1 / 45

Calculating the geospatial cost of sound change

Calculating the geospatial cost of sound change. Mark Livengood , Thomas Purnell, Eric Raimy and Joseph Salmons University of Wisconsin-Madison. Goals. To advance understanding of the relationship between geographically-coded data and language data

tyanne
Download Presentation

Calculating the geospatial cost of sound change

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. Calculating the geospatial cost of sound change Mark Livengood, Thomas Purnell, Eric Raimy and Joseph Salmons University of Wisconsin-Madison

  2. Goals To advance understanding of the relationship between geographically-coded data and language data To transform our notion of dialect and speech community based on geographical, demographic and social distribution of multiple features

  3. Overview We know that /æ/ is changing in this region and this time period. Question: How does that change spread over time and space? Geo-social structures (the gravity model; Trudgill 1974) can trump straight-line geography (the wave model; Schmidt 1872), Value addition with georeferenced social factors (Britain 2002; Lee & Kretzschmar 1993)

  4. The issue of scale The most important related work (e.g. Trudgill, Lee & Kretzschmar, Labov) has focused on vast areas — Grieve et al. use North America. We start from this position: Language and social structure are local. Use data that is more representative than ANAE and measure diphthongization

  5. Neighborhoods by demographics x distance x linguistic features Chambers and Trudgill (1998: 178ff): cross-city influence matrix P=population of geographic center d=distance between centers S=index of linguistic similarity

  6. Sociolinguistic Literature tell us … • Language varies … • As individuals speak to one another (locality) • Language is a brokered agreement between humans and used for various ends • Both within and across geographic domains (identity) (historical continuity) (translocational communication) • E.g., Blacks share markers with whites within a location differentiating them from Blacks elsewhere; yet, speakers often share pan-AAE markers

  7. Geolinguistic Literature tells us … • Language varies … • By presence/absence of barriers (boundary conditions) • By sphere of influence to immediately smaller locations where similarity and status matters (gravity) • E.g., Chicago to Rockford and St. Louis • By large sweeping patterns where distance matters (wave) • E.g., CAUGHT~COT merger in US

  8. Social Science Literature tells us … • Local knowledge varies … • In a rapidly decaying fashion (rapid decay) • E.g., there is a ‘nearness’ factor and not all data points have equal influence over each other • Multiple factors influence the spread (or not) of local knowledge (regressive covariation) (costly) • E.g., cost involved with transferring information regarding competition and cooperation

  9. Features of Model • Locality, identity & historical continuity by community: geographic and social barriers • Gender, ethnicity, age, immigration, topography • Gravity & rapid decay: attraction by population centers within proximate range based on population • Regressive covariation & cost: varying weights and multiple solutions by location • Wave & measurable features: known markers that spread

  10. Methodology

  11. Speakers • 20 speakers from WELS and DARE datasets • 1870s: 2 • 1880s & 1890s: 4 + 2 • 1900s & 1910s: 4 + 2 • 1920s, 1930s, & 1940s: 3 + 1 + 2 • 16 Locations in WI

  12. Idealized Model This model accounts for regressive covariation and cost For some speech knowledge qua behavior in locale ℓ, Kℓ = βK1 Sℓ + βK2 Gℓ + εK K is a proxy for knowledge output (acoustic measures) Sℓ = social factors Gℓ = geographic factors

  13. Society • Locality, identity & historical continuity by community: geographic and social barriers • Gender, ethnicity, age, immigration, topography Sℓ = βS1 Fℓ + βS2 Eℓ + βS3 log( Lℓ ) + βS4 log (Wℓ ) + εK • F = % of population, foreign born in 1900 • E = % of population, black in 1900 • L = value of livestock in 1900 • W = total manufacturing wages in 1900

  14. Geography Gravity & rapid decay: attraction by population centers within proximate range based on population The features for the more geographic features can be stated similarly, as Gℓ = βK1 log( Pℓ ) + βK2 log (Tℓ ) + βK3 Bℓ + εK P = log (county population per sq. mi.) T = log (time to Milwaukee per time to Minneapolis) B = index of public or private transportation costs to MKE

  15. Geographic Measures • Designed to capture gravity and decay • Population density • 1900 population / sq mi in county • Measure of time of transportation • log(distance to Mke/distance to Minn) ℓ • Negative value is beneficial • Measure of manner of transportation • Number of ‘jumps’ in transportation type, and cost of transportation (0-3) • Private is more costly than public • Train is more costly than bus

  16. Measure of Transportation Distance

  17. So, what’s Kℓ? • Ceteris paribus, presence or absence of regional markers • /æ/ class of words Kℓ = βK1 log( VDℓ ) + βK2 log (F1Nℓ ) + βK3 log (F2Nℓ ) + βK4 log (TLℓ ) + βK4 log (Θℓ ) + εK • Speaker variables • birth year • gender

  18. Vowel Measures • Recordings of “Arthur the Rat” • Extracted from WELS/DARE recordings • Aligned TextGrid for Praat from Penn Aligner • Corrected edges of /ae/ and neighboring segments • Post processing selection • Pre-obstruent V > 40 msec in the front of the vowel space • /æ/ measures from Praat: VD=vowel duration, F1N=nucleus height, F2N=nucleus backness, TL=trajectory length, Θ=trajectory angle

  19. Results

  20. Preliminaries Problem 1: acoustic similarity and grouping speakers with respect to birth year and gender Problem 2: Covariance matrix for Geography Problem 3: Covariance matrix for Society

  21. K = Acoustic similarity • Cluster analysis on individual characteristics • First threw out a speaker because outlier on vowel height • New N = 19, but from one of the communities with two speakers • Clusters — but driven by birth year and gender • 1. males of all ages • 2. females born before 1900 • 3. females born after 1900

  22. Preliminaries Problem 1: acoustic similarity and grouping speakers with respect to birth year and gender Problem 2: Covariance matrix for Geography Problem 3: Covariance matrix for Society

  23. Geographic measures • Recall: two gradient measures • Travel time differential to Milwaukee • Population density • Linear covariation near significant • R2 = 0.15, p=0.056 • One potential outlier; would make significant • Selected transportation time • Transportation captures density

  24. Preliminaries Problem 1: acoustic similarity and grouping speakers with respect to birth year and gender Problem 2: Covariance matrix for Geography Problem 3: Covariance matrix for Society

  25. Society measures • Recall 4 measures • Urban class, rural class, ethnicity, immigration • Covary? • Rural class with urban class (R2 = 0.19, p<0.05) • Rural covaries with transportation time (R2 = 0.39, p<0.05); urban doesn’t • Immigrants with rural class (R2 = 0.48, p<0.05) and urban class (R2 = 0.41, p<0.05) • Ethnicity does not covary urban class or transportation

  26. Revised (realistic) model Dep var: Indiv acoustic measures Ind vars: urban class + ethnicity + transportation time Weight by speaker class (birth year, gender)

  27. Not significant Vowel backness Vowel height Angle of trajectory

  28. Significant relation 1 Duration x urban social class

  29. Significant relation 2 Trajectory length x transportation time

  30. Whence straight-line distances? • Longitude is significant for vowel trajectory and almost for duration • Neither latitude nor longitude is significant for the other three measures • Interpretation • Bias toward westward settlement patterns • For eastward moving CAUGHT~COT expect inverse relation

  31. Conclusions

  32. Summary • Clarification of the broad sociolinguistic category of “geography • Parametric power: encodes distance and population • Reduces complex matrix of Chambers & Trudgill • Broadly reconceputalizes the notion of “geography” Lx measures = urban class + ethnicity + transportation time Weighted by age, gender • Keeps the focus local

  33. Geographic influence on language variation? • Testing to see if georeferenced data is better than straightline distance • Knew this going in, but need to demonstrate this because current studies continue to ignore this • Some features do fall out by longitude (duration, trajectory length); how many other studies are due to source of change being at the statistical corner of the analysis space? • Transportation time should overcome this problem because it doesn’t matter which direction one comes from.

  34. Future work • Convert county data to more local data (April 2, 2012??) • Will permit more robust GIS computation • Better treatment of biases • Ethnicity • Immigration • Geography • Build continuity with new data collections

  35. Thanks! UW Graduate School The Dictionary of American Regional English Wisconsin Englishes Project (Luke Annear, Trini Stickle, Nick Williams)

More Related