Acoustical and perceptual analysis of the voicing distinction in Dutch initial plosives: The role of prevoicing

Three experiments investigated the voicing distinction in Dutch initial labial and alveolar plosives. The difference between voiced and voiceless Dutch plosives is generally described in terms of the presence or absence of prevoicing (negative voice onset time). Experiment 1 showed, however, that prevoicing was absent in 25% of voiced plosive productions across 10 speakers. The production of prevoicing was influenced by place of articulation of the plosive, by whether the plosive occurred in a consonant cluster or not, and by speaker sex. Experiment 2 was a detailed acoustic analysis of the voicing distinction, which identified several acoustic correlates of voicing. Prevoicing appeared to be by far the best predictor. Perceptual classification data revealed that prevoicing was indeed the strongest cue that listeners use when classifying plosives as voiced or voiceless. In the cases where prevoicing was absent, other acoustic cues influenced classification, such that some of these tokens were still perceived as being voiced. These secondary cues were different for the two places of articulation. We discuss the paradox raised by these findings: although prevoicing is the most reliable cue to the voicing distinction for listeners, it is not reliably produced by speakers