Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T10:17:19.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Francais

Czech spoken in Bohemia and Moravia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:? 02 August 2012

?arka ?ima?kova ,
Vaclav Jona? Podlipsky  and
Kate?ina Chladkova
?arka ?ima?kova
Affiliation:
Department of English and American Studies, Palacky University in Olomouc, Czech Republicsarka.simackova@upol.cz
Vaclav Jona? Podlipsky
Affiliation:
Department of English and American Studies, Palacky University in Olomouc, Czech Republicvaclav.j.podlipsky@upol.cz
Kate?ina Chladkova
Affiliation:
Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdamk.chladkova@uva.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a western Slavic language of the Indo-European family, Czech is closest to Slovak and Polish. It is spoken as a native language by nearly 10 million people in the Czech Republic (Czech Statistical Office n.d.). About two million people living abroad, mostly in the USA, Canada, Austria, Germany, Slovakia, and the UK, claim Czech heritage (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic 2009). However, it is not known how many of them are native speakers of Czech.

Type
Illustrations of the IPA
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , August 2012 , pp. 225 - 232
Copyright
Copyright ⓒ International Phonetic Association 2012

As a western Slavic language of the Indo-European family, Czech is closest to Slovak and Polish. It is spoken as a native language by nearly 10 million people in the Czech Republic (Czech Statistical Office n.d.). About two million people living abroad, mostly in the USA, Canada, Austria, Germany, Slovakia, and the UK, claim Czech heritage (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic 2009 ). However, it is not known how many of them are native speakers of Czech.

Sociolinguistically, the language situation in the Czech Republic bears diglossic features. There is a substantial gap between formal, highly codified language and the language used in everyday situations. Our aim is to describe the way most people speak most of the time rather than artificial orthoepic norms (for the latter see Palkova Reference Palkova 1997 : 320?345).

Geographically, in the western part of the country (Bohemia and western Moravia) pronunciation is relatively homogeneous compared to the greater dialectal diversity of the east (the rest of Moravia), where several dialectal areas can be distinguished (Cvr?ek Reference Cvr?ek and Cvr?ek 2010 : 24). Still, there are a number of features common to Moravian dialects, distinguishing them clearly from the pronunciation of Bohemia and allowing native speakers to identify someone as either Bohemian or Moravian. The present paper elaborates on the earlier illustration of Czech (Dankovi?ova Reference Dankovi?ova 1997a ) by describing the differences between Bohemian Czech (BC), spoken by more than six million Czech citizens, and Moravian Czech (MC), spoken by about three-and-a-half million Czech citizens. At the same time, our illustration provides additional information about what both varieties have in common.

The transcriptions of the sample text are based on recordings of a 32-year-old male native speaker of BC from the south of Bohemia, and a 44-year-old female native speaker of MC from the east of Moravia. Examples given throughout the text are recorded by the Bohemian speaker and, where MC differs from BC, also by the speaker from Moravia.

Consonants

The consonant inventories of BC and MC are the same. Phonemes /

/, /?/ and / f / came into Czech with borrowings. The youngest and most easily identified as foreign is /

/, whereas / f /, as the oldest of the three, occurs in a few native Czech words, such as foukat / foukat / ‘blow'and doufat / doufat / ‘hope’. Phonetic implementation of consonant phonemes does not differ in BC and MC either. In the stop series, / b d ?/ are prevoiced (i.e. voiced during closure) and contrast with voiceless unaspirated / p t k /. While / d / is realized as apico-alveolar, / t / is more likely to be lamino-dental (Macha? Reference Macha? 2006 : 139?141). A stop before another stop is generally released. The release of palatal stops is affricated (Macha? & Skarnitzl Reference Macha?, Skarnitzl and Vich 2004 : 30?31). Intervocalically, / d / is sometimes reduced to [?] (Macha? & Skarnitzl Reference Macha? and Skarnitzl 2009 : 37?38), and / v / becomes a labio-dental approximant [?] (Skarnitzl & Volin Reference Skarnitzl and Volin 2005 ). Sibilants /? ?

/ are non-retroflex post-alveolars articulated with tongue blade rather than with the tongue tip (?ygis Reference ?ygis, Hall and Hamann 2003 ). Both / r / and /

/ are trills though commonly realized with a single contact. Phonetically, the sound /

/ is a period of friction interrupted at the beginning by a contact or contacts created by a retracted apico-alveolar gesture (see Figure 1 ). The approximant / l / is mainly pronounced apico-alveolar, although a velarized pronunciation without a firm tongue tip contact is not unusual (?ima?kova Reference ?ima?kova, Kugler, Fery and van de Vijver 2009 ). Sonorants / r /, / l /, and marginally also / m / and / n /, become syllabic between two consonants or after a consonant at the end of a word, e.g. vlk [ v

k ] ‘wolf’, kopr [ kop

] ‘dill’, Ro?mberkove [ ro ?

b ? rkov ?ː] ‘House of Rosenberg’, sedmnact [ s ? d

naː

t ] ‘seventeen’. Alveolar / n / as well as bilabial / m / commonly undergo place assimilation. Before labiodentals, / n / and / m / change into [?], e.g. konference [ ko ? f ? r ?n

?] ‘conference’, tramvaj [ tra ? vaj ] ‘tram’. The alveolar nasal is realized as velar before / k / and /g/. Word-internally only sequences [ŋ k ] and [ŋ?] are permitted, e.g. tenka [ t ?ŋ ka ː] ‘thin (f)’, while across the word boundary place assimilation is optional, e.g. ten kout [ t ?ŋ kout ] ~ [ t ? n kout ] ‘the corner’. Sequences / ns /, / nz /, / n ?/ and / n ?/ are optionally pronounced with an epenthetic stop, e.g. ?enska [?? ntska ː] ‘female’, Honza [? ondza ] ‘Johnny’, zmen?ovat [ zm ? nt ? ovat ] ‘make smaller’, man?el [ mand ?? l ] ‘husband’. Plosives followed by homorganic nasals may have a nasal release, e.g. pocestny [po

? st n ni ː] ‘traveler’. In fast casual speech, sequences / dn / and / d ?/ may be rendered [ n ? n ] and [???], e.g. jednou [ j ? n ? nou ] ‘once’, hodn? /? od ??/ [? o ????] ‘a lot of’ (Volin Reference Volin and Cvr?ek 2010 : 53). Stop?fricative sequences, especially if voiceless, may be simplified to affricates, e.g. d?tska [??

ka ː] ‘children's (adj, f)’, v?t?i [ v j?

i ː] ‘bigger’.

Figure 1 A devoiced allophone of Czech / / in the BC speaker's production of the word kou? ‘smoke’.

Obstruent voicing

The key source of differences between pronouncing consonants in Bohemian and in Moravian Czech are voice assimilations. In addition, there is a difference in how voice assimilation interacts with word-final devoicing.

Both in BC and MC, obstruents devoice word-finally, e.g. zavod [ za ː vot ] ‘race’, rez [ r ? s ] ‘rust’. In connected speech, BC and MC differ with respect to final obstruent devoicing when the next word begins in a vowel, e.g. zavod aut ‘car race’. Speakers of BC insert a glottal stop before the initial vowel and devoice the word-final obstruent: [ za ː vot ? aut ]. In MC the final obstruent becomes the onset of the following syllable and keeps its voicing [ za ː vo . daut ]. In both varieties, word-final devoicing usually does not occur if the following obstruent is voiced (compare bez dechu [ b ? z d ? xu ] ‘out of breath’ and bez tebe [ b ? s t ? b ?] ‘without you’). This is because Czech prefers adjacent obstruents to agree in voicing.

Underlying mismatches in the voicing of adjacent obstruents are usually resolved by voice assimilation which is generally regressive. The voicing agreement is obligatory word-internally, thus prosba ‘plea’ is pronounced as [ prozba ] and lebka ‘skull’ as [ l ? pka ]. Across a word boundary, voicing of adjacent obstruents varies within and across speakers. In BC, regressive voicing assimilation in consonant clusters applies in fewer contexts than in MC. First, a BC exception to the regressive direction of voice assimilation is the cluster / s ?/ pronounced as voiceless [ sx ] (e.g. shoda [ sxoda ] ‘agreement’, shnit [ sx ? i ː t ] ‘rot’), although in a small number of words voiced [ z ?] occurs (e.g. shora [ z ? ora ] ‘from above’, shluk [ z ? luk ] ‘cluster’). More notably, in MC but not in BC is word-boundary regressive assimilation triggered by sonorants as well as obstruents, yielding MC pronunciations such as k?lesu [? l ? su ] ‘to the forest’.

In this context, it is important to discuss the classification of sounds / v / and / / as sonorant or obstruent. The labiodental ‘fricative’ / v / behaves as an obstruent in that it undergoes voice assimilation (e.g. in vplout [ fplout ] ‘sail into’, krev te?e [ kr ? f t? ?] ‘blood flows’) but at the same time it has some properties of sonorants. First, like other sonorants it does not trigger voice assimilation within a word, e.g. tvar [ tvar ] ‘shape’, sval [ sval ] ‘muscle’. Second, in MC always, but in BC only about half of the time, / v / triggers voice assimilation across a word boundary, e.g. napsat v?tu [ napsat vj ? tu ] ~ [ napsad vj ? tu ] ‘write a sentence’ (Volin & Skarnitzl Reference Volin, Skarnitzl, Palkova and Janou?kova 2006 ). And third, in both MC and BC, it is phonetically often weakened to the approximant [?] (Skarnitzl & Volin Reference Skarnitzl and Volin 2005 ). The sound / / is usually paired off with the alveolar trill / r / in tables of Czech consonant phonemes. However, it is in fact an obstruent. Phonetically it is a trilled fricative (see above), phonologically, it does not behave as a sonorant in that it cannot occupy the position of a syllable nucleus, and unlike / r / and other sonorants which do not devoice contextually, it loses voicing word-finally and when it is adjacent to a voiceless obstruent, e.g. kou? [ kou ] ‘smoke’, dvi?ka [ dvi ː ka ] ‘little door’, p?es [ p ? s ] ‘over’. In addition, / / triggers voicing agreement across a word boundary in both Czech varieties (e.g. a? ?ekne? ‘when you say’ pronounced as [ a ? ? kn ??] and jak ?ekne? ‘how you say’ as [ ja ? ? kn ??]), although in BC only obstruents do that.

Two obstruent phonemes lack an opposite voicing counterpart at the same place of articulation ? the voiceless velar fricative / x / and the voiced glottal fricative /?/. The two fricatives are connected through processes of final devoicing and voice assimilation. In devoicing contexts /?/ is substituted by [ x ], e.g. in snih taje [ s ? i ː x taj ?] ‘snow is melting’, lehka [ l ? xka ː] ‘light (f)’. In voicing contexts, / x / has the voiced allophone [?], e.g. prach zem? / prax z ? m ??/ [ pra ? z ? m ??] ‘dust of the earth’, but there are speakers who pronounce [?] here instead, i.e. [ pra ? z ? m ??]. Another allophone arising from voicing assimilation is [ ] substituted for / /, e.g. moc dobra /mo dobra ː/ [ mo dobraː] ‘very good (f)’.

Vowels

The Czech vowel inventory contains ten monophthongs and three diphthongs. The monophthongal vowel system has been described as consisting of five different vowel qualities / i ? a o u / occurring in two quantities, i.e. as short and long vowels. More recently, it has been accepted (see e.g. Dankovi?ova Reference Dankovi?ova 1997a ) that the short?long distinction in the high front vowel pair is not realized on the basis of duration only but entails a qualitative difference as well. This is especially clear in BC where the short counterpart of the ‘long’ high front vowel is realized as mid-high [?]. It can be seen in Figure 3 that for BC speakers the two (mid-)high front vowels differ in their F1 and F2 values to a much larger extent than they do for MC speakers. As a consequence, BC speakers rely less on the durational difference between the short and the long high front vowel. Podlipsky et al. ( Reference Podlipsky, Skarnitzl and Volin 2009 ) show that the long high front vowel is only about 1.3 times longer than its short counterpart, while the long:short ratio is about 1.7 for the other four vowel pairs. This is why in this illustration the high front vowels are transcribed as [ i ? ?] for BC. In MC, the high front vowels are spectrally more similar, the primary difference between them being duration, hence the transcription [ i ː i ]. The front mid vowels in both varieties are realized as mid-low, i.e. as [?] and [?ː], while the corresponding mid-back vowels / o / and / o ː/ remain mid, resulting in less vowel height symmetry between front and back vowels (see Figures 2 and 3 ).

Figure 2 Bohemian Czech (left) and Moravian Czech (right) monophthongs in the IPA chart.

Figure 3 F1 and F2 values of Bohemian (left) and Moravian (right) monophthongs produced by three speakers per gender per variety. The vowels were embedded in a number of different consonantal contexts in monosyllabic Czech words. Larger grey symbols represent average F1 and F2 of vowels produced by women, smaller black symbols represent average values of vowels produced by men. Although the marks are in Hz, the axes have logarithmic scaling.

In Czech, short vowels are about 3.5 times more frequent than their long counterparts (Ludvikova Reference Ludvikova and T??itelova 1987 : 93). In both varieties, long / o ː/ occurs very rarely and almost exclusively in loanwords, e.g. ton / to ː n / ‘tone’, oda / o ː da / ‘ode’. In BC, the vowel /?ː/ is also infrequent because in many native morphemes it is replaced by / i ː/ (e.g. ‘small (n)’: male / mal ?ː/ in MC and maly / mali ː/ in BC; ‘length’: delka / d ?ː lka / in MC and dylka / di ː lka / in BC).

The diphthongs are / au /, /? u / and / ou / in both Czech varieties, but / au / and /? u / occur only in loanwords and interjections, e.g. euro /? uro / ‘euro’, leukemie / l ? uk ?ː m ? j ?/ ‘leukemia’, autor / autor / ‘author’, au / au / ‘ouch’.

Phonetically, short vowels in both varieties may be subject to articulatory undershoot induced by increased speech tempo or casual speech style (see Volin Reference Volin and Cvr?ek 2010 : 44).

Phonotactics

Phonotactically, Czech allows as many as four consonants in a syllable onset ( pstruh / pstrux / ‘trout’) and three in a coda ( pomst / pomst / ‘revenge (gen pl)’), although this is rare and about half of all syllables are in fact CV (Palkova Reference Palkova 1997 : 272). A number of Czech onset clusters violate the sonority hierarchy (e.g. mzda / mzda / ‘wage’, rtut ? / rtuc / ‘mercury’, ptak / pta ː k / ‘bird’) but the complexity of these structures is often reduced in actual pronunciation. One strategy is insertion of a short epenthetic vowel, e.g. lp?t [ l pj ? t ] ‘adhere to’, dbat [ d ba ː t ] ‘observe (a rule)’. Another strategy is deletion, e.g. ktera [ k ? ra ː] ‘which (f)’. Most words beginning with the cluster / j / + C are lexicalized also without the / j / ( jmeno / jm ?ː no / ~ / m ?ː no / ‘name’, jde / jd ?/ ~ / d ?/ ‘go (3sg)’, jsem / js ? m / ~ / s ? m / ‘I am’). The preference for the canonical CV structure is also evident in strategies repairing onsetless syllables. In MC, a coda of the preceding syllable will usually be resyllabified into the missing onset ( zavod aut ‘car race’ [ za ː vo . daut ], see above), otherwise a glottal stop is used, e.g. nejup?im?j?i [ n ? j ? up i ː m ?? j ? i ː] ‘the most sincere’, Sezame, otev?i se. [ s ? zam ??? ot ? v i s ?] ‘Open, Sesame.’. In BC, glottal stop insertion is preferred and resyllabification is relatively infrequent. When it does occur the resyllabified obstruent is never voiced as it is in MC, e.g. zavod aut is in BC [ za ː vot ? aut ], possibly [ za ː vo . taut ], never *[ zavo . daut ]. In BC frequent native words beginning with / o / are also lexicalized with a prothetic / v /, e.g. o?i / o ?/ ~ / vo ?/ ‘eyes’.

Suprasegmentals

Czech has stress fixed to the first syllable of a word, with the exception that a monosyllabic preposition mostly forms a single metrical unit with the following word and bears stress, e.g. mo?e [? mo ?] ‘sea’ vs. do mo?e [? domo ?] ‘into the sea’. As is common in fixed-stress languages (see Cutler Reference Cutler, Pisoni and Remez 2005 : 273), phonetic realization of Czech stress is weak (Volin Reference Volin and Cvr?ek 2010 : 57). Vowel duration does not function as a cue to stress, it is reserved for marking vowel quantity contrasts which occur independently of stress, e.g. uhel [?? u ?? l ] ‘charcoal’ vs. uhel [?? u ː?? l ] ‘angle’, plocha [? ploxa ] ‘area’ vs. plocha [? ploxa ː] ‘flat (f)’. Nevertheless, vowel duration is variable to some extent: final syllables in intonation phrases are subject to substantial lengthening (e.g. Dankovi?ova Reference Dankovi?ova 1997b ).

Czech rhythm has proved difficult to classify using acoustic measures (e.g. Dankovi?ova & Dellwo Reference Dankovi?ova and Dellwo 2007 ). As is typical of syllable-timed languages, Czech exhibits little vowel reduction. On the other hand, compared to syllable-timed languages, Czech allows more complex consonant clusters, which contributes to relatively greater variability of consonant-interval durations.

It should be noted that prosodic structure exerts influence on word-boundary phenomena such as assimilations, glottal stop insertion and resyllabification (as described in the previous section). In both dialects, the preference for glottal stop insertion as opposed to resyllabificiation increases across stronger prosodic boundaries.

Transcription

Bohemian Czech

? ? s ? v ?? a ː k a ? slun ? s ? ?? a ː dal ? | ? do ? z ?? x j ? ? s ? l ?? j ? i ? ? ? f tom ? spat ? l ? ? po ? st ? n ?ː? o ? ? kt ?? i ? ? k ? a ː ? l ? za ? al ? n ? pla ː? c ? m ? ?? uj ? d n nal ? ? t ? d ? ? ?? ? t ? n s ? ma ː ? pova ? ovad ? za s ? l ?? j ? i ?? o ? ? do ? p v ? i ? ? doka ː?? | ?? ab ? s ? ? po ? stni ? ? s ? l ?ː k ? pla ː? c ? ? tu ? za al ? s ? v ?? a ː k ? foukad ? z ? f ? i ? ? si ? l ? ? ?? al ? ? i ? m vi ? ? foukal | ? ci ? m ? vi ? s ? ? po ? st n ni ? ? za ? alo ? al ? do sv ?ː? o ? pla ː? c ? ? ? kon ? ?? s ? ? s ? v ?? a ː? ? vzdal ? marn ?ː? o ?? u ː s ? li ː ? ? pa ? ? za alo ? slun ? ? svi ? cit ? a ?? a ː t ? ? a ? za ?? jaki ? ?? okam ?? k ? po ? st ? ni ː ? ? kt ???ː mu ? b ? lo ?? o ? ko ? ? sxo ?? l ? pla ː? c ? ? tak mus ? l ? s ? v ?? a ː k ?? uznad | ?? ? slun ? ? j ? ? s ???? j ? i ː ?

Moravian Czech

? ? s ???? a ː k ? a ? slun ? s ? ?? a ː dali ? ? do ? z ? i ? j ? ? sil ?? j ? i ː ? ? f tom ? spat ili ? po ? st n n ?ː? o ? ? kt ?? i ː ? kra ː ? l ? za ? al ? n ? pla ː? c ? m ? ?? uj ? dnali ? t ? di ? ?? ? t ? n s ? ma ː ? po ? a ? ovad ? za sil ?? j ? i ː? o ? ?? do p v ? i ː ? doka ː?? ? ?? abi si ? po ? st n ni ː ? s l ?ː k ? pla ː? c ? tu ? za al ? s ???? a ː k ? foukad ? z ? f ? i ː ? si ː? i ? ?? al ? ? i ː m ? i ː ? foukal ? ? ci ː m ? vi ː s ? ? po ? st n ni ː ? za ? alo ? al do ? sv ?ː?o ? pla ː? c ? ? ? kon ? ?? s? ? s ???? a ː? ? vzdal ? marn ?ː? o ?? u ː sili ː ? ? pa ? za alo ? slun ? ? svi ː cid a ?? a ː t ? ? a ? za ?? jaki ː ? okam ? ik ? ? po ? st n ni ː | ? kt ???ː mu ? b ? lo ?? orko ? ? z ? o ? il ? pla ː? c ? ? ta ? mus ? l ? s ???? a ː k ?? uznat ? ?? ? slun ? j ? ? sil ?? j ? i ː ?

Orthographic version

Severak a Slunce se hadali, kdo z nich je siln?j?i. V tom spat?ili pocestneho, ktery kra?el zahalen pla?t?m. Ujednali tedy, ?e ten se ma pova?ovat za siln?j?iho, kdo prvni doka?e, aby si pocestny svlekl pla? t '. Tu za?al Severak foukat ze v?i sily, ale ?im vic foukal, tim vic se pocestny zahaloval do sveho pla?t?. Kone?n? se Severak vzdal marneho usili. Pak za?alo Slunce svitit a h?at a za n?jaky okam?ik pocestny, kteremu bylo horko, shodil pla? t '. Tak musel Severak uznat, ?e Slunce je siln?j?i.

References

Cutler , Anne . 2005 . Lexical stress. In Pisoni , David B. & Remez , Robert E. (eds.), The handbook of speech perception , 264 ? 289 . Oxford : Blackwell . CrossRef Google Scholar
Cvr?ek , Vaclav . 2010 . Obecne pou?eni o ?e?tin? [General information about the Czech language]. In Cvr?ek , Vaclav (ed.), Mluvnice sou?asne ?e?tiny [Grammar of contemporary Czech], 21 ? 26 . Prague : Karolinum . Google Scholar
Czech Statistical Office . N.d. Narodnost a mate?sky jazyk [Nationality and mother tongue]. http://www.kvary.czso.cz/csu/2003edicniplan.nsf/t/57004FD47A/$File/Kapitola5.pdf (accessed 20 July 2011). Google Scholar
Dankovi?ova , Jana . 1997 a. Czech . Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27 (1?2) , 77 ? 80 . CrossRef Google Scholar
Dankovi?ova , Jana . 1997 b. The domain of articulation rate variation in Czech . Journal of Phonetics 25 (3) , 287 ? 312 . CrossRef Google Scholar
Dankovi?ova , Jana & Dellwo , Volker . 2007 . Czech speech rhythm and the rhythm class hypothesis. The 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 16), Saarbrucken, Germany, 1241?1244. Google Scholar
Ludvikova , Marie . 1987 . ?isla o hlaskach [Speech sounds in figures]. In T??itelova , Marie (ed.), O ?e?tin? v ?islech [Czech language in figures], 91 ? 108 . Praha : Academia . Google Scholar
Macha? , Pavel . 2006 . Temporalni a spektralni struktura ?eskych exploziv [Temporal and spectral structure of Czech plosives]. Ph.D. dissertation, Charles University. Google Scholar
Macha? , Pavel & Skarnitzl , Radek . 2004 . Selected acoustic properties of the Czech palatal plosives. In Vich , Robert (ed.), The 13th Czech-German Workshop ? Speech Processing , 29 ? 35 . Prague : The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic . Google Scholar
Macha? , Pavel & Skarnitzl , Radek . 2009 . Principles of phonetic segmentation . Prague : Epocha . Google Scholar
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic . 2009 . ?e?i v zahrani?i [Czechs living abroad]. http://www.mzv.cz/public/8f/6d/d4/449991_313064_novastatistika22009.doc (accessed 20 July 2011). Google Scholar
Palkova , Zdena . 1997 . Fonetika a fonologie ?e?tiny s obecnym uvodem do problematiky oboru [Phonetics and phonology of Czech]. Prague : Karolinum . Google Scholar
Podlipsky , Vaclav Jona? , Skarnitzl , Radek & Volin , Jan . 2009 . High front vowels in Czech: A contrast in quantity or quality? Interspeech 2009 , Brighton, UK, 132?135. Google Scholar
?ima?kova , ?arka . 2009 . Variable quality of the Czech lateral liquid: A perception experiment with young Czech listeners. In Kugler , Frank , Fery , Caroline & van de Vijver , Ruben (eds.), Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology , 125 ? 139 . Berlin & New York : Mouton de Gruyter . CrossRef Google Scholar
Skarnitzl , Radek & Volin , Jan . 2005 . Czech voiced labiodental continuant discrimination from basic acoustic data. Interspeech 2005 , Lisbon, Portugal, 2921?2924. Google Scholar
Volin , Jan . 2010 . Fonetika a fonologie. In Cvr?ek , Vaclav (ed.), Mluvnice sou?asne ?e?tiny [Grammar of contemporary Czech], 35 ? 64 . Prague : Karolinum . Google Scholar
Volin , Jan & Skarnitzl , Radek . 2006 . Fonologicka vyjime?nost ?eske zn?le labiodentaly [Phonological singularity of the Czech voiced labiodental]. In Palkova , Zdena & Janou?kova , Jana (eds.), Kapitoly z fonetiky a fonologie slovanskych jazyk? [Chapters from phonetics and phonology of Slavic languages], 253 ? 268 . Prague : Charles University . Google Scholar
?ygis , Marzena . 2003 . Phonetic and phonological aspects of Slavic sibilant fricatives. In Hall , Tracy A. & Hamann , Silke (eds.), Papers in phonology and phonetics (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32), 175 ? 213 . Berlin : ZAS . Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 A devoiced allophone of Czech // in the BC speaker's production of the word kou? ‘smoke’.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Bohemian Czech (left) and Moravian Czech (right) monophthongs in the IPA chart.

Figure 2

Figure 3 F1 and F2 values of Bohemian (left) and Moravian (right) monophthongs produced by three speakers per gender per variety. The vowels were embedded in a number of different consonantal contexts in monosyllabic Czech words. Larger grey symbols represent average F1 and F2 of vowels produced by women, smaller black symbols represent average values of vowels produced by men. Although the marks are in Hz, the axes have logarithmic scaling.

Supplementary material: File

?arka ?ima?kova, Vaclav Jona? Podlipsky and Kate?ina Chladkova

Sound files zip. These audio files are licensed to the IPA by their authors and accompany the phonetic descriptions published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association. The audio files may be downloaded for personal use but may not be incorporated in another product without the permission of Cambridge University Press

Download Šárka Šimáčková, Václav Jonáš Podlipský and Kateřina Chládková(File)
File 13 MB