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
@ 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
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/
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
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.
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.
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
Total subjects included: Percep-on N = 298 8 Produc-on N = 48 (-‐1) ANAE Map 11.15: Labov, Ash, & Boberg 2006: 148
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
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, …)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.