VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

Sylvia Moosmüller
Pouplier et al. (2004) found initial genioglossus posterior (GGP) compression for
all “tense” vowels 71 , whereas for the “lax” vowels, immediate GGP expansion could be
observed. They conclude:
“The estimation of genioglossus activity revealed the most consistent difference pattern
across vowels […]. Genioglossus posterior showed a consistent difference in that for the lax
vowel, there was an immediate expansion movement, while the tense vowel either showed
no change or compression, notably without corresponding expansion in the tongue tip […].
The consistent differences that could be observed for the vowels across the entire utterance
are consistent with the hypothesis that the tenseness opposition is not so much realized at the
maximum constriction but rather lies in the entire motion sequence into and out of the
vowel.” (Pouplier et al. 2004: 53)
This finding would imply that the main difference between “tense” and “lax” vowels
lies in the onset of the vowel. It has been stated above that Pouplier et al. (2004) also
found differences in the tongue-palate distance, except for the fact that these differences
were neutralized for the pairs [i] – [ç] and [u] – [ï]. For this reason, tongue-palate
distance was discarded as a discriminatory parameter. However, from a phonological
point of view, neutralization of these vowel pairs is possible. Therefore, it could in the
same way be the case that GGP activity and tongue-palate distance form the articulatory
correlate for the opposition [± tense], and that tongue-palate distance loses its
discriminatory ability for the vowel pairs [i] – [ç] and [u] – [ï]. Consequently, for these
pairs, differences should only be apparent in the onset of the vowel. However, according
to the results presented in Pouplier et al. (2004), the pair [y] – [Y] does not follow this
development. It has to be emphasized that tongue-palate distances heavily depend on
the shape of the palate (Perkell 1997, Brunner et al. 2005). Therefore, the tongue-palate
distances have to be individually adjusted in order to obtain the desired acoustic output.
These individual differences in tongue-palate distances have also been observed by
Pouplier et al. (2004).
literature:
To summarize, the following articulatory correlates can be obtained from the
� [± ATR]: can be excluded for Germanic languages.
71 Results on the pair /ë – ê/ are not reported.
80