Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T07:54:07.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pulmonic control, nasal venting, and aspiration in Khoisan languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Anthony Traill
Anthony Traill
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand, PO Wits 2050. Johannesburg, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is generally accepted in the descriptive phonetic literature that most variations in pulmonic pressure observed during the production of speeech are passive reactions to changing glottal and supra-glottal resistance (Ladefoged 1968, Ohala et al. 1979, Rothenberg 1968). Active short-term positive changes in lung volume are only found with heavily stressed syllables (Ladefoged 1968, Ohala et al. 1979 ), and in rare cases with with particular consonants such as LuGanda geminates (Ladefoged 1971), Korean fortis stops (but see Rothenberg 1968) and possibly with certain Jingpho segments (Ladefoged 1968). It is assumed therefore that pulmonic speech sounds are normally produced against a constant mean background pressure by movement of air that occurs with decreasing volume of the lungs (Ladefoged 1967, 1968) and with constant respiratory muscle innervation (Rothenberg 1968). The two reported exceptions to this are the pulmonic suction [1] found in the ritual language Damin (Catford 1977) and the recently reported two ingressive fricatives in an ideolect of a Tsou dialect (an Austronesian language) (Fuller 1990). In all other cases, pulmonic initiation is pressure.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , June 1991 , pp. 13 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Catford, J. C. (1977). Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. (1990). Pulmonic ingressive fricatives in Tsou. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1967). Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1968). Linguistic aspects of respiratory phenomena. In Bouhuys, A. (editor), Sound Production in Man, 141–151. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 155.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. and Traill, A. (1984). Linguistic phonetic description of clicks. Language 60, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J., Riordan, C. J., and Kawasaki, H. (1979). Investigation of pulmonic activity in speech. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Copenhagen, Vol. 1, 205.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, M. (1968). The Breath-stream Dynamics of Simple-Released Plosive Production. (Bibliotheca Phonetica 6). New York: Karger.Google Scholar
Traill, A. (1985). Phonetic and Phonological Investigations of !Xóõ Bushman. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Traill, A. (in press (a)). A confusion of sounds: the phonetic description of !Xũ clicks. In Gowlett, D. F. (editor), Festschrift for E. O. J. Westphal. Pretoria: Via Afrika.Google Scholar
Traill, A. (in press (b)). The feature geometry of !Xóõ clicks. In von Staden, J. (editor), Festschrift for E. B. van Wyk. Pretoria: Via Afrika.Google Scholar