VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvia Moosmüller the vowels /ï/ and /O/, which expose less lip protrusion as compared to their counter- parts /u/ and /o/. F3, however, might be an indicator of fronting for the vowels /u/ and /o/; a higher F3 pointing to a more fronted articulation. As Table 6.3 demonstrates, statistically significant differences can be observed for F3 for the vowels /ï/ and /o/ of speaker sp012 and for the vowel /u/ of speaker sp180. Table 6.5 gives the mean F3 values measured at vowel midpoint for the back rounded vowels in bilabial, alveolar, and velar contexts: Sp012 Sp180 F3 /u/ /ï/ /o/ /O/ /u/ /ï/ /o/ /O/ bilabial 2374 2485 2637 2195 2783 2449 2669 2809 alveolar 2550 2478 2778 2279 2292 2648 2556 2814 velar 2511 2313 2536 1914 2651 2577 2885 2672 Table 6.5: Mean F3 vowel midpoint values according to place of articulation of the preceding plosive. Speakers sp012 and sp180, logatome reading task. Vowels exposing statistically significant differences (p < 0.01) for F3 are in bold, vowels which show no higher values for F3 in alveolar context, are additionally in italics. Except for the vowels /o/ and /O/ of speaker sp012, which might indicate some fronting, the values of F3 are not conclusive; i.e. they are not higher in the alveolar than in the bilabial or velar context. It can be concluded that in the most formal condition, F2 displacement can be observed for the vowels /ï/ and /O/. The highest amount of F2 displacement can, therefore, be observed in the most controlled task, the reading of logatomes, followed by the sentence reading task, where displacement of F2 can only be found in the vowel /O/. In spontaneous speech, the differences no longer exist. What can be observed is a hierarchical diminution of differences in dependence on the speech situation or speaking task. This strongly suggests that F2 displacement is neither a matter of undershoot nor a coarticulatory phonetic detail, but rather a process which uses a phonetic circumstance to maximize contrast in most formal speech situations. Higher articulatory variability of citation forms as compared to, e.g., read sentences, has 184
185 Vowels in Standard Austrian German already been observed elsewhere (e.g. Abbs 1986). Vaissière (1986) attributes this lack of invariance partly to non-linguistic factors and partly to “context-dependent articulatory “weights” assigned by the speaker to different parts of the syllable.” (Vaissière 1986: 222). The results of Scarborough (2004) are in the same vein: “hard” 120 words expose a higher degree of coarticulation than “easy” words. Moreover, she proved that the presence of coarticulation facilitates perception, and that, consequently, listeners make use of coarticulatory information. These findings together with the observed language-specific differences rule out biomechanical factors and suggest that processes are at work. Moreover, within the figure-ground preference of Natural Phonology (Dressler 1984, 1986, 1996), the analysed phenomenon can be characterized as a foregrounding process. 6.3. Phoneme, allophone, target, and processes The examples discussed in 6.2 show that the target is variant and has to be conceptualized differently from the phoneme which is invariant (see 1.2). The phoneme is the mental representation of a sound and can be modified by processes. The final output of the phoneme is usually hit by speakers with no speaking or hearing deficits and under normal speaking conditions. In this way, the final output is an invariant target, cf. Keating (1990): “… any single given context reduces, not introduces, variability in a segment” (Keating 1990: 461). However, since Keating does not assume processes or rules, she allows “arbitrary variation” (1990: 467). The example given for arbitrary variation is Russian, “with extensive vowel allophony and reduction” (1990: 467), modelled by defining wide 120 Hard words are words, which, with respect to their intelligibility, expose a low frequency relative to the sum of the frequencies of all their neighbours and are therefore obscured by their neighbours, whereas easy words have a high frequency relative to the sum of the frequencies of all their neighbours and – consequently – stand out against their neighbours.
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:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142: 133 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 187 and 188: 6.2. Undershoot vs. Processes 179 V
Page 191: 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 239 and 240: z-score 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,
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?