Acoustic [voice] correlate variation by dialect: Data from Venezuelan Spanish Stephanie Lain The University of Texas at

1. Acoustic [voice] correlate variation by dialect: Data from Venezuelan Spanish Stephanie LainThe University of Texas at Austin Abstract Research Questions • Fixed effect dialect showed significance (p≤ .05) for RMS in initial and medial contexts (p= .004; p= .042). • Fixed effect voicing category was significant for consonant duration, %VF, RMS, F1 onset and burst in initial and medial contexts. • Voicing category showed significant values for preceding vowel duration and CV ratio in medial position. • Voicing category values for VOT were significant in initial position (p= .000), but not in medial position (p= .142). • F0 contour failed to achieve significance in either initial (p= .996) or medial position (p= .552). • The fixed effect condition showed significant values for consonant duration in both initial and medial contexts (p= .000). • VOT and RMS were also significant for condition in initial position only (p= .000). • In initial position, the interaction of voicing category * dialect was significant for consonant duration and VOT (p= .000; p= .026). • Figure 2 shows the interaction of voicing category * dialect for consonant duration (initial position). • FIG. 2. Initial consonant duration interaction voicing category * dialect. • In medial position voicing category * dialect was significant for consonant duration, %VF, RMS, CV ratio and burst. • Figure 3 shows the interaction of voicing category * dialect for %VF (medial position). • FIG. 3. Medial %VF interaction voicing category * dialect. • Figure 4 shows the interaction of voicing category * dialect for RMS (initial position). • FIG. 4. Initial RMS interaction voicing category * dialect. • For the interaction dialect * condition (speeded/ unspeeded), the only significant variable was preceding vowel duration (p= .005). • RMS was shown to uphold the difference between MAR and MER. Difference greater in initial than in medial contexts. • All correlates (with the exception of F0 contour) showed significance for the fixed effect voicing category. • Several correlates (consonant duration, %VF, RMS, CV ratio, burst) displayed significant interactions with respect to voicing category * dialect. • Most voicing category * dialect significant interactions were observed in medial position. • With the exception of RMS and %VF, MER values were generally higher and the differences between [± voice] greater. • Acoustic correlate inventories not substantially different in content (same correlates correspond to [voice] in both dialects). • However, the way that categories relate to one another differs between dialects. • Differences usually involve a shifting-up or –down of means. • [- voice] more affected than [+ voice]. • These results imply that while the same acoustic correlates of [voice] are operative in both MAR and MER dialects of Spanish, [± voice] categories relate to one another differently. • The present study is an investigation of acoustic correlates corresponding to the category [voice] in two dialects of Venezuelan Spanish. The Andean mountain dialect Mérida (MER) and Caribbean coastal dialect Margarita (MAR) are thought to differ systematically in the phonetic implementation of the Spanish phonological stop series along the lines of lowland and highland divides commonly reported for Latin American Spanish. Specifically, MER has been characterized by a greater percentage of occlusive pronunciations, MAR by more fricative and/or approximant realizations of phonological stops. To test what repercussions these differences in consonant articulation have on the acoustic correlates that encode [voice], a production experiment was run. • Informants were 25 adult monolingual speakers of Venezuelan Spanish from the areas of El Tirano (Margarita Island) and San Rafael de Mucuchíes (Mérida state). The materials were 44 CV syllable prompts. Target syllables were analyzed with respect to the following: consonant closure duration, VOT, %VF, RMS, preceding vowel duration, CV ratio, F1 onset frequency, F0 contour, and burst. Statistical analysis using a linear mixed model ANOVA tested for fixed effects of voicing category, dialect and condition (speeded/unspeeded) and interactions of voicing category * dialect and dialect * condition. Results showed that the dialects MER and MAR vary significantly in RMS. In addition, the following correlates were significant for the interaction of voicing category * dialect: consonant duration, VOT, %VF, RMS, CV ratio and burst. Generally, the nature of the differences indicates a greater separation between [± voice] values in MER than in MAR (notably divergent are VOT and RMS). These results imply that while the same acoustic correlates of [voice] are operative in both fortis and lenis dialects of Spanish, [± voice] categories relate differently. Furthermore, with regard to prosody and rate of speech, most significant differences in condition occurred in initial position while most significant differences in the interaction of voicing category * dialect were linked to medial position. The results of this study are relevant to current research on the specifics of dialectal variation in consonant systems. They also have wider implications for the general mapping of phonetics to phonology in speech. • Articulatory gestures condition the contrastive use of [voice] in speech across languages (Pickett, 1999). • However, many fine laryngeal adjustments contribute to perceived quality of voicing; these vary cross-linguistically. • Substantial language variation, several ways to do a ‘2-way voicing contrast’ across languages (Hoole, Gobl, & Ni Chasaide, 1999; Ni Chasaide & Gobl, 1993). • Is this true of dialects as well? • Lewis 2000- Found systematic differences between Bilbao, Caracas and Medellín dialects. • Hualde 2005- Reports variation between dialects with respect to stop consonant voicing. • Martínez Celdrán, 2006- Murcia data show phonetic voicing in both • [± voice]. • Two dialects of Venezuelan Spanish (Margarita [MAR] and Mérida • [MER]) commonly reported to differ in stop consonant pronunciation (Lipski 1994). • What robust acoustic correlates to [voice] emerge? • Are the acoustic correlate inventories substantially different in the two dialects? • Assuming differences are found, what generalizations can be made? • Are there observable differences across prosody and rate of speech? Materials and Procedure • Informants were 25 adult monolingual speakers of Spanish- 14 from MAR (4 males, 10 females) and 11 from MER (4 males, 7 females)- between 20-35 yrs. of age. • Materials were 44 CV syllable prompts, preceded by the word “son”. • During the session, subjects were asked to create a nonsense word based on the syllable that appeared • (e.g. Son TO -> “Son toróto”) • Contexts? Word-initial (n + CVC) and word-medial (n + CVC). • Speeded and unspeeded trials. • Measurements taken from a Wavesurfer (Sjölander & Beskow, 2006) spectrogram display viewed in conjunction with waveform and pitch tracks. • Measured 9 acoustic correlates. • 7 in initial: consonant duration, VOT, %VF, RMS, F1 onset frequency, F0 contour following closure, presence/ absence of release burst. • 9 in medial: (see above) + preceding vowel duration and CV ratio. • A linear mixed model statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Word-initial and word-medial were analyzed separately. • The linear mixed model used in this study tested for fixed effects of dialect, voicing category, and condition (speeded/ unspeeded). • It also tested for interactions between voicing category * dialect and dialect * condition. • Figure 1 shows an example of a VCV (/ibi/) waveform spectrogram slice for MAR (on the left) and MER (on the right). • FIG. 1. MAR and MER /ibi/. Discussion Background Results Selected References Hoole, P., Gobl, C., & Chasaide, A. (1999). Laryngeal coarticulation. In W. Hardcastle & N. Hewlett (Eds.). Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques (pps. 105-143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hualde, J. (2005). The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, A. (2000). Acoustic variability of intervocalic voiceless stop consonants in three Spanish dialects. In H. Campos, E. Herberger, A. Morales-Front, T. Walsh (Eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 101-114). Sommerville: Cascadilla Press. Lipski, J. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman. Martínez Celdrán, E. (2006). Remarks delivered during a keynote address. 3rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, Sept. 2006 Ni Chasaide, A. & Gobl, C. (1993). Contextual variation of the vowel voice source as a function of adjacent consonants. Language and Speech, 36(2-3), 303-330. Pickett, J. (1999). The Acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception, theory, and technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sjölander, K. & Beskow, J. Wavesurfer (2006). An open source speech tool, Centre for Speech Technology, KTH, Drottning Kristinas väg 31, SE-100 44, Sweden.