Advances in Sociophonetics

196 Adrian Simpson

with final ‘work’ are necessarily structurally or contextually the same when she is

producing them. In other words, she may be making recourse to different interac-

tional strategies when producing what superficially look like two reproductions of

the same expression, producing the phonetic details of floor-holding, say, in one

case, the phonetic details appropriate to yielding the floor in another.

3. Epiphenomenal ejectives and production mechanisms

The conventional way of describing the production mechanism behind ejectives

assumes a closed glottis, a raised velum, a supraglottal stricture of complete clo-

sure (plosives) or close approximation (fricatives) and an upward movement of the

larynx causing the supraglottal air pressure to rise. Catford’s (1977: 79) schematic

representation of this mechanism is shown in Figure 3.

0

0

Closed glottis 0 Atmospheric pressure + Positive pressure

++ ++> 0

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the production mechanism behind an ejective

(“glottalic pressure unphonated”) from Catford (1977: 79).

What might the production mechanism(s) be that are fuelling ejectives we have

been describing in English? The articulatory and phonatory suggestions made in

the works cited generally fail to provide details about exactly how ejectives are

being produced. Ogden (2009: 164) suggests that they may “involve a rearrange-

ment in time of the constrictions needed to produce glottally reinforced voiceless

plosives.” However, Wells (1982: 261) states that “[a]n emphatic articulation of

the glottal component will readily convert this into an ejective” without providing

further details. It is likely that both Ogden and Wells are assuming the accepted

method of ejective production outlined above. But doubt has been cast on this