Transcript Slide 1
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” 1) To show that /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English 2) To demonstrate usefulness of experimental studies in investigating cognitive status of coarticulatory allophonic variations PHONOLOGIZATION (HYMAN 1976) Phonetics: intrinsic, mechanical = universal Phonology: extrinsic, intended = language-specific When the distinction becomes unclear… *pá > pá *bá > pǎ Stage I pá [ ] bá [ ] ‘intrinsic’ (Haudricourt 1961, Matisoff, 1973) Stage II pá [ ] animation bǎ [ ] ‘extrinsic’ Stage III pá [ ] pǎ [ ] ‘phonemic’ 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: Studies address these questions: Mentally represented or nor Controlled/Intended or Automatic Universal vs. language specific phonetics Automatic vs. mechanical variations of speech 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 METHOD: F2 VS. VOWEL DURATION 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 Phonologized Different target for /u/ in alveolar context Constant fronting across speech rates F2 across different context forms separate groups PRODUCTION EXPERIMENT Data collection: Participants: UC Berkeley, Phonology Lab 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) he’d [i] hid [ɪ] head [ɛ] had [æ] HUD [ʌ] hot [ɑ] hood [ʊ] who’d [u] (32 tokens) Test [dvd] (fast, slow, medium) dude, toot, dune, tune zoos, suite noon (48 tokens) Cntrl [bvd] (fast, medium, slow) booed (12 tokens) (total 92 tokens/talker) VOWEL NORMALIZATION (NEAREY 1978, FROM ADANK ET AL 2004) n_F1 = 0.6 n_F2 = -0.4 n_F1 = 0.8 n_F2 = 0.3 m_LN(F1) = 6.4 m_LN(F2) = 7.6 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 FORMANT MEASUREMENT Test & Control vowels (fast, medium, slow; 4 times each) dude toot dune tune zoos suite noon booed FORMANT MEASUREMENT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time variations of F1, F2, and F3 (speaker = 1) TIME VARIATIONS OF F1, F2, AND F3 (SPEAKER = 1) rate fast medium slow booed 4000 2000 2000 F1 dune 0 4000 2000 0 4000 2000 0 4000 suit 2000 0 4000 toot 2000 0 4000 tune 2000 zoos 0 4000 2000 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 3 5 7 step 9 11 1 3 5 7 9 11 word noon median frequency (Hz) F2 dude 0 4000 F3 MEDIAN F1, F2, F3 TO QUADRATIC CURVE FIT Estimated time variations of F1, F2, & F3 (speaker = 1; word = ‘dude’ rate = ‘slow’) 3000 Formant Y=37.0X2 - 549X + 4288 F3 F2 F1 2500 Fit for F3 Fit for F2 F1 Fit for F1 F3 F3 at F2min = 2274.1 Hz F2 Frequency (Hz) 2000 1500 Y=28.5X2 - 463X + 3305 F2min = 1437.4 Hz 1000 500 Y=-2.5X2 - 34X + 163 R Sq Quadratic =0.762 R Sq Quadratic =0.759 R Sq Quadratic =0.757 F1 at F2min = 277.1 Hz 0 2 4 6 step 8 10 RESULTS 1: F1-F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS (N=15) vow el 250 mean_F1 (Hz) 500 750 1000 2500 2000 1500 mean_F2 (Hz) e (head) ea (had) a (HUD ) o (hot) u (hood) uu (who'd) se x f emale male 1250 3000 ii (he'd) i (hid) 1000 RESULTS 2: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS (N=15) vow el mean F1 (LN_normalized) 1.0 0.5 0.0 ea (had) a (HUD ) o (hot) u (hood) uu (who'd) ii (he'd) i (hid) e (head) -0.5 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 se x f emale male 0.25 0.50 mean F2 (LN_normalized) RESULTS 3: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS (N=15) eF1_at_eF2_mi n (LN_normalized) 1.00 0.50 vow el 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 ea a v type 0.00 o u uu -0.25 ii i e ref erence (who'd) control (booed) test [dv d] 0.25 0.50 eF2_min (LN_normalized) RESULTS 4: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45 ) eF1_at eF2_min (LN_normalized) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 vow el -0.5 0.0 0.5 eF2_min (LN_normalized) ii o i e ea u uu v a type ref erence [hv d] control [bv d] test [dv d] RESULTS 5: SEGMENT DURATIONS IN FAST, MEDIUM, AND SLOW SPEECH rate 300 duration (msec) fast medium slow 200 Bars show Means 100 0 1 2 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 speaker Error B ars show Mean +/- 1.0 SE RESULTS 6: F2-DURATION PLOTS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45; REFERENCE, N=15) type context hvd Reference bvd Control dvd Test hvd Reference bvd Control dvd Test 0.6 snF2 0.3 0.0 -0.3 R Sq Linear = 0.048 R Sq Linear = 0.008 R Sq Linear = 0.009 -0.6 0 100 200 duration 300 400 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 Thank you!