1 / 31

[] from []

[] from []. lip or lingual vs. lip & lingual. James M Scobbie 2 nd Ultrasound Workshop UBC Vancouver April 2004. Why ultrasound?. Approximants involve open constrictions EPG is limited to anterior constrictions Multiple articulations Complex articulatory/acoustic relationships

socorro-xovi
Download Presentation

[] from []

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. [] from [] lip or lingual vs. lip & lingual James M Scobbie 2nd Ultrasound Workshop UBC Vancouver April 2004

  2. Why ultrasound? • Approximants involve open constrictions • EPG is limited to anterior constrictions • Multiple articulations • Complex articulatory/acoustic relationships • EMA is limited to analysis of anterior coils • Ultrasound can show all of tongue • Acoustics, EPG and video (lips) can be aligned • Slow moving articulations • No need for high sample rate? • Non-invasive, good for vernacular speech

  3. Why English approximants? • /r/ sandhi is perhaps the most regular alternation in Southern British English (SBE) • Phonological/phonetic status of this segmental alternation between something and nothing • Labiodentalisation of /r/ is one of a set of far-reaching changes in contemporary SBE… • Nature of phonetic processes involved • Phonological mergers and phonotactic changes • along with vocalisation of /l/ and /l/ sandhi • Phonetic nature of vocalisation/labialisation • Relationship to rich systems of light/dark allophony

  4. Dorsal coil Pharyngeal gesture Why not EMA? • Point-based analysis • Coil position & speed • Interarticulatory timing • Physically intrusive • Stylistically off-putting • Coils in wrong place

  5. Labiodentalisation of /r/ to [] • Large amounts of “[]” • A change in production of (onset) /r/, but what? • A phonological change to //? • Early stages of merger with /l/ or /w/? • Anecdotal reports • Misperceptions of /Tr fr pr br spr/ as /fw pw… • Misperceptions of /tr dr kr gr/ etc. as /tw dw… • Merger of /kr/ and /kw/ • Merger of /r/ and /w/ • Almost 50% of speakers on UK TV had a []

  6. Is “[]” a vocalisation/loss of /r/? • English multiconstrictional approximant /r/ • Labial, alveolar and velar/pharyngeal gestures • Variants: bunched, retroflex… • Non-approximant allophones, e.g. affricated /tr/ • Diachronic vocalisation of coda /r/ complete • Weakened gestures? loss of [] in codas plus • mergers and rejigging of the vowel system

  7. Current variation and change • An increasingly crowded labial-lingual space • Onset /r/ labial & posterior approx labiodental approx • /w/ labial & posterior approx • vocalised coda /l/ labial & posterior approx • /v f/ (& */D T/) labiodentals

  8. Methodology • Speakers with [] and speakers with [] • Pilot stage – 2 of former, 1 of latter (variable) • Materials • “a ree” and “a raw” vs. “a vee” and “a vaw” • In a 32 item varied list with clusters, /l/, /w/… • Analyses • Acoustic analysis of formant targets and movement • Ultrasound analysis of lingual constrictions • Video analysis of labial constriction

  9. Methodology • QMUC Hardware & software • Video mix, Articulate Assistant, helmet • 25Hz sampling rate (40ms per frame) • Each frame shows 2 interleaved scans or so • 120° field of view • Annotation method • Tongue shape in frame of maximal labialisation for /r/ and for /v/ • Lip & tongue are roughly time-aligned ±40ms? • Tongue shape in frame of maximal []-ness • Tongue shape for following vowel

  10. Methodology • Hypotheses • “lip or lingual” [] has no lingual component (like [v]) • “lip and lingual”unlike [v], [] differs from [] in gestural timing/strength • Tests • If /r/ minus /v/ = 0, assume hypothesis 1 • Otherwise, favour hypothesis 2 • Expect intertoken variation

  11. Results • Impressionistically • The control Scots have [] • The labiodental speaker mostly has [] but is variable and in particular the onset to some /r/ sounds labial

  12. /ri/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

  13. /wi/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

  14. /r/ LQ1 (reps 1-3) LQ2 (reps 1-3) vLQ1 (reps 1-3)

  15. Scottish control speakers with [] • Frames of maximal labialisation of /w/ /r/ /v/ (/l/) in two vowel contexts /i/ // • Lingual comments • /v/ has a fairly neutral tongue shape • /l/ is… uvularised • /w/ is… velarised • /r/ varies but can be pharyngealised Speaker 1 (left) is “bunched/tip down”? Speaker 2 (right) is “retroflex/tip up”? • Labial comments • /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

  16. wo wi

  17. ro ri

  18. vo vi

  19. lo li

  20. SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [] • Fanned grid • 3 splines taken from maximal labial frame (r & v)maximal lingual frame (r only)vowel

  21. SBE speaker with variable [] • Frame of maximal labialisation precedes maximal lingual []-like configuration (by more than 1 frame) • Lingual comments • /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions • Labial comments • /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

  22. /ro/ SBE speakervLQ1 delay max lab to max r-like+ 3 frames (80-120ms)+2+1

  23. /ri/ SBE speaker vLQ1max lab to max r+ 2+2+1

  24. SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [] • 15 points at 5° on lingual spline measured from transducer centrepoint

  25. Consistency of /v/ and vowel • Mean of n=3 /v/ in each, n=6 vowel • Consistent, so individual tokens of /r/ can be compared to mean /v/ for that vowel

  26. SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [] • Subtract average [v] from maximum labial frame and maximum lingual frame of /r/ • Is there zero lingual difference? • Or is labialisation enhanced in size or timing?

  27. Labial/lingual asynchrony in /ri/ Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]

  28. Labial/lingual asynchrony in /r/ Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]

  29. Vowel conditioned changes in /r/ • Mean lingmax of /r/ raw locations

  30. Vowel conditioned changes in /r/ • Mean lingmax /r/ minus relevant mean [v]

  31. Conclusions • The SBE speaker using “labiodental” /r/ • is variable, • perhaps due to labial-lingual timing variation • Need quantitative comparison with controls • Need numerous labiodental speakers • Acoustic analysis by Mark Jones (2004) shows labiodental /r/ can be very labial in character • The two control subjects have two types of /r/ • /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions • Ultrasound is a good technique, for this study

More Related