the articulatory settings of bilingual canadian english- french speakers ultrafest iii - apr.14,...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
The articulatory settings of bilingual Canadian
English-French speakers
Ultrafest III - Apr.14, 2005
Tucson, AZ
Ian Wilson, Bryan Gick, Fiona Campbell,
& Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson
University of British Columbia
Use of ultrasound for speech research
• Becoming much more common but still has unresolved methodological issues
• Choice of methodology depends on:– Experiment setting (lab vs. field)– Type of subjects (adult, child, impaired, …)– Type of study (biofeedback, etc.)– [Bryan Gick will expand on this tomorrow]
The present study
• Normal adults
• Speakers of English & Québécois-French
• Data collected in a laboratory
Methodological issues• What to measure?
– Track given point on tongue? (EMA; x-ray microbeam)– Shape of tongue surface in 2D, 3D– Cross-sectional area under curve of tongue– Relative timing of tongue gestures– Distance from tongue surface to fixed point
Measuring tongue surface to fixed point• What fixed point?
– Transducer surface / centre– Opposing surface (i.e. palate, pharyngeal wall)
Tongue to fixed point: more issues
• Need to make opposing surface visible:– Have subject swallow– CT scan
• Measurement location based on:– Location of opposing surface point– Location of tongue gesture
• Controlling and/or correcting for head movement relative to probe:
1. Optotrak/video 2. Helmet 3. Restraint
• Data extraction:– By hand– Software for edge detection / curve fitting
Back to the present study
• Articulatory Setting (AS)– When speaking a foreign language, one’s
articulators seem to have a whole different underlying posture
Different languages sound different
• Why??
– Different phonemes + …
– Different phonologies + …
– Different articulatory settings• “gross oral posture and mechanics” of a
language - Honikman (1964)
Implications of language-specific AS (1)
• Second language acquisition– Quantitative evidence to support newer L2
teaching methodologies (Mompeán-González, 2003)
• Speech motor control– If AS is weighted average of postures for all
phonemes in a language (Laver, 2000), then supports view of AS being functionally determined, reducing travel cost of articulators (Rosenbaum et al., 1995)
• Models of speech production– de Bot’s (1992) model of bilingual speech
production contains articulator (Levelt, 1989) that uses set of non-language specific speech motor plans
• Predicts bilinguals have 1 AS shared between languages & could be based on type frequency
• Hesitation pauses & schwa– AS may be reflected in these (e.g. AS for French
has protruded lips & schwa is rounded)
Implications of language-specific AS (2)
• Development of languages– Esling (2000): possible that “instances of
language change are accomplished by slightly altering AS, which in turn produces minute, sub-phonemic changes in the phonetic quality of certain susceptible segments.”
Implications of language-specific AS (3)
How to measure AS
• Gick, Wilson, Koch & Cook (2004 Phonetica)
– Link AS to inter-speech posture (Barry, 1992; Gick, 2002) reducing segmental interference
Gick et al. measurements taken
• 1 = pharynx width*• 2 = VPP width• 3 = TB to palate*• 4 = TT to palate*• 5 = upper central
incisors to jaw• 6 = upper lip protrusion*• 7 = lower lip protrusion*
* Significantly different across languages
AS in bilinguals
• Why bilinguals?
– Within a speaker, can compare across languages without worrying about physiological differences
– Bilinguals may economize in their tongue gestures (Wilson, 2003) and VOT (Watson, 1990, 1991)
• Is AS like a speech target in the sense that economy can play a part?
– If AS is simply functional, this predicts speaking mode (bilingual vs. monolingual) will affect AS (Grosjean, 1998)
Subjects
• 10 monolingual Canadian-English speakers
• 10 monolingual Quebecois-French speakers
• 10 bilingual English-French speakers
Stimuli
• Monolingual subject trials:– At least 6 blocks of 30 utterances (=180 possible rest
positions per subject)
• Bilingual subject trials:– 2 English blocks, 2 French blocks, 2 mixed language
blocks– Before mixed language blocks, subject is informed that
language of the next sentence is randomly selected
• Phonetic context of first and last syllables controlled for as much as possible across languages
Method: Experimental set-up
Method: Optotrak marker set-up
Ultrasound data for MLD (bilingual)
• Bilingual trial; B-mode & M-mode ultrasound
QuickTime™ and aDV - NTSC decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Method: Correction for head movement• Palate trace done after swallow; can then measure
shortest distance from alveolar ridge to tongue
• Optotrak tracks head as rigid body; probe is fixed & position is known by Optotrak
• Rotate/translate palate trace about probe (MATLAB…)
Results for MLD - tongue tip
• Tongue tip to alveolar ridge distance
– English:• mean = 21.13 pix• (N=35; std dev=2.91)
– French:• mean = 17.44 pix• (N=42; std dev=3.81)
– Bilingual mode:• mean = 23.06 pix• (N=43; std dev=3.09)E F Bil
Group means &95% confidence intervals)
Results for MLD - vertical lip aperture• Vertical lip aperture
– English:• mean = 23.13 mm• (N=20; std dev=1.88)
– French:• mean = 23.47 mm• (N=20; std dev=1.12)
– Bilingual:• mean = 23.82 mm• (N=21; std dev=1.30)
• No significant differences
• Horizontal lip aperture
– English:• mean = 50.52 mm• (N=20; std dev=0.76)
– French:• mean = 51.60 mm• (N=20; std dev=1.68)
– Bilingual:• mean = 49.79 mm• (N=21; std dev=0.40)
Results for MLD - horizontal lip aperture
E F BilGroup means &
95% confidence intervals)
Significance of findings so far• Support for existence of language-specific AS;
not contextually determined
• AS in bilingual mode does not fall between 2 monolingual mode settings
– implies AS is not determined simply by motor control constraints such as articulator “travel cost”
• N.B.: speech is a low-energy system
– when language target unknown, subject’s inter-speech posture is closer to absolute rest position (i.e. a position out of speech mode)
• Seemingly uneconomic
Next Steps• What is the relationship of type & token frequency
to AS?
• Is AS different for natural speech vs. read speech? Nonsense words vs. real words? (i.e. is it task dependent)
• What is the relationship between L2 pronunciation proficiency and AS?
• What is perceptually salient in AS (i.e. if learned, how is it learned?) Can it all be read in the face?!
Thank you!
• Thanks to:
Jason Chang
Shaffiq Rahemtullah
Doug Pulleyblank
and all our cooperative subjects.
ReferencesBarry (1992) Comments on Chapter 2 (Browman and Goldstein); in Docherty & Ladd, Papers in laboratory phonology II: gesture,
segment, prosody (pp. 65-67) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Bot (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13: 1-24.
Esling (2000) Crosslinguistic aspects of voice quality. In R. D. Kent & M. J. Ball, (Eds.), Voice quality measurement (pp. 25-35). San Diego: Singular.
Gick et al. (2004) Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetica 61: 220-233.
Grosjean (1998) Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 131-149.
Heffner (1950) General phonetics. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Honikman (1964) Articulatory settings. In D. Abercrombie, D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott, & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.) In Honour of Daniel Jones (pp. 73-84). London: Longman.
Laver (2000) Phonetic evaluation of voice quality. In R. D. Kent & M. J. Ball, (Eds.), Voice quality measurement (pp. 37-48). San Diego: Singular.
Levelt (1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mompeán-González (2003) Pedagogical tools for teaching articulatory setting. Poster presented at ICPhS 15, Barcelona.
Munhall et al. (1994) X-ray film database for speech research, ATR technical report TR-H-116. ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, Kyoto.
O’Connor (1973) Phonetics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Öhman (1967) Peripheral Motor Commands in Labial Articulation. STL-QPSR 4/1967 RIT Stockholm.
Perkell (1969) Physiology of speech production: Results and implications of a quantitative cineradiographic study. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Rosenbaum et al. (1995) Planning reaches by evaluating stored postures. Psych. Rev. 102: 28-67.
Sweet (1877) A handbook of phonetics. Reprinted in 1970 by McGrath Publishing Co., College Park, Maryland.
Wallis (1653) Grammatica linguae anglicanae. Edited/translated by J. A. Kemp, 1972. London, U.K.: Longman.
Watson (1990) Acquiring the voicing contrast in French: A comparative study of monolingual and bilingual children. In J. N. Green & W. Ayres-Bennett (Eds.), Variation and change in French: Essays presented to Rebecca Posner on the occasion of her sixtieth birthday (pp. 37-60). London: Routledge.
Watson (1991) Phonological processing in two languages. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 25-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson (2003) An ultrasound study of articulatory tongue gestures in bilingual Japanese-English children’s speech. Paper presented at the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Tempe, AZ. May 1, 2003.