Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.G and J.K.; methodology, X.G.; software, X.G.; validation, X.G. and J.K.; formal analysis, X.G.; investigation, X.G. and J.K.; resources, X.G.; data curation, X.G.; writing—original draft preparation, X.G. and J.K.; writing—review and editing, X.G. and J.K.; visualization, X.G.; supervision, J.K.; project administration, X.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Phonetics Laboratory at Fudan University for providing the space and facilities for the experiments. We thank the Penn Phonetics Laboratory for providing a venue for presentation and discussion while this research was in its early stages. We are especially grateful to Huan Tao, Mark Liberman, Zihao Wei, May Chan, Meredith Tamminga, Zhuocheng Zhao, and Yifei Zheng for their constructive feedback. We sincerely thank Christina Esposito, Sameer Khan, Marc Garellek, and three anonymous reviewers for their thorough and insightful comments during the review process. We thank all experiment participants for sharing their language knowledge with us.
Figure 1.
Three types of creakiness: (A) Coda glottal stop: short silence followed by a strong glottal pulse at the end of the syllable. (B) Coda creak: irregular voicing towards the end of the syllable. (C) Broader creak: irregular voicing occurred earlier than the last third of the vowel portion.
Figure 1.
Three types of creakiness: (A) Coda glottal stop: short silence followed by a strong glottal pulse at the end of the syllable. (B) Coda creak: irregular voicing towards the end of the syllable. (C) Broader creak: irregular voicing occurred earlier than the last third of the vowel portion.
Figure 2.
Principal Component Analysis of the acoustic space. (a) Color-coded for targets’ phonemic type. (b) Color-coded for targets’ prosodic position. Concentration ellipse level = 0.95.
Figure 2.
Principal Component Analysis of the acoustic space. (a) Color-coded for targets’ phonemic type. (b) Color-coded for targets’ prosodic position. Concentration ellipse level = 0.95.
Figure 3.
The loadings for PC1 and PC2 of all acoustic features. The most correlated cues for PC1 are A2*, H1*–A2*, H1*–A1*, A3*, and H1*–A3*; the most correlated cues for PC2 are HNR15, HNR25, HNR35, HNR05, and CPP.
Figure 3.
The loadings for PC1 and PC2 of all acoustic features. The most correlated cues for PC1 are A2*, H1*–A2*, H1*–A1*, A3*, and H1*–A3*; the most correlated cues for PC2 are HNR15, HNR25, HNR35, HNR05, and CPP.
Figure 4.
The variation of PC1 influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Greater PC1 indicates a more constricted glottis. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the PC1 difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 4.
The variation of PC1 influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Greater PC1 indicates a more constricted glottis. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the PC1 difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 5.
The variation of PC2 is influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Greater PC1 indicates higher periodicity during the vowel portion. The p-values at all prosodic positions are insignificant (p > 0.05, shown in blue); this indicates that the PC2 differences between checked and unchecked syllables are insignificant at all prosodic positions.
Figure 5.
The variation of PC2 is influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Greater PC1 indicates higher periodicity during the vowel portion. The p-values at all prosodic positions are insignificant (p > 0.05, shown in blue); this indicates that the PC2 differences between checked and unchecked syllables are insignificant at all prosodic positions.
Figure 6.
The variation of CQ influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the CQ difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 6.
The variation of CQ influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the CQ difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 7.
The variation of PIC influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the PIC difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 7.
The variation of PIC influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the PIC difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 8.
The variation of f0 influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the f0 difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 8.
The variation of f0 influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the f0 difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 9.
The variation of duration influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the duration difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 9.
The variation of duration influenced by phonemic type and prosodic position. Significant p-values () are marked in red, which indicates that the duration difference between checked and unchecked syllables is significant in that prosodic position.
Figure 10.
The distribution of tokens with three different types of creak (coded in non-gray colors) and tokens without visible creak (coded in gray) among checked and unchecked tones at various prosodic positions.
Figure 10.
The distribution of tokens with three different types of creak (coded in non-gray colors) and tokens without visible creak (coded in gray) among checked and unchecked tones at various prosodic positions.
Table 1.
Overview of Shanghainese tonal inventory. Tones are transcribed with Chao’s tone numbers (
Chao 1968) and are according to
Xu et al. (
1988); checked tones are marked with underscores.
Table 1.
Overview of Shanghainese tonal inventory. Tones are transcribed with Chao’s tone numbers (
Chao 1968) and are according to
Xu et al. (
1988); checked tones are marked with underscores.
| Unchecked [CV] | Checked [CV] |
---|
Upper-register | T1 (high-falling): 53 | T2 (high-rising): 34 | T4 (high): 55 |
Lower-register | T3 (low-rising): 23 | T5 (low): 12 |
Table 2.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PC1 without interaction effects. Significant p-values are marked in bold.
Table 2.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PC1 without interaction effects. Significant p-values are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | PC1 |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −1.01 | 0.17 | −6.00 | 0.00 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 1.92 | 0.24 | 7.98 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 1.01 | 0.24 | 4.16 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.84 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.92 | 0.24 | −3.90 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | −1.87 | 0.24 | −7.95 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | −0.96 | 0.24 | −4.00 | 0.00 |
Table 3.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PC2 without interaction effects. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 3.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PC2 without interaction effects. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | PC2 |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −0.20 | 0.10 | 1.91 | 0.06 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 2.79 | 0.15 | 18.78 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 3.17 | 0.15 | 21.22 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 2.14 | 0.15 | 14.26 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | 0.38 | 0.15 | 2.59 | 0.01 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.65 | 0.15 | −4.45 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | −1.03 | 0.15 | −7.05 | 0.00 |
Table 4.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for CQ with interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 4.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for CQ with interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | CQ |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −0.13 | 0.04 | −3.61 | 0.00 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | −0.07 | 0.05 | −1.41 | 0.16 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | −0.05 | 0.05 | −1.03 | 0.30 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | −0.21 | 0.05 | −3.93 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.70 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.13 | 0.05 | −2.61 | 0.01 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | −0.15 | 0.09 | −1.64 | 0.13 |
Type:Position | Type:Sandhi-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.19 | 0.10 | 1.79 | 0.07 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.13 | 0.10 | 1.24 | 0.21 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.52 | 0.60 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.04 | 0.09 | −0.45 | 0.66 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.06 | 0.10 | −0.55 | 0.58 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Phrase-final | −0.24 | 0.10 | −2.36 | 0.02 |
Table 5.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PIC with interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 5.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for PIC with interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | PIC |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −0.48 | 0.05 | −9.92 | 0.00 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.30 | 0.07 | 1.994.33 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.14 | 0.07 | 2.06 | 0.04 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | −0.13 | 0.07 | −1.91 | 0.06 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.16 | 0.07 | −2.34 | 0.02 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.43 | 0.07 | −6.39 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | −0.28 | 0.07 | −4.04 | 0.00 |
Type:Position | Type:Sandhi-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.21 | 0.14 | 1.50 | 0.13 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.30 | 0.14 | 2.12 | 0.03 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.17 | 0.14 | 1.21 | 0.23 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.65 | 0.52 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.04 | 0.14 | −0.29 | 0.77 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Phrase-final | −0.13 | 0.14 | −0.93 | 0.35 |
Table 6.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for f0 with interaction as a fixed factor. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 6.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for f0 with interaction as a fixed factor. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | F0 |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −0.27 | 0.03 | −7.95 | 0.00 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 1.43 | 0.05 | 29.82 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.99 | 0.05 | 20.61 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.10 | 0.05 | 2.10 | 0.04 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | −0.44 | 0.05 | −9.35 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | −1.33 | 0.05 | −28.25 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | −0.89 | 0.05 | −18.86 | 0.00 |
Type:Position | Type:Sandhi-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.10 | 0.10 | 1.09 | 0.28 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.89 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | 0.26 | 0.10 | 2.71 | 0.01 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.10 | 0.10 | −1.09 | 0.28 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.09 | 0.09 | −0.98 | 0.33 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Phrase-final | 0.25 | 0.09 | 2.64 | 0.01 |
Table 7.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for a duration with an interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 7.
Outputs of linear mixed-effect regression for a duration with an interaction effect. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | Duration |
---|
Est | SE | t | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | 1.29 | 0.04 | 32.79 | 0.00 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.14 | 0.06 | 2.58 | 0.01 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.87 | 0.06 | 15.46 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 0.97 | 0.06 | 17.15 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | 0.72 | 0.05 | 13.28 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | 0.82 | 0.05 | 15.03 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | 0.10 | 0.06 | 1.81 | 0.07 |
Type:Position | Type:Sandhi-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | −0.24 | 0.11 | −2.13 | 0.03 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | −0.54 | 0.11 | −4.85 | 0.00 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-medial | −0.26 | 0.11 | −2.27 | 0.02 |
Type:Phrase-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | 0.24 | 0.11 | 2.13 | 0.04 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Sandhi-final | −0.31 | 0.10\1 | −2.82 | 0.00 |
Type:IP-final vs. Type:Phrase-final | 0.29 | 0.11 | 2.62 | 0.01 |
Table 8.
Outputs of logistic mixed-effect regression model for the occurrence of creak (three creak-types combined). Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 8.
Outputs of logistic mixed-effect regression model for the occurrence of creak (three creak-types combined). Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Effect | Comparison | Creak Occurrence |
---|
Est | SE | z | p |
---|
Type | Unchecked vs. Checked | −0.14 | 0.20 | −0.81 | 0.48 |
Position | Sandhi-final vs. Sandhi-medial | −1.97 | 0.64 | −3.07 | 0.02 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 1.73 | 0.32 | 5.45 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-medial | 3.14 | 0.33 | 9.63 | 0.00 |
Phrase-final vs. Sandhi-final | 3.70 | 0.62 | 5.99 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Sandhi-final | 5.11 | 0.62 | 8.19 | 0.00 |
IP-final vs. Phrase-final | 1.41 | 0.23 | 6.08 | 0.00 |
Table 9.
Correlation between f0 and the voice-quality measurements: PC1, PC2, CQ, PIC, and creak occurrence. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
Table 9.
Correlation between f0 and the voice-quality measurements: PC1, PC2, CQ, PIC, and creak occurrence. Significant p-values () are marked in bold.
| Correlation Coefficient with f0 | p-Value |
---|
PC1 | 0.31 | 0.00 |
PC2 | 0.49 | 0.00 |
CQ | 0.03 | 0.28 |
PIC | 0.23 | 0.00 |
Creak occurrence | −0.22 | 0.00 |
Table 10.
A summary of fixed factors on phonetic realization. Significant effects are indicated with plus signs.
Table 10.
A summary of fixed factors on phonetic realization. Significant effects are indicated with plus signs.
| Factor Effect |
---|
| Type | Position | Type:Position |
---|
PC1 (mainly spectral slopes) | + | + | |
PC2 (mainly periodicity) | | + | |
CQ | + | + | + |
PIC | + | + | + |
F0 | + | + | + |
Duration | + | + | + |
Creak occurrence | | + | |