finnish the preparatory position of the speech organs is nearest to the position of physiological repose. If we consider the relative front or back position of the tongue, Finnish will occupy the last place in the series French, Swedish, German, English and Finnish (Sovijärvi; 1957, 314). (Borissoff, 2011: 7)
This is an interesting observation. Sovijärvi clearly positions Finnish as having the tongue even more retracted than in English and still considers it "nearest to the position of physiological repose”. This is a good demonstration of a subjective perception of the BA by native speakers. (Borissoff, 2011: 14)
(Pasanen, Elina. 2007. Ausspracheübungen in finnischen DaF-Lehrwerken: Eine Untersuchung an sechs Lehrwerkserien für die Anfängerstufe. Pro Gradu-Arbeit, Universität Jyväskylä.)
*Erämetsä, Erik; Klemmt, Rolf. 1974. Grundlegung zu einer pädagogischen Phonetik des Deutschen auf kontrastiver Basis (Finnisch). Veröffentlichungen des germanistischen Instituts Universität Jyväskylä 2.
Sovijärvi, A. 1957. The Finno-Ugrian languages. In L. Kaiser, L., ed. Manual of phonetics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 312-324.
-Français.
La base articulatoire du français de nos jours a quelque (sic) traits particuliers qui opposent le français à plusieurs autres langues.
1. La première caractéristique capitale de l’articulation française relève du caractère de la tension musculaire des organes de la parole. Grâce à la tension musculaire le timbre des voyelles française est net et précis.
2. Le second trait important c’est ce que le français manifeste une prédilection préférée pour l’articulation antérieure. La plupart des voyelles et des consonnes du français moderne sont articulées dans la partie antérieure de la bouche. Le français possède 9 voyelles et 17 consonnes formées dans la partie antérieure de la bouche et 6 voyelles et 3 consonnes qui soient formées à l’arrière de la bouche.
3. L’articulation française est appelée dorsale, la pointe de la langue se trouvant près des alvéoles des dents d’en bas. Le français connaît également l’articulation apicale pour les [S], [Z], [l] et pour le [r], lorsqu’il est une vibrante prélinguale.
4. Le français emploie beaucoup l’articulation labiale qui est très énergique. [...] Il y a lieu de signaler un cas particulier de la prononciation française, c’est la combinaison de deux articulations, antérieure et labiale, phénomène peu commun dans les autres langues et complètement ignoré par la langue russe.
5. Il y a encore une particularité à noter en ce qui concerne le jeu actif du voile du palais qui met en valeur le résonnateur des sons nasaux. [...]. (Fedorov, 2008: 7)
Fedorov = Федоров, В. А. 2008. Теоретическая фонетика французского языка.
NRP English typically has loose lips, and relaxed tongue and facial muscles – very much opposed to French with its pouting lip-rounding, and tense tongue and facial muscles (something imitated to great effect by the late Peter Ustinov in his portrayal of the French-speaking detective Hercule Poirot). A characteristic of most English is to use a tapered tongue setting for alveolar consonants with a small area of contact. Compare the blunter tongue setting for alveolars found in some other languages, e.g. Dutch, where a larger portion of the tongue is used for these sounds. The looser lip setting and the relaxed tapered tongue shape of English alveolars seem to be one reason why fortis stops in English are frequently realised with aspiration. (60-61)
Collins, Beverley; Mees, Inger M. 2013. Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. Routledge. 3.
on remarquera d'abord que la majorité des voyelles françaises sont des voyelles d'avant: la partie antérieure de la langue se soulève contre le palais dur. Sur les 16 voyelles qui composent le système, il n'y en a, en effet, que 6 de vélaires. La proportion: palatales-vélaires est donc de 10/6. En opposant les palatales aux autres voyelles (vélaires, vélaires non arrondies, centrales, suivant les langues) on obtient une proportion de 6/9 pour l'anglais, de 3/4 pour l'italien, de 2/3 pour l'espagnol. L'allemand se rapproche du français avec une proportion de 8/6, si on considère que le système comprend 14 voyelles, de 6/5 dans le cas où on en compte seulement 11. (41)
Il convient de noter de plus que l'opposition entre palatales et vélaires paraît moins accentuée en français que dans d'autres langues, comme l'allemand, l'italien et l'espagnol. Le point d'articulation de l'o et de l'u est plus avancé. A ce point de vue, l'anglais présente un état de choses analogue: son u bref, son o(u) et son (V) sont légèrement moins postérieurs que son u long et surtout que son O: et que son (A). Si on établit une comparaison entre les deux langues, il semble qu'en français l'u el l'O soient plus avancés qu'en anglais; mais que l'o soit plus antérieur dans ce dernier.
Ce qui caractérise encore le vocalisme français, c'est l'opposition tres nette qui existe, au point de vue labial, entre les voyelles palatales, d'une part, et les voyelles vélaires ou les palatales arrondies, de l'autre.
Pour ces deux dernières séries, la projection et l'arrondissement des lèvres ne sont nulle part aussi intenses qu'en français. On sait combien ces mouvements présentent de difficultés pour les étrangers. Or, sur les 16 voyelles du français, il y en a 11 pour lesquelles l'articulation linguale (palatale ou vélaire) s'accompagne d'une projection et d'un arrondissement labiaux. Notons en passant que l'e dit muet n'est pas une voyelle neutre au point de vue labial comme dans la plupart des autres langues, mais qu'il ren tre dans la catégorie des o et des oe. [...] Parallèlement, l'écartement des commissures labiales est trèss prononcé en français pour les voyelles de la série palatale, beaucoup plus que dans les autres langues. Bref, si le système vocalique français a un caractère nettement palatal, on ne saurait nier qu'il soit caractérisé aussi par l'intensité de son articulation labiale. S'il y a une langue qui s'oppose sur ce point au français, c'est sans contredit l'anglais qui est littéralement aux antipodes. (42)
On notera en premier lieu la prédilection pour les articulations linguales antérieures. En français, 10 consonnes sont ou denlales (l, d, s, z, l, n) ou palatales (S, Z, j, N). A ces consonnes il faut encore ajouter la semi-consonne (h) qui, à côté de son articulalion labiale, en comporte une autre, linguale, de caractère palatal. Il importe du reste de signaler la présence dans le système consonantique de ce phonème extrêmement rare. Par contre, on ne trouve que 5 labiales (2 bilabiales orales: p, b ; une bilabiale nasale : m ; et 2 labio-dentales : f, v), auxquelles on adjoindra la demi-consonne w, vélaire et bilabiale à la fois. Quant aux consonnes dites vélaires, il faut s'entendre quand il s'agit du français: leur point d'articulation est très en avant quand elles sont suivies de e et surtout de i : la région médiane de la langue entre alors en contact avec le palais dur, ce qu'on n'observe que pour les bords de cet organe quand le k et le g sont suivis de a et surtout de o et u. Le français possède en réalité un k et un g qu'on peut appeler "palataux" et un k et un g vélaires, mais vélaires au premier degré seulement. (43)
Une consonne dont nous n'avons pas encore parlé: r. Ordinairement l'r français est désigne sous le nom d'"uvulaire". Que cet r existe, ce n'est pas douteux ; mais ce n'est pas celui d'une prononciation parisienne correcte. Mieux vaut l'appeler avec M. Grammont r "dorsal", ce qui ne préjuge rien du point d'articulation. Ce dernier, en effet, n'est guère défini et il dépend de la nature des voyelles qui le précèdent ou le suivent. C'est donc une consonne qui s'articule selon les cas dans la région antérieure ou dans la région postérieure de la cavité buccale.
Quelques précisions concernant la forme générale de la langue pendant l'articulation. On connaît la tendance de l'anglais à former la langue en "dos de cuillère", ce qui fait qu'un t anglais par exemple n'est pas à proprement parler une dentale, mais une supra-alvéolaire et se rapproche de la position rétroflexe, sans qu'on puisse pourtant la qualifier de ce nom. Celle position caractéristique de l'anglais est inconnue du français. La partie antérieure de la langue ne se replie pas sur elle-même, mais manifeste une tendance à s'infléchir en bas, de telle sorte que cet organe affecte une forme légèrement convexe. Le pbénomène est très net pour s, z, S et Z : la pointe de la langue est au niveau des incisives inférieures, qu'elle ne touche pas. D'autre part, si le point d'articulation de t ou de d est ordinairement contre les incisives supérieures et la partie antérieure de la région alvéolaire, il n'est pas rare que le contact ait lieu avec les incisives inférieures. Cette position de la langue semble caractériser le français, du moins à ce degré. Dans les autres langues romanes, le point d'articulation est légèrement supérieur et on sait en particulier que la pointe de la langue est non en bas, mais en haut pour le s et le z de l'italien et le s de l'espagnol. (43-44)
Fouché, P. 1936. État actuel du phonétisme français. Conférences de l’Institut de linguistique de l’Université de Paris. 37-67.
Quant aux consonnes, le trait capital, c'est le petit nombre des phonèmes postérieurs. Le français ne connait aucune laryngale du genre de celles du sémitique, ni aucune consonne gutturale comme le ch dur de l'allemand ou sa sonore le y[gamma] dur du grec. (8)
La série postérieure non arrondie, représentée par exemple dans les langues slaves et en anglais, manque absolument au français. En revanche nulle part peut-être la série antérieure arrondie, - celle constituée par les voyelles respectives de fleur, de feu et de pur, - n'a pris une pareille importance. [...] La voyelle d'importance capitale, c'est l'[oe] ouvert, celui qui figure dans fleur et qui fournit l'[e] dit "muet" dont je vais reparler dans un instant. C'est lui, semble-t-il, qui représente la position linguistique naturelle de la bouche française. C'est lui qui s'implique dans la conscience chaque fois qu'une voyelle de soutien devient nécessaire; (8)
Pichon, Édouard. 1935. Structure générale du français d’aujourd’hui. Conférences de l’Institut de linguistique de l’Université de Paris 37. 5-24.
-Dialectes:
Warnant, Léon. 1956. La constitution phonique du mot wallon: Étude fondée sur le parler d’Oreye (Hesbaye liégeoise). Les Belles Lettres. [199, 202]
-Hongrois.
When dealing with the specific differences of the basis of articulation within the Finno-Ugrian languages, Sovijärvi described the Hungarian AB as follows:
Hungarian differs from Finnish in that the preparatory position of the tongue is situated slightly more in front, Hungarian resembling English in this respect (Sovijärvi; 1957, 314). (Borissoff, 2011: 7)
-Indo-aryennes (langues).
A tongue-setting different from both French and English is required for Turkish and Iranian, where dental consonants are frequent but are articulated with the tongue well tapered and the pointed tip the predominating ‘articulator’.
Again, the frequent retroflex consonants in the languages of India and Pakistan are produced with the tongue curled back in such a way that the edge of the rim of the tip approximates or touches the hind part of the alveolar ridge or fore-part of the palate; the open setting of the jaws enables this tongue-setting to be made comfortably. (Honikman 1964: 77?)
The jaw-setting for the languages of India and Pakistan is distinctive: the jaws are held rather inert and loosely apart, so that the aperture between upper and lower teeth is relatively wide and the oral cavity enlarged; this position is appropriate to the frequently occurring retroflex consonants, enabling them to be produced more comfortably than if the jaws were held closer; this setting accounts, too, for the lack of pressure in bilabial stops, and for the characteristic timbre of Indian languages. This distinctive timbre is very noticeable in the English spoken by Indians. (Honikman 1964: 78?)
-Italien.
Recasens et al. (1993) carried out an EPG study which found differences between Italian and Catalan in the articulation of /n/. A trend was identified for other alveolar (and alveolo-palatal) sounds to be articulated by Italian speakers with the whole tongue body in a more forward position than that of Catalan speakers, which may suggest that a different setting in the two languages is responsible. (Mennen, 2010: 25)
Recasens, D., Farnetani, E. and Pallarès, M.D. 1993. An electropalatographic study of alveolar and palatal consonants in Catalan and Italian. Language and Speech 36. 213-34.
-Japonais.
-Japanese TB significantly lower than English and French (p=.0064; p=.0372)
-Japanese TD significantly lower than English and French (p=.0503; p=.0346)
-Japanese TR significantly lower than only French (p=.0415)
-Vertical lip aperture was not even close to being significant in any lang. pair
-Japanese upper lip protrusion was significantly greater than French, but not English (p=.0303; p=.9112, respectively)
-Horizontal aperture unavailable, but lower lip protrusion data will be analyzed soon!
(Wilson, 2007 (ppt): 6)
According to Esling and Wong (1983), "voice quality setting" can be used to describe ESL student accents and to improve ESL pronunciation. They propose that the American English, setting includes spread lips, open jaw, palatalized tongue body position, retroflex articulation, nasal voice, lowered larynx and creaky voice (p. 91); and that the Japanese setting includes lowered larynx, "faucal" constriction (just above the pharynx), uvularization, and lip spreading (p. 90). Vance's (1987) review of several descriptions of Japanese articulatory setting may be summarized as follows: (a) lip rounding, weaker in Japanese than in English; (b) jaw position, more open in Japanese than in English; and (c) a "tongue blade articulator" in Japanese versus a "tongue tip articulator" in English. (Riney & Anderson-Hsieh, 1983)
*Basson, S. 1986. Patterns of pronunciation errors in English by native Japanese and Hebrew speakers: Interference and simplification processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
Esling, J.; Wong, R. 1983. Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly 17. 89-95.
Riney, Tim; Anderson-Hsieh, Janet. 1993. Japanese pronunciation of English. JALT Journal 15:1. 21-36.
*Vance, Timothy J. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wilson, Ian; Horiguchi, Naoya; Gick, Bryan. 2007. Japanese articulatory setting: the tongue, lips and jaw. Ultrafest IV, Sept. 29, 2007, New York University.
-Mongol.
"Zur allgemeinen artikulationsbasis: die Zunge nach hinten gezogen und gehoben, die zungenbewegungen energisch; die lippenbewegungen schlaff. Die exspiration rasch und stossweise. Das sprechtempo energisch und ziemlich forciert." (Ramstedt, 1902: XI)
Ramstedt, Gustaf John. 1902. Über die Konjugation des Khalkha-Mongolischen. Helsingfors Druckerei der Finnischen Litteraturgesellschaft.
-Néerlandais.
English (RP) typically has loose lips, relaxed tongue and relaxed throat muscles. Dutch (ABN), on the other hand, generally has tight lips, tense tongue and tense throat muscles — often with some pharyngeal constriction. The extra tension in the articulators is particularly noticeable in the stop consonants. Dutch has firm closures with little or no aspiration in /p, t, k/. In English, the closures are less firm, comparable to a ‘leaky valve’, leading to the aspiration of English fortis plosives /p, t, k/. For fricatives, however, Dutch tends to have lax, loose strictures as opposed to English, which has firmer articulations; hence English /s, f/ are sharp as compared with graver D /s, f/. For (B) AN, the situation for plosives is similar to that for (NL) ABN. On the other hand, (B) AN fricatives are, if anything, closer to English, with relatively sharp friction.
An important characteristic of English is its tapered tongue setting and its use of the tip/blade area for alveolar articulations. For corresponding sounds, Dutch — both (NL) ABN and (B) AN — has a blunter lingual setting, utilising the blade/front of the tongue. The English alveolar consonants / t, d, n, s, z, l/ and the dental fricatives /T, D/ are tip or tip/blade articulations with small contact areas. The alveolar sounds in Dutch are said with a large portion of the tongue (i.e. the blade/front part of the tongue behind the tip) articulating with the alveolar ridge. For many speakers, particularly in the Netherlands, the tip itself may be depressed and inactive behind the lower front teeth.
In (NL) ABN, the posterior of the tongue (i.e. back/root) is much more significant than in English. The back of the tongue is active for the highfrequency consonant /x/, and for /k, N/. In addition, the root of the tongue is retracted to produce the pharyngealisation for dark [Ä], /n/ and the mot vowel /O/. Furthermore, the realisation of D /r/ is uvular for many speakers. In English, the only notable back tongue activity, apart from the velar articulation of /k, g, N/, is slight velarisation for dark [Ä]. Thus, for (NL) ABN, the centre of gravity for tongue activity is posterior (back/root) whilst in English it is anterior (tip/blade). In these respects, (B) AN differs strikingly from (NL) ABN. The place of articulation of /x, V/ is post-palatal rather than velar. There is less tongue-root retraction, and post-vocalic /l/ is typically post-palatalised rather than pharyngealised. In Belgium generally, and particularly with AN speakers, tong-r predominates over huig-r. The centre of gravity for tongue activity appears to be front-central.
English could be represented on a diagram such as Fig. 21.1 as 2 + 5 (i.e. alveolarisation plus some velarisation). (NL) ABN could be considered as 6/7 + 3 (uvularisation/pharyngealisation plus palato-alveolarisation). (B) AN could be regarded as 4 + 3 (palatalisation plus palato-alveolarisation).
[Figure 21.1 Range of tongue settings (after Laver 1980: 45 with modified numbering).]
Collins, Beverley; Mees, Inger M. 2003. The phonetics of English and Dutch. Brill. [221-225]
-Portugais.
Ce rapide coup d'oeil nous permet déjà de remarquer à quel point l'extraordinaire richesse de leur vocalisme oppose le français et le portugais aux autres langues romanes. [] Pour le consonantisme les deux langues sont voisines: c'est en gros le consonantisme des langues romanes, seul l'espagnol ayant un système à part. Cependant un trait rapproche le système portugais de celui des autres langues latines de la péninsule, auxquelles se rattache Je français méridional: la spirantisation des occlusives sonores intervocaliques.
(Maldonado, 1961: 117)
Le phénomène d'harmonie vocalique est encore un trait caractéristique que les deux langues ont en commun. Dans les deux langues c'est la voyelle finale qui impose son timbre ouvert ou fermé: quant aux voyelles modifiées c'est surtout le e en français, surtout le o en portugais: été-était (é-è); maravilhoso, maravilhosa (o, o). Mais il y a une différence importante: en français c'est la voyelle accentuée qui impose sa. couleur aux voyelles précédentes, en portugais c'est une finale atone qui agit sur la voyelle accentué tout en restant sans action sur les voyelles protoniques.
[...] Les deux langues tendent à n'avoir que des syllabes ouvertes. (Maldonado, 1961: 118)
Ce qui est remarquable c'est que les deux langues aient réagi de la même façon pour préserver l'ouverture de la syllabe précédente, et même pour l'étendre à d'autres syllabes normalement fermées. Les, consonnes devenues finales ont conservé la valeur syllabique de la voyelle disparue: normalement le français «pote» et le portugais «pote» sont des dissyllabes, le t y ayant une valeur syllabique dans les deux langues.
(Maldonado, 1961: 119)
Le français est la langue romane dont les sons sont les plus tendus; c'est pourquoi - nous l'avons vu - il y a presque autant de phonèmes que des sons. Le portugais est certainement la langue romane la plus relâchée. [] Ce relâchement provoque la diversification des voyelles suivant le contexte phonétique: action du l vélaire, des nasales, des palatales. [...] A certains points de vue cet état de choses est moins accentué au Brésil, où les voyelles semblent plus solides; par contre les consonnes y sont peut-être plus faibles,
(Maldonado, 1961: 120)
L'état du phonétisme portugais rappelle beaucoup celui du russe: 1*) nombre de phonèmes très réduit par rapport au nombre de sons; 2*) voyelles accentuées longues, aux timbres conditionnés par le contexte phonétique, peu stables au cours de leur émission; 3*) voyelles atones très brèves, au timbre altéré avec tendance à la réduction. D'où, en gros, en portugais comme en russe, un triple registre vocalique: ouverte, fermée, réduite. Au Portugal, la présence du son ï - remplacé par i au Brésil - si proche du ы russe (et très voisin du î roumain) crée un point commun de plus. Cependant il y a des différences: le portugais est beaucoup plus riche en phonèmes et en sons, il a des voyelles nasales, et le cas des diphtongues est différent. (Maldonado, 1961: 120)
Le français est la langue romane qui a la base articulatoire la plus antérieure; celle du portugais est bien plus en arrière. L'activité la plus caractéristique de l'articulation française est l'activité labiale. En portugais la vélarisation et la pharyngalisation jouent un rôle important. C'est ainsi, par exemple, que le «e caduc» est antérieur et labial alors que les deux sons portugais les plus proches, le (á) le i, sont centraux et plus ou moins pharyngaux. (Maldonado, 1961: 120)
Cependant on peut observer dans les deux langues, des évolutions qui sont en contradiction avec la base articulatoire: le passage du r dental au r vélaire en français, et l'évolution de u vers ü. que l'on observe actuellement dans certaines régions du Portugal. (Maldonado, 1959: 121)
Au sujet de l’accent on peut aussi faire un rapprochement: en français comme en portugais l’élément d'intensité est assez faible. Mais l'analogie s’arrête là. (Maldonado, 1961: 121)
Maldonado, Manuel Companys. 1961. Quelques remarques sur le phonétisme français et le phonétisme portugais. [IXe congrès international de linguistique romane I]. 115-122.
-Roumain.
*Styczynsky, Jerzy. 1983. Remarques sur la base articulatoire du roumain. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 10. 35-40.
-Russe.
In Russian, while blade—dental consonants are not infrequent, the profusion of palatalized sounds would seem to require, for ease of articulation, well-spread lips as an accompaniment to the necessary tongue-setting (front - high and spread; body - convex to the palate). (Honikman 1964: 77?)
Speaking of Russian, Kulešov and Mišin proposed that, based on the typical Russian AS, the neutral vowel in Russian should be close to [i]. [...] This is generally correct although oversimplified. Because of the centralised BA, Russian does not have a clear phonological schwa /ə/ so the function of the neutral vowel is performed by a number of “reduced” vowels which appear in unstressed positions. The reduced form of [a] and [o] is usually [(A)]. Other vowels are reduced to a range of various shades of [ə], [i] and [I] (Bryzgunova; 1972, 14). It is this variety that gives Russian what Prokosch (1920) called the elusive elasticity and the insinuating grace. (Borissoff, 2011: 23)
Ответы по теоретической фонетике - файл 1.doc
24.DIFFERENCES IN THE ARTICULATION BASES OF THE ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN CONSONANTS
Differences in the system of consonants in English and in Russian are the following:
(1) The English forelingual consonants are articulated with the apico-alveolar position of the tip of the tongue. The Russian forelingual consonants are mainly dorsal: in their articulation the tip of the tongue is passive and lowered, the blade is placed against the upper teeth. The Russian forelingual apical consonants are only: [л, л', ш, Ш', ж, ж`].
(2) Russian students often use the hard /ш, ж/ phonemes instead of the soft English /∫, З/. Palatalization is a phonemic feature in Russian. There is no opposition between palatalyzed — non-palatalyzed consonants in English. The soft colouring of the English /∫,t∫, dЗ, l, З/ is non-phonemic.
(3) In the articulation of /w/ the primary focus is formed by the lips, which are rounded but not protruded, as it happens when the Russian /y/ is pronounced. The bilabial /w/ which is pronounced with a round narrowing is very often mispronounced by Russians. They use the labiodental /в/ which is pronounced with a flat narrowing instead of the English /w/.
The primary focus in the articulation of "dark" [l] is formed by the tip of the tongue pressed against the teethridge in the initial position.
English voiceless plosives /p, t, k/ are aspirated, when followed by a stressed vowel and not preceded by /s/.
(4) The English voiceless fortis /p, t, k, f, s, ∫, tЗ/ are pronounced more energetically than similar Russian consonants.The English voiced consonants /b, d, g, v, d, z, З, dЗ/ are not replaced by the corresponding voiceless sounds in final positions and be¬fore voiceless consonants.
(5) Consonant phonemes in English which have no counterparts in Russian are the following:
1. the bilabial sonorant /w/,
2. the dental consonants /ð,θ /,
3. the voiced affricate /dЗ/,
4. the post-alvcolar sonorant /r/,
5. the backlingual nasal sonorant /ŋ/,
6. the glottal /h/.
Consonant phonemes in Russian which have no counterparts in English are the following;
1. the palatalized consonants /п`, б', т', д `/.
2. the voiceless affricate /ц/,
3. the rolled sonorant /p/,
4. the backlingual voiceless /x/.
The most common mistakes are the following:
— dorsal articulation of the English /t, d/,
— the use of the Russian rolled /p/ instead of the English /r/,
— the use of the Russian /x/ instead of the English glottal /h/,
— mispronunciation of the English interdental [ð, θ]
— the use of the forelingual /n/ instead of the backlingual velar / ŋ /.
- the use of the Russian dark /ш , ж/ instead of the soft English /∫, З/,
- the use of the labio-dental /v, в/ instead of the bilabial /w/,
- weak pronunciation of voiceless fortis /p, t, k, f, s, ∫ , t∫/,
- devoicing of /b, d, g, v, ð, z, З, dЗ / in the terminal position
[http://www.studmed.ru/docs/document15198/[...]]
Wenn man die Artikulationsbasis und die Perzeptionsbasis verschiedener Sprachen vergleicht, so ist die Hauptaufgabe, die wichtigsten Merkmale festzustellen, die für diese oder jene Sprache markiert sind. Für den Vergleich zwischen dem Deutschen und Russischen sind also folgende Merkmale der Artikulationsbasis als markierte Merkmale zu bestimmen: für Deutsch: Energiemaximum; für Russisch: Energieminimum; für Deutsch: Atemdruckmaximum; für Russisch: Atemdruckminimum; für Deutsch: Muskelspannungsmaximum; für Russisch: Muskelspannungsminimum; für Deutsch: Muskelstabilität. für Russisch: Abwesenheit der Muskelstabilität; für Deutsch: diskreter Silbenschnitt; für Russisch: nicht diskreter (kontinuierlicher) Silbenschnitt. (Potatova, 2011: 22)
Häusler, Frank. 1961. Die russische Artikulationsbasis. Halle: Winterberg. [Extrait de: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1961, X/I, p. 249-260]
Kulešov, V. A.; Mišin, A. B. 1987. [Comparison of English and Russian articulatory bases and phonetic interference]. XX.
Potapova, Rodmonga K.; Potatov, Vsevolod V. 2011. Kommunikative Sprechtätigkeit: Russland und Deutschland im Vergleich. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. [I.2 Kontrastive Phonetik deutsch-russisch] [20-22]
*Wiede, E.; Lisiecke, H. 1969. Erkenntnisse aus einer konfrontierenden Analyse der Artikulationsbasis und einzelner Gebiete des phonologischen Systems der russischen und deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart und ihre Bedeutung für den Russischunterricht. Fremdsprachenunterricht 13. 226-231.
*Wiede, Erwinn. XX. Einige Bemerkungen zur Artikulationsbasis des Russischen und Deutschen. XX. 1017-XX.
Wiede, Erwinn. 1981. Phonologie und Artikulationsweise im Russischen und Deutschen: Eine konfrontierende Darstellung. Leipzig: VEB.
-Slaves (langues).
A totally different perception of the BA is expressed in the article of Bohuslav Hála (1957). He described the BA of Slavonic languages as the summation of the following features: 1) expiratory breath-stream; 2) precise articulating as in French; 3) general medium type of the vowel system; 4) rich consonant system; 5) medium stress force (stronger for Russian); 6) specific intonation curve, common to movable word-stress languages. Although in the following section Hála did mention the “dorso-palatal” type of articulation characteristic for Slavonic languages, this was not related in any way to the description of the BA. Importantly, such perception of the BA as a summation of features was not accidental. In his other work Hála specifically spoke against the understanding of the BA only as a rest position of the tongue (1962, 375). (Borissoff, 2011: 7?)
"The main active articulator appears to be the apex for the English sounds and predorsum for Polish [...]. [...] The body of the tongue appears to be concave to the roof in English (very few palatal sounds, apex articulation), while it tends to be convex in Polish (the influence of palatal articulation, apex anchored to the floor of the oral cavity)." (Ozga, 1976: 69)
"a simple instruction like "keep your jaws closer and your lips neutral" brings evident improvement where the pronunciation of Polish learners of English is concerned." (Ozga, 1976: 72)
Gérka, Jozef. 1977. Die Einwirkung der muttersprachlichen Artikulationsbasis auf die deutsche Aussprache polnischer Sprecher. Linguistische Studien 37. XX.
Hála, Bohuslav. 1957. The Slavonic languages. In: Kaiser, Louise, ed. Manual of phonetics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 303- 311.
Hála, Bohuslav. 1962. Uvedení do fonetiky češtiny na obecně fonetickém základě. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV.
Ozga, Janina. 1976. The relevance of the notion "basis of articulation" to contrastive phonetics. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 4. 61-73.
Simenova, Ruska. 1988. Grundzüge einer konstrastiven Phonetik Deutsch-Bulgarisch. Nauka i Iskustwo.
-Suédois.
Contrasting German with Swedish, Korlén and Malmberg (1993: 42f) also point out the relative energy, tenseness and precision of German articulation and the absence of unclear, gliding vowel qualities in German. They give a detailed account of the differences in lip articulation, stressing the lip protrusion and the 'horizontal' rounding movement in German in contrast to the less energetic 'vertical' rounding in Swedish. Swedish has two series of rounded vowels, one with a type of lip protrusion and one without, but both are different from the German type. More than in Swedish, the lip-rounding of German vowels tends to spread to adjacent consonants. Another difference is the stronger tendency in German to realise unstressed /en/ as a syllabic nasal.
Swedish, then, has generally less forceful articulations than German, but less relaxed than English. Swedish does not share the English tendency toward a retracted, low or neutral tongue position. Hence, unlike English, unstressed vowels are not neutralised to shwa, short (lax) vowels are less lax, apical stops are more fronted, and there is no velarisation of /l/. (Hammarberg, 2009: 77)
*Hammarberg, Björn; Hammarberg, Britta. 2009. Re-setting the basis of articulation in the acquisition of new languages: A third language study. In: Hammarberg, Björn, ed. Processes in third language acquisition. Edinburgh University Press. XX. 74-85?.
!!Korlén, Gustav; Malmberg, Bertil. 1993. Tysk fonetik. Malmö: Gleerup.
+Swedish dialects (Elert 1984; Elert and Br. Hammarberg 1991)
-Thaï.
"Die höhere Zungenlage der thailändischen Sprecher läßt sich auf Unterschiede zwischen der deutschen und der thailändischen Artikulationsbasis schließen (Keltz, 1974: 223ff). Diese sind von der Lage und Haltung der Artikulatoren während des Sprechens bestimmt. Nach dem auf das Deutsche bezogenen Oppositionsschema von Keltz (1974: 229/230) ist für das Thailändische zu kontrastieren, dass der Unterkiefer ziemlich passiv bleibt, die Mundöffnung verengt ist, dass die Lippen wenig aktiv und vorgestülpt sind und daß die Zunge höher und zurückgezogener im Mundraum liegt als beim Deutschen." (Keltz/Kummer 1989: 122, in Kaewwipat, 2007)
Kaewwipat, Noraseth. 2007. Kontrastive Lesegrammatik Deutsch-Thai für den Unterricht...
Kelz, Heinrich P.; Kummer, Manfred. 1989. Beiträge zur Phonetik des Thailändischen. Hemburg: Helmut Buske.
-Turc (et langues turques).
Unbestimmtheit der Vokalfärbung. [...] Der Hauptgrund dazu liegt in dem schnellen Sprechtempo und in der Tendenz die Artikulationsbasis in den Vordermund zu verlegen, was entschieden zur Labialisation drängt Isxaq war sehr erstaunt, als ich ihn darauf aufmerksam machte machte, daß er bei schnellem Sprechen gern c'w oder qw ausspreche, bei langsamen, sorgfältigem Artikulieren (was ihm sehr schwer fiel!) aber reines c' bzw q. (Dirr, 1928: 7)
Dirr, Adolf. 1928. Die Sprache der Ubychen. Asia Major.
-Vietnamien.
Kelz, Heinrich P. 1984. Contrastive and error analysis: Vietnamese-German. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 18. 143-152.
-3. Références.
*Ahn, C.M.; Moon, K.J.; Shin, J.G.; Lee, G.S. 2000. The correlation of tongue position with voice. Korean J Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 43:11. 1237-1240.
Boë, Louis-Jean Colombat, Bernard. 2009. Les dents et la parole: éléments d'histoire, de nos jours à l'Antiquité. Actes. Société française d'histoire de l'art dentaire 14. 1277-7447.
Broch, O. 1911. Slavische Phonetik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Brunner, Jana; Fuchs, Susanne; Perrier, Pascal. 2009. Supralaryngeal control in Korean velar stops. Journal of Phonetics 39:2. 178-195.
Catford, C. 1977. Fundamental problems in phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.
Crevier-Buchman & al. 2011. Articulatory strategies for lip and tongue movements in silent versus vocalized speech. ICPhS XVII. 532-535.
Debrock, Mark; Mertens, Piet. 1993. Phonétique générale et française. Une introduction. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Delattre, Pierre. 1971. Pharyngeal features in the consonants of Arabic, German, Spanish, French, and American English. Phonetica 23. 129-155.
Dromey, Christopher; Nissen, Shawn; Nohr, Petrea; Fletcher, Samuel G. 2006. Measuring tongue movements during speech: Adaptation of a magnetic jaw-tracking system. Speech Communication 48:5. 463-473.
Esling, John H. 1988. Phonetic analysis of Korean obstruents. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle 7:1.
Flege, James Emil. 1989. Differences in inventory size affect the location but not the precision of tongue positioning in vowel production. Language and Speech 32:2. 123-147.
Gick, Bryan & al. 2006. Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids. Journal of Phonetics 34:1. 49-72.
Gick, Bryan; F. Campbell, F.; Oh, S.; Tamburri-Watt, L. [...]
Goldrick, M., & Blumstein, S. E. 2006. Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes 21. 649-683.
Heap, Lynn M. 1997. Acoustic analysis of pharyngeal approximants, fricatives, trills and stops. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle 14.
Hiiemae, Karen M.; Palmer, Jeffrey B. 2003. Tongue movements in feeding and speech. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine 14:6. 413-429.
Hoole, P. 1999. On the lingual organization of the German vowel system. J. Acoustical Society of America 196. 1020-1032.
Hu, Fang. 2004. Tonal effect on vowel articulation in a tone language. XX 17.
Jenner, B. 1987a. The wood instead of the trees, Speak Out!. Newsletter of the IATEFL 2. 2-5.
Jenner, B. 2001. Genealogies of articulatory settings: Genealogies of an idea, Historiographia Linguistica 28:1-2. 121-141.
Jiang, Jintao & al. 2002. On the relationship between face movements, tongue movements, and speech acoustics. XX. [In this study, the relationship between facial movements, tongue movements, and acoustic data was quantified through correlation analysis. Results show that there are high correlations between facial and tongue movements.]
Kelz, Heinrich. 1970?. Basis of articulation. ERIC (ED070322).
Kelz, Heinrich P. 1971. Articulatory basis and second language teaching. Phonetics 24. 193-211.
Kelz, Heinrich P. 1976. Phonetische Probleme im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Hamburg.
Kelz, Heinrich P. 1978. Binary features for the description of the basis of articulation. Onsei no kenkyuu / The study of sounds 18. 139-143.
Kim, Hyunsoon. 2012. Gradual tongue movements in Korean palatalization as coarticulation: New evidence from stroboscopic cine-MRI and acoustic data. Journal of Phonetics 40:1. 67-81.
Kjellström, Hedvig; Engwall, Olov; Bälter, Olle. 2006. Reconstructing tongue movements from audio and video. Interspeech XX. 2238-2241.
Kockaert, Hendrik Jozef. 1996. Corrective strategies for the pronunciation of French as a foreign language among Swazi learners.
Kollia, H. Betty; Gracco, Vincent L.; Harris, Katherine S. 1994. Articulatory organization of mandibular, labial, and velar movements. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research. 49-65.
Kolosov, K. M. 1971. [To the question of the articulatory basis of a language],
*Laufer, Asher; Condax, I. D. 1981. The function of the epiglottis in speech. Language and Speech 24. 39-62.
Laver, J. 1978. The concept of articulatory settings: An historical survey. Historiographia Linguistica 5:1/2. 1-14.
Laver, J. 1980. The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge University Press.
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of Phonetics, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge University Press.
*Lee, E. 2003. A comparative study of syllable structures between French and Korean in real utterances. Speech Sciences 10:2. 237-248.
Löfqvist, Anders. 2011. Vowel-related tongue movements in speech: straight or curved paths?. J Acoust Soc Am. 129:3. 1149-52.
Meyer, E. A. 1911. Untersuchungen über lautbildung. Experimentalphonetische Untersuchungen über die Vokalbildung im Deutschen, Holländischen, Englischen, Schwedischen, Norwegischen, Französischen und Italienischen. Marburg: N. G. Elwertscheverlagsbuchhandlung.
Nissen, Shawn L.; Dromey, Christopher; Wheeler, Cynthia. 2007. First and second language tongue movements in Spanish and Korean bilingual speakers. Phonetica 64:4. 201–216. [A number of previous studies have relied on perceptual judgments or acoustic analysis to examine second language (L2) production. However, few researchers have studied L2 performance by directly tracking the physical movements of the articulators. The purpose of the present study was to investigate intraspeaker differences in native (Korean or Spanish) and L2 (English) production through kinematic indices of tongue activity. This involved measurement of the speed, duration, and distance of tongue movements or strokes during speech. Findings indicated that the speakers had significantly slower stroke speeds and longer movement durations for L2 when compared to their native language (L1), yet no significant differences in stroke distance. The bilingual speakers were found to pause more and speak proportionally less of the time in their L2. Interestingly, those speakers who exhibited greater relative kinematic changes from L1 to L2 were also rated as having a stronger perceived accent.]
Schourup, L. 1981. The basis of articulation, Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 1-13.
Sethna, J. 2002. Articulatory setting: An alternative approach to teaching pronunciation to Japanese learners of English, Papers on languages and cultures (University of Chiba) 11. 15-22. Chiba University. [http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000486347]
Skalozub, L. G. 1963. [Palatogrames and roentgenograms of consonantal phonemes of the Russian literary language].
Skalozub, L. G. 1979. [Dynamics of speech production (by cinema-roentgenography data)]. Kiev.
Son, Minjung; Kim, Sahyang; Cho, Taehong. XX. Supralaryngeal articulatory signatures of three-way contrastive labial stops in Korean. XX.
Sweet, Henry. 1877. A handbook of phonetics, Clarendon Press.
Sweet, Henry. 1885. Elementarbuch des Gesprochenen Englisch (Grammatik, Texte und Glossar), Clarendon press.
Sweet, Henry. 1890. A primer of phonetics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaissière, Jacqueline. 1997. Phonological use of the larynx: A tutorial. Larynx 97. 115-126.
Van Ginneken, J. 1933. La biologie de la base d'articulation. In: Delacroix, H., ed. Psychologie du langage, Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan. 266-320.
Vide, E. 1968. [comparative analysis of bases of articulation of contemporary literary Russian and German languages]. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 21. 352-357.
Vatikiotis-Bateson, E. 1987/8. Linguistic structure and articulatory dynamics: A cross-language study. Bloomington.
Viëtor, Wilhelm. 1899. Elements of phonetics, English, French [and] German. London: Dent.
Wadsworth, S. 1979. Articulatory settings: The mechanics of variety. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 52: 255_278.
Wilson, I.; Horiguchi, N.; Gick, B. 2007. Japanese articulatory setting: the tongue, lips and jaw. PP presentation. [https://_les.nyu.edu/ld43/public/PEPLab /.../WilsonHoriGickUF4.pdf]
http://fonetiks.info/bgyang/kpapers.htm
Yang, Byunggon. 2009. An acoustical comparison of English tense and lax vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 125:4. 2726-2726.
Yang, Byunggon. 1999?. Measurement and synthesis of the vocal tract of Korean monophthongs by MRI. ICPhS99. 2005-2008.
Yang, Byunggon. 1996. Perceptual contrast in the Korean and English vowel system normalized.Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 96 at Philadelphia. pp. 114-117. 1996.
Yang, Byunggon. 1992. An acoustical study of Korean monophthongs produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 91:4. 2280-2283.
Yang, Byunggon. 1992. A review of contrastive analysis hypothesis. Tonguynoncip 19. 133-149.
Yang, Byunggon. 2003. A comparative study of glottal data from normal adults using two laryngographs. Umsengkwahak 10:1, 2003. Byunggon Yang, Soogeun Wang and Soonbok Kwon.
Yang, Byunggon. 2007. An acoustical study on the syllable structures of Korean numeric sounds...
*Yang, Kangjuan; Piao, Zheyun; Jin, Xiongji; Huang, Shumin; Li, Xiupeng. 1998. Phenotype distribution and hereditary mode of four kinds of tongue movements in Korean and Han Chinese. Acta Anthropologica Sinica XX.
*Yunusovaa, Yana; Greend, Jordan R.; Greenwoodc, Lauren; Wangd, Jun; Patteef, Gary L.; Zinmanb, Lorne. 2012. Tongue movements and their acoustic consequences in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Folia Phoniatrica Logopaedica 64:2. XX.
+++
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jbp/publications/publications.html
?*Pierrehumbert, J. (2000) The phonetic grounding of phonology, Bulletin de la Communication Parlee 5, 7-23.
Beckman, M. and J. Pierrehumbert (1986) Intonational structure in Japanese and English, Phonology Yearbook III, 15-70.
?http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jbp/publications/phonetic_grounding.pdf
Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1992) Articulatory Phonology: An Overview, Phonetica, 49, 155-180.
http://www.unive.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=59403
O'Flanagan, M. 1904. Irish phonetics.
Wallraff, Uta. 2007. Ausgewählte phonetische Analysen zur Umgangssprache der Stadt Halle an der Saale. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle.
Limbaj si context / Speech and Context, Anul I, vol.1/2009
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2006. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.
Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In: Christie, William M., ed. Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 95-105
Iverson, Gregory K.; Salmons, Joseph. 2003a. Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic. Phonology 20. 43-72.
This paper builds on growing evidence that aspirated or fortis obstruents in languages like English and German are laryngeally marked, but that phonetic voicing in the (unmarked) unaspirated or lenis series is contextually determined.
In the Halle & Stevens scheme, voicing is expressed via the features that define vocal fold tension, namely [stiff (vocal folds)] and [slack (vocal folds)]. These, in turn, enable a connection to be drawn between pitch in sonorants and voicing in obstruents: [stiff] correlates with high pitch in vowels and inhibits voicing in obstruents, whereas [slack] conveys low pitch and facilitates obstruent voicing.
Whether this strict limitation on gesture co-occurrence can be maintained is still being worked out, as there may be systems that contrast obstruents along the Glottal Width dimension, thus calling for lexical distinctions between gestures. For one of these, Korean, Avery & Idsardi develop an insightful alternative that marks the aspirated series with Glottal Width (which implements the gesture [spread] by default), but analyses the phonetically tense series as phonemically geminate and only redundantly [constricted] (cf. also Ahn & Iverson 2001).
In final position in both German and Korean, of course, voicing is impossible due to the requirements of final fortition (German; Iverson 1997) or final non-release (Korean; Iverson 1989).
[Whether a language whose laryngeal properties are conducive to the phenomenon actually shows passive voicing is apparently facultative, because some Glottal Width languages (English, Korean) exhibit the pattern, while others do not (Modern Icelandic).]
In sum, the data show that velars in Korean are not susceptible to assimilation, while labials and coronals are. In addition, velars and labials can trigger assimilation of preceding consonants, while coronals systematically fail to do so. This property of Korean place assimilation has received considerable attention in recent phonological literature, often interpreted as evidence for the relative markedness of places of articulation: dorsal > labial > coronal (Jun 1995; deLacy 2002; but see Hume 2003; Rice 1999). (Kochetov & Pouplier 2008)
Kochetov, Alexei; Pouplier, Marianne. 2008. Phonetic variability and grammatical knowledge: An articulatory study of Korean place assimilation. Phonology 25:3. XX.