Upload
kailyn-asby
View
219
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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