Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel differences in the U.S.

239

Published on

Paper presented at ExAPP 2013 at the University of Copenhagen, DK

Paper presented at ExAPP 2013 at the University of Copenhagen, DK

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
239
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. More  on  the  produc-on  and  percep-on  of  regional  vowel   differences  in  the  U.S.   Tyler  Kendalla   Valerie  Fridlandb   Charlie  Farringtona   a  Dept.  of  Linguis;cs,  University  of  Oregon   b  Dept.  of  English,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno   ExApp  2013  |  Copenhagen  |  21  March  2013   1  
  • 2. @  ExAPP  2010    •  We  presented  some  results  of  an  ongoing  vowel   percep;on/vowel  produc;on  study  addressing  the   ques;on:   –  How  does  variability  in  speech  produc;on  relate  to   variability  in  speech  percep;on,  in  the  context  of  current   US  vowel  shiVs?  •  Based  on  data  from  three  regions  of  the  US   –  South  (Memphis,  TN,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  Blacksburg,  VA)     –  Inland  North  (Oswego,  NY)   –  West  (Reno,  NV)  •  Which  are  characterized  by  different  vowel  systems  in  produc;on   2  
  • 3. Three  major  regional  US  vowel  shiVs   Southern  Vowel  ShiV  (SVS)   Northern  Ci;es  ShiV  (NCS)   bat?   Elsewhere  ShiV   a.k.a.  Canadian  Vowel  ShiV   a.k.a.  California  Vowel  ShiV   a.k.a.  Columbus  Vowel  ShiV  NCS:  Eckert  1988,  2000,  Evans  2001,  Gordon  1997,  Labov  1991,  1994,  2001,  Labov  et  al  2006,  Thomas  1997b,  2001;  SVS:  Feagin  1986,  Fridland  2000,  2001,  2003a,  2003b,  2004,  Fridland  and  Bartled  2006,  Labov  1991,  1994,  2001,  Labov  et  al  2006,  Thomas  1989,  1997a,  2001;  Elsewhere:  Clarke  et  al  1995,  Luthin  1987,  Labov  et  al  2006,  Thomas  2001   3  Figures  from  Gordon  “Do  you  speak  American?”  hdp://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/changin/  
  • 4. About  our  study  •  Web-­‐based  percep;on  survey   –  Developed  by  Bartek  Plichta  (hdp://bartus.org/)   ~  e  •  Vowel  con;nua  synthesized  from  a  single   talker’s  natural  vowels  as  endpoints  •  Five  vowel  con;nua,  two  contexts  each   /e/  ~  /ɛ/     /i/  ~  /ɪ/     /æ/  ~  /ɑ/   /ɪ/    ~  /u/   /ʌ/  ~  /o/   ɛ  ~  •  Iden;fica;on  task   –  Listeners  heard  4  repe;;ons  of  each  of  7   steps  in  random  order   •  A  subset  of  the  percep;on   –  Listeners  had  to  iden;fy  the  word  they   par;cipants  also  read  a   heard  from  two  choices  (Hillenbrand  et  al   passage  and  a  word  list  con-­‐ 1995,  Strange  1995,  Thomas  2002)     –  E.g.  BAIT  or  BET,  DATE  or  DEBT   taining  vowels  and  phone;c   contexts  of  interest   4  
  • 5. Our  previous  findings   •  Focused  on  the  mid-­‐front   vowels  and  the  /e/  ~  /ɛ/   con;nuum   •  Our  results  indicated  that  a   percep;on/produc;on  link   exists  so  that:     BAIT   BET   1.  Regional  shi4s  involve  not   only  differing  produc>on  but   also  percep-on   DATE   DEBT  Fridland  &  Kendall.  2012.  The  effect  of  regional  vowel  differences  on  vowel  percep;on  and  produc;on:  Evidence   5  from  U.S.  vowel  shiVs.  Lingua  122/7:  779-­‐793.  
  • 6. Previous  findings   •  Focused  on  the  mid-­‐front   vowels  and  the  /e/  ~  /ɛ/   con;nuum   •  Our  results  indicated  that  a   percep;on/produc;on  link   exists  so  that:       2.  Speakers  showing  more   +SVS   +NCS   evidence  of  par>cipa>on   produc>vely  in  the  SVS  and   NCS  also  show  shi4ed   percep>on  compared  to   those  in  their  regions  with   less  produc>on  shi4  Fridland  &  Kendall.  2012.  The  effect  of  regional  vowel  differences  on  vowel  percep;on  and  produc;on:  Evidence   6  from  U.S.  vowel  shiVs.  Lingua  122/7:  779-­‐793.  
  • 7. Expanding  our  inquiry  •  Since  ExAPP  2010  (Lingua  2012)  our  project  has   expanded:   –  We’ve  examined  new  aspects  of  our  collected  data   allowing  us  to  ask  here:   •  To  what  extent  do  other  parts  of  the  vowel  space  paKern  like   the  mid-­‐front  vowels?   –  We’ve  gathered  data  from  subjects  in  new  field  sites   allowing  us  to  ask:   •  How  robust,  or  variable,  are  the  paKerns  within-­‐region?   7  
  • 8. Total  subjects  included:  Percep-on  N  =  298   8  Produc-on  N  =  48  (-­‐1)   ANAE  Map  11.15:  Labov,  Ash,  &  Boberg  2006:  148  
  • 9. Produc;on  data,  briefly:  West  &  North   Legend   /i/  &  /ɪ/:  green   /e/  &  /ɛ/:  blue   /æ/:  red   /ɑ/  &  /ɔ/:  orange   All  vowels  normal-­‐ ized  using  Lobanov   method  (Kendall  and   Thomas  2012)   West  shows  evidence   North  shows  evidence   of  elsewhere  shiV   of  NCS   9  
  • 10. Produc;on  data,  briefly:  South  (3  sites)   TN  (original  data  from   NC  shows  some  SVS   VA  shows  some  SVS   Lingua  2012)  shows   par;cipa;on,  but,  e.g.,   par;cipa;on,  but,  e.g.,   greatest  par;cipa;on  in   low-­‐back  merger   less  proximate  mid-­‐  and   SVS     high-­‐  front  vowels  than   TN  and  NC   South  shows  evidence   of  SVS   These  paKerns  are  in  line  with  other  findings  of   the  retreat  of  the  SVS  in  many  parts  of  the   But  variability  across   South  (Fridland  1999,  Baranowski  2008,   10   the  three  field  sites   Prichard  2010,  Dodsworth  &  Kohn  2012,  …)  
  • 11. Current  inquiry  1.  How  robust  are  our  previous  findings  (on  /e/   ~  /ɛ/)  when  considered  in  terms  of  sub-­‐regions   and  our  new  data?  2.  How  do  the  findings  obtained  for  /e/  ~  /ɛ/   relate  to  other  parts  of  the  vowel  space?   –  Here:  /i/  ~  /ɪ/  &  /æ/  ~  /ɑ/   11  
  • 12. 1.  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  regional  paderns   •  Our  earlier  results  (Lingua   Percep;on  of  BAIT  ~  BET   2012)     –  217  subjects   •  Southerners  hear   significantly  less  /ɛ/  than   North  &  West   Percep;on  of  DATE  ~  DEBT  BAIT  ~  BET  Model  Results   Log-­‐odds   Std.    p  (Kendall  &  Fridland  2012)   Est.   Err.  (Intercept)   -­‐9.615   0.647   <  0.000001  Con;nuum  Step   2.123   0.128   <  0.000001  North  vs.  South     2.983   0.891   <  0.001  West  vs.  South   3.583   0.828   <  0.0001  Ext.  Spkrs  vs.  Headphones   -­‐0.766   0.477   =  0.11  Int.  Spkrs  vs.  Headphones   -­‐1.354   0.481   <  0.01  Step  x  North  vs.  South   -­‐0.416   0.179   <  0.05  Step  x  West  vs.  South   -­‐0.540   0.159   <  0.001  Not  showing  results  for  DATE  ~  DEBT   12  
  • 13. 1.  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  regional  paderns   •  With  the  new  data:   Percep;on  of  BAIT  ~  BET   •  Southerners  hear   significantly  less  /ɛ/  than   North  &  West   –  I.e.:  Quite  similar  results   Percep;on  of  DATE  ~  DEBT  BAIT  ~  BET  Model  Results   Log-­‐odds   Std.    p   Est.   Err.  (Intercept)   -­‐9.504   0.608   <  0.000001  Con;nuum  Step   2.019   0.099   <  0.000001  North  vs.  South     1.073   0.588   =  0.068  West  vs.  South   2.403   0.707   <  0.001  Ext.  Spkrs  vs.  Headphones   -­‐1.033   0.364   <  0.01  Int.  Spkrs  vs.  Headphones   -­‐0.910   0.311   <  0.01  Step  x  North  vs.  South   -­‐0.251   0.121   <  0.05  Step  x  West  vs.  South   -­‐0.489   0.136   <  0.001  Not  showing  results  for  DATE  ~  DEBT   13  
  • 14. 1.  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  sub-­‐regional  paderns  •  Broken  down  by  sub-­‐ Percep;on  of  BAIT  ~  BET   region  (states):  •  There  are  within-­‐region   differences,  but  these   ul;mately  appear  in  line   with  the  larger  regional   Percep;on  of  DATE  ~  DEBT   paderns   –  E.g.,  the  three  Southern   sites  are  significantly   different  from  one  other   but  s;ll  padern,  together,   differently  than  the  other   regional  sites   14  
  • 15. 1.  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  direct  link  •  What  about  the  curvilinear  rela;on-­‐ ship  between  /e/-­‐/ɛ/  Euclidean   distance  and  vowel  percep;on?  •  As  reported  in  Lingua  2012       +SVS   +NCS   15  
  • 16. 1.  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  direct  link  •  What  about  the  curvilinear  rela;on-­‐ ship  between  /e/-­‐/ɛ/  Euclidean   distance  and  vowel  percep;on?  •  In  new  data:  Generally  similar  results,   but  somewhat  mi;gated   –  Logis;c  mixed-­‐effect  model  on  subset   data  for  BAIT  ~  BET  indicates  that  South   is  sig.  different  from  North  but  not  West   and  that  /e/-­‐/ɛ/  distance  as  a   polynomial  is  sig.  (though  polynomial   term  is  marginal)   –  The  Virginians  in  par>cular  are  much   more  West-­‐like  in  their  mid  vowel   produc>ons,  and  somewhat  flaKen  out   the  paKern…   16  
  • 17. 2.  /i/  ~  /ɪ/  regional  paderns   •  Not  as  differen;ated  as  the  /e/  ~  /ɛ/   Percep;on  of  BEAD  ~  BID   percep;ons   –  Both  in  terms  of  regional  differences   and  the  range  of  the  psychometric   func;ons   •  But  Southerners  do  hear  significantly   more  /i/  than  the  other  regions   •  These  /i/  ~  /ɪ/  and  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  percep>on   findings  are  in  line  with  SVS’  more   Percep;on  of  DEED  ~  DID   centralized  front  tense  vowels  DEED  ~  DID  Model  Results   Log-­‐odds   Std.    p   Est.   Err.  (Intercept)   -­‐4.605   0.303   <  0.000001  Con;nuum  Step   0.792   0.048   <  0.000001  North  vs.  South     0.592   0.348   =  0.089  West  vs.  South   0.891   0.437   <  0.05  Step  x  North  vs.  South   -­‐0.133   0.061   <  0.05  Step  x  West  vs.  South   -­‐0.137   0.067   <  0.05  Not  showing  results  for  BEAD  ~  BID   17  
  • 18. 2.  /i/  ~  /ɪ/  direct  link  •  For  the  subset  produc;on   subjects,  we  take  as  a  relevant   produc;on  measure  /i/-­‐/ɪ/   Euclidean  distance  and   consider  the  percep;on  data…  •  Although  regional  paderns  do   exist  in  produc;on  and   percep;on,  no  direct   produc;on-­‐percep;on   rela;onship  •  …   Mean  percep;on  of  BEAD  ~  BID,   18   ordered  by  subjects’  /i/-­‐/ɪ/  distance  
  • 19. 2.  /æ/  ~  /ɑ/  regional  paderns   •  Also  not  as  differen;ated  as   Percep;on  of  SAD  ~  SOD   the  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  percep;ons   –  Again,  both  in  terms  of  regional   differences  and  the  range  of  the   psychometric  func;ons   •  But  Northerners  do  hear   significantly  more  /ɑ/  than  the   other  regions   Percep;on  of  PAD  ~  POD   –  In  line  with  NCS  fronted  /ɑ/  SAD  ~  SOD  Model  Results   Log-­‐odds   Std.    p   Est.   Err.  (Intercept)   -­‐4.878   0.324   <  0.000001  Con;nuum  Step   1.024   0.060   <  0.000001  South  vs.  North     -­‐1.239   0.445   <  0.01  West  vs.  North   -­‐1.364   0.478   <  0.01  Step  x  South  vs.  North   0.201   0.085   <  0.05  Step  x  West  vs.  North   -­‐0.024   0.087   =  0.782  Not  showing  results  for  PAD  ~  POD,  also   19  not  showing  a  significant  effect  of  speaker/headphone  factor  
  • 20. 2.  /æ/  ~  /ɑ/  direct  link  •  For  the  subset  produc;on  subjects,  we   take  as  a  relevant  produc;on  measure     /ɑ/-­‐/ɔ/  Pillai  score,  a  measure  of  merger   status  (Hay  et  al.  2006,  Hall-­‐Lew  2010)   and  consider  the  percep;on  data  •  Similar  results  as  found  for  /e/  ~  /ɛ/!   –  We  find  significant  effects  for  both  region   and  for  merger  status   –  North  hears  more  /æ/     •  (Yes,  opposite  from  full  dataset  results!?)   –  But  also  curvilinear  direct  rela;onship   between  produc;on  and  percep;on   •  Subjects  in  middle  of  the  Pillai  range  most   likely  to  hear  /ɑ/,  those  with  lowest  Pillai  most   likely  to  hear  /æ/   Mean  percep;on  of  SAD  ~  SOD,   20   ordered  by  subjects’  /ɑ/-­‐/ɔ/  Pillai  
  • 21. 2.  More  on  /æ/  ~  /ɑ/  direct  link  •  But  /ɑ/-­‐/ɔ/  Pillai  is  actually  a  “weird”   predictor  for  performance  on  this   con;nuum  •  And,  e.g.,  /æ/-­‐/ɑ/  Euclidean  distance   seems  like  a  reasonable  metric  for  the   low  vowel  percep;on  data   –  And  actually  is  the  parallel  to  our  /e/-­‐/ɛ/   work  •  Indica;ons  of  significance  here  too!   –  With  an  interac;on  between  /æ/-­‐/ɑ/   distance  and  /ɑ/-­‐/ɔ/  Pillai   –  But  /ɑ/-­‐/ɔ/  Pillai  has  stronger  effect   •  And  the  model  on  previous  slide   outperforms  this  model     Mean  percep;on  of  SAD  ~  SOD,   21   ordered  by  subjects’  /æ/-­‐/ɑ/  distance  
  • 22. In  closing  •  A  lot  more  to  do!   –  We  are  con;nuing  to  gather  new  produc;on  and  percep;on   data  in  these  and  addi;onal  field  sites   •  Our  produc;on  results,  in  par;cular,  for  VA  and  NC  will  likely  change   as  we  flesh  out  the  number  of  analyzed  speakers   –  And  collec;ng  new  percep;on  data  in  a  social  condi;on  (ala   Niedzielski  1999,  Hay  et  al.  2006)  •  But:   –  A  larger  dataset,  with  more  regionally  variable  subjects,   con;nues  to  show  the  same  overarching  paderns  for  /e/  ~  /ɛ/   –  Most  importantly,  perhaps,  we  have  also  found  more  evidence   for  a  curvilinear  rela;onship  between  vowel  produc;on  and   vowel  categoriza;on  in  percep;on   •  /æ/  ~  /ɑ/  shows  the  same  kind  of  padern  as  /e/  ~  /ɛ/  -­‐  individuals  who   are  in  the  middle  of  the  produc;on  spectrum  appear  to  behave   differently  than  those  on  the  extremes  –  even  though  /æ/  &  /ɑ/  are   engaged  in  different  kinds  of  shiVs   22  
  • 23. Thank  you  Research  funded  by  NSF  grants  #   Selected  References   BCS-­‐0518264    &  BCS-­‐1123460  (PI   •  Baranowski,  Maciej.  2008.  The  Southern  ShiV  in  a  marginally  Southern  dialect.   Pennsylvania  Working  Papers  in  Linguis>cs  14.2:  35-­‐43.   Fridland),  and  BCS-­‐1122950  (PI   •  Dodsworth,  Robin  and  Mary  Kohn.  2012.  Urban  rejec;on  of  the  vernacular:   Kendall)   The  SVS  undone.  Language  Varia>on  and  Change  24:  221-­‐245   •  Fridland,  Valerie.  1999.  The  Southern  ShiV  in  Memphis,  Tennessee.  Language   Varia>on  and  Change  11:  267-­‐285.   •  Fridland,  Valerie.  2001.  The  social  dimension  of  the  Southern  Vowel  ShiV:  We  are  grateful  to  Craig  Fickle  at  the   Gender,  age  and  class.  Journal  of  Sociolinguis>cs  5,  233-­‐253.   University  of  Oregon  and  Sohei   •  Fridland,  Valerie  and  Tyler  Kendall.  2012.  The  effect  of  regional  vowel   differences  on  vowel  percep;on  and  produc;on:  Evidence  from  U.S.  vowel   Okamoto  at  the  University  of   shiVs.  Lingua  122/7:  779-­‐793.   Nevada,  Reno  for  support  with   •  Kendall,  Tyler  and  Valerie  Fridland.  2012.  Varia;on  in  the  produc;on  and   percep;on  of  mid  front  vowels  in  the  US  Southern  Vowel  ShiV.  Journal  of   various  aspects  of  this  research.   Phone>cs  40:  289-­‐306.   •  Kendall,  Tyler  and  Erik  Thomas.  2012.  Vowels:  Vowel  manipula>on,  We  also  thank  Haley  Lee,  Kristen   normaliza>on,  and  plofng  in  R.  R  package,  version  1.2.  [  URL:  hdp://cran.r-­‐ project.org/web/packages/vowels/  ]   Mankosa,  and  Ken  Konopka  for   •  Labov,  William,  Sharon  Ash  and  Charles  Boberg.  2006.  The  Atlas  of  North   help  conduc;ng  fieldwork  for   American  English:  Phone>cs,  Phonology  and  Sound  Change.    Berlin:  De   Gruyter.   this  project.   •  Gordon,  Madhew  J.  2005.  The  Midwest  and  West.  In  Handbook  of  Varie>es  of   English:  The  Americas  and  Caribbean,  Vol  I:  Phonology,  ed.  E.  Schneider,  338– 350.  Berlin:  Mouton  de  Gruyter.   •  Prichard,  Hillary.  2010.  Linguis;c  Varia;on  and  Change  in  Atlanta,  Georgia   Pennsylvania  Working  Papers  in  Linguis>cs  16,  141-­‐149.   •  Thomas,  Erik.    2001.    An  Acous>c  Analysis  of  Vowel  Varia>on  in  New  World   English.    Publica;on  of  the  American  Dialect  Society  85.  Durham,  NC:  Duke   University.    

×