VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

Spontaneous speech Long vowel + lenis
plosive
65
Vowels in Standard Austrian German
Short vowel + fortis
plosive
n t p
Total duration (ms) 139.9 201 21 3.25 0.00
Plosive duration 60 (ms) 46.1 145.5 21 7.85 0.00
Table 4.2: Mean durations of the total duration of vowel + plosive and of the duration of the
plosives alone, and the statistical results. Speaker sp180, spontaneous speech.
Spontaneous speech Long vowel + lenis
plosive
Short vowel + fortis
plosive
n t P
Total duration (ms) 147.6 183.4 23 2.36 0.01
Plosive duration (ms) 47.6 121.9 23 8.29 0.00
Table 4.3: Mean durations of the total duration of vowel + plosive and of the duration of the
plosives alone, and the statistical results. Speaker sp127, spontaneous speech.
Once again, no statistically significant correlation can be found between vowel duration
and consonant duration (r = 0.01, p = 0.93 for speaker sp180 and r = -0.29, p = 0.09 for
speaker sp127).
These results reveal several things. Firstly, the Central Bavarian roots of Standard
Austrian German become apparent. Secondly, since the adoption of non-Bavarian
combinations (especially the “long vowel + fortis plosive” combination) did not lead to
isochrony, isochrony is a consequence of the combination type and rather than an
indication of an underlying temporal organisation. The results point to an independent
treatment of vowel and plosive durations. The logical conclusion is that the speech
chain is modelled phoneme by phoneme, as has already been pointed out by many
researchers (e.g. Wood 1996, 1997, Lindblom & Sussman 2002). Thirdly, and perhaps
most importantly, the observed temporal organisation of some vowel + plosive
combinations is restricted to the sentence reading task. This might indicate that
rhythmic patterning depends strongly on the speaking style (as becomes apparent
anyway from a comparison of e.g. poetical recitations and spontaneous speech).
60 It should be noted that in Standard Austrian German, the “fortis” and “lenis” plosives are
not differentiated according to VOT. VOT can be present in those plosives that are
generally labeled as “fortis”, whereas those plosives which are labeled as “lenis” can be
deleted or spirantized or articulated as approximants (but see Moosmüller & Ringen 2004
for a detailed discussion).