A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION

OF /U/-FRONTING

IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT

Reiko Kataoka

10 January 2009

LSA annual meeting

TODAY’S GOAL

“A production study on phonologization of

/u/-fronting in alveolar context”

1) To show that /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English

2) To demonstrate usefulness of experimental studies in investigating cognitive status of coarticulatory allophonic variations

PHONOLOGIZATION (HYMAN 1976)

Phonetics: intrinsic, mechanical = universalPhonology: extrinsic, intended = language-

specific

When the distinction becomes unclear…

*pá > pá

*bá > pǎ (Haudricourt 1961, Matisoff, 1973)

Stage I Stage II Stage III

pá [ ] pá [ ] pá [ ]

bá [ ] bǎ [ ] pǎ [ ]

‘intrinsic’ ‘extrinsic’ ‘phonemic’

animation

PHONOLOGIZATION

Significance: Emphasizes cognitive role in sound change: Contextual variations becomes dissociated from its context (Ohala 1981)

Questions: How to know if the feature is intrinsic or extrinsic?

Coarticulation: Mentally represented or nor

Controlled/Intended or Automatic

Studies address these questions: Universal vs. language specific phonetics Automatic vs. mechanical variations of speech

STUDIES ON COARTICULATORY VARIATIONS

Lindblom (1963) Vowel reduction in Swedish CVC Reduced ‘undershoot’ as duration increases

(automatic coarticulation, invariant vowel target)

Solé (1992) Vowel nasalization in English and Spanish Constant duration for nasalization in Spanish vs.

variable duration as a function of segmental duration in English

METHOD: F2 VS. VOWEL DURATION

Phonologized Different target for /u/

in alveolar context Constant fronting

across speech rates F2 across different

context forms separate groups

Not phonologized• Single target for /u/

• Greater fronting in fast speech vs. less fronting in slow speech

• F2 across different context converge toward a single loci

PRODUCTION EXPERIMENT

Data collection: UC Berkeley, Phonology LabParticipants: native speakers of American English

19 15 talkers (5 M, 10F; 19-29 yrs old)

Carrier: “That’s a ___ again.” (4 times)

Ref [hvd] (medium) Test [dvd] (fast, slow, medium)

he’d [i] dude, toot, dune, tune

hid [ɪ] zoos, suite

head [ɛ] noon (48 tokens)

had [æ]

HUD [ʌ] Cntrl [bvd] (fast, medium, slow)

hot [ɑ] booed (12 tokens)

hood [ʊ]

who’d [u] (32 tokens) (total 92 tokens/talker)

VOWEL NORMALIZATION (NEAREY 1978, FROM ADANK ET AL 2004)

m_LN(F1) = 6.4m_LN(F2) = 7.6

n_F1 = 0.6n_F2 = -0.4

n_F1 = 0.8n_F2 = 0.3

FORMANT MEASUREMENT

Reference vowels (medium rate; 4 times)

he’d [i]hid [ɪ]head [ɛ] had [æ]HUD [ʌ]hot [ɑ]hood [ʊ]who’d [u]

point of formant measurement

FORMANT MEASUREMENT

Test & Control vowels (fast, medium, slow; 4 times each)

dudetootdunetunezoossuite noon

booed

FORMANT MEASUREMENT

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TIME VARIATIONS OF F1, F2, AND F3 (SPEAKER = 1)

med

ian fre

quen

cy (H

z)

4000

2000

0

rate

slowmediumfast

4000

2000

04000

2000

04000

2000

04000

2000

04000

2000

04000

2000

0

step1197531

4000

2000

0

1197531 1197531

word

booed

dude

dune

noon

suit

toot

tune

zoos

F1F2F3

MEDIAN F1, F2, F3 TO QUADRATIC CURVE FIT

step

108642

Fre

quency (H

z)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

F1F2F3F1F2F3

Formant

R Sq Quadratic =0.762R Sq Quadratic =0.759R Sq Quadratic =0.757

Y=37.0X2 - 549X + 4288

Y=28.5X2 - 463X + 3305

Y=-2.5X2 - 34X + 163

F3 at F2min = 2274.1 Hz

F2min = 1437.4 Hz

F1 at F2min = 277.1 Hz

Fit for F3Fit for F2Fit for F1

Estimated time variations of F1, F2, & F3(speaker = 1; word = ‘dude’ rate = ‘slow’)

RESULTS 1: F1-F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS (N=15)

ii (he'd)

i (hid)

e (head)

ea (had)

a (HUD)

o (hot)

u (hood)

uu (who'd)

vow el

f emale male

sex

10001500200025003000

mean_F2 (Hz)

250

500

750

1000

1250

me

an

_F

1 (

Hz)

RESULTS 2: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS (N=15)

ii (he'd)

i (hid)

e (head)

ea (had)

a (HUD)

o (hot)

u (hood)

uu (who'd)

vow el

f emale male

sex

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

mean F2 (LN_normalized)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

RESULTS 3: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS (N=15)

ii

i

e

ea

a

o

u

uu

v

vow el

ref erence (who'd) control (booed) test [dv d]

type

-0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50

eF2_min (LN_normalized)

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

eF

1_a

t_eF

2_

min

(L

N_n

orm

ali

zed

)

RESULTS 4: NF1-NF2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45 )

ii

i

e

ea

a

o

u

uu

v

vow el

ref erence [hv d] control [bv d] test [dv d]

type

-0.5 0.0 0.5

eF2_min (LN_normalized)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

eF

1_a

t e

F2

_min

(L

N_

no

rma

lize

d)

RESULTS 5: SEGMENT DURATIONS IN FAST, MEDIUM, AND SLOW SPEECH

fastmedium

slow

rate

Error Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SE

Bars show Means

1 2 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

speaker

0

100

200

300

du

rati

on

(m

se

c)

RESULTS 6: F2-DURATION PLOTS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45; REFERENCE, N=15)

duration

4003002001000

snF2

0.6

0.3

0.0

-0.3

-0.6

dvdbvdhvddvdbvdhvd

context

R Sq Linear = 0.048R Sq Linear = 0.008R Sq Linear = 0.009

type

ReferenceControlTestReferenceControlTest

SUMMARY Findings

Comparable F2 values between /u/s in bilabial and zero contexts

Distinctive F2 values for /u/s in alveolar contexts Difference does not go away when segment duration

increases (up to 300+ msec)

Interpretations Speakers assume different target for /u/s in alveolar

context from other contexts Thus, /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been

phonologized in American English

Thank you!