VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvia Moosmüller Diehl et al. 2003) yielded better results, nevertheless, the results remain unsatisfactorily, especially for larger vowel systems 41 . In the Liljencrants & Lindblom (1972) model, a two-dimensional representation is favoured, a three-dimensional auditory-perceptual space has been proposed by Miller (1989) who transformed the measurements of F0, F1, F2, and F3 into log frequency ratios and plotted them as points in a three dimensional space. The vowels of each category were enclosed in three dimensional target zones. Miller (1989) analysed the nine monophthongal vowels of American English and could, by this method, create nine non-overlapping target zones which account for 93% of the data. This method has also been applied to German and Greek vowels (Jongman et al. 1989). The zones created could differentiate the five vowels of Modern Greek with 100% accuracy, and the fourteen vowels of German with 94% accuracy. Jongman et al. (1989) conclude: “In general, it would seem advantageous for a given language to have vowels that are maximally distinct acoustically (see, for example, Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972; Stevens 1972; Lindblom 1986) for reasons of communicative efficiency. Greek provides an example with its five vowels being quite far from each other in APS. Interestingly, five-vowel inventories similar to that of Greek are much more frequent than any other type of vowel inventory….The vowel spaces of German and American English are much more dense. It seems that the larger the vowel inventory, the more peripheral the location of the extreme vowels (…), relative to vowels of languages with smaller inventories.” (Jongman et al. 1989: 239f). An interesting approach is presented by Carré (1996). He modelled vowels by a stepwise deformation of the acoustic tube (front to back constriction and labial command) and plotted the results in an F1/F2 plane, whereby F1 is on the abscissa and F2 on the ordinate. With this representation, he seemingly approached greater articulatory realism. The location of the constriction arises from a combination of F1 41 Liljencrants & Lindblom (1972) and Lindblom (1986) offer various explanations for the unpredictability of vowel systems, especially that vowels systems are not determined by perceptual contrast alone. They do, however, not consider the possibility that perception of contrast is language-specific and, therefore, learned. Recent studies prove a connection between a speaker’s perceptual acuity and his or her production of contrasts (see e.g. Perkell et al. 2004, 2006). Moreover, diachronic changes of vowel systems are not incorporated in the model either. 34
35 Vowels in Standard Austrian German and F2; a maximally high F1 combined with a low F2 indicates a constriction location with the lowest Xc from the glottis. This would denote the pharyngeal constriction location for the vowel /a/. The other dimension captured by this representation is labialisation: a maximally low F1 and a maximally low F2 denote a labial back vowel whilst the labial front vowels exhibit a lower F1 and F2 than their respective unrounded cognates. In this approach, /E/ and /ê/ can be represented as a back or as a front vowel. Similar results have been obtained by Boë et al. (1992) for /œ/. For this vowel, “the vocal tract most resembles a cylindrical tube” (1992: 35), and “the area functions reveal two approximately equal and symmetric minima around Xc.g 42 = 5 cm and Xc.g = 11 cm” (1992: 36). As concerns the unrounded vowel, it is /æ/ rather than /E/ which is described as having a narrowing just above the glottis (Fant 1980 = 2004, Wood 1979, Fant & Båvegård 1997). Fant & Båvegård (1997) illustrate that this vowel can be considered either as a front vowel with a wide constriction area or as an extreme back vowel. Two typical versions for this vowel are (from: Fant & Båvegård 1997: 7, Fig. 7): /æ/ Xc 43 Ac F1 F2 F3 Front configuration 4 cm 6 cm 2 Back configuration 13.5 cm 2 cm 2 648 1595 2450 654 1588 2452 In Figure 3.3, the data presented in Figure 3.1 are plotted in the same way as proposed in Carré (1996): 42 Xc.g = constriction coordinate from the glottis. 43 Xc = constriction coordinate from the incisors, Ac = constriction area
Page 1 and 2: VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN
Page 3 and 4: Vowels in Standard Austrian German
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction: Setting the Theore
Page 11 and 12: 3 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germa
Page 19 and 20: 11 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germ
Page 23 and 24: Hz 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 N
Page 27 and 28: � Speaker sp127: Student, male, 2
Page 41: 33 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germ
Page 59 and 60: 4. Vowel inventory and features 51
Page 69 and 70: Spontaneous speech Long vowel + len
Page 73 and 74: Spontaneous speech Long vowel + len
Page 77 and 78: Height 0 10 20 30 40 u i o ö ü e
Page 83 and 84: Vowel category Variability Coeffici
Page 93 and 94:
85 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germ
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:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
6.2. Undershoot vs. Processes 179 V
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Hz 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 50
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Therefore, it can be observed that
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
c(xmin, xmax) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Variability coefficient 40,000 35,0
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
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 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?