Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:07:39.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic prominence effects on vowels in chain shifts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

Ewa Jacewicz ,
Robert Allen Fox  and
Joseph Salmons
Ewa Jacewicz
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Robert Allen Fox
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Joseph Salmons
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines synchronic variation in vowels in an effort to advance our understanding of the “transmission problem” in language change, in particular, the cross-generational perseverance of vowel shifts. Seeking a connection to patterns and directions of shifts in vowel systems over time, we examine the role of a largely neglected parameter of structured heterogeneity: prosodic prominence. Experimental data from two Midwestern dialects of American English—central Ohio and south-central Wisconsin—show that, for the vowels studied here, the changes in vowel characteristics observed under higher degrees of prosodic prominence (or greater emphasis) correspond to the changes predicted by well-established principles of chain shifting. An acoustic study assesses variation in prosodic prominence by examining formant frequencies at multiple locations in the course of vowel duration, which provides information about vowel quality dynamics. A perceptual study determines listeners' sensitivity to the obtained acoustic variation, as manifested in specific patterns of vowel identification, confusions, and category goodness ratings. Finally, a prosodically based explanation of the transmission of sound change is described, which offers new connections between structural and social factors in sound change, notably the roles of “social affect” and speaker gender.This article builds on earlier conference papers (Fox, Jacewicz, & Salmons, 2003; Jacewicz & Salmons, 2003; Jacewicz, Salmons, & Fox, 2004a, 2004b; Salmons & Jacewicz, 2004). Additional acoustic analyses and perceptual results from the data set presented here can be found in Jacewicz et al. (forthcoming) and Fox et al. (forthcoming). We thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. We also thank Kristin Hatcher, Jennifer Mercer, and Dilara Tepeli for help with collection of the perception data. Work supported by NIH NIDCD R01 DC006871-01 and NIH NIDCD R03 DC 005560 to The Ohio State University (Ewa Jacewicz, PI).

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , October 2006 , pp. 285 - 316
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, Bridget L. (2003). An acoustical study of southeastern Michigan Appalachian and African American southern migrant vowel systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ash, Sharon. (2003). A national survey of North American dialects. In D. Preston (ed.), Needed research in American dialects. Durham: Duke University Press. 57–74. [Publications of the American Dialect Society, 88.]
Beckman, Mary E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.
Beckman, Mary E., & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3:255–309.Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann R. (2002). Confluent talker- and listener-related forces in clear speech production. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 241–273.
de Jong, Kenneth J. (1995). The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97:491–504.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth J. (2004). Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 32:493–516.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2004). Preadolescent drama queens and the acceleration of phonological change. The 78th Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston.
Erickson, Donna. (1998). Effects of contrastive emphasis on jaw opening. Phonetica 55:147–169.Google Scholar
Erickson, Donna. (2002). Articulation of extreme formant patterns of emphasized vowels. Phonetica 59:134–149.Google Scholar
Erickson, Donna, Fujimura, Osamu, & Pardo, Brian. (1998). Articulatory correlates of prosodic control: Emotion and emphasis. Language and Speech 41:399–417.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Sarah H., & Kewley-Port, Diane. (2002). Vowel intelligibility in clear and conversational speech for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112:259–271.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile, & Keating, Patricia. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domain. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:3728–3740.Google Scholar
Fox, Robert A. (1983). Perceptual structure of monophthongs and diphthongs in English. Language and Speech 26:21–60.Google Scholar
Fox, Robert A., Jacewicz, Ewa, & Salmons, Joseph. (2003). Prosodic domain-initial effects on the acoustic structure of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114(4):2396.Google Scholar
Fox, Robert A., Jacewicz, Ewa, & Salmons, Joseph. (forthcoming). Prosodically induced phonetic variations in vowels: A source of language change? In Festschrift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fry, Dennis B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27:765–768.Google Scholar
Gay, Thomas. (1978). Effect of speaking rate on vowel formant movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 63:223–230.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. (2002). Investigating chain shifts and mergers. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 244–266.
Harris, Katherine S. (1978). Vowel duration change and its underlying physiological mechanisms. Language and Speech 21:354–361.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James, Getty, Laura A., Clark, Michael J., & Wheeler, Kimberlee. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97:3099–3111.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James M., Clark, Michael J., & Nearey, Terrance M. (2001). Effects of consonantal environment on vowel formant patterns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109:748–763.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James M., & Nearey, Terrance M. (1999). Identification of resynthesized /hVd/ syllables: Effects of formant contour. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:3509–3523.Google Scholar
Jacewicz, Ewa, Fox, Robert A., & Salmons, Joseph. (forthcoming). Prosodic conditioning, vowel dynamics and sound change. In Variation in Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jacewicz, Ewa, Fujimura, Osamu, & Fox, Robert A. (2003). Dynamics in diphthong perception. In M. J. Sole, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain. 993–996.
Jacewicz, Ewa, & Salmons, Joseph. (2003). The prosodic basis of vocalic chain shifts in Germanic. Paper presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, Buffalo, NY.
Jacewicz, Ewa, Salmons, Joseph, & Fox, Robert A. (2004a). Prosodic domain effects and vocalic chain shifts. Paper presented at the Laboratory Phonology Conference (LabPhon 9), University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
Jacewicz, Ewa, Salmons, Joseph, & Fox, Robert A. (2004b). Prosodic conditioning, vowel dynamics and sound change. Paper presented at the Variation in Phonetics and Phonology Conference (VarPhon 1), University of Potsdam, Germany.
Kiparsky, Paul. (2003). The phonological basis of sound change. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 313–342.
Krause, Jean C., & Braida, Louis D. (2002). Investigating alternative forms of clear speech: The effects of speaking rate and speaking mode on intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112:2165–2172.Google Scholar
Krause, Jean C., & Braida, Louis D. (2004). Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115:362–378.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, & Boberg, Charles. (2006). Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah, & Steiner, Richard. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Regional Survey.
Lindblom, Björn. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 403–439.
Lindblom, Björn, & Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. (1967). On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 42:830–843.Google Scholar
Milenkovic, Paul. (2003 version). TF32 software program. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Milroy, James. (1992). Language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Moon, Seung-Jae, & Lindblom, Björn. (1994). Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96:40–55.Google Scholar
Nearey, Terrance M. (1989). Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85:2088–2113.Google Scholar
Picheny, Michael A., Durlach, Nathaniel I., & Braida, Louis D. (1986). Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II. Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 29:434–446.Google Scholar
Rump, H. H., & Collier, R. (1996). Focus conditions and the prominence of pitch-accented syllables. Doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Sluijter, Agnes M. C., & Van Heuven, Vincent J. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 8:185–190.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph, & Jacewicz, Ewa. (2004). Vocalic chain shifts as an effect of synchronic prosody. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting. Boston, MA.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, & Turk, Alice. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25:193–247.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. (1881). Grundzüge der phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. [1st ed., 1876.]
SPSS, Inc. (1997). SPSS Advanced Statistics 7.5. Chicago, IL.
Stockwell, Robert. (1978). Perseverance in the English Vowel Shift. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton. 337–348.
Strange, Winifred. (1989). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85:2135–2153.Google Scholar
Terken, Jacques. (1991). Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95:3662–3665.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik. (2001). An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Publications of the American Dialect Society, 85.]
Thomas, Erik. (2002). Instrumental phonetics. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 168–200.
Trager, G. L., & Smith, H. L. (1951). An outline of English structure. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 95–188.