Lingual articulatory evidence of fricative-vowel coarticulation in Japanese devoiced vowels - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Lingual articulatory evidence of fricative-vowel coarticulation in Japanese devoiced vowels

Rion Iwasaki1,2 , Kevin D. Roon1,2 , Jason A. Shaw3 , and D. H. Whalen1,2,31 CUNY Graduate Center Program in Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, USA2 Haskins Laboratories3 Yale University Department of Linguistics, USAUltraFest IX, October 23rd, 2020: Oral Session #4

1

Slide2

Background

2

Slide3

Fricative-vowel coarticulation

Effects of a vowel on the preceding fricative (i.e., C1-V coarticulation) across languages, including Tokyo Japanese. In Tokyo Japanese, high vowels (/i/ and /u/) are typically devoiced between voiceless consonants. e.g., [ki̥ta] 北, north, [ku̥sa] 草, grass

Some accounts: claiming that the vowel in this environment is deleted, rather than devoiced (e.g., Beckman, 1982; Nielsen, 2015; Ogasawara, 2013).

Would presumably eliminate the coarticulation.

3

Slide4

Controversy on supralaryngeal gestures

Controversy on whether devoiced vowels are:Deleted entirely (no vowel-specific supralaryngeal gesture).Merely unphonated (the vocalic gestures are retained).Acoustic studies: fricative-vowel coarticulation even when the vowel is devoiced, at least in certain environments (e.g., Beckman & Shoji, 1984; Tsuchida, 1994; Whang, 2018). The devoiced vowel is still present.Articulatory evidence that devoiced vowels affect the lingual articulation of C1 should support this claim.

4

Slide5

Shaw and Kawahara (2018): Using EMA, devoiced /u/ in real words is optionally deleted (the height specification).

Tsuchida (1994) and Whang (2018): A difference in spectral properties (e.g., center of gravity, COG) between /ɕi/ and /ɕu/ at the offset of the fricative even when the vowel is devoiced.Could have been based on differences in the lip configuration or other sources. 5

Slide6

Consonantal conditions of devoicing

The frequency of devoicing depends on the manner of the flanking consonants (Fujimoto, 2015). 6Consonantal conditions

Consonantal sequence (C1-C2)Devoicing Frequency

Typical: at least one flanking consonant is a stop

Stop-Stop/AffricateAffricate/Fricative-Stop/AffricateStop-Fricative (non /h/)Almost 100%

Atypical: neither flanking consonant is a stop​

Affricate/Fricative-Fricative

C

1

-/h/

Variable (less frequent ~ rarely)

Note.

Based on Table 2 in Fujimoto (2015, p.179).

Slide7

Aim

Looking at the lingual gestures of /ɕ/ to see whether there are coarticulatory effects of the following vowel. The effects (i.e., the tongue configuration is different between /ɕi/ and /ɕu/ at the offset of the fricative) in the devoiceable environment would give us further insight into whether devoiced vowels are deleted or merely unphonated. Also comparing two consonantal conditions, the typical and atypical consonantal conditions, in terms of fricative-vowel coarticulation.

7

Slide8

Hypotheses

Two hypotheses on fricative-vowel coarticulation with devoiced vowels.Deleted: predicting that the tongue configuration should be the same for all productions of [ɕ] in the devoiceable environment (there is no following vowel).Unphonated (still present): predicting the same differences in the lingual articulation between [ɕi̥] and [

ɕu̥] as those found between [

ɕi] and [ɕu

].8

Slide9

Methods

Use ultrasound to test for possible lingual articulation of devoiced vowels.9

Slide10

Speaker: Three native speakers of Tokyo Japanese.

M1: 28 year old; W1: 36 year old; W2: 38 year oldStimuli: Four two-mora word pairs. Devoiceable /i/ and /u/ were produced in nonce words.Procedure: Produced stimuli in a carrier sentence with no pitch accent on the target words. Repeated each word 10 times.10

Vowel

Devoiceable

Non-

devoiceable

Condition

Pair name

/

i

/

/

ɕite

/

/

ɕise

/

/

ɕide

/

/

ɕize

/

Typical

Atypical

Typical-/

i

/ pair

Atypical-/

i

/ pair

/u/

/

ɕute

/

/

ɕuse

/

/

ɕude

/

/

ɕuze

/

Typical

Atypical

Typical-/u/ pair

Atypical-/u/ pair

Slide11

Data collection

Collected tongue images on the midsagittal plane using an Ultrasonix SonixTouch ultrasound machine (frame rate: 59.94 Hz) with concurrent acoustic recording. The Haskins Optically Corrected Ultrasound System (HOCUS; Whalen et al., 2005) was used to correct possible movements of the head relative to the probe in post-processing.Tracking the position of the probe holder and the speaker’s head. Out of 240 utterances across the three speakers, 24 tokens (10%) were unanalyzable due to production errors, poor images, or issues in HOCUSing. 11

Slide12

Analysis

Tracing and comparing tongue contours12

Slide13

Tracing tongue contours

Tracing tongue contours from ultrasound frames corresponding to the offset of frication of /ɕ/ (based on the acoustics). GetContours (Tiede 2020).13

Slide14

Finding the offset (frames)

Finding the analysis frame depended on the voicing realization of the high vowel. Voiced: the last frame before the onset of periodicity.14

From [ɕide]

From [ɕize]

Slide15

Devoiced: depending on the consonantal conditions:

Typical ([ɕi̥te] and [ɕu̥te]): The last frame before the closure. 15

From [

ɕi̥te

]

From [

ɕu̥te

]

Slide16

Atypical ([

ɕi̥se] and [ɕu̥se]): more challenging because of the continuation of frication noise from C1 to C2 without voicing. The frame corresponding to the end of an upward trajectory of noise energy concentration on spectrogram. The same trajectory before voicing from non-devoiceable high vowels and voiced devoiceable high vowels. Assuming that the end of the trajectory corresponded to the offset of the first fricative.

16

From [

ɕi̥se

] (devoiced)

From [

ɕise

] (voiced

devoiceable

)

Slide17

Comparison of the contours

Smoothing spline ANOVA (e.g., Gu, 2013) along with with 95% Bayesian confidence intervals (CIs) using the gss package (Gu, 2014) in R (R Core Team, 2018).Rather than Cartesian coordinates (e.g., Davidson, 2006), smoothing splines and the confidence intervals were calculated in Polar coordinates. Following a recommendation by Mielke (2015). 17

Slide18

To polar

Converting raw contours in Cartesian coordinates (x and y) into smoothing splines and CIs in Polar coordinates (θ and r), following Mielke (2015). 18

Anterior

Anterior

Posterior

Posterior

Slide19

Results

Acoustic and articulatory results19

Slide20

Acoustic results

Not all tokens from the devoiceable environments were devoiced.The devoicing rate: depending on the consonantal condition. All non-devoiceable vowels were voiced.20

Slide21

Typical consonantal condition

The devoicing rate for the devoiceable words in the typical-/i/ and -/u/ pairs (i.e., /ɕite/ and /ɕute/). W2 voiced all devoiceable /u/ when producing a word, ɕute

. 21

Slide22

Atypical consonantal condition

The devoicing rate for the devoiceable words in the atypical-/i/ and -/u/ pairs (i.e., /ɕise/ and /ɕuse/). For M1 and W1: The devoicing rate for /u/ was lower than that for /i/ in the atypical consonantal condition.

W2 voiced all devoiceable /i/ and /u/ in this condition.

22

Slide23

Articulatory results

Articulatory results are reported separately for each speaker. 23

Slide24

Preview (Typical consonantal condition)

24Fricative-vowel coarticulation: present for all speakers.Whether each devoiced vowel is deleted or retained for each speaker in the typical consonantal condition.Speaker

/i//u/

M1Retain

DeleteW1Retain Delete

W2

Delete

Voiced

Slide25

Speaker M1

25Vowel effect at the end of frication, by voicing environment

Slide26

Speaker M1

26Voicing effect at the end of frication, by vowel

Slide27

Speaker W1

27Vowel effect at the end of frication, by voicing environment

Slide28

Speaker W1

28Voicing effect at the end of frication, by vowelThe same pattern as that we saw from speaker M1

Slide29

Speaker W2

29Vowel effect at the end of frication, by voicing environmentAll devoiceable /u/ was produced with voicingThe pattern was similar to that from speaker M1

Slide30

Speaker W2

30Voicing effect at the end of frication, by vowel

Slide31

Summary of the typical condition

Fricative-vowel coarticulation was present even when devoiced.For M1 and W2:Front of the tongue body: higher when the vowel was /i/.Back of the tongue body: higher when the vowel was /u/.For W1:The entire tongue surface was lower for /ɕi/ than for /ɕu/.

31

Slide32

Voicing effect at the end of frication by vowel:

Typical-/i/ pairM1 and W1: No difference in the tongue configuration.W2, the tongue was lower when devoiced. Typical-/u/ pair: M1 and W1: the tongue was lower when devoiced. W2: no difference in the tongue configuration.

32

Speaker

/

i

/

M1

Retain

W1

Retain

W2

Delete

Speaker

/u/

M1

delete

W1

delete

W2

voiced

Slide33

Preview (Atypical consonantal condition)

33Fricative-vowel coarticulation: present for all speakers.Whether each devoiced vowel is deleted or retained for each speaker in the typical consonantal condition.

Speaker/i

//u/

M1RetainDeleteW1

Delete

Retain

W2

Voiced

Voiced

The devoicing rate was low across speakers.

Slide34

Speaker M1

34[ɕuse] and [ɕuze]: OverlapThe same results as those of the typical consonantal condition.Voiced some devoiceable /u/s.

Slide35

Speaker W1

35Vowel effect at the end of frication, by voicing environment

Slide36

Speaker W1

36Voicing effect at the end of frication, by vowel

Slide37

Speaker W2

Caveat: all devoiceable /i/ and /u/ were produced with voicing37

Slide38

Speaker W2

38Vowel effect at the end of frication, by voicing environment

Slide39

Speaker W2

39Voicing effect at the end of frication, by vowel

Slide40

Summary of the atypical condition

Fricative-vowel coarticulation was present even when devoiced.Except for M1, the difference in the tongue configuration between atypical-/i/ and -/u/ pairs differed depending on the voicing environments.M1Higher for /ɕi/ than for /ɕu/ in both voicing environments.W1Non-devoiceable: the anterior higher for /

ɕi/ and the posterior higher for /ɕu

/.Devoiceable: lower for /

ɕi/ than for /ɕu/.

W2

Non-

devoiceable

: higher for /

ɕi

/ than for /

ɕu

/.

Devoiceable

: lower for /

ɕi

/ than for /

ɕu

/.

40

Slide41

Voicing effect at the end of frication by vowel:

Atypical-/i/ pair: M1: No difference in the tongue configuration. W1: tongue was lower when.Atypical-/u/ pair:

M1: tongue was lower when devoiced. W1: No difference in the tongue configuration.

41

Speaker

/

i

/

M1

Retain

W1

Delete

W2

Voiced

Speaker

/u/

M1

Delete

W1

Retain

W2

voiced

Slide42

Discussion

42

Slide43

Hypotheses (again)

Originally entertained two hypotheses on fricative-vowel coarticulation with devoiced vowels.Deleted: predicting that the tongue configuration should be the same for all productions of [ɕ] in the devoiceable environment (there is no following vowel).Unphonated (still present): predicting the same differences in the lingual articulation between [ɕi̥] and [

ɕu̥] as found between [

ɕi] and [ɕu

].43

Slide44

Depending on the consonantal condition.

Typical condition: supporting H2Each speaker showed the same difference in the lingual articulation between devoiced [ɕi̥] and [ɕu̥] as that found between voiced [ɕi] and [

ɕu]. This difference was also speaker-specific.

44

Slide45

Atypical consonantal conditions: partially supporting H2

All speakers showed a difference between /ɕi/ and /ɕu/.Two speakers (W1 and W2) did not show the same difference between the non-devoiceable and devoiceable environments. 45

Slide46

Deleted or retained?

Deleted or still retain lingual articulation: depends on Speaker.The identity of the vowel.The consonantal condition.46

Slide47

Devoiced /

i/Devoiced /u/47

SpeakerTypical

AtypicalM1Retain

RetainW1Retain

Delete

W2

Delete

Voiced

Speaker

Typical

Atypical

M1

Delete

Delete

W1

Delete

Retain

W2

Voiced

Voiced

Slide48

Speaker-, vowel-, and condition-dependency: consistent with optionally

targetless devoiced /u/ made by Shaw and Kawahara (2018).Devoiced /u/ can be optionally targetless (deleted) for height specification.The frequency of targetlessness depended on speakers.Only examined /u/ and not compare the consonantal conditions.This study strengthening their claim:The optionality of deleting (or retaining) devoiced vowels extends into /i/.The consonantal condition influences this optionality.

48

Slide49

/i/ and /u/

/i/ more likely to retain its vocalic gestures than /u/./u/ might be less phonetically salient than /i/./u/ is the shortest in duration (e.g., Han, 1962)./u/: default epenthetic vowel in production and perception (e.g., Dupoux et al., 1999; Shoji & Shoji, 2014).default epenthetic vowel: “the phonetically minimal element of the language” (

Dupoux et al., 2011, p. 200). /u/: more central rather than back? (

Nogita et al., 2013).

49

Slide50

Coarticulatory resistance of the tongue body

(e.g., Recasens & Romero, 1997).Catalan vowels, /i/ was more resistant and aggressive to coarticulation than /u/ (Recasens and Rodríguez, 2016). /i/: lesser degree of constraint on tongue dorsum, making it easier to achieve its vocalic gestures than /u/?

50

Slide51

References

Beckman, M. (1982). Segment duration and the ‘mora’ in Japanese. Phonetica, 39(2–3), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261655Beckman, M., & Shoji, A. (1984). Spectral and perceptual evidence for CV coarticulation in devoiced /si/ and /syu/ in Japanese. Phonetica, 41(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261712Davidson, L. (2006). Comparing tongue shapes from ultrasound imaging using smoothing spline analysis of variance.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(1), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2205133

Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., &

Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25

(6), 1568–1578. https://

doi.org

/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1568

Dupoux

, E.,

Parlato

, E.,

Frota

, S., Hirose, Y., &

Peperkamp

, S. (2011). Where do illusory vowels come from?

Journal of Memory and Language

,

64

(3), 199–210. https://

doi.org

/10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.004

Fujimoto, M. (2015). Chapter 4: Vowel devoicing. In H.

Kubozono

(Ed.),

Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology

(pp. 167–214). De Gruyter Mouton. https://

doi.org

/10.1515/9781614511984.167

51

Slide52

Gu, C. (2013).

Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5369-7 Han, M. S. (1962). The feature of duration in Japanese. Study Sounds, 10, 65–80. Mielke, J. (2015). An ultrasound study of Canadian French rhotic vowels with polar smoothing spline comparisons. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(5), 2858–2869. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4919346 Nielsen, K. Y. (2015). Continuous versus categorical aspects of Japanese consecutive devoicing. Journal of Phonetics

, 52, 70–88. https://doi.org

/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.05.003Nogita, A., Yamane, N., & Bird, S. (2013). The Japanese unrounded back vowel/

ɯ/is in fact rounded central/front [ʉ-ʏ] [Paper presentation]. the

Ultrafest

VI.

Ogasawara, N. (2013). Lexical representation of Japanese vowel devoicing.

Language & Speech

,

56

(1), 5–22. https://

doi.org

/10.1177/0023830911434118

R Core Team. (2018).

R: A language and environment for statistical computing

. Retrieved from https://

www.r-project.org

/

Recasens

, D., & Rodríguez, C. (2016). A study on coarticulatory resistance and aggressiveness for front lingual consonants and vowels using ultrasound.

Journal of Phonetics

,

59

, 58–75. https://

doi.org

/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.09.002

Recasens

, D., & Romero, J. (1997). An EMMA Study of Segmental Complexity in

Alveolopalatals

and Palatalized

Alveolars

.

Phonetica

,

54

(1), 43–58. https://

doi.org

/10.1159/000262209

52

Slide53

Shaw, J. A., & Kawahara, S. (2018). The lingual articulation of devoiced /u/ in Tokyo Japanese.

Journal of Phonetics, 66, 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.007Shoji, S., & Shoji, K. (2014). Vowel epenthesis and consonant deletion in Japanese loanwords from English. Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting on Phonology, 1. https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.16Tiede, M. (2020). GetContours: tongue contour fitting software; v 2.4. [Computer program]. https://github.com/mktiede/

GetContours.Tsuchida, A. (1994). Fricative-vowel coarticulation in Japanese devoiced syllable: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory

, 9, 183–222.Whang, J. (2018). Recoverability-driven coarticulation: Acoustic evidence from Japanese high vowel devoicing.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(2), 1159–1172. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5024893

53

Slide54

Thank you for listening!

The Work is supported by NIH grant DC-002717 and a grant from The Graduate Center Foundation, CUNY.54Looking forward to your questions.

Slide55

Validity of this assumption?

95% confidence intervals of the contours were small. The comparison of the contours traced at the onset of frication noise was comparable to the offset. 55

Slide56

Setting up an imaginary origin of all traced contours.

X location: that corresponding to the highest point of the tongue.Y location: 1% lower than the lowest point of the tongue.Calculate the difference between the origin and each point (Δx and Δy).56

Anterior

Posterior

origin

Slide57

Based on this difference, the radial and angular coordinates were calculated:

and

.

SSANOVA was calculated using

θ

and

r

.

Smoothing splines and CIs were converted back to Cartesian coordinates.

x = r*cos

θ

and

y = r*sin

θ

.

 

57

Anterior

Posterior

The resultant polar SSANOVA

Red: devoiced

Blue: voiced

Slide58

Speaker M1 (onset)

58Across word-pairs: similar pattern to that at the offsetVoiced: front part was higher for /ɕi/ than for /ɕu/ and posterior part was higher for /

ɕu/ than for /ɕi/.Devoiced: tongue was mostly higher for /

ɕi/ than for /ɕu

/.

Slide59

Speaker M1 (onset)

59Within word-pairs: similar pattern to that at the offset/ɕi/-pair: overlap between [ɕi] and [ɕi

̥].

/ɕu/-pair: lower when devoiced.