Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:17:31.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hiatus Resolution in American English: The Case Against Glide Insertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Lisa Davidson and
Daniel Erker
Lisa Davidson*
Affiliation:
New York University
Daniel Erker*
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
Davidson, Department of Linguistics, 10 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, [lisa.davidson@nyu.edu]
Erker, Boston University, 718 Commonwealth Avenue, Department of Romance Studies, Boston, MA 02215, [danny.erker@gmail.com]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has generally been assumed that after nonlow vowels in English, hiatus is resolved by inserting a homorganic glide (e.g. seeing [sijip], Itô & Mester 2009). However, despite suspicions that inserted glides may be fundamentally different from lexical glides (e.g. Cruttenden 2008), a systematic phonetic investigation of the purported glide is lacking. We examine the nature of hiatus resolution by comparing three environments: (i) vowel-vowel sequences within words (VV: kiosk), (ii) vowel-vowel sequences across word boundaries (VBV: see otters), and (iii) vowel-glide-vowel sequences across word boundaries (VGV: see yachts). The first finding is that a glottal stop produced between the vowels accounts for nearly half of the responses for VBV phrases, whereas glottal stops are present in less than 5% of the VV and the VGV conditions. Second, an acoustic comparison of VV, VBV, and VGV phrases not produced with glottal stops shows significant differences between the vowel-glide-vowel and the vowel-vowel sequences on all measures, including duration, intensity, and formants. These results indicate that American English speakers tend to resolve hiatus at word boundaries with glottal stop insertion, whereas there is no hiatus resolution at all within words. A brief optimality-theoretic analysis sketches out the phonological differences between hiatus at word boundaries and word-medially.

Keywords

hiatus resolutionAmerican Englishglottal stopsglidesacoustic analysis

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , June 2014, pp. 482 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Maria Gouskova and Gillian Gallagher for their extensive comments on this work. We would also like to thank members of the NYU PEP Lab, the colloquium audience at UCSC, the audience at the 2013 LSA annual meeting in Boston, and the Spring 2012 Acoustic Phonetics class at NYU for their feedback.

References

Aguilar, Lourdes. 1999. Hiatus and diphthong: Acoustic cues and speech situation differences. Speech Communication 28. 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alber, Birgit. 2001. Regional variation at edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in Standard and Southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20. 341.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas J.; and Bates, Douglas Μ.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakovic, Eric. 1999. Deletion, insertion and symmetrical identity. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 1–11.Google Scholar
Balota, David, Yap, Melvin, Cortese, Michael, Hutchison, Keith, Kessler, Brett, Loftis, Bjorn, Neely, James, Nelson, Douglas, Simpson, Greg; and Treiman, Rebecca. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39. 445–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Douglas Μ., and Sarkar, Deepayan. 2008. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package. Online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2011. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.2. Online: http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Borroff, Marianne. 2005. Articulatory phasing of glottal stop. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24. 70–78.Google Scholar
Bretz, Frank, Hothorn, Torsten; and Westfall, Peter. 2010. Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Britain, David, and Fox, Susan. 2008. Vernacular universals and the regularisation of hiatus resolution. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 57. 1–42.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Judith. 1991. Linking and intrusive r in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 281–302.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine, and Goldstein, Louis. 1988. Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica 45. 140–55.10.1159/000261823CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, Marc, and New, Boris. 2009. Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41. 977–90.10.3758/BRM.41.4.977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 1996. Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics 24. 209–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, Roderic. 1998. Resolving hiatus. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic. 2011. Hiatus resolution. The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3: Phonological processes, ed. by van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 1434–60. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana, and Hualde, José Ignacio. 2007. From hiatus to diphthong: The evolution of vowel sequences in Romance. Phonology 24. 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 2008. Gimson's pronunciation of English. 7th edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, Laura, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie; and Ostendorf, Mari. 1996. Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics 24. 423–44.10.1006/jpho.1996.0023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esling, John, and Harris, Jimmy. 2005. States of the glottis: An articulatory phonetic model based on laryngoscopic observations. A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver, ed. by Hardcastle, William and Beck, J. M., 347–83. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Espy-Wilson, Carol. 1992. Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels/w j r l/in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92. 736–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, Kathryn. 2009. Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26. 269–302.10.1017/S0952675709990133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garellek, Marc. 2012a. Glottal stops before word-initial vowels in American English: Distribution and acoustic characteristics. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 110. 1–23.Google Scholar
Garellek, Marc. 2012b. Word-initial glottalization and voice quality strengthening. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 111. 92–122.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multi-level/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16. 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan, and Wilson, Ian. 2006. Excrescent schwa and vowel laxing: Cross-linguistic responses to conflicting articulatory targets. Laboratory phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence, ed. by Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, Douglas, and Best, Catherine, 635–60. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2010. The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review 27. 387–448.10.1515/tlir.2010.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2008. Russian prefixes, prepositions and palatalization in stratal OT. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26. 217–25.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy. 2013. Acoustic differences between lexical and epenthetic vowels in Lebanese Arabic. Journal of Phonetics 41. 133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, William. 1985. Some phonetic and syntactic constraints on lingual coarticulation during/kl/sequences. Speech Communication 4. 247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heselwood, Barry. 2006. Final schwa and r-sandhi in RP English. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 11. 78–95.Google Scholar
Hualde, José, Ignacio, , and Prieto, Mónica. 2002. On the diphthong/hiatus contrast in Spanish: Some experimental results. Linguistics 40. 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Elizabeth Hon. 2009. Acoustic characterization of the glides/j/and/w/in American English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1999. Realignment. The prosody-morphology interface, ed. by Kager, Rene, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Zonneveld, Wim, 188–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627729.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 2009. The onset of the prosodic word. Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. by Parker, Steve, 227–60. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 434–46.10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jongenburger, Willy, and van Heuven, Vincent. 1991. The distribution of (word initial) glottal stops in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1991. 101–10.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2003. On a certain kind of hiatus resolution in Japanese. Onin Kenkyuu [Phonological Studies] 6. 11–20.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2007. On the proper treatment of non-crisp edges. Japanese/Korean linguistics 13, ed. by Endo, Mutsuko Hudson, Sells, Peter, and Jun, Sun-Ah, 55–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. 1994. Glottal stops and glottalization in German. Phonetica 51. 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2008. English schwa insertion before liquids and phonological opacity. Chicago Linguistic Society 41. 267–82.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the worlds languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah. 2008. Phonemic vs. derived glides. Lingua 118. 1956–78.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38. 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Pater, Joe. 2015. Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism. Sheffield: Equinox, to appear.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 2000. Change, chance, and optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198241249.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mompeán, Jose, and Alberto Gómez, F.. 2011. Hiatus resolution strategies in non-rhotic English: The case of/r/-liaison. Proceedings of the 17 th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Hong Kong, 1414–17.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, and Chitoran, Ioana. 2008. Phonological representations and the variable patterning of glides. Lingua 118. 1979–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Caroline, and Wells, Bill. 2002. Between-word junctures in early multi-word speech. Journal of Child Language 29. 275–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogden, Richard. 2001. Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31. 139–52.10.1017/S0025100301001116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 2001. English r-insertion in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 737–49.10.1023/A:1013313827798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2002. Constraint conjunction versus grounded constraint subhierarchies in optimality theory. Constraint conjunction versus grounded constraint subhierarchies in optimality theory: University of California, Santa Cruz, ms.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2008. Glides, vowels, and features. Lingua 118. 1937–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1995. Prosodic effects on glottal allophones. Vocal fold physiology: Voice quality control, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu and Hirano, Minoru, 39–60. San Diego: Singular.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Frisch, Stefan. 1997. Synthesizing allophonic glottalization. Progress in speech synthesis, ed. by van Santen, Jan P. H., Sproat, Richard W., Olive, Joseph P., and Hirschberg, Julia, 9–26. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-1894-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, and Talkin, David. 1992. Lenition of/h/and glottal stop. Papers in laboratory phonology 2: Gesture, segment, prosody, ed. by Docherty, Gerard and Ladd, D. Robert, 90–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519918.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quené, Hugo, and van, Huub Bergh, den. 2008. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 413–25.10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Redi, Laura, and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2001. Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics 29. 407–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 271–317.10.1162/002438900554361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2007. A conspiracy of gliding processes in Polish. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15. 325–57.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 2005. Optimality in phonology II: Markedness, feature domains, and local constraint conjunction. In Smolensky & Legendre, 27–160.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul, and Legendre, Géraldine. 2005. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stene, Aasta. 1954. Hiatus in English: Problems of concatenation and juncture. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uffman, Christian. 2007. Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants. Language Sciences 29. 451–76.Google Scholar
van Heuven, Vincent, and Hoos, Annelies. 1991. Hiatus deletion, phonological rule or phonetic coarticulation? Linguistics in the Netherlands 1991. 61–70.10.1075/avt.8.09heuCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, William, and Ripley, Brian. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Wolk, Leslie, Abdelli-Beruh, Nassima; and Slavin, Dianne. 2012. Habitual use of vocal fry in young adult female speakers. Journal of Voice 26. 111–16.10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. Understanding near mergers: The case of morphological tone in Cantonese. Phonology 24. 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuasa, Ikuko Patricia. 2010. Creaky voice: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women? American Speech 85. 315–37.10.1215/00031283-2010-018CrossRefGoogle Scholar