ok - here are the figures based on Stuart-Smith's data, a bit clearer,
which again suggest F1 is something to look at (because as I said, /u/ is
often not phonetically a high vowel) let along F3 or F2.
Some more discussion follows these numbers:
formants f1 and f2, n=4 (one token per speaker) from lexemes
brood /ud/ & brewed /u#d/. Coarticulation effect from /br/ is likely, and WC
tend to tap it.
WC/MC = working/middle class om/ym = old/young male, of/yf = old/young
female.
F1
/ud/ om ym of yf
MC 343 430 357 451
WC 332 402 398 468
/u#d/
MC 352 402 351 443
WC 351 412 375 425
F2
/ud/ om ym of yf
MC 1476 1817 1642 2005
WC 1694 1809 1968 1916
/u#d/
MC 1428 1862 1505 2048
WC 1668 1660 1940 1924
Combined (n=8)
om ym of yf
MC 347 416 354 447
MC 1452 1840 1574 2026
WC 341 407 386 444
WC 1681 1734 1954 1920
stdev for combined social groups
om ym of yf
MCF1 37 61 68 37
MCF2 102 192 181 78
WCF1 44 36 57 40
WCF2 79 133 109 159
(An aside on articulatory metaphors - I don't think the issue of barred I
vs. barred U as phonetic targets is remotely helpful for you: what matters
is the range of actual acoustic versions that are found. Articulatory
measurement of lip rounding and tongue configuration would indeed be
interesting, but since you're not planning on measuring lip roundings or
tongue position, the barred-u/barred-i difference is neither here nor there,
seems to me. So, a way to introduce the general idea of the research, but I
disagree with Sara I think it was that it's worthwhile starting trying out
different articulations and looking at th acoustic effects, if that's what
she meant. Interesting in its own right, but I don't think necessary in this
case.)
Also, Bob mentions lexical differences. In Scobbie and Stuart-Smith (2006)
we present the first results of lexically-based variation in /ai/ in
word-internal contexts - the results as published are just transcription,
but I have the F1/F2 measurements of these somewhere. Also, I have copious
amounts of pilot data from 3 speakers on lexical differences in SVLR which I
have presented a few times - long vowels in "dude" for example, or "vibes"
whereas more normally those phonotactics /ud/ and /aib/ would have short
vowels. Maybe not terribly relevant if you are looking just at quality, but
the phonetic duration system is definitely relevant to both judgements of
Scottishness and is indeeed able to be lexically specified. A short duration
of a vowel in "spoon" sounds Scottish, probably.
Bob refers to the very interesting issue:
>what I'm aiming at is, for Scottish
>English, something like Labov's index of "Philadelphian-ness" based on the
>acoustic realization of specific vowel phonemes. The basic idea is to
>explore the Labovian distinction between lexical set membership and
>phonetic realization
I know Bob is aware of the various Scottish things I've been doing on
dialectal fine variation from acoustic point of view, but some of the other
readers of the list whose interest is raised by the topic might not be, so
I'm give a couple pointers. Parental identity for mastery of SVLR is
something we looked at in a different ICPhS paper from 1999 by Hewlett,
Matthews and Scobbie, and recently I've looked at SVLR and VOT in
Shetlanders with various parentage, showing gradient effects of dialect
affiliation. Not so unusual for vowels, but in the context of VOT, I think
it is excellent evidence against universal features.
Scobbie, J. M. & Stuart-Smith, J. (2006). Quasi-phonemic contrast and the
fuzzy inventory: Examples from Scottish English. QMUC Speech Science
Research Centre Working Papers, WP-8
http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/ssrc/output/WP.htm
Also in these working papers are a version of the shetland vot/svlr thing,
and a paper on acquisition with Olga Gordeeva and Ben Matthews - Fig 1
represents the low centralised /u/ and there are various tables comparing
SSE and SSBE lexical sets from a Scottish perspective.
Wow, I feel exhausted from this copious self-promotion. :-)
Jen Hay & co have done interesting work on dialectal perception in New
Zeland, eg here
http://www.ling.canterbury.ac.nz/jen/documents/Hay-Nolan-Drager.pdf using a
different kind of method.
Signing off!!!
============================================
Hi Bob,
My guess is that this distinction between estuary and scottish versions of
the vowel in "good" is too complex for an MSc to make a lot of headway
unless some basic background work is done. The vowel will be very variable
in both accent types, and though there still may be a simple acoustic
relationship between formants and perceived Scottishness that can be found,
what would that tell you, if you find it? And what sort of judgement task is
the tight one for this sort of study? I think this needs to be clear to
start with, and think that a strong methodological and descriptive angle
would be really useful for other researchers.
As we all tend to do, you define /u/ variation in articulatory parameters of
fronting and rounding, while asking for acoustic correlates of the
difference, because formants are what are easiest to use to quantify it. I'm
pretty sure there is a lot of articulatory variation, and acoustic variation
too, and as a first step I would look at one or the other, but not both. So,
acoustics only.
However, I think /u/ is central-to-front, not sure about how often it is
more than mid rounded, and I think it will be mid-close, often no higher
than /o/.
Acoustically, it's worth looking at the variation studies that are out
there. There is a paper on OUT (Eremeeva, V. and Stuart-Smith, J. (2003), 'A
sociophonetic investigation of the vowels OUT and BIT in Glaswegian',
Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,
Barcelona, 1205-8) which may have something to say about the acoustics of
the monophthongal variant of the OUT vowel. Pretty sure Jane has lots of
info on /u/, maybe not in that paper though.
My laptop has become desychronised to my work files, or I could tell you
what the values I have for /u/ are from Jane's data. Oh - here they some -
in Scobbie, James M., Alice Turk & Nigel Hewlett (1999) Morphemes, Phonetics
and Lexical Items: The Case of the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. Proceedings
of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Volume 2:1617-1620
http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/ssrc/pubs/scob991.pdf
Age-sex group: F1 - F2
Younger F: 445 - 1977
Younger M: 412 - 1787
Older F: 370 - 1764
Older M: 345 - 1567
Sadly - no F3. Bad me.
I will have social variation results for these at work, but I don't think I
measured F3, and it was in my pre-PRAAT days, so I can't just ask the data.
Damn.
Are you using synthesised vowels - in which case you could look at an
acoustic cue directly, or real tokens? If real tokens, there will be lots of
other things present which might cue Scottishness too: voice quality,
intonation, duration etc.
There is an IRN BRU 32 advert at the moment with an interesting /u/ vowel,
very good example of one of the broad Scots-influenced variants you hear. It
features a hardman cuckoo. This variant is a central but not too high /u/.
And this is not merely a variant, but a variant selected for a media
campaign as being stereotypical for a subtype of Scottishness.
http://www.themarketingblog.co.uk/e_article000591518.cfm?x=b11,0,w
VERY quick and dirty measurement gives
F1 400Hz, F2 1500Hz, F3 2500Hz-2700Hz.
the adult male cuckoo fits the average adult male profile for glasgow /u/
fairly well, with a little higher F1 and similar F2.
Jim Scobbie
-----Original Message-----
From: D R Ladd
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 16/06/2006 16:03
Subject: acoustic distsinction between barred I and barred U
Dear Phonet people,
For an MSc summer dissertation project I am supervising, I'm looking for
a
quick-and-dirty acoustic parameter that will distinguish a Scottish
realisation of the vowel of _good_ (conventionally transcribed with IPA
barred U) from a more "Estuary English" - fronter than IPA /u/ and less
rounded - version of the same vowel (for which I would be tempted to use
IPA barred I). I thought that the difference between F3 and F2 might
work
(I presume the two would be closer together in barred U than barred I),
but does anyone have any other ideas? I'm looking for a single
parameter
that I can correlate with judgements of "Scottishness". (I mean, a
single
parameter for this particular vowel quality - I'm looking at other
features of Scottish speech as well measures as well).
Thanks.
Bob Ladd
|
