1 / 21

A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION OF /U/-FRONTING IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT

A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION OF /U/-FRONTING IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT. Reiko Kataoka 10 January 2009 LSA annual meeting. Today’s goal. “A production study on phonologization of /u/-fronting in alveolar context”

ciaran-cooke
Download Presentation

A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION OF /U/-FRONTING IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION OF /U/-FRONTING IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT Reiko Kataoka 10 January 2009 LSA annual meeting

  2. Today’s goal “A production study on phonologization of /u/-fronting in alveolar context” • To show that /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English • To demonstrate usefulness of experimental studies in investigating cognitive status of coarticulatory allophonic variations

  3. Phonologization (Hyman 1976) Phonetics: intrinsic, mechanical = universal Phonology: extrinsic, intended = language-specific When the distinction becomes unclear… *pá > pá *bá > pǎ (Haudricourt 1961, Matisoff, 1973) Stage I Stage II Stage III pá [ ] pá [ ] pá [ ] bá [ ] bǎ [ ] pǎ [ ] ‘intrinsic’ ‘extrinsic’ ‘phonemic’ animation

  4. Phonologization • Significance: Emphasizes cognitive role in sound change: Contextual variations becomes dissociated from its context (Ohala 1981) • Questions: How to know if the feature is intrinsic or extrinsic? • Coarticulation: Mentally represented or nor Controlled/Intended or Automatic • Studies address these questions: • Universal vs. language specific phonetics • Automatic vs. mechanical variations of speech

  5. Studies on coarticulatory variations • Lindblom (1963) • Vowel reduction in Swedish CVC • Reduced ‘undershoot’ as duration increases (automatic coarticulation, invariant vowel target) • Solé (1992) • Vowel nasalization in English and Spanish • Constant duration for nasalization in Spanish vs. variable duration as a function of segmental duration in English

  6. Method: F2 vs. vowel duration Phonologized • Different target for /u/ in alveolar context • Constant fronting across speech rates • F2 across different context forms separate groups Not phonologized • Single target for /u/ • Greater fronting in fast speech vs. less fronting in slow speech • F2 across different context converge toward a single loci

  7. Production Experiment Data collection: UC Berkeley, Phonology Lab Participants: native speakers of American English 19 15 talkers (5 M, 10F; 19-29 yrs old) Carrier: “That’s a ___ again.” (4 times) Ref [hvd] (medium) Test [dvd] (fast, slow, medium) he’d [i] dude, toot, dune, tune hid [ɪ] zoos, suite head [ɛ] noon (48 tokens) had [æ] HUD [ʌ] Cntrl [bvd] (fast, medium, slow) hot [ɑ] booed (12 tokens) hood [ʊ] who’d [u] (32 tokens) (total 92 tokens/talker)

  8. Vowel normalization (nearey 1978, from Adank et al 2004) n_F1 = 0.8 n_F2 = 0.3 n_F1 = 0.6 n_F2 = -0.4 m_LN(F1) = 6.4 m_LN(F2) = 7.6

  9. Formant measurement Reference vowels (medium rate; 4 times) he’d [i] hid [ɪ] head [ɛ] had [æ] HUD [ʌ] hot [ɑ] hood [ʊ] who’d [u] point of formant measurement

  10. Formant measurement Test & Control vowels (fast, medium, slow; 4 times each) dude toot dune tune zoos suite noon booed

  11. Formant measurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  12. Time variations of F1, F2, and F3 (speaker = 1)

  13. Median F1, F2, F3 to quadratic curve fit Estimated time variations of F1, F2, & F3 (speaker = 1; word = ‘dude’ rate = ‘slow’) Y=37.0X2 - 549X + 4288 Fit for F3 Fit for F2 Fit for F1 F3 at F2min = 2274.1 Hz Y=28.5X2 - 463X + 3305 F2min = 1437.4 Hz Y=-2.5X2 - 34X + 163 F1 at F2min = 277.1 Hz

  14. Results 1: F1-F2 plots of reference vowels (n=15)

  15. Results 2: nF1-nF2 plots of reference vowels (n=15)

  16. Results 3: nF1-nF2 plots of reference, test, and control vowels (n=15)

  17. Results 4: nF1-nF2 plots of reference, test, and control vowels (test, n=315; control, n=45 )

  18. Results 5: segment durations in fast, medium, and slow speech

  19. RESULTS 6: F2-DURATION PLOTS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45; REFERENCE, N=15) type Reference Control Test Reference Control Test

  20. Summary • Findings • Comparable F2 values between /u/s in bilabial and zero contexts • Distinctive F2 values for /u/s in alveolar contexts • Difference does not go away when segment duration increases (up to 300+ msec) • Interpretations • Speakers assume different target for /u/s in alveolar context from other contexts • Thus, /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English

  21. Thank you!

More Related