Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Hi, Regarding the vowel allophony discussion, I wanted to reply to two issues. 1) With respect to dialectal differences, I would like to suggest the study of vowels within dialects. The notion of universal phonemes seems to be too abstract when it comes to the realizations of the same "phonemes" in different varieties of English. I've carried out several studies comparing the production and perception of the /i/-/I/ contrast in Southern British English and Scottish English. Please see my webpage for a number of papers reporting the findings, also see http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/p2/ for details re the analysis of the production and perception studies. In my studies, realizations of Scottish English /i/ can fall under Southern English /I/. Precisely, for the reason mentioned by Karen. The basic idea is that the dimensions that cue the phonological difference in both varieties are used differently. In Scottish English (as well as in American English and also in Canadian English, which I am studyin now) the difference between /i/ and /I/ is mainly one of vowel quality, whereas in Southern English both cues seem to be important but length seems to be quite a reliable cue, you can check the exact cue use ratios in my papers. The other interesting thing is that those production differences are attested in the same way in perception, i.e. differences in production environments lead to differences in perception, as reported in my papers as well. Furthermore, the same differences are attested in Second-language learners of the two different varieties (i.e Scottish vs Souther British English), also in my papers. More interestingly, speakers of Southern English that have lived in Scotland seem to rely more on spectral cues, there is an empirically attested dialectal normalization. Right now I am conducting a study looking at vowels in Canadian English and Canadian French. Interestingly enough, Canadian French as spoken in Quebec has an allophonic alternation /i/-/I/ (it has not been fully studied before). The fact is that the /I/ allophone only occurs in closed syllable contexts and it's realization is far higher than Canadian English /I/, it could be compared to Southern English /I/. So in perception experiments, French Canadian are not able to label the two segments correctly (their performance is close to chance) whereas in an AXB task (with different tokens: different speakers, different gender) they can, with no problems, differentiate between the two segments. The Canadian English listeners label most French /I/s as English /i/ (although there judgment ratings were slightly poorer than for English /i/) and make very many mistakes in the same AXB that the French people performed without any problem. Another case, the contrast /A/-/E/ is produced differently in Canadian English and in Canadian French (although, Canadian French does make use of vowel length as well). Thus in perception the crosslinguistic differences in boundary locations and peripherality of vowel realizations are attested. This may pose a question to universality of boundary locations for phonological categories. With respect to the context question, in all of the production studies that I have carried out, not only vowel quality but also length have shown to vary according to not only consonantal context but also speaking rate, sentential context, gender, token number, etc. Some of the differences between speaker or between token are greater than the consonant context ones. That is, we are able to normalize for all those differences and still have an abstract category (which seems to be language and even dialect independent). The question now is, is it the context in which it is produced, or just the properties of a given token that makes it belong to one category or to the other? I can give some answers to that question from my own research if any one is interested in hearing about that. Paola Escudero Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, Utrecht University and School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue