VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvia Moosmüller (1992) showed that listeners rely more on vowel-inherent factors and that coarticulatory cues play a minor role in the perception of vowels. Hillenbrand & Nearey (1999) conclude that “spectral change patterns play a secondary but quite important role in the recognition of vowel quality. […] However, a simple observation that should not be lost in this discussion of spectral change is that the single-slice spectral measurements reported in studies such as Peterson and Barney (1952) capture most of the information that is needed to represent vowel quality. In the present study, F0, duration, and steady-state formant measurements were sufficient to signal the intended vowel for roughly three-fourths of the utterances, with nearly all of the misidentifications involving adjacent vowel categories.” (Hillenbrand & Nearey 1999: 3521) Pitermann (2000) comes to the conclusion that static information is sufficient for identifying the vowels. Carré & Divenyi (2000) stress the importance of dynamic changes. It is already a challenge to look for invariant acoustic properties for stop consonants. Modifications to the original templates proposed by Blumstein & Stevens (1979) have been made in order to extend the concept to languages which differentiate further or places of articulation other than the bilabial, alveolar or velar (Lahiri et al. 1984, Blumstein 1986). This task seems even more unsolvable for vowels. As is well known, the acoustic properties of vowels change in dependence on linguistic and extralinguistic factors, languages or language variants. Thus, the acoustic properties of the vowel /i/ are not the same in English and Standard Austrian German; in English, /i/ is characterized by a spectral dominance of F2 and F3, in Standard Austrian German by a spectral dominance of F3 and F4. Therefore, the claim of the theory of acoustic invariance, “that a particular phonetic dimension should be realized by the same invariant property across all languages” (Lahiri et al. 1984: 391), cannot be upheld for vowels. Confronted with this lack of (articulatory and acoustic) invariance, it has to be asked, consequently, what makes an /i/ an /i/ (see also the discussion in Donegan 2002). 178
6.2. Undershoot vs. Processes 179 Vowels in Standard Austrian German A frequently cited example for undershoot is the fronting of back rounded vowels in the alveolar context in English. In their study on the effects of consonant environment on vowels, Stevens & House (1963) found that especially the F2 of the vowel /u/ was displaced by about 350 Hz in the alveolar context. The Stevens & House study was repeated by Hillenbrand et al. (2001). Their results were similar to Stevens & House’s; as concerns the back rounded vowel, they found even larger F2 displacements: “As with SH [Stevens & House], the largest effect by far is a raising of F2 for /u/ in the environment of alveolar consonants. At about 500 Hz for the men and nearly 600 Hz for the women (relative to null environments), this upward shift is even larger than the roughly 350 Hz effect reported by SH.” (Hillenbrand et al. 2001: 754) This displacement of F2 is often interpreted within an undershoot model and allocated to physiological constraints (Chomsky & Halle 1968). Since the targets are a long way away from each other, the tongue cannot move sufficiently back in order to form a constriction in the velar region for the vowel /u/. Moon & Lindblom (1994), in analyzing /wVC/-sequences, concluded that “from a biomechanical point of view, formant undershoot ought to be a function of “locustarget” distance, vowel duration and F2 rate of change.” (Moon & Lindblom 1994: 53). However, F2 displacement could not be observed for all languages. Flemming (2001) showed that French, German and Hindi display F2 undershoot to a lesser degree than English, with German displaying the least F2 displacement from the defined target 117 . It is further argued that languages with high front rounded vowels do not apply fronting in order to maintain the necessary contrasts. Within this line of argumentation, Oh (2002) showed that Chinese, French and German display considerably less F2 displacement for /u/ in alveolar context than English. However, even within these three languages, which all exhibit front rounded vowels, differences occurred: 117 Target F2 was estimated by measuring F2 either in isolation or adjacent to [h] (Fleming 2001: 23).
Page 1 and 2:
VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN
Page 3 and 4:
Vowels in Standard Austrian German
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
1. Introduction: Setting the Theore
Page 11 and 12:
3 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germa
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
11 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germ
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Hz 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 N
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
� Speaker sp127: Student, male, 2
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
4. Vowel inventory and features 51
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Spontaneous speech Long vowel + len
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Spontaneous speech Long vowel + len
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Height 0 10 20 30 40 u i o ö ü e
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Vowel category Variability Coeffici
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
101 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136: 127 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 155 and 156: 5.3. Processes vs. Coarticulation 1
Page 161 and 162: � F3 shows a high variability in
Page 175 and 176: c(xmin, xmax) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.0
Page 185: 177 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 191 and 192: Hz 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 50
Page 201 and 202: Therefore, it can be observed that
Page 207 and 208: c(xmin, xmax) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0
Page 215 and 216: Variability coefficient 40,000 35,0
Page 223 and 224: 6.6.3.4. The vowel /E/ 215 Vowels i
Page 225 and 226: 6.6.3.6. The vowel /u/ 217 Vowels i
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
z-score 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Appendix 269 Vowels in Standard Aus
Page 279:
show all

VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?