Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:53:12.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acoustic and articulatory manifestations of vowel reduction in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2008

Christine Mooshammer  and
Christian Geng
Christine Mooshammer
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CTtine.mooshammer@haskins.yale.edu
Christian Geng
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburghcgeng@ling.ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent phonological approaches incorporate phonetic principles in the motivation of phonological regularities, e.g. vowel reduction and neutralization in unstressed position by target undershoot. So far, evidence for this hypothesis is based on impressionistic and acoustic data but not on articulatory data. The major goal of this study is to compare formant spaces and lingual positions during the production of German vowels for combined effects of stress, accent and corrective contrast. In order to identify strategies for vowel reduction independent of speaker-specific vocal-tract anatomies and individual biomechanical properties, an approach similar to the Generalized Procrustes Analysis was applied to formant spaces and lingual vowel target positions. The data basis consists of the German stressed and unstressed full vowels /iù ɪ yù ʏ eù ɛ ɛù φù œ aù a où ɔ uù ʊ/ from seven speakers recorded by means of electromagnetic midsagittal articulography (EMMA). Speaker normalized articulatory and formant spaces gave evidence for a greater degree of coarticulation with the consonant context for unstressed vowels as compared to stressed vowels. However, only for tense vowels could spatial reduction patterns be attributed to vowel shortening, whereas lax vowels were reduced without shortening. The results are discussed in the light of current theories of vowel reduction, i.e. target undershoot, Adaptive Dispersion Theory and Prominence Alignment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 117 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and weakness at the interface: Positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary, Edwards, Jan & Fletcher, Janet. 1992. Prosodic structure and tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics. In Docherty, Gerald & Robert Ladd, D. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 68–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm. Ms., distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Cho, Taechong. 2004. Prosodically conditioned strengthening and vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in English. Journal of Phonetics 32 (2), 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2004. Vowel reduction. In Hayes, et al. (eds.), 191–231.Google Scholar
Disner, Sandra. 1980. Evaluation of vowel normalization procedures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, Kenneth J., Beckman, Mary E. & Edwards, Jan R.. 1993. The interplay between prosody and coarticulation Language and Speech 36, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1966. A note on vocal tract size factors and non-uniform F-pattern scalings. Speech Transmission Laboratory – Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 22–30.Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1975. Non-uniform vowel normalization. Speech Transmission Laboratory – Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 1–19.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, et al. (eds.), 233–276.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2006. A phonetically-based model of phonological vowel reduction. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol. 1981. Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 46, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol. 1996. Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99, 1730–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gendrot, Cédric & Adda-Decker, Martine. 2005. Impact of duration on F1/F2 formant values of oral vowels: An automatic analysis of large broadcast news corpora in French and German. INTERSPEECH, 2453–2456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geng, Christian & Hoole, Philip. 2005. Some comments on the reliability of three-index factor analysis models in speech research. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 42, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geng, Christian & Mooshammer, Christine. 2000. Modeling German stress distinction. The 5th Seminar on Speech Production. Models and Data & Crest Workshop on Models of Speech Production: Motor Planning and Articulatory Modelling, Kloster Seeon, 161–164.Google Scholar
Goodall, Colin R. & Green, Paul B.. 1986. Quantitative analysis of surface growth. Botanical Gazette 147 (1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, John. 1975. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Fletcher, Janet & Beckman, Mary. 2000. Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of accent in Australian English. In Broe, Michael & Pierrehumbert, Janet (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon, 40–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.). 2004. Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heike, Georg. 1972. Quantitative und qualitative Differenzen von /aː/-Realisationen im Deutschen. The 7th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Montreal, 725–729.Google Scholar
Herrick, Dylan. 2003. Phonological vowel reduction in four Catalan varieties. The 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 1679–1682.Google Scholar
Hoole, Philip & Kühnert, Barbara. 1996. Tongue–jaw coordination in German vowel production. The 1st ESCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Production Modeling: From Control Strategies to Acoustics, 97–100.Google Scholar
Hoole, Philip & Mooshammer, Christine. 2002. Articulatory analysis of the German vowel system. In Auer, Peter, Gilles, Peter & Spiekermann, Helmuth (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, 129–152. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, Michael, Marasek, Krzysztof, Schneider, Katrin & Clahßen, Kathrin. 1995. Acoustic correlates of word stress and tense/lax opposition in the vowel system of German. The 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, 428–431.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith, Ladefoged, Peter & Lindau, Mona. 1993. Individual differences in vowel production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94, 701–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klatt, Dennis. 1973. Interaction between two factors that influence vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1102–1104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindblom, Björn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 1773–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, Seung-Jae & Lindblom, Björn. 1994. Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96, 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooshammer, Christine & Fuchs, Susanne. 2002. Stress distinction in German: Simulating kinematic parameters of tongue-tip gestures. Journal of Phonetics 30, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooshammer, Christine, Fuchs, Susanne & Fischer, Dirk. 1999. Effects of stress and tenseness on the production of CVC syllables in German. The 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 409–412.Google Scholar
Mooshammer, Christine, Hoole, Philip & Geumann, Anja. 2006. Interarticulator cohesion within coronal consonant production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120, 1028–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öhman, Sven. 1967. Numerical model of coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 41, 310–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, Jaye & Tabain, Marija. 2005. Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62, 14–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palethorpe, Sallyanne, Beckman, Mary, Fletcher, Janet & Harrington, Jonathan. 1999. The contribution of schwa vowels to the prosodic accent contrast in Australian English. The 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 695–698.Google Scholar
Ramsay, James O. & Silverman, Bernard W.. 1997. Functional data analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel. 1999. Lingual coarticulation. In Hardcastle, William J. & Hewlett, Nigel (eds.), Coarticulation: Theory, ata and techniques, 80–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietveld, A. C. M. & Koopmans-van Beinum, Florien. 1987. Vowel reduction and stress. Speech Communication 6, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, James & Slice, Dennis. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39, 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabain, Marija & Perrier, Pascal. 2005. Articulation and acoustics of /i/ in preboundary position in French. Journal of Phonetics 33, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1938. Die phonologischen Grundzüge der sogenannten ‘Quantität’ in den verschiedenen Sprachen. Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, 155–174. Milano: Ulrico Hoepli Editore.Google Scholar
van Bergem, Dick R. 1993. Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress and word class. Speech Communication 12, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1991. Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Kenstowicz, Michael & Loporcaro, Michele (eds.), Cartamen Phonologicum II: Papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting, 211–243. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar