Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T06:41:35.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acoustic differentiation of allophones of /aɪ/ in Chicagoland English: Statistical comparison of formant trajectories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2021

José Ignacio Hualde Open the ORCID record for José Ignacio Hualde [Opens in a new window] ,
Marissa Barlaz  and
Tatiana Luchkina
José Ignacio Hualde
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaignjihualde@illinois.edu
Marissa Barlaz
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigngoldrch2@illinois.edu
Tatiana Luchkina
Affiliation:
Stony Brook Universitytatiana.luchkina@stonybrook.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diphthongs have a dynamic formant structure. Nevertheless, many quantitative studies of diphthongs are based on measurements at only two points, somewhere in the nucleus and somewhere in the glide. The question arises as to whether analyses based on values at only two points provide an adequate understanding of the dynamics of diphthongs. Wieling (2018) mentions the analysis of /aɪ/ raising in Chicago English in Hualde, Luchkina & Eager (2017) as one of several examples of recent studies where potentially interesting patterns may have been missed because of limited sampling of formant values, and proposes using Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMM) to allow a more complete understanding of diphthong dynamics. In this paper, we examine the acoustic nature of the (quasi-)phonemic differentiation between two originally allophonic variants of the diphthong /aɪ/ in the US English of Chicago and the surrounding area. We offer an acoustic analysis based on full formant trajectories of diphthongs with data obtained from a group of 53 speakers. The results of a GAMM analysis are then compared with those obtained in Hualde et al. (2017), which considered values at only two points and from a smaller set of speakers (17). We also discuss the main advantages of GAMM analysis over other techniques that have being proposed for the analysis of differences in vowel formant dynamics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , August 2022 , pp. 197 - 227
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Phonetic Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albin, Aaron. 2014. PraatR: An architecture for controlling the phonetics software ‘Praat’ with the R programming language. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 135(4), 2198. http://www.aaronalbin.com/praatr/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreda, Santiago. 2015. phonTools: Functions for phonetics in R. R package version 0.2-2.1. http://www.santiagobarreda.com/rscripts.html.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkson, Kelly, Davis, Stuart & Strickler, Alyssa. 2017. What does incipient /ay/-raising look like? A response to Josef Fruehwald. Language 93(3), e181–e191. e2017.0050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.56). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 20 June 2019).Google Scholar
Bořil, Tomáš & Radek, Skarnitzl. 2016. Tools rPraat and mPraat: Interfacing phonetic analyses with signal processing. In Petr, Sojka, Ales, Horák, Ivan, Kopecek & Karel, Pala (eds.), Text, speech, and dialogue: 19th International Conference, TSD 2016, Brno, Czech Republic, September 12–16, 2016 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9924), 367–374. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1973. Canadian raising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18(2), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1989. Canadian raising: Blocking, fronting, etc. American Speech 64, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2006. Canadian raising in retrospect and prospect. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2/3), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodroff, Eleanor & Cole, Jennifer. 2019. Testing the distinctiveness of intonational tunes: Evidence from imitative productions in American English. Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2019, 15–19.Google Scholar
Clark, Michael. 2019. Generalized additive models (version of 2019-02-17). https://m-clark.github.io/generalized-additive-models/.Google Scholar
Cole, Amanda & Patrycja, Strycharczuk. 2019. The PRICE–MOUTH crossover in the ‘Cockney diaspora’. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019, 602–606. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 1997. Canadian raising in a Midwestern U.S. city. Language Variation and Change 9(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart, Berkson, Kelly & Strickler, Alyssa. 2019. On the nature of incipient American Raising in comparison with older varieties. Presented at NWAVE48, 12 October, 2019, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart, Berkson, Kelly & Strickler, Alyssa. 2020. Unlocking the mystery of dialect B: A note on incipient /aɪ/-raising in Fort Wayne. American Speech 95(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, Charlie, Kendall, Tyller & Fridman, Valerie. 2018. Vowel dynamics in the southern vowel shift. American Speech 93(2), 186–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley & Tessier, Anne-Michele. 2019. The effect of allophonic processes on word recognition: Eye-tracking evidence from Canadian raising. Language 95(1), e136–e160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Robert A. & Jacewicz, Ewa. 2009. Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126, 2603–2618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fruehwald, Josef. 2013 . The phonological influence on phonetic change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef. 2016. The early influence of phonology on a phonetic change. Language 92(2), 376–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genolini, Christophe, Alacoque, Xavier, Sentenac, Marianne & Arnaud, Catherine. 2015 . kml and kml3d: R packages to cluster longitudinal data. Journal of Statistical Software 65(4), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1995. Phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 1–23. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Graham, Lindsey. 2019. Production and contrastiveness of Canadian Raising in Metro-Detroit English. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019, 127–131. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James M., Clark, Michael J. & Nearey, Terrance M.. 2001. Effects of consonantal environment on vowel formant patterns. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 748–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, James M., Getty, Laura A., Clark, Michael J. & Wheeler, Kimberlee. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(5), 3099–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
House, Arthur S. & Fairbanks, Grant. 1953. The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25(1), 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Luchkina, Tatiana & Eager, Christopher. 2017. Canadian Raising in Chicagoland: The production and perception of a marginal contrast. Journal of Phonetics 65, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Im, Suyeon, Hualde, José Ignacio & Cole, Jennifer S.. 2020. The salience of ‘rhythmic’ prenuclear accents: Evidence from an imitation study. Poster at Labphon 17, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Jacewicz, Ewa, Fox, Robert A. & Salmons, Joseph. 2011. Vowel change across three age groups of speakers in three regional varieties of American English. Journal of Phonetics 39, 683–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joos, Martin. 1942. A phonological dilemma in Canadian English. Language 18(2), 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilbury, James. 1983. Talking about phonemics: Centralized diphthongs in a Chicago-area idiolect. In Agard, Frederick B., Gerald, Kelley, Adam, Makkai & Makkai, Valerie B. (eds.), Essays in honor of Charles F. Hockett, 336–341. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Koops, Christopher. 2010. /u/-fronting is not monolithic: Two types of fronted /u/ in Houston Anglos. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16(2).Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B.. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sherry & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lenth, Russell. 2019. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package (version 1.4.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1996. Variation in /aɪ/ in Northern British English, with comments on Canadian Raising. (N)WAVEs and MEANS: A selection of papers from NWAVE 24: Special issue of University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 3(1), 213–222.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2004. Realization of the English postvocalic [voice] contrast in F1 and F2. Journal of Phonetics 32(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliot & Thomas, Erik R.. 2007. Origins of Canadian Raising in voiceless-coda effects: A case of phonologization. In Jennifer, Cole & Hualde, José Ignacio (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, 37–63. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peterson, Gordon E. & Lehiste, Ilse. 1960. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pycha, Anne & Dahan, Delphine. 2016. Differences in coda voicing trigger changes in gestural timing: A test case from the American English diphthong /aɪ/. Journal of Phonetics 56(1), 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rankinen, Wil A. 2014. The sociophonetic and acoustic vowel dynamics of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula English. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Raphael, Lawrence J. 1975. The physiological control of durational differences between vowels preceding voiced and voiceless consonants in English. Journal of Phonetics 3, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raphael, Lawrene J., Dorman, Michael F. & Liberman, Alvin M.. 1980. On defining the vowel duration that cues voicing in final position. Language and Speech 23(3), 297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenfelder, Ingrid. 2007. Canadian raising in Victoria, BC: An acoustic analysis. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32(2), 257–284.Google Scholar
Shewmake, Edwin F. 1925. Laws of pronunciation in Eastern Virginia. Modern Language Notes 40, 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shewmake, Edwin F. 1943. Distinctive Virginia pronunciation. American Speech 18(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton, Hay, Jennifer & Brand, James. 2019. Horizontal diphthong shift in New Zealand English. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019, 597–601. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Strelluf, Christopher. 2018. Speaking from the heartland (Publications of the American Dialect Society, 103). Durham, NC: American Dialect Society & Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Strickler, Alyssa. 2019. Within-speaker perception and production of dialectal /aɪ/-raising. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019, 3205–3209. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2000. Spectral differences in /aɪ/ offsets conditioned by voicing of the following consonant. Journal of Phonetics 28(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rij, Jacolien, Wieling, Martijn, Baayen, R. Harald & van Rijn, Hedderik. 2017. itsadug: Interpreting time series and autocorrelated data using GAMMs, version 2.3. R package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=itsadug.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy. 1987. ‘Canadian raising’ in some dialects of the northern United States. American Speech 62(3), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Catherine I. & Harrington, Jonathan. 1999. Acoustic evidence for dynamic formant trajectories in Australian English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106, 458–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieling, Martijn. 2018. Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics 70, 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 73(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An introduction with R, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahorian, Stephen A. & Amir, Jagharghi. 1993. Spectral-shape features versus formants as acoustic correlates for vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94, 1966–1982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed