VOWELS IN STANDARD AUSTRIAN GERMAN - Acoustics ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
81 Vowels in Standard Austrian German � [± constricted]: refers to constriction degree and is most probably the best candidate to describe the so-called tense/lax opposition. � [± open] differs for vowels with and without lip protrusion. /i/ and /ç/ are closed, whereas /e/ and /E/ are open. For the vowels with lip protrusion, the opposition goes hand in hand with the tense/lax opposition. � [± compressed] refers to GGP compression at the onset of the “tense” vowels. This last feature would also represent a meaningful correlate. However, the opposition would be restricted to the onset of the vowel. Moreover, Pouplier et al. (2004) only tested the phonetic environment /gVm/. Since only the onset is affected by different GGP activity, other consonantal environments would have to be analysed in order to corroborate these results. It can be concluded that, for the time being, a meaningful correlate for the feature [± tense] cannot be identified. The feature [± constricted] points to the degree of constriction and must not be replaced by [± tense]. In fact, the feature [± tense] is also misleading since it denotes that the speaker has to exert more effort in producing the [+ tense] vowels, leading ultimately to higher articulatory precision. Wood (1982) proved, however, that lax vowels are by no means articulated with less precision: “Regarding precision, it is fascinating to watch a motion X-ray film and see the level of precision achieved for all vowels, tense and lax.” (Wood 1982: 177). The results, as concerns articulatory precision for both tense and lax vowels, have been confirmed by Hoole & Mooshammer (2002) in their work on German vowels. Therefore, in order to avoid the misleading semantic implications, which have no articulatory basis, the feature [± tense] should be abandoned. The feature [± constricted] is – for Standard Austrian German – a far better articulatory description of the vowel pairs in question. Moreover, in cases where /A/ and /a/ are not neutralised, this feature also captures this opposition, since /A/ exposes a higher constriction in the pharynx than /a/ (Wood 1975b, Valaczkai 1998, Pouplier et al. 2004). However, the feature [± front],
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: 29 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 87: 79 Vowels in Standard Austrian Germ
Page 109 and 110: 101 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
Page 139 and 140:
131 Vowels in Standard Austrian Ger
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?