Abstract
Many theories of phonology assume that the sound structure of language is made up of distinctive features, but there is considerable debate about how much articulatory detail distinctive features encode in long-term memory. Laryngeal features such as voicing provide a unique window into this question: while many languages have two-way contrasts that can be given a simple binary feature account [±VOICE], the precise articulatory details underlying these contrasts can vary significantly across languages. Here, we investigate a series of two-way voicing contrasts in English, Arabic, and Russian, three languages that implement their voicing contrasts very differently at the articulatory-phonetic level. In three event-related potential experiments contrasting English, Arabic, and Russian fricatives along with Russian stops, we observe a consistent pattern of asymmetric mismatch negativity (MMN) effects that is compatible with an articulatorily abstract and cross-linguistically uniform way of marking two-way voicing contrasts, as opposed to an articulatorily precise and cross-linguistically diverse way of encoding them. Regardless of whether a language is theorized to encode [VOICE] over [SPREAD GLOTTIS], the data is consistent with a universal marking of the [SPREAD GLOTTIS] feature.
Highlights
The way speech sounds are categorized and stored in long-term memory has long been a central topic of investigation in language research
These results may suggest that one single feature accounts for both English stops and fricatives and, following the feature marking hypothesis of laryngeal realism, that feature should be [SPREAD GLOTTIS]
Such evidence would be found if the voiced deviant were to show a smaller mismatch negativity (MMN) than the voiceless one in a language hypothesized to use [VOICE] rather than [SPREAD GLOTTIS] to distinguish a two-way voicing contrast
Summary
The way speech sounds are categorized and stored in long-term memory has long been a central topic of investigation in language research This line of inquiry has drawn on insights from many different sources, including detailed analyses of the structure of sound patterns of languages (Jakobson et al, 1951; Halle, 1959; Chomsky and Halle, 1968), data pertaining to speech perception and sound categorization (Repp, 1984) and, more recently, neurophysiological evidence (Dehaene-Lambertz, 1997; Phillips et al, 2000; Eulitz and Lahiri, 2004; Mesgarani et al, 2014). Sub-phonemic bits of information often termed distinctive features are recognized as the elemental components of linguistic sound categories. We assume these distinctive features are the long-term memory representations relevant for auditory representations of language (cf Mesgarani et al, 2014).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
