PowerPoint Presentation

James M ScobbieCASL Research Centre

LOT summer schoolUltrasound, phonetics, phonology: Articulation for Beginners!With special thanks to collaboratorsJane Stuart-Smith & Eleanor LawsonJoanne Cleland & Zoe RoxburghNatasha Zharkova, Laura Black, Steve CowenReenu Punnoose, Koen SebreghtsSonja Schaeffler & Ineke MennenConny HeydeAlan Wrench (aka Articulate Instruments Ltd) for AAA software and UTI hardware Various funding thank you to ESRC, EPSRC, QMU

June 2013

Ultrafest! November 2013 Edinburgh2Sociophonetics / Lg var & changeScottish EnglishRhotic tongue shapeDerhoticisation among WC speakers Vowel system generallyIs it time for some nitty gritty stuff?Scottish English again4. Fronted /u/Extensions, if timeNorthern Irish /u/ and diphthongsDutch /r/

Tick these off as I go31. Tongue shape for /r/Retroflexion vs. bunching for /r/ is claimed to make little or no acoustic difference in US English (Boyce & Espy-Wilson 1997, Zhou et al 2008, Guenther et al 1999)Sustained phonations There is no social variation in the appearance of the variant shapes (Mielke et al, 2010, Twist et al 2007)USA, among rhotic speakersWe find strong and consistent MC (bunch) vs. WC (retroflex) difference in Scottish EnglishLM16 par TIP UP (retroflex)EF6 far FRONT BUNCHEDEM3 purr MID BUNCHED aviLF1 purr FRONT UP

Social variation MC more bunchedLawson, Scobbie and Stuart-Smith (2011)Overlay (n=9-12), each frame a speaker

Social variation WC more tip-upcontra Mielke, Baker and Archangeli for US Eng

results2 raters, 49% identical rating and 90% agreement to adjacent categories within a 5 point rating scale, then the 10% redone. Results present averageFrom lightto dark:

The final 10% were redone and ended up being closer apart from 1 token which was jointly listened to, and a decision made.8results2x2 Chi2 shows main effects ofclass p