18.02.2013 Views

VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Sylvia Moosmüller<br />

prosodic positions or in interactional situations which demand a small degree of figure-<br />

ground contrast. Therefore, it is justifiable to assume that a phoneme corresponds to the<br />

pronunciation in a highly formal setting in stressed position (e.g. a reading task). Since,<br />

within this framework, the phonetic output is guided by the demands of the interactional<br />

situation, the phoneme is to be defined perceptually via the acoustic parameters with<br />

conclusions to be drawn on articulation, if possible. Since different articulatory<br />

configurations might result in identical or nearly identical acoustic outputs, it is the<br />

acoustic output that counts in an interactional situation, and not the articulatory<br />

configuration behind it.<br />

Given the high variability dependant on the interactional situation together with<br />

the required figure-ground contrast, the phonological process is of high relevance for<br />

the analysis of a given phonetic output. Only the phonological process ensures an<br />

unambiguous trace back of a phonetic output to its underlying representation. Figure 1.1<br />

gives an F1, F2, F3 plot over time of two examples of the vowel /e/, one in a strong<br />

prosodic position, the other one in a weak prosodic position, and one example of the<br />

vowel /E/, in strong position. The F2 of the unstressed /e/ has more resemblance with<br />

the F2 of the stressed /E/ than with the stressed /e/, the mental representative of the<br />

unstressed /e/. The F1 correctly goes with the stressed /e/, whilst the F3 shows hardly<br />

any differences between the three examples.<br />

Models which deny phonological processes (e.g. Keating 1990) face a confusing<br />

situation: does this unstressed vowel belong to /e/ (correspondence of F1) or to /E/<br />

(correspondence of F2)? However, both speakers and listeners know that in the<br />

unstressed position, the constriction degree is widened and the constriction length is<br />

shortened for /e/, leading to a lowering of F2, whereas the degree of lip opening is not<br />

changed. Therefore, due to the phonological process, both speaker and listener will<br />

unambiguously trace the unstressed vowel back to its phoneme /e/.<br />

14

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!