[] from []

James M Scobbie

2nd Ultrasound Workshop

UBC Vancouver

April 2004

lip or lingual vs. lip & lingual

Why ultrasound?

Approximants involve open constrictions EPG is limited to anterior constrictions

Multiple articulations Complex articulatory/acoustic relationships EMA is limited to analysis of anterior coils Ultrasound can show all of tongue Acoustics, EPG and video (lips) can be

aligned Slow moving articulations

No need for high sample rate? Non-invasive, good for vernacular speech

Why English approximants?

/r/ sandhi is perhaps the most regular alternation in Southern British English (SBE)Phonological/phonetic status of this segmental

alternation between something and nothing

Labiodentalisation of /r/ is one of a set of far-reaching changes in contemporary SBE…Nature of phonetic processes involvedPhonological mergers and phonotactic changes

along with vocalisation of /l/ and /l/ sandhiPhonetic nature of vocalisation/labialisation Relationship to rich systems of light/dark allophony

Why not EMA?

Point-based analysisCoil position & speed Interarticulatory

timing Physically intrusive Stylistically off-

putting Coils in wrong place

Dorsal coil

Pharyngeal gesture

Labiodentalisation of /r/ to []

Large amounts of “[]” A change in production of (onset) /r/, but what? A phonological change to //? Early stages of merger with /l/ or /w/?

Anecdotal reports Misperceptions of /r fr pr br spr/ as /fw pw… Misperceptions of /tr dr kr gr/ etc. as /tw dw… Merger of /kr/ and /kw/ Merger of /r/ and /w/ Almost 50% of speakers on UK TV had a []

Is “[]” a vocalisation/loss of /r/?

English multiconstrictional approximant /r/ Labial, alveolar and velar/pharyngeal

gestures Variants: bunched, retroflex… Non-approximant allophones, e.g.

affricated /tr/ Diachronic vocalisation of coda /r/

complete Weakened gestures? loss of in codas plus mergers and rejigging of the vowel system

Current variation and change

An increasingly crowded labial-lingual space Onset /r/ labial & posterior approx

labiodental approx

/w/ labial & posterior approx

vocalised coda /l/ labial & posterior approx

/v f/ (& *//) labiodentals

Methodology

Speakers with [] and speakers with [] Pilot stage – 2 of former, 1 of latter (variable)

Materials “a ree” and “a raw” vs. “a vee” and “a vaw” In a 32 item varied list with clusters, /l/, /w/…

Analyses Acoustic analysis of formant targets and

movement Ultrasound analysis of lingual constrictions Video analysis of labial constriction

Methodology

QMUC Hardware & software Video mix, Articulate Assistant, helmet 25Hz sampling rate (40ms per frame) Each frame shows 2 interleaved scans or so 120° field of view

Annotation method Tongue shape in frame of maximal

labialisation for /r/ and for /v/ Lip & tongue are roughly time-aligned

±40ms? Tongue shape in frame of maximal []-ness Tongue shape for following vowel

Methodology

Hypotheses1. “lip or lingual”

[] has no lingual component (like [v])2. “lip and lingual”

unlike [v], [] differs from [] in gestural timing/strength

Tests If /r/ minus /v/ = 0, assume hypothesis 1 Otherwise, favour hypothesis 2 Expect intertoken variation

Results

Impressionistically The control Scots have [] The labiodental speaker mostly has [] but

is variable and in particular the onset to some /r/ sounds labial

/ri/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

/wi/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

//

LQ1 (reps 1-3)

LQ2 (reps 1-3)

vLQ1 (reps 1-3)

Scottish control speakers with []

Frames of maximal labialisation of /w/ /r/ /v/ (/l/) in two vowel contexts /i/ //

Lingual comments /v/ has a fairly neutral tongue shape /l/ is… uvularised /w/ is… velarised /r/ varies but can be pharyngealised

Speaker 1 (left) is “bunched/tip down”?Speaker 2 (right) is “retroflex/tip up”?

Labial comments /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

wo

wi

ro

ri

vo

vi

lo

li

SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable []

Fanned grid 3 splines taken

from

maximal labial frame (r & v)

maximal lingual frame (r only)

vowel

SBE speaker with variable []

Frame of maximal labialisation precedes maximal lingual []-like configuration (by more than 1 frame)

Lingual comments /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions

Labial comments /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

/ro/ SBE speakervLQ1

delay max lab to max r-like+ 3 frames (80-120ms)

+2

+1

/ri/ SBE speaker vLQ1max lab to max r

+ 2

+2

+1


15 points at 5° on lingual spline measured from transducer centrepoint

Consistency of /v/ and vowel

raw /i/

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

grid point

dis

tan

ce f

rom

pro

be

(m

m)

raw /i/

raw /v/

raw /aw /

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

grid point

dis

tan

ce f

rom

pro

be

(m

m)

raw /aw /

raw /v/

Mean of n=3 /v/ in each, n=6 vowel Consistent, so individual tokens of /r/

can be compared to mean /v/ for that vowel


Subtract average [v] from maximum labial frame and maximum lingual frame of /r/

Is there zero lingual difference?

Or is labialisation enhanced in size or timing?

Labial/lingual asynchrony in /ri/

Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]each ri minus mean vi at labmax and lingmax vlq1

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

fanned grid point

dis

tan

ce f

rom

tra

nsd

uce

r m

inu

s m

ean

dis

tin

ace

fo

r /v

/ (m

m)

ri1

ri2

ri3

ri1

ri2

ri3

Labial/lingual asynchrony in /r/

Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]each rO minus mean vO at labmax and lingmax vlq1

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

fanned grid point

dis

tan

ce f

rom

tra

nsd

uce

r m

inu

s m

ean

dis

tin

ace

fo

r /v

/ (m

m)

raw1

raw2

raw3

raw1

raw2

raw3

Vowel conditioned changes in /r/

Mean lingmax of /r/ raw locations

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

ri

raw

Vowel conditioned changes in /r/

Mean lingmax /r/ minus relevant mean [v]

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

i

aw

Conclusions

The SBE speaker using “labiodental” /r/ is variable, perhaps due to labial-lingual timing variation

Need quantitative comparison with controls Need numerous labiodental speakers

Acoustic analysis by Mark Jones (2004) shows labiodental /r/ can be very labial in character

The two control subjects have two types of /r/ /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions

Ultrasound is a good technique, for this study

Documents

[] from []