1 / 27

Modeling dialect-related variability in American English plosives

ASA, Paris 2008. Reasons to study acoustic variation in obstruents. Substrate influencesSocial class and ethnicity differencesPhonetic changePhonological changeLogic of phonological features Exploitation of phonological features. Perceptual boundaries of consonantsConsonantal trading relation

ohanzee
Download Presentation

Modeling dialect-related variability in American English plosives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. ASA, Paris 2008 Modeling dialect-related variability in American English plosives Thomas C. Purnell University of Wisconsin, Madison

    2. ASA, Paris 2008 Reasons to study acoustic variation in obstruents Substrate influences Social class and ethnicity differences Phonetic change Phonological change Logic of phonological features Exploitation of phonological features Perceptual boundaries of consonants Consonantal trading relations Adjacency influences Empirical evidence

    3. ASA, Paris 2008 VOICING Variation in Am Eng

    4. ASA, Paris 2008 Sociolinguistic Variation Group Geography, ethnic affiliation, social class, gender, age, etc. Setting More conservative variables: more attention (word-list) Less conservative variables: less attention (free conversation)

    5. ASA, Paris 2008 Hypotheses Focus: subtle regional and social differences Experiment: variation within a geographical region of the US Hypotheses: Initial plosive VOICING ... Variation is not systematic Variation is systematic

    6. ASA, Paris 2008 Subjects 25 Female Average age 20.9 years (18 to 30) European-American Upper Midwestern US dialect region Southeastern Wisconsin (center: Milwaukee) Western Wisconsin (center: Eau Claire) Eastern Minnesota (center: Minneapolis)

    7. ASA, Paris 2008 Tokens 19 /b/-initial tokens from recordings as part of x-ray microbeam dialect data set Context Isolated (bought, bade, babe, bad, bull, beep, beg, bait, boat, bet, bog, boy, bit, bean, buck, bail, boot, bead) Vowels [i ? e ? ? u ? o ? ? ??]

    8. ASA, Paris 2008 Acoustic analysis Visually Identified Burst Beginning of VOICING (low to mid energy on spectrogram, RMS rise, periodicity on waveform) Calculated FFT energy (130 to 350 Hz, Hamming window, summed at 5 ms points in period) Window from 40 to 80 ms Window from 0 to 40 ms positive VOT time (VOICING onset burst)

    9. ASA, Paris 2008 Window 40 to 80 ms

    10. ASA, Paris 2008 Window 0 to 40 ms

    11. ASA, Paris 2008 Window 0 to 40 ms

    12. ASA, Paris 2008 ANOVA, Vowel Win80: F(11,474) = 1.96, p< 0.05 Scheff post-hoc, only between [?] and [??] Win40: F(11,474) = 1.99, p< 0.05 Scheff post-hoc, only between [i e] and [?] PosVOT: F(11,474) = 2.05, p< 0.05 Scheff post-hoc, no significant differences ANOVA, column 8, h1_win80 Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------- Vowel 1.68811e+008 11 1.53465e+007 1.96 0.0304 Error 3.62137e+009 463 7.82153e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 scheffe, only different between v16 and v2 ANOVA, column 9, h1_win40 Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F --------------------------------------------------------- Vowel 3.49895e+006 11 318085.9 1.99 0.0275 Error 7.39422e+007 463 159702.4 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, column 12, pos_vot Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F ---------------------------------------------------- Vowel 987.3 11 89.7514 2.05 0.0229 Error 20299.4 463 43.8433 Total 21286.7 474 ANOVA, column 8, h1_win80 Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------- Vowel 1.68811e+008 11 1.53465e+007 1.96 0.0304 Error 3.62137e+009 463 7.82153e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 scheffe, only different between v16 and v2 ANOVA, column 9, h1_win40 Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F --------------------------------------------------------- Vowel 3.49895e+006 11 318085.9 1.99 0.0275 Error 7.39422e+007 463 159702.4 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, column 12, pos_vot Source Sum Sq. d.f. Mean Sq. F Prob>F ---------------------------------------------------- Vowel 987.3 11 89.7514 2.05 0.0229 Error 20299.4 463 43.8433 Total 21286.7 474

    13. ASA, Paris 2008 Means, Vowel

    14. ASA, Paris 2008 ANOVA, Subject , Win 40 to 80 ms Win80: F(24,474) = 20.7, p< 0.05 Groups, threshold of mean -4038 dB More presumptive pre-voicing: Strong: 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 21, 22 (2nd quartile above) Weak: 5, 12, 14, 17, 26, 27 (median above) Less presumptive pre-voicing: Strong: 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 (3rd quartile below) Weak: 6, 20, 23, 24, 25 (median below) ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474 ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474

    15. ASA, Paris 2008 Distribution, Subjects, Win 40 to 80 ms

    16. ASA, Paris 2008 Distribution by Group ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.32509e+009 1 1.32509e+009 254.26 0 Error 2.46508e+009 473 5.21159e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 Sheffe significant ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ---------------------------------------------------- Groups 31515.6 1 31515.6 0.19 0.661 Error 77409630.1 473 163656.7 Total 77441145.6 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------- Groups 2730.2 1 2730.23 69.59 7.77156e-016 Error 18556.5 473 39.23 Total 21286.7 474 Scheffe significant between groups ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.32509e+009 1 1.32509e+009 254.26 0 Error 2.46508e+009 473 5.21159e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 Sheffe significant ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ---------------------------------------------------- Groups 31515.6 1 31515.6 0.19 0.661 Error 77409630.1 473 163656.7 Total 77441145.6 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------- Groups 2730.2 1 2730.23 69.59 7.77156e-016 Error 18556.5 473 39.23 Total 21286.7 474 Scheffe significant between groups

    17. ASA, Paris 2008 Geographic Distribution All but one speaker from Minneapolis(4) and Savage (3) is a 1 or 2 (i.e, prevoicer) while all Milwaukee speakers are not pre-voicers (6) 4 of 5 Eau Claire speakers are a 1 or a 2 All but one speaker from Minneapolis(4) and Savage (3) is a 1 or 2 (i.e, prevoicer) while all Milwaukee speakers are not pre-voicers (6) 4 of 5 Eau Claire speakers are a 1 or a 2

    18. ASA, Paris 2008 ANOVA, Subject, Win 0 to 40 ms Win40: F(24,474) = 4.07, p< 0.05 Overall less voicing (incomplete VOICING) Hypervoicing Some? Subjects 4 and 5 (Group 1) More in this window than previous: 11 and 15 (Group 2) In this picture it is worth noting that the subjects have less energy across all subjects suggesting that those with pre-voicing, have incomplete voicing. Additionally, subjects 4 and 5 show increased energy suggesting that they may be hypervoicing more frequently. Likewise, certain subjects with more voicing here as opposed to their patterning in the previous 40 ms show increased energy, for example, 11 and 15. ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474 In this picture it is worth noting that the subjects have less energy across all subjects suggesting that those with pre-voicing, have incomplete voicing. Additionally, subjects 4 and 5 show increased energy suggesting that they may be hypervoicing more frequently. Likewise, certain subjects with more voicing here as opposed to their patterning in the previous 40 ms show increased energy, for example, 11 and 15. ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474

    19. ASA, Paris 2008 Distribution, Subjects, Win 40 to 80 ms

    20. ASA, Paris 2008 ANOVA, Subject, Positive VOT PosVOT: F(24,474) = 10.0, p< 0.05 Observe that subjects 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 24 appear to have longer lags than the other speakers. All with less presumptive pre-voicing except 17 17 is in weak presumptive pre-voicing group 23 and 24 are in the weak presumptive non pre-voicing group ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474 ANOVA, col 8 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ----------------------------------------------------------- Groups 1.98819e+009 24 8.28413e+007 20.69 0 Error 1.80199e+009 450 4.00441e+006 Total 3.79018e+009 474 ANOVA, col 9 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------------------ Groups 1.38116e+007 24 575482.2 4.07 1.18523e-009 Error 6.36296e+007 450 141399.1 Total 7.74411e+007 474 ANOVA, col 10 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 12236.3 24 509.846 10.74 0 Error 21366.3 450 47.481 Total 33602.6 474 ANOVA, col 11 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------ Groups 193.16 24 8.04815 1.67 0.0251 Error 2166.73 450 4.81495 Total 2359.88 474 ANOVA, col 12 Source SS df MS F Prob>F ------------------------------------------------- Groups 7418.8 24 309.118 10.03 0 Error 13867.9 450 30.817 Total 21286.7 474

    21. ASA, Paris 2008 Distribution, Subjects , Positive VOT

    22. ASA, Paris 2008 Early energy connected to VOT

    23. ASA, Paris 2008 Geographic distribution of more consistency

    24. ASA, Paris 2008 Observations Speakers systematically pre-voice or not Most pre-voicing is incomplete Fail to employ VOICING strategies, such as pharyngeal expansion Vowels showed that there was a difference by vowels High: less pre-voicing Low: more pre-voing

    25. ASA, Paris 2008 Geography Some geographic distribution West~East distinction within region See that Western communities can have more prevoicing; Western communities have less pre-voicing

    26. ASA, Paris 2008 Explanations Possible sociolinguistic explanations Change to conservative speech: loss of pre-voicing Enhancement to guarantee short lag

    27. ASA, Paris 2008 Thanks. Additional thanks to Joe Salmons, Blake Rodgers and Eric Raimy. tcpurnell@wisc.edu

More Related