VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sylvia Moosmüller justments with consecutively different acoustic outputs within the languages described as [±ATR]. The main physiological correlate of [+ATR] languages is either a widening of the pharyngeal cavity as a result of tongue root advancement or a reduction of the pharyngeal cavity by tongue root retraction, resulting in a lower F1 of the [+ATR] vowels as opposed to the [-ATR] vowels. These articulatory adjustments have been described for Igbo (Ladefoged 1964), Akan (Lindau 1979, 1987, Tiede 1996), Degema (Fulop et al. 1998), as examples of Niger – Congo languages, and for DhoLuo, Shilluk, Dinka (Jacobson 1978, 1980) and Maa (Guion et al. 2004) as examples of Nilotic languages. Additionally, in Akan, tongue root advancement is accompanied by a lowering of the larynx (Lindau 1974, cited in Guion et al. 2004, Tiede 1996). Tongue root advancement might be followed by a tension in the vocal folds which results in higher breathiness and shows up as a higher amount of energy in the higher frequency regions. However, these accompanying settings have only be observed for Akan (Hess 1992), Degema and Maa (in Maa with no statistical significance). The feature [±ATR] has also been used to describe the “tense/lax” opposition in English (Halle & Stevens 1969) 67 . However, a cineradiographic study conducted by Ladefoged et al. (1972) showed that tongue root advancement is just a further complementary strategy to express the tense/lax opposition in English. This finding is corroborated by Jackson (1988). In his study on various languages he proved that English does not show a separate control of the tongue root for the tense/lax contrast. Tiede (1996) compared Akan and English and detected substantial differences in the articulatory patterning between the two languages when producing the desired distinctions. He concludes that Akan and English show different patterning of axial data at measured levels below the epiglottis. With one exception (area measured at the three lowest levels of /e/), the area, width, and depth measurements obtained for Akan show consistently larger values for expanded (+ATR) variants at all measured levels, above and below the epiglottis. But while the English data also show consistently larger values above the epiglottal pivot, at levels 67 Following Halle & Stevens (1969), Wiese (1996) adopts the feature [± ATR] for the vowels of “Modern Standard German” (1996: 20f). 76
77 Vowels in Standard Austrian German below that point differences between tense and lax variants are inconsistent in sign and considerably smaller in magnitude. (Tiede 1996: 415f) And he continues: The English sagittal measurements showing smaller differences in magnitude for both tongue root advancement and laryngeal lowering than Akan, and greater differences in tongue dorsum height, suggest a relatively more significant role for tongue height in maintaining the English contrast. (Tiede 1996: 418) Tiede (1996) also elaborates on the relationship between dorsum height and tongue root advancement, two adjustments that may be intrinsically linked. Whereas Akan, however, controls the muscle responsible for a concomitant change in tongue height for [+ATR] vowels, tongue height is accompanied with tongue root advancement in English. Therefore, it can be inferred that the primary feature used to express the tense/lax distinction in English is tongue height with facultative accompanying tongue root advancement, whereas in Akan the distinction is expressed primarily by tongue root advancement. The accompanying raise of the tongue dorsum is suppressed. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) come to similar conclusions: In Igbo and Akan the tongue height is not correlated with the tongue root position. In English the position of the tongue root is correlated with the tongue height…..We conclude that the advancement of the tongue root is a separable tongue gesture in languages such as Igbo and Akan. In Germanic languages, however, it is simply one of the concomitants of vowel height. (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 303f) Recently, following up the hypothesis proposed by Halle & Stevens (1969), Slifka (2003) tested F1 slope (indicating breathiness) and point in time of the energy peak for tense/lax vowel pairs in English. Although 88,9% of all tense vowels exposed a falling slope and 91,7% of all lax vowels exposed a rising slope, indicating more breathiness in the tense vowels, her results are not consistent across the speakers tested and ultimately fail to classify vowels correctly. It has to be noted, furthermore, that breathiness is not only a facultative consequence of advanced tongue root, but also of tongue fronting and tongue heightening. Therefore, the feature ATR cannot be inferred from increased breathiness. Consequently, the feature [± ATR] is not responsible for the opposition termed [± tense] in the Germanic languages.
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: 25 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: Vowel category Variability Coeffici
Page 109 and 110: 101 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 135 and 136:
127 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
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?