[  ] from [  ] James M Scobbie 2 nd Ultrasound Workshop UBC Vancouver April 2004 lip or lingual vs. lip & lingual

Why ultrasound?  Approximants involve open constrictions  EPG is limited to anterior constrictions  Multiple articulations  Complex articulatory/acoustic relationships  EMA is limited to analysis of anterior coils  Ultrasound can show all of tongue  Acoustics, EPG and video (lips) can be aligned  Slow moving articulations  No need for high sample rate?  Non-invasive, good for vernacular speech

Why English approximants?  /r/ sandhi is perhaps the most regular alternation in Southern British English (SBE)  Phonological/phonetic status of this segmental alternation between something and nothing  Labiodentalisation of /r/ is one of a set of far- reaching changes in contemporary SBE…  Nature of phonetic processes involved  Phonological mergers and phonotactic changes  along with vocalisation of /l/ and /l/ sandhi  Phonetic nature of vocalisation/labialisation  Relationship to rich systems of light/dark allophony

Why not EMA?  Point-based analysis  Coil position & speed  Interarticulatory timing  Physically intrusive  Stylistically off-putting  Coils in wrong place Dorsal coil Pharyngeal gesture

Labiodentalisation of /r/ to [  ]  Large amounts of “[  ]”  A change in production of (onset) /r/, but what?  A phonological change to /  /?  Early stages of merger with /l/ or /w/?  Anecdotal reports  Misperceptions of / T r fr pr br spr/ as /fw pw…  Misperceptions of /tr dr kr gr/ etc. as /tw dw…  Merger of /kr/ and /kw/  Merger of /r/ and /w/  Almost 50% of speakers on UK TV had a [  ]

Is “[  ]” a vocalisation/loss of /r/?  English multiconstrictional approximant /r/  Labial, alveolar and velar/pharyngeal gestures  Variants: bunched, retroflex…  Non-approximant allophones, e.g. affricated /tr/  Diachronic vocalisation of coda /r/ complete  Weakened gestures? loss of [  ] in codas plus  mergers and rejigging of the vowel system

Current variation and change  An increasingly crowded labial-lingual space  Onset /r/labial & posterior approx labiodental approx  /w/ labial & posterior approx  vocalised coda /l/labial & posterior approx  /v f/ (& */ D T /)labiodentals

Methodology  Speakers with [  ] and speakers with [  ]  Pilot stage – 2 of former, 1 of latter (variable)  Materials  “a ree” and “a raw” vs. “a vee” and “a vaw”  In a 32 item varied list with clusters, /l/, /w/…  Analyses  Acoustic analysis of formant targets and movement  Ultrasound analysis of lingual constrictions  Video analysis of labial constriction

Methodology  QMUC Hardware & software  Video mix, Articulate Assistant, helmet  25Hz sampling rate (40ms per frame)  Each frame shows 2 interleaved scans or so  120° field of view  Annotation method  Tongue shape in frame of maximal labialisation for /r/ and for /v/  Lip & tongue are roughly time-aligned ±40ms?  Tongue shape in frame of maximal [  ]-ness  Tongue shape for following vowel

Methodology  Hypotheses 1.“lip or lingual” [  ] has no lingual component (like [v]) 2.“lip and lingual” unlike [v], [  ] differs from [  ] in gestural timing/strength  Tests  If /r/ minus /v/ = 0, assume hypothesis 1  Otherwise, favour hypothesis 2  Expect intertoken variation

Results  Impressionistically  The control Scots have [  ]  The labiodental speaker mostly has [  ] but is variable and in particular the onset to some /r/ sounds labial

/ri/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

/wi/ LQ1, LQ2, vLQ1

/r//r/ LQ1 (reps 1-3) LQ2 (reps 1-3) vLQ1 (reps 1-3)

Scottish control speakers with [  ]  Frames of maximal labialisation of /w/ /r/ /v/ (/l/) in two vowel contexts /i/ /  /  Lingual comments  /v/ has a fairly neutral tongue shape  /l/ is… uvularised  /w/ is… velarised  /r/ varies but can be pharyngealised Speaker 1 (left) is “bunched/tip down”? Speaker 2 (right) is “retroflex/tip up”?  Labial comments  /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

wo wi

ro ri

vo vi

lo li

SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [  ]  Fanned grid  3 splines taken from maximal labial frame (r & v) maximal lingual frame (r only) vowel

SBE speaker with variable [  ]  Frame of maximal labialisation precedes maximal lingual [  ]-like configuration (by more than 1 frame)  Lingual comments  /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions  Labial comments  /w/ more bilabial than /r/, /v/ is labiodental

/ro/ SBE speaker vLQ1 delay max lab to max r-like + 3 frames (80-120ms) +2 +1

/ri/ SBE speaker vLQ1 max lab to max r

SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [  ]  15 points at 5° on lingual spline measured from transducer centrepoint

Consistency of /v/ and vowel  Mean of n=3 /v/ in each, n=6 vowel  Consistent, so individual tokens of /r/ can be compared to mean /v/ for that vowel

SBE vLQ1 speaker with variable [  ]  Subtract average [v] from maximum labial frame and maximum lingual frame of /r/  Is there zero lingual difference?  Or is labialisation enhanced in size or timing?

Labial/lingual asynchrony in /ri/ Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]

Labial/lingual asynchrony in /r  / Blue at max labialisation, red at max lingual [r]

Vowel conditioned changes in /r/  Mean lingmax of /r/ raw locations

Vowel conditioned changes in /r/  Mean lingmax /r/ minus relevant mean [v]

Conclusions  The SBE speaker using “labiodental” /r/  is variable,  perhaps due to labial-lingual timing variation  Need quantitative comparison with controls  Need numerous labiodental speakers  Acoustic analysis by Mark Jones (2004) shows labiodental /r/ can be very labial in character  The two control subjects have two types of /r/  /r/ is tip down, with two clear constrictions  Ultrasound is a good technique, for this study