1. A PRODUCTION STUDY ON PHONOLOGIZATION OF /U/-FRONTING IN ALVEOLAR CONTEXT Reiko Kataoka 10 January 2009 LSA annual meeting

2. T ODAY ’ S GOAL “A production study on phonologization of /u/-fronting in alveolar context” 1) To show that /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English 2) To demonstrate usefulness of experimental studies in investigating cognitive status of coarticulatory allophonic variations

3. P HONOLOGIZATION (H YMAN 1976) Phonetics: intrinsic, mechanical = universal Phonology: extrinsic, intended = language-specific When the distinction becomes unclear… *pá > pá *bá > pǎ (Haudricourt 1961, Matisoff, 1973) Stage IStage IIStage III pá [ ]pá [ ]pá [ ] bá [ ]bǎ [ ]pǎ [ ] ‘intrinsic’‘extrinsic’‘phonemic’ animation

4. P HONOLOGIZATION Significance : Emphasizes cognitive role in sound change: Contextual variations becomes dissociated from its context (Ohala 1981) Questions : How to know if the feature is intrinsic or extrinsic? Coarticulation :Mentally represented or nor Controlled/Intended or Automatic Studies address these questions : Universal vs. language specific phonetics Automatic vs. mechanical variations of speech

5. S TUDIES ON COARTICULATORY VARIATIONS Lindblom (1963) Vowel reduction in Swedish CVC Reduced ‘undershoot’ as duration increases (automatic coarticulation, invariant vowel target) Solé (1992) Vowel nasalization in English and Spanish Constant duration for nasalization in Spanish vs. variable duration as a function of segmental duration in English

6. M ETHOD : F2 VS. VOWEL DURATION Phonologized Different target for /u/ in alveolar context Constant fronting across speech rates F2 across different context forms separate groups Not phonologized Single target for /u/ Greater fronting in fast speech vs. less fronting in slow speech F2 across different context converge toward a single loci

7. P RODUCTION E XPERIMENT Data collection: UC Berkeley, Phonology Lab Participants: native speakers of American English 19  15 talkers (5 M, 10F; 19-29 yrs old) Carrier: “That’s a ___ again.” (4 times) Ref [hvd] (medium)Test [dvd] (fast, slow, medium) he’d[i]dude, toot, dune, tune hid[ ɪ ]zoos, suite head[ ɛ ] noon (48 tokens) had[æ] HUD[ ʌ ]Cntrl [bvd] (fast, medium, slow) hot[ ɑ ]booed (12 tokens) hood[ ʊ ] who’d [u] (32 tokens) (total 92 tokens/talker)

8. V OWEL NORMALIZATION ( NEAREY 1978, FROM A DANK ET AL 2004) m_LN(F1) = 6.4 m_LN(F2) = 7.6 n_F1 = 0.6 n_F2 = -0.4 n_F1 = 0.8 n_F2 = 0.3

9. F ORMANT MEASUREMENT Reference vowels (medium rate; 4 times) he’d[i] hid[ ɪ ] head[ ɛ ] had[æ] HUD[ ʌ ] hot[ ɑ ] hood[ ʊ ] who’d [u] point of formant measurement

10. F ORMANT MEASUREMENT Test & Control vowels (fast, medium, slow; 4 times each) dude toot dune tune zoos suite noon booed

11. F ORMANT MEASUREMENT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12. T IME VARIATIONS OF F1, F2, AND F3 ( SPEAKER = 1)

13. M EDIAN F1, F2, F3 TO QUADRATIC CURVE FIT Y=37.0X 2 - 549X + 4288 Y=28.5X 2 - 463X + 3305 Y=-2.5X 2 - 34X + 163 F3 at F2min = 2274.1 Hz F2min = 1437.4 Hz F1 at F2min = 277.1 Hz Fit for F3 Fit for F2 Fit for F1 Estimated time variations of F1, F2, & F3 (speaker = 1; word = ‘dude’ rate = ‘slow’)

14. R ESULTS 1: F1-F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS ( N =15)

15. R ESULTS 2: N F1- N F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE VOWELS ( N =15)

16. R ESULTS 3: N F1- N F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS ( N =15)

17. R ESULTS 4: N F1- N F2 PLOTS OF REFERENCE, TEST, AND CONTROL VOWELS ( TEST, N =315; CONTROL, N =45 )

18. R ESULTS 5: SEGMENT DURATIONS IN FAST, MEDIUM, AND SLOW SPEECH

19. RESULTS 6: F2-DURATION PLOTS (TEST, N=315; CONTROL, N=45; REFERENCE, N=15) type Reference Control Test Reference Control Test

20. S UMMARY Findings Comparable F2 values between /u/s in bilabial and zero contexts Distinctive F2 values for /u/s in alveolar contexts Difference does not go away when segment duration increases (up to 300+ msec) Interpretations Speakers assume different target for /u/s in alveolar context from other contexts Thus, /u/-fronting in alveolar context has been phonologized in American English

21. Thank you!