Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-zntvd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-07T10:35:28.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The articulation of /ɹ/ in New Zealand English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2018

Matthias Heyne ,
Xuan Wang ,
Donald Derrick ,
Kieran Dorreen  and
Kevin Watson
Matthias Heyne
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury & Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury mheyne@bu.edu
Xuan Wang
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury & Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury xwa67@uclive.ac.nz
Donald Derrick
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury & The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University donald.derrick@canterbury.ac.nz
Kieran Dorreen
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury & Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury kdorreen@gmail.com
Kevin Watson
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury & Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury kevin.watson@canterbury.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the articulation of approximant /ɹ/ in New Zealand English (NZE), and tests whether the patterns documented for rhotic varieties of English hold in a non-rhotic dialect. Midsagittal ultrasound data for 62 speakers producing 13 tokens of /ɹ/ in various phonetic environments were categorized according to the taxonomy by Delattre & Freeman (1968), and semi-automatically traced and quantified using the AAA software (Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2012) and a Modified Curvature Index (MCI; Dawson, Tiede & Whalen 2016). Twenty-five NZE speakers produced tip-down /ɹ/ exclusively, 12 tip-up /ɹ/ exclusively, and 25 produced both, partially depending on context. Those speakers who produced both variants used the most tip-down /ɹ/ in front vowel contexts, the most tip-up /ɹ/ in back vowel contexts, and varying rates in low central vowel contexts. The NZE speakers produced tip-up /ɹ/ most often in word-initial position, followed by intervocalic, then coronal, and least often in velar contexts. The results indicate that the allophonic variation patterns of /ɹ/ in NZE are similar to those of American English (Mielke, Baker & Archangeli 2010, 2016). We show that MCI values can be used to facilitate /ɹ/ gesture classification; linear mixed-effects models fit on the MCI values of manually categorized tongue contours show significant differences between all but two of Delattre & Freeman's (1968) tongue types. Overall, the results support theories of modular speech motor control with articulation strategies evolving from local rather than global optimization processes, and a mechanical model of rhotic variation (see Stavness et al. 2012).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , December 2020 , pp. 366 - 388
Check for updates
Copyright
© International Phonetic Association 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (6), 716–723.Google Scholar
Alwan, Abeer, Narayanan, Shrikanth S. & Haker, Katherine. 1997. Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part II: The rhotics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 (2), 1078–1089.Google Scholar
Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2012. Articulate Assistant Advanced [computer program]. Version 2.14.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Christopher M. 1992. Regional variation in New Zealand English: The case of Southland. New Zealand English Newsletter 5.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Christopher M. 2002. The Southland variety of New Zealand English: Postvocalic /r/ and the BATH vowel. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Warren, Paul. 2008. New Zealand English: Phonology. In Burridge, Kate & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Varieties of English 3: The Pacific and Australasia, 39–63. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.3.52. http://praat.org/ (retrieved 18 May 2014).Google Scholar
Boyce, Suzanne E., Hamilton, Sarah M. & Rivera-Campos, Ahmed. 2016. Acquiring rhoticity across languages: An ultrasound study of differentiating tongue movements. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 30 (3–5), 174–201.Google Scholar
Boyce, Suzanne E., Tiede, Mark K., Espy-Wilson, Carol Y. & Groves-Wright, Kathy. 2015. Diversity of tongue shapes for the American English rhotic liquid. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVIII), Glasgow.Google Scholar
Brunner, Jana, Fuchs, Susanne & Perrier, Pascal. 2009. On the relationship between palate shape and articulatory behavior. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125 (6), 3936–3949.Google Scholar
Campbell, Fiona, Gick, Bryan, Wilson, Ian & Vatikiotis-Bateson, Eric. 2010. Spatial and temporal properties of gestures in North American English /r/. Language and Speech 53 (1), 49–69.Google Scholar
Dawson, Katherine M. 2017. tshape_analysis [computer program]. https://github.com/kdawson2/tshape_analysis (retrieved 7 August 2017).Google Scholar
Dawson, Katherine M., Tiede, Mark K. & Whalen, Douglas. 2016. Methods for quantifying tongue shape and complexity using ultrasound imaging. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 30 (3–5), 328–344.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre & Freeman, Donald C.. 1968. A dialect study of American r's by X-ray motion picture. Linguistics 6 (44), 29–68.Google Scholar
Dodd, Bárbara, Holm, Alison, Hua, Zhu & Crosbie, Sharon. 2003. Phonological development: A normative study of British English-speaking children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 17 (8), 617–643.Google Scholar
FFmpeg. 2015. FFmpeg [computer program]. Version 4.8.2. https://ffmpeg.org/ (retrieved 16 October 2015.Google Scholar
Friston, Karl. 2011. What is optimal about motor control? Neuron 72 (3), 488–498.Google Scholar
Fromont, Robert & Hay, Jennifer. 2012. LaBB-CAT: An annotation store. In Cook, Paul & Nowson, Scott (eds.), Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2012, Dunedin, 113–117.Google Scholar
Ganesh, Gowrishankar, Haruno, Masahiko, Kawato, Mitsuo & Burdet, Etienne. 2010. Motor memory and local minimization of error and effort, not global optimization, determine motor behavior. Journal of Neurophysiology 104 (1), 382–390.Google Scholar
Gibson, Andy. 2005. Non-prevocalic /r/ in New Zealand Hip Hop. New Zealand English Journal 19, 5.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Bacsfalvi, Penelope, Bernhardt, Barbara M., Oh, Sunyoung, Stolar, Slade & Wilson, Ian. 2008. A motor differentiation model for liquid substitutions in children's speech. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, vol. 1, 060003.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Iskarous, Khalil, Whalen, Douglas H. & Goldstein, Louis M.. 2003. Constraints on variation in the production of English /r/. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Speech Production, Sydney, 73–78.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Wilson, Ian, Koch, Karsten & Cook, Clare. 2004. Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetica 61 (4), 220–233.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea & Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New Zealand English: Its origins and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guenther, Frank H., Espy-Wilson, Carol Y., Boyce, Suzanne E., Matthies, Melanie L., Zandipour, Majid & Perkell, Joseph S.. 1999. Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105 (5), 2854–2865.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, Robert. 1994. Three types of American /r/. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 55–62.Google Scholar
Harshman, Richard, Ladefoged, Peter & Goldstein, Louis M.. 1977. Factor analysis of tongue shapes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62 (3), 693–707.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Maclagan, Margaret. 2010. Social and phonetic conditioners on the frequency and degree of “intrusive /r/” in New Zealand English. In Preston, Dennis R. & Niedzielski, Nancy (eds.), A reader in sociophonetics, 47–70. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Maclagan, Margaret. 2012. /r/-sandhi in early 20th century New Zealand English. Linguistics 50 (4), 745–763.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret & Gordon, Elizabeth. 2008. New Zealand English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Heyne, Matthias & Derrick, Donald. 2015. Using a radial ultrasound probe's virtual origin to compute midsagittal smoothing splines in polar coordinates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138 (6), EL509–514.Google Scholar
Heyne, Matthias, Derrick, Donald & Hay, Jennifer. 2015. An ultrasound study of monophthongs in New Zealand English. Presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, Sydney.Google Scholar
Lammert, Adam, Proctor, Michael & Narayanan, Shrikanth S.. 2013. Interspeaker variability in hard palate morphology and vowel production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 56 (6), S1924–S1933.Google Scholar
Lawson, Eleanor, Scobbie, James M. & Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2013. Bunched /r/ promotes vowel merger to schwar: An ultrasound tongue imaging study of Scottish sociophonetic variation. Journal of Phonetics 41 (3), 198–210.Google Scholar
Loeb, Gerald E. 2012. Optimal isn't good enough. Biological Cybernetics 106 (11–12), 757–765.Google Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret & Buckley, Anne. 2016. Talking baby: How to help your child discover language. Sydney: Finch.Google Scholar
Magloughlin, Lyra 2016. Accounting for variability in North American English /ɹ/: Evidence from children's articulation. Journal of Phonetics 54, 51–67.Google Scholar
Marsden, Sharon. 2013. Phonological variation and the construction of regional identities in New Zealand English. Ph.D. dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
MathWorks, Inc. 2016. MATLAB [computer program]. Version 2016b. Natick, MA.Google Scholar
Ménard, Lucie, Aubin, Jerome, Thibeault, Melanie & Richard, Gabrielle. 2011. Measuring tongue shapes and positions with ultrasound imaging: A validation experiment using an articulatory model. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 64 (2), 64–72.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, Baker, Adam & Archangeli, Diana. 2010. Variability and homogeneity in American English /ɹ/ allophony and /s/ retraction. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kuehnert, Barbara, Mariapaola D'Imperio & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10, 699–730. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, Baker, Adam & Archangeli, Diana. 2016. Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched and retroflex /ɹ/. Language 92 (1), 101–141.Google Scholar
Miller, Amanda L. & Finch, Kenneth B.. 2011. Corrected high-frame rate anchored ultrasound with software alignment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54 (2), 471–486.Google Scholar
Miyawaki, Kuniko, Hirose, Hajime, Ushijima, Tatsujiro & Sawashima, Masayuki. 1975. A preliminary report on the electromyographic study of the activity of lingual muscles. Annual Bulletin Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 9 (91), 406.Google Scholar
Moerman, Kevin M. 2014. interp_polar [computer program]. https://github.com/Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman/GIBBON/blob/master/lib/interp_polar.m (retrieved 23 September 2014).Google Scholar
Morrish, Kathleen A., Stone, Maureen, Shawker, Thomas H. & Sonies, Barbara C.. 1985. Distinguishability of tongue shape during vowel production. Journal of Phonetics 13 (2), 189–203.Google Scholar
Nieto-Castañón, Alfonso, Guenther, Frank H., Perkell, Joseph S. & Curtin, Hugh D.. 2005. A modeling investigation of articulatory variability and acoustic stability during American English /r/ production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117 (5), 3196–3212.Google Scholar
Ong, Darryl & Stone, Maureen. 1998. Three-dimensional vocal tract shapes in /r/ and /l/: A study of MRI, ultrasound, electropalatography, and acoustics. Phonoscope 1 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Python Software Foundation. 2013. Python [computer program]. Version 3.4. http://www.python.org (retrieved 12 October 2015).Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 13 September 2015).Google Scholar
Ramanarayanan, Vikram, Goldstein, Louis M., Byrd, Dani & Narayanan, Shrikanth S.. 2013. An investigation of articulatory setting using real-time magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134 (1), 510–519.Google Scholar
Ripley, Brian & Venables, William. 2016. Nnet [computer program]. Version 7.3 (retrieved 10 February 2016).Google Scholar
Smit, Ann B., Hand, Linda, Freilinger, J. Joseph, Bernthal, John E. & Bird, Ann. 1990. The Iowa Articulation Norms Project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 55 (4), 779–798.Google Scholar
Statistics New Zealand. 2013. The 2013 New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings. http://stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census.aspx (retrieved 13 October 2015).Google Scholar
Stavness, Ian, Gick, Bryan, Derrick, Donald & Fels, Sidney. 2012. Biomechanical modeling of English /r/ variants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131 (5), EL355–360.Google Scholar
Stolar, Stade & Gick, Bryan. 2013. An index for quantifying tongue curvature. Canadian Acoustics 41 (1), 11–15.Google Scholar
Stone, Maureen. 2005. A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 19 (6–7), 455–501.Google Scholar
Stone, Maureen, Epstein, Melissa A. & Iskarous, Khalil. 2004. Functional segments in tongue movement. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 18 (6–8), 507–521.Google Scholar
Tiede, Mark K., Boyce, Suzanne E., Espy-Wilson, Carol Y. & Gracco, Vincent L.. 2011. Variability of North American English /r/ production in response to palatal perturbation. In Maassen, Ben & van Lieshout, Pascal (eds.), Speech motor control: New developments in basic and applied research, 53–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westbury, John R., Hashi, Michiko & Lindstrom, Mary J.. 1998. Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English /ɹ/. Speech Communication 26 (3), 203–226.Google Scholar
Wilson, Ian. 2006. Articulatory settings of French and English monolingual and bilingual speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Wilson, Ian & Gick, Bryan. 2014. Bilinguals use language-specific articulatory settings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 57 (2), 1–13.Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Brugman, Hennie, Russel, Albert, Klassmann, Alex & Sloetjes, Han. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genoa, 1556–1559.Google Scholar
Young, Steve, Evermann, Gunnar, Gales, Mark, Hain, Thomas, Kershaw, Dan, Liu, Xunying A., Moore, Gareth, Odell, Julian, Ollason, Dave & Povey, Dan. 2006. The HTK book (for HTK version 3.4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Engineering Department.Google Scholar
Zharkova, Natalia 2013. Using ultrasound to quantify tongue shape and movement characteristics. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 50 (1), 76–81.Google Scholar