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

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

3 Figures from Gordon “Do you speak American?” hdp://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/changin/

Southern Vowel ShiV (SVS) Northern Ci;es ShiV (NCS)

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

bat?

4

About our study •  Web-‐based percep;on survey

–  Developed by Bartek Plichta (hdp://bartus.org/)

•  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/

•  Iden;fica;on task –  Listeners heard 4 repe;;ons of each of 7

steps in random order –  Listeners had to iden;fy the word they

heard from two choices (Hillenbrand et al 1995, Strange 1995, Thomas 2002) –  E.g. BAIT or BET, DATE or DEBT

4

~ e

ɛ ~

•  A subset of the percep;on par;cipants also read a passage and a word list con-‐taining vowels and phone;c contexts of interest

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:

1.  Regional shi4s involve not only differing produc>on but also percep-on

BAIT BET

DATE DEBT

Fridland & Kendall. 2012. The effect of regional vowel differences on vowel percep;on and produc;on: Evidence from U.S. vowel shiVs. Lingua 122/7: 779-‐793.

5

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 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 from U.S. vowel shiVs. Lingua 122/7: 779-‐793.

6

+SVS +NCS

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 ANAE Map 11.15: Labov, Ash, & Boberg 2006: 148

Total subjects included: Percep-on N = 298 Produc-on N = 48 (-‐1)

Produc;on data, briefly: West & North

9

West shows evidence of elsewhere shiV

North shows evidence of NCS

Legend

/i/ & /ɪ/: green /e/ & /ɛ/: blue /æ/: red /ɑ/ & /ɔ/: orange

All vowels normal-‐ized using Lobanov method (Kendall and Thomas 2012)

Produc;on data, briefly: South (3 sites)

10

South shows evidence of SVS

But variability across the three field sites

TN (original data from Lingua 2012) shows greatest par;cipa;on in SVS

NC shows some SVS par;cipa;on, but, e.g., low-‐back merger

VA shows some SVS par;cipa;on, but, e.g., less proximate mid-‐ and high-‐ front vowels than TN and NC

These paKerns are in line with other findings of the retreat of the SVS in many parts of the South (Fridland 1999, Baranowski 2008, 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 2012) –  217 subjects

•  Southerners hear significantly less /ɛ/ than North & West

12

Percep;on of BAIT ~ BET

Percep;on of DATE ~ DEBT BAIT ~ BET Model Results (Kendall & Fridland 2012)

Log-‐odds Est.

Std. Err.

p

(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

1. /e/ ~ /ɛ/ regional paderns

•  With the new data:

•  Southerners hear significantly less /ɛ/ than North & West –  I.e.: Quite similar results

13


Percep;on of DATE ~ DEBT BAIT ~ BET Model Results Log-‐odds

Est. Std. Err.

p

(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



Not showing results for DATE ~ DEBT

1. /e/ ~ /ɛ/ sub-‐regional paderns

•  Broken down by sub-‐region (states):

•  There are within-‐region differences, but these ul;mately appear in line with the larger regional 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


Percep;on of DATE ~ DEBT

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

15

+SVS +NCS

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;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 centralized front tense vowels

17

Percep;on of BEAD ~ BID

Percep;on of DEED ~ DID

DEED ~ DID Model Results Log-‐odds Est.

Std. Err.

p

(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



Not showing results for BEAD ~ BID

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

•  …

18 Mean percep;on of BEAD ~ BID, ordered by subjects’ /i/-‐/ɪ/ distance

2. /æ/ ~ /ɑ/ regional paderns •  Also not as differen;ated as

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 –  In line with NCS fronted /ɑ/

19

Percep;on of SAD ~ SOD

Percep;on of PAD ~ POD

SAD ~ SOD Model Results Log-‐odds Est.

Std. Err.

p

(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 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/

20 Mean percep;on of SAD ~ SOD, 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

21 Mean percep;on of SAD ~ SOD, 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 #

BCS-‐0518264 & BCS-‐1123460 (PI Fridland), and BCS-‐1122950 (PI Kendall)

We are grateful to Craig Fickle at the University of Oregon and Sohei Okamoto at the University of Nevada, Reno for support with various aspects of this research.

We also thank Haley Lee, Kristen Mankosa, and Ken Konopka for help conduc;ng fieldwork for this project.

Selected References •  Baranowski, Maciej. 2008. The Southern ShiV in a marginally Southern dialect.

Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguis>cs 14.2: 35-‐43.

•  Dodsworth, Robin and Mary Kohn. 2012. Urban rejec;on of the vernacular: 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: Gender, age and class. Journal of Sociolinguis>cs 5, 233-‐253.

•  Fridland, Valerie and Tyler Kendall. 2012. The effect of regional vowel differences on vowel percep;on and produc;on: Evidence from U.S. vowel shiVs. Lingua 122/7: 779-‐793.

•  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 Phone>cs 40: 289-‐306.

•  Kendall, Tyler and Erik Thomas. 2012. Vowels: Vowel manipula>on, normaliza>on, and plofng in R. R package, version 1.2. [ URL: hdp://cran.r-‐project.org/web/packages/vowels/ ]

•  Labov, William, Sharon Ash and Charles Boberg. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phone>cs, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: De Gruyter.

•  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.

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

Documents

Transcript of Kendall, Fridland, & Farringon 2013: More on the production and perception of regional vowel...