VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvia Moosmüller and speaker sp127 mark secondary stress by a higher F1 as compared to both primary stress and unstressed positions, which once more contradicts theoretical assumptions. 6.6.3.7. Summary of the results on secondary stress The most salient result is probably the high variability among the speakers 142 . Any speaker has his or her own way to indicate secondary stress by changing the spectral shape of the vowel or by not indicating it at all. Although all speakers seem to agree that primary stress has to be distinguished from unstressed positions, and in what way this should occur, the way to deal with secondary stress does not seem to be codified. However, in spontaneous speech, speakers often reduce the discriminative strength between primary stress and secondary stress on the one hand, and secondary stress and unstressed level on the other hand, down to one formant. It can be concluded, therefore, that a third level exists. Whether and how it is activated, depends on the speaker and on the speaking task. A secondary stress may either be realized in the same way as the primary stress, or in the same way as the unstressed position, or as discrete secondary stress. 6.6.4. Sentence Stress The analysis of lexical stress already gives a good insight into the way stress affects the acoustic output of vowels 143 . However, the different relative levels of sentence stress cannot be captured with a sole differentiation of primary, secondary, and unstressed levels (Wagner 2002). Via postlexical stress assignment, the degree of lexical stress can change, providing the respective syllable with either higher or lower prominence. Moreover, in a string of unstressed syllables, not all syllables may be equally 142 High variablilty among speakers has also been observed by Kleber & Klipphahn (2006). 143 The focus is on vowels. This does not of course mean that consonants are not affected by stress. Jessen et al. (1995) showed that the closure phase of plosives is longer in a stressed syllable. The same results were obtained by Cho & McQueen (2005) for Dutch, Heldner & Strangert (2001) for Swedish, Greenberg et al. (2003) for English. 218
219 Vowels in Standard Austrian German unstressed. E.g. in a polysyllabic word a lexically stressed syllable can still retain some degree of stress when unaccented, via postlexical stress assignment (Barry & Andreeva 2001). Post-focal words receive lower overall intensity than pre-focal words, both as regards the stressed vowel and the unstressed syllable (Heldner 2003: 50). Additionally, the distance of a word from the focus plays a role: a word directly preceding the focal word is less stressed 144 than a word with a two-word distance (Heldner 2003). Much work has been done on the effect of prosodic boundaries (Dilley et al. 1996 on glottalization in English, Fougeron & Keating 1997 on /n/ in English, Fougeron 2001 on five consonants and two vowels in French, Cho & Keating 2001 on alveolar consonants in Korean, Cho 2004 on /a/ and /i/ in English, Tabain 2003 on /aC/ sequences in French, Tabain et al. 2004 on /uC/ sequences in French, Tabain & Perrier 2005 on /iC/ sequences in French, to name just a few). There is strong agreement that different prosodic boundaries result in different outputs. However, prosodic boundaries exercise less effect on /i/ than on /a/ in French. The prosodic boundary accounted for 43% of the variability of /a/, but only for 13% of the variability of /i/ (Tabain & Perrier 2005) 145 . As concerns the vowel /a/, F1 increases and F2 decreases with increasing prosodic strength of the boundary (Tabain 2003). For /u/, both F1 and F2 decrease (Tabain et al. 2004), and for /i/, the length of the front cavity seems to be primarily affected, resulting in variability of F3 (Tabain & Perrier 2005). According to Möhler & Dogil (1995) and Féry & Herbst 2004, the primary acoustic correlate of sentence stress (prominence) is fundamental frequency. In their analysis of seven dialects of British and Irish English, Kochanski et al. (2005) found loudness, together with duration, the most robust indicators marking prominent syllables in a sentence, whereas fundamental frequency contributed little. However, the contribution of the spectral change of a vowel (or further segments) to perceived promi- 144 Wagner (2002) mentions “präfokale Deakzentuierung” as one strategy for assigning prominence to the following syllable. 145 /i/ in French is said to be stable (Pitermann 2000, Tabain & Perrier 2005).
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:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
5.3. Processes vs. Coarticulation 1
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
� F3 shows a high variability in
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: c(xmin, xmax) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.0
Page 177 and 178: 169 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 187 and 188: 6.2. Undershoot vs. Processes 179 V
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: 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 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?