1 / 20

Alicia Beckford Wassink * Richard Wright * Lisa Galvin * Amber Franklin †

Intraspeaker variability in vowel production: An investigation of motherese, hyperspeech, and Lombard speech in Jamaican speakers. Alicia Beckford Wassink * Richard Wright * Lisa Galvin * Amber Franklin † University of Washington, Seattle, USA wassink@u.washington.edu.

casper
Download Presentation

Alicia Beckford Wassink * Richard Wright * Lisa Galvin * Amber Franklin †

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. Intraspeaker variability in vowel production:An investigation of motherese, hyperspeech, and Lombard speech in Jamaican speakers Alicia Beckford Wassink * Richard Wright * Lisa Galvin * Amber Franklin † University of Washington, Seattle, USA wassink@u.washington.edu UW Linguistics Colloquium 17 October, 2003 * Department of Linguistics † Speech and Hearing Sciences funded by a grant from the Center for Mind, Brain and Learning, University of Washington

  2. 0.0 Introduction Purpose: • Characterize and compare several acoustic phonetic parameters associated with so-called “perturbed” speech • Extend knowledge regarding the sources of systematic variability in speech --The Lombard effect and sociolinguistics • studies of audience design and “attention paid to speech” (Mahl 1975; Labov, 1984; Bell, 1984) have been influenced by investigations into auditor effects and speakers’ ability to self-monitor • 1960’s (Labov): the notion of formality lies on a simple dimension of attention paid to speech • “formality” or “style”as a discrete variable, rather than a continuous one: WORD LIST > MINIMAL PAIRS > READING > INTERVIEW > CASUAL • Bell argues that we need a construct that does not confuse the code with factors influencing the code...”Language doesn’t covary with style. Style is an axis of its own.” (1984)

  3. 1.0 Background: Types of Exaggerated Speech • Child-directed speech (“CDS”, Kuhl et al. 1997): • Speech directed to infant auditors is produced with a higherfundamental frequency, exaggerated pitch range, and slower rate of speech • more expanded F1 x F2 vowel space (92% larger than ADS) • Question: Do adult speakers of a duration contrasting language show stretching of cues crucial to phonemic contrast? Do hyperarticulated vowels facilitate the child’s category development? • The Lombard reflex (Lane & Tranel, 1971) • Speech in which intensity is adjusted to compensate for changes in background noise. An informational response. • Question: Does the Lombard reflex affect parameters other than intensity? • Hyperspeech (“The Hyperspace Effect”, Johnson et al. 1993) • Talkers modify F1 and F2 of phonetic targets in an effort to alleviate perceived difficulties on the part of the listener in recovering information in the signal. An informational response. • e.g., corrective behavior, clarification of the content of an intended utterance (to another native-speaking adult addressee)

  4. 1.1 Goals of this talk • Goal 1: Characterize the effects of four task types on key phonetic parameters associated with vowel contrast. Research Question 1: Do these four task types differ in the pressures they exert on key phonetic parameters? a.) F1 (Hz) c.) duration (sec) e.) intensity (dB) b.) F2 (Hz) d.) f0 (Hz) • Goal 2: Characterize cross-lectal similarities and differences in exaggeration strategies. Research Question 2: Are the phonetic parameters exaggerated differently in a linguistic variety that employs spectral differences for vowel contrast than in another which relies upon temporal differences for signaling contrast? a.) Jamaican acrolect (spectral) c.) future: American English (spectral) b.) Jamaican basilect (temporal)

  5. 1.2 Acrolectal and Basilectal Segmental Inventories Vowels --Vowels are sociolinguistic markers in Jamaican American English: 1.2:1

  6. 2.0 Methods 1 • A. Materials and Equipment 1.) 6 vowels in 3 tense-lax pairs: acrolectbasilect Heedie~Hiddie /i˘ / ~ /I/ /i˘/ ~ / i/ Haughdie~Haddie /ç˘ / ~ /a/ /a˘/ ~ / a/ Whoodie~Hoodie /u˘ / ~ /U/ /u˘/ ~ /u/ 2.) Critters and critter cards 3.) Tascam DA-P1 4.) 2 Shure WL184 supercardioid lavalier microphones 5.) Shure UT4 wireless bodypack transmitter/receiver 6.) Digital tape of white noise - 40dB noise (Lombard task only) delivered over closed circumaural headphones (Sennheiser HD280)

  7. 2.1 Methods 2 • B. Tasks and Amounts of Data Four randomized tasks (semi-crossed design): unscripted/ child/noise/ scripted adult no noise (Spontaneous-Adult) (unscripted) (adult) (no noise) (Familiarization) Spontaneous-Playtime (CDS) unscripted child both (12) Wordlist in carrier (CDS) scripted child both (24) Map (Hyperspeech)-corrective scripted adult both (24) Map (Hyperspeech)-noncorrective scripted adult both (24) • Subjects Two groups of 10 mothers/group (of infants 6-9 months of age). Data for 5 mothers/group are considered here. -- basilect: 5 mothers x 6 vowels x +/-84 tokens = 2520 -- acrolect: 5 mothers x 6 vowels x +/- 84 tokens = 2520

  8. 2.2 Methods 3 • C. Analysis 1.) digitized at an 44kHz sampling rate 2.) downsampled to 11.025kHz for analysis in Praat 4.04 3.) overall measures: duration 4.) midpoint measures: f0, F1, F2, F3 (in Hz), intensity (dB) 5.) f0 range for each speaker 6.) Inter-measurer reliability (10%) = 91% 7.) Inferential Statistics: Factorial MANOVA (4 x 2 x 2 x 2 design) --Appropriate post-hoc comparisons --Independent variables (discrete): Task (4 levels), Group (2 levels), Noise (2 levels) and Auditor (2 levels) --Dependent variables (continuous): f0, F1, F2, intensity, duration --Speaker (within subject factor)

  9. 3.0 Summary of Results • Research Question 1 (restated):Do these four task types differ in the pressures they exert on key phonetic parameters? By-parameter results 1.) Intensity: the Lombard task shows the highest dB values. CDS means not significantly different from Lombard. 2.) f0:mothers show the widest ranges in CDS and Lombard tasks • Research Question 2 (restated):Are the phonetic parameters exaggerated differently in a linguistic variety that employs spectral differences for vowel contrast than in another which relies upon temporal differences for signaling contrast? By-group results: 1.) Region: Main effect of region on vowel duration (p<0.01) 2.) F1: Main effect of region on F1 (p<0.01) 3.) F2: Main effect of region on F2 (p<0.03)

  10. 3.1 Results: by Phonetic Task Table 1: Mean values for 5 phonetic parameters, by task (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05)

  11. 3.1 Results: by Phonetic Task Table 1: Mean values for 5 phonetic parameters, by task (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05)

  12. 3.1 Results: by Phonetic Task Table 1: Mean values for 5 phonetic parameters, by task (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05)

  13. 3.1 Results: by Phonetic Task Table 1: Mean values for 5 phonetic parameters, by task (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05)

  14. 3.2 Results: by Group (Acrolect vs. Basilect) Table 2: Between-group differences for 5 phonetic parameters. (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05). Means for F1, F2 are computed using distance scores for tense vs. lax vowels (e.g.,( F1Bas/i:/-F1Bas/I/)-(F1Acr/i:/-F1Acr/I/)).

  15. 3.2 Results: by Group (Acrolect vs. Basilect) Table 2: Between-group differences for 5 phonetic parameters. (* indicates a statistically significant difference at p<0.05). Means for F1, F2 are computed using distance scores for tense vs. lax vowels (e.g.,( F1Bas/i:/-F1Bas/I/)-(F1Acr/i:/-F1Acr/I/)).

  16. 4.0 Discussion Register Theory, a more integrated view: “Variation on the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the “social” dimension.” (Bell, 1984:151) • Present study suggests that it is most profitable to consider “style” as an axis. Linguistic features are used as resources available to the speaker from the set available in social variation. The speaker chooses among available features (which comprise variables) as they design speech for a particular audience, based upon their perception of that speaker’s: • linguistic experience (competence in target language) • environmental experience (noise) • social features (age) • discourse context (attitude toward the topic, conversational factors)

  17. 4.0 Discussion Audience Design Theory, Bell 1984: “Variation on the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the “social” dimension.” (Bell, 1984:151)

  18. 4.0 Discussion Audience Design Theory, Bell 1984: “Variation on the style dimension within the speech of a single speaker derives from and echoes the variation which exists between speakers on the “social” dimension.” (Bell, 1984:151)

  19. 4.0 Discussion Examination of a single set of phonetic parameters across several exaggerated speech tasks has yielded: • A rich database for inquiries into intra-speaker variability • A more sophisticated understanding of phonetic differences that obtain between different types of “exaggerated speech”. • A larger pool of languages for which CDS has been examined (i.e., new data from a creole language), and further clarified differences between two varieties of this language. • Results with implications for language acquisition: ‘Do speakers emphasize those dimensions that will be crucial for the child’s phonemic category development?’ If between-group durational differences disappear under CDS, but spectral differences remain, are spectral differences of particular importance in category development? Not necessarily. Both emphasize durational differences in tense~lax contrast.

  20. References Bell, A. (1984) “Language style as audience design.” Language and Society (13). Cambridge: Cambridge. Crothers, J. (1978) "Typology and universals in vowel systems." In Universals of Human Language (J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson and E. A. Moravcsik, eds.). Stanford: Stanford UP, 93-152. Johnson, K., Flemming, E., & Wright, R. (1993) The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language, 69 (3), (505-528). Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. (1997) Cross-Language Analysis of Phonetic Units in Language Addressed to infants, Science (277), 684-686, Aug 1. Labov, W. (1984) “Field Methods of the Project on Linguistic Change and Variation.” In, Language in Use, (J. Baugh and J. Sherzer, editors). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Lane, H., Tranel, B. & Sisson, C. (1970) Regulation of Voice Communication by Sensory Dynamics, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47(2), 618-624. Lane, H., & Tranel, B. (1971). The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 677-709. Lehiste, I. (1970) Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 18-33. Mahl, (1975) Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (1997, eds.) Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 31-49. Wassink, A. B. (2002) Theme and Variation in Jamaican Vowels, Language Variation and Change 13(2).

More Related