The Interaction of Spirantization and s-Aspiration in

Andalusian Spanish

Joaquín Romero

Universitat Rovira i Virgili

purpose

study the relevance of the temporal dimension in the interaction of

spirantization s-aspiration

in Western Andalusian

aerodynamic (airflow) data

perceptual data

background

spirantization

s-aspiration

/b/ /d/ /g/ [B¢] [D¢] [ƒ]

¢

/s/ /h/

background spirantization as gestural reduction

variability

constriction degree duration

compare with casual English

incomplete target achievement evidenced by

gradation

/b/ /d/ /g/ [b¢] [d¢] [g]

¢

background s-aspiration as gestural reduction and overlap

variability

gradation

/st/ [tH]

/sm/ [m˘]

/sb/ [B]

/s#/ [h]

'usted'

'asma'

'desvía'

'las olas'

[u»tHe]

[»am˘a]

[de»Bia]

[lah »ola]

background spirantization and s-aspiration in Western Andalusian

Romero 95

minimal distinction

/sb/ [B] 'desvía' [de»Bia]

/b/ [b4] 'debía' [de»b4ia]

no difference in constriction degree main difference in duration

current study further investigate the nature of the interaction between spirantization and s-aspiration in Western Andalusian

both processes are non-categorical spirantization (deocclusivization) as a result of gestural reduction s-aspiration (assimilation) as a result of gestural reduction and overlap role of the temporal dimension

current study 3 types of data

acoustics

aerodynamics

perception

duration of VCV

oral airflow during target C

auditory discrimination between C and sC

design acoustics / aerodynamics

2 subjects Diga muchas veces

/b/ /d/ /g/ [voiced stops] /sb/ /sd/ /sg/ [voiced frics] /p/ /t/ /k/ [voiceless stops] /s/ [voiceless fric]

2 rates: normal / slow 5 repetitions each

pa__apa

design acoustics / aerodynamics

duration of VCV: apa, aba, asba...

Scicon oral airflow mask

Macquirer

oral airflow during constriction for C

statistical analysis factorial ANOVA

designpasapa_MV_AS2

Audio

mv

gain = 4

Ch#1

mv

gain = 5

300 600 900 1200 1500 ms

VCV

airflow

design perception

20 subjects Diga muchas vecespa__apa

/b/ /d/ /g/ [voiced stops] /sb/ /sd/ /sg/ [voiced frics] /p/ /t/ /k/ [voiceless stops] /s/ [voiceless fric]

design perception

Diga pasgapa muchas veces

ƒ /g/

sg – mean (g)

25%

50%

75%

100%=

design perception

1 pabapa pasbapa

2 pastapa patapa

3 pasdapa padapa

4 pasgapa pagapa

5 pasbapa pabapa

each token appeared twice total of 48 items

results VCV duration

1 12150,807 12150,807 19,708 <,0001

3 28725,851 9575,284 15,531 <,0001

3 113,371 37,790 ,061 ,9800

92 56721,952 616,543

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value

Rate

Manner

Rate * Manner

Residual

ANOVA Table for VCV

37,923 12,733 <,0001 S

14,463 18,007 ,1141

36,550 12,733 <,0001 S

-23,460 18,007 ,0112 S

-1,373 12,733 ,8309

22,087 18,007 ,0168 S

Mean Diff. Crit. Diff P-Value

VCD fric, VCD stop

VCD fric, VCL fric

VCD fric, VCL stop

VCD stop, VCL fric

VCD stop, VCL stop

VCL fric, VCL stop

Fisher's PLSD for VCV

Effect: Manner

Significance Level: 5 %

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

voicedfric

voicedstop

voicelessfric

voicelessstop

slow

fast

results oral airflow during C

1 ,022 ,022 ,014 ,9072

3 382,200 127,400 78,417 <,0001

3 5,973 1,991 1,226 ,3050

92 149,467 1,625

DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value

Rate

Manner

Rate * Manner

Residual

ANOVA Table for airflow mid

2,567 ,654 <,0001 S

1,633 ,924 ,0007 S

5,000 ,654 <,0001 S

-,933 ,924 ,0479 S

2,433 ,654 <,0001 S

3,367 ,924 <,0001 S

Mean Diff. Crit. Diff P-Value

VCD fric, VCD stop

VCD fric, VCL fric

VCD fric, VCL stop

VCD stop, VCL fric

VCD stop, VCL stop

VCL fric, VCL stop

Fisher's PLSD for airflow midEffect: MannerSignificance Level: 5 %

0123456789

voiced

fric

voiced

stop

voiceless

f ric

voiceless

stop

slow

fast

results perception

labial dental

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B -25 -50 -75 -100

%

b4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

D -25 -50 -75 -100

%

d4

results perception

velar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ƒ -25 -50 -75 -100

%

ƒ 4

discussion acoustics

temporal difference between single voiced stop and s+voiced stop

temporal difference between stops and fricatives (independent of voice) rate difference

discussion airflow

rate differences not significant overall but probably so for fricatives

significant difference between spirantized stop and voiced fricatives

spirantized stops lowest values

discussion perception

correct differentiation between spirantized voiced stops and voiced fricatives very low identification rate, mostly velars

perhaps problems with methodology segmentation manipulation