LINGUIST List 22.3135 Fri Aug 05 2011 Diss: Phonetics/Typology: Alexander: 'The Theory of Adaptive ...' Editor for this issue: Mfon Udoinyang <mfonlinguistlist.org> New! Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:             http://multitree.linguistlist.org/ To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm. Directory         1.     Jennifer Alexander , The Theory of Adaptive Dispersion and Acoustic-Phonetic Properties of Cross-Language Lexical-Tone Systems Message 1: The Theory of Adaptive Dispersion and Acoustic-Phonetic Properties of Cross-Language Lexical-Tone Systems Date: 04-Aug-2011 From: Jennifer Alexander <jennifer_alexandersfu.ca> Subject: The Theory of Adaptive Dispersion and Acoustic-Phonetic Properties of Cross-Language Lexical-Tone Systems E-mail this message to a friend Institution: Northwestern University Program: Department of Linguistics Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2010 Author: Jennifer A Alexander Dissertation Title: The Theory of Adaptive Dispersion and Acoustic-Phonetic Properties of Cross-Language Lexical-Tone Systems Linguistic Field(s): Phonetics Typology Subject Language(s): Chinese, Mandarin (cmn) Thai (tha) Dissertation Director(s): Ann R. Bradlow Matthew Goldrick Patrick C.M. Wong Dissertation Abstract: Lexical-tone languages use fundamental frequency (F0/pitch) to convey word meaning. About 41.8% of the world's languages use lexical tone (Maddieson, 2008), yet those systems are under-studied. I aim to increase our understanding of speech-sound inventory organization by extending to tone-systems a model of vowel-system organization, the Theory of Adaptive Dispersion (TAD) (Liljencrants and Lindblom, 1972). This is a cross-language investigation of whether and how the size of a tonal inventory affects (A) acoustic tone-space size and (B) dispersion of tone categories within the tone-space. I compared five languages with very different tone inventories: Cantonese (3 contour, 3 level tones); Mandarin (3 contour, 1 level tone); Thai (2 contour, 3 level tones); Yoruba (3 level tones only); and Igbo (2 level tones only). Six native speakers (3 female) of each language produced 18 CV syllables in isolation, with each of his/her language's tones, six times. I measured tonal F0 across the vowel at onset, midpoint, and offglide. Tone-space size was the F0 difference in semitones (ST) between each language's highest and lowest tones. Tone dispersion was the F0 distance (ST) between two tones shared by multiple languages. Following the TAD, I predicted that languages with larger tone inventories would have larger tone-spaces. Against expectations, tone-space size was fixed across level-tone languages at midpoint and offglide, and across contour-tone languages (except Thai) at offglide. However, within each language type (level-tone vs. contour-tone), languages with smaller tone inventories had larger tone spaces at onset. Tone-dispersion results were also unexpected. The Cantonese mid-level tone was further dispersed from a tonal baseline than the Yoruba mid-level tone; Cantonese mid-level tone dispersion was therefore greater than theoretically necessary. The Cantonese high-level tone was also further dispersed from baseline than the Mandarin high-level tone - at midpoint and offglide only. The TAD cannot account for these results. A follow-up analysis indicates that tone-space size differs as a function of tone-language type: level-tone and contour-tone systems may not be comparable. Another analysis plots tones in an onset F0 x offglide F0 space (following Barry and Blamey, 2004). Preliminary results indicate that the languages' tones are well-separated in this space. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 05-Aug-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.