| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ekkehard Dengler
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
 |
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Nathan Sanders <nsanders@williams.edu> wrote:
[...]
"Putt" doesn>t have an open vowel, at least not for me (my
vowels are pretty close to what is considered general
American).
I don>t think that I>ve heard it with an open vowel in any
U.S. variety, but I have heard [pat] from some southern BrE
speakers.
Yes, I>m one of these. For me, the only difference between the
vowels
of <putt> and <part> is length -- they>re identical as regards both
openness and frontness.
That>s interesting. How would you describe your accent, if it>s not
too personal? I mean, where would you place it on the
broad/cultivated continuum (for want of a better term)?
"General Australian". Not really "Broad", but certainly not
"Cultivated". Of course, it varies with register (i.e., who I>m
talking to).
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad /a: /, but not
as far back as in true RP, and certainly not as far back as the /A. /
in POT.
[/quote]
Are you referring to AmE here?
Regards,
Ekkehard |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Nathan Sanders
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
In article
<10dcb771-5f06-4f28-a51a-f3f4ee3ee974@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Sonja Elen Kisa <sonjaaa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Is Praat able to calculate F2-prime, or is the formula posted
anywhere? Is F2-prime debatable, or is it generally agreed upon as
more accurate than F2 to map a vowel?
[/quote]
I don>t think Praat does it, because it is a hypothesized perceptual
effect, not acoustic. The original experiments on the idea of an F2'
can be found in:
Carlson, R., G. Fant, and B. Granström. 1975. Two-formant models,
pitch and vowel perception. In _Auditory Analysis and Perception of
Speech_, ed. by G. Fant and M. A. A. Tatham, 5582. London: Academic
Press.
Carlson, R., B. Granström, and G. Fant. 1970. Some studies concerning
perception of isolated vowels. _STL-QPSR _11:1935.
The computation of F2' I>ve been using in my own work is from:
Mantakas, M., J.-L. Schwartz, and P. Escudier. 1986. Modèle de
prédication du Œdeuxième formant effectif¹ F>2‹application à l¹étude
de la labialité des voyelles avant du français. In _Proceedings of the
15th journées d¹étude sur la parole_, 157161. Société Française
d¹Acoustique.
This computation is also given in the following article, which might
be easier to get a copy of:
Schwartz, J.-L., L.-J. Boë, N. Vallée, and C. Abry. 1997a. _The
Dispersion-Focalization Theory of vowel systems_. Journal of Phonetics
25:255286.
It>s not a straightforward formula, unfortunately.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Nathan Sanders
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
In article
<89e0529b-af34-4219-80f9-31e2400f2e32@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Sonja Elen Kisa <sonjaaa@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Wow, thanks again Nathan!! You are my hero.
Can I track nasality and roundedness with F1 and F2 prime or do I look
for this information in another way?
[/quote]
Nasality would show up as a dark so-called "nasal formant" below F1.
Because it>s so close to F1, it can merge with it (which is why
nasality affects vowel height; cf. the loss of contrast between "pin"
and "pen" in southern dialects of American English).
Rounding can>t be uniquely determined acoustically, since it has
essentially the same acoustic effect as tongue backing (lowering F2;
rounding also lowers other formants, but other things affect them,
too).
You>d need to do visual inspection of the speaker to get that
information (usually, just looking at the speaker while they say the
vowels will be sufficient for most languages, but if you>re interested
in quantifying the degree of rounding/spreading in a vowel, you can do
it by measuring defined points in photographs or video stills).
[quote]I>ll e-mail you my results one day. I>m mapping out the phonology of
the Chiac language of Southeast New Brunswick, Canada.
[/quote]
Great, I>d be happy to look at it!
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Atkinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@t-online.de> wrote...
[quote]John Atkinson wrote:
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Nathan Sanders <nsanders@williams.edu> wrote:
[...]
"Putt" doesn>t have an open vowel, at least not for me (my
vowels are pretty close to what is considered general
American).
I don>t think that I>ve heard it with an open vowel in any
U.S. variety, but I have heard [pat] from some southern BrE
speakers.
Yes, I>m one of these. For me, the only difference between the
vowels
of <putt> and <part> is length -- they>re identical as regards both
openness and frontness.
That>s interesting. How would you describe your accent, if it>s not
too personal? I mean, where would you place it on the
broad/cultivated continuum (for want of a better term)?
"General Australian". Not really "Broad", but certainly not
"Cultivated". Of course, it varies with register (i.e., who I>m
talking to).
Thank you.
Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad /a: /, but not
as far back as in true RP, and certainly not as far back as the /A. /
in POT.
Are you referring to AmE here?
[/quote]
No, I was referring to RP (and Australian) POT (which is rounded, thus
denoted /A. /, with a dot -- upside down script a in IPA). Probably
GenAm POT /A / is just about as back (though not rounded of course), but
who am I to say?
John. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Ekkehard Dengler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@t-online.de> wrote...
John Atkinson wrote:
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Nathan Sanders <nsanders@williams.edu> wrote:
[...]
"Putt" doesn>t have an open vowel, at least not for me (my
vowels are pretty close to what is considered general
American).
I don>t think that I>ve heard it with an open vowel in any
U.S. variety, but I have heard [pat] from some southern BrE
speakers.
Yes, I>m one of these. For me, the only difference between the
vowels
of <putt> and <part> is length -- they>re identical as regards
both openness and frontness.
That>s interesting. How would you describe your accent, if it>s not
too personal? I mean, where would you place it on the
broad/cultivated continuum (for want of a better term)?
"General Australian". Not really "Broad", but certainly not
"Cultivated". Of course, it varies with register (i.e., who I>m
talking to).
Thank you.
Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad /a: /, but
not as far back as in true RP, and certainly not as far back as the
/A. / in POT.
Are you referring to AmE here?
No, I was referring to RP (and Australian) POT (which is rounded, thus
denoted /A. /, with a dot
[/quote]
I>d forgotten what the dot meant, sorry.
Regards,
Ekkehard |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian M. Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:48:47 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:zwRjk.24019$IK1.9652@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[quote]"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@t-online.de> wrote...
John Atkinson wrote:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad
/a: /, but not as far back as in true RP, and certainly
not as far back as the /A. / in POT.
Are you referring to AmE here?
No, I was referring to RP (and Australian) POT (which is
rounded, thus denoted /A. /, with a dot -- upside down
script a in IPA).
[/quote]
I>ve seen descriptions that put the Australian vowel at
about [O], definitely higher than [A.] or RP POT.
[quote]Probably GenAm POT /A / is just about as back (though not
rounded of course), but who am I to say?
[/quote]
It varies, from central to fairly far back, but it>s
generally not so far back as RP /A./.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
On Jul 30, 9:13 pm, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Brian M. Scott wrote:
John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote...
John Atkinson wrote:
[...]
Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad
/a: /, but not as far back as in true RP, and certainly
not as far back as the /A. / in POT.
Are you referring to AmE here?
No, I was referring to RP (and Australian) POT (which is
rounded, thus denoted /A. /, with a dot -- upside down
script a in IPA).
I>ve seen descriptions that put the Australian vowel at
about [O],
[/quote]
Meaning cardinal [O]? In which language may a cardinal [O] be heard?
To me, a short [O] is the open allophone of /u/ in Arabic and
Malayalam; eg., the first vowel in Mohammed and a long [O:] is the
Czech o<acute>.
[quote]definitely higher than [A.] or RP POT.
[/quote]
For a comparison of vowel quadrilaterals of Brit, American and Ozzie
accents,
look up this paper by Qin Yang and Saeed Vaseghi
"Analysis, modelling and synthesis of formants of British, American
and Australian accents"
According to it, Australians have a vowel triangle with PART at the
apex and PAT and POT equally high above the apex. In openness, PUTT is
a third of the way from PART to PAT/POT. PET is nearly on par with
PORT only in Aussie accents; it>s much more open in British accents.
This appears to be because the Aussie /&/ is realized quite close to
British/ American [E]. All according to the charts in the above paper.
[quote]Well, my POT vowel seems to be exactly as open as my PART (and PUTT) --
i.e., as open as I ever get. My PORT is definitely less open -- about
the same as my PET, and definitely less open than PAT, which itself is
less open than PART.[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Atkinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Redefining [a] and [æ]? or using a better vowel quadril |
|
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote]John Atkinson <johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote:
"Ekkehard Dengler" <ED-RS@t-online.de> wrote...
John Atkinson wrote:
[...]
Cultivated /a: / is further back than General or Broad
/a: /, but not as far back as in true RP, and certainly
not as far back as the /A. / in POT.
Are you referring to AmE here?
No, I was referring to RP (and Australian) POT (which is
rounded, thus denoted /A. /, with a dot -- upside down
script a in IPA).
I>ve seen descriptions that put the Australian vowel at
about [O], definitely higher than [A.] or RP POT.
[/quote]
Well, my POT vowel seems to be exactly as open as my PART (and PUTT) --
i.e., as open as I ever get. My PORT is definitely less open -- about
the same as my PET, and definitely less open than PAT, which itself is
less open than PART.
John. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
