2013
DOI: 10.1121/1.4831400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Best practices in measuring vowel merger

Abstract: Vowel mergers are some of the most well-studied sound change phenomena, particularly in varieties of English. But although sociolinguists, dialectologists, and phoneticians are all interested in providing accurate and precise descriptions of an individual speaker's participation in a near-merger (or near-split), the methods for doing so vary widely, especially for researchers analyzing naturalistic corpora. In this paper, we consider four current methodological approaches to representing and assessing vowel di… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many methods have been proposed to examine overlap in the study of vowel splits and mergers; see Nycz & Hall-Lew (2013) for discussion of Euclidean distance, mixed model regression, spectral overlap, and the Pillai-Bartlett trace. Following Nycz (2013), the 'mixed model regression' technique was used in the present study: for each vowel pair analysed, and for each speaker, a mixed-effects regression analysis was undertaken in the R environment using the Rbrul text-based interface (Johnson 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many methods have been proposed to examine overlap in the study of vowel splits and mergers; see Nycz & Hall-Lew (2013) for discussion of Euclidean distance, mixed model regression, spectral overlap, and the Pillai-Bartlett trace. Following Nycz (2013), the 'mixed model regression' technique was used in the present study: for each vowel pair analysed, and for each speaker, a mixed-effects regression analysis was undertaken in the R environment using the Rbrul text-based interface (Johnson 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A Pillai score of 1 indicates a complete separation of vowel categories, while a score of 0 indicates complete overlap. This metric has been proposed in sociophonetics as a more powerful alternative to acoustic distances (Nycz and Hall-Lew, 2013) for measuring vowel mergers and splits (Hay, Warren and Drager, 2006;Hall-Lew, 2010), and has recently been proposed as a metric of L2 pronunciation by Mairano et al (2019). Our assumption is that speakers who have developed phonological categories for front rounded vowels show less overlap with competing phonemes (IT3) than learners who have not developed such phonological categories (IT22), as shown in Figure 1 and Table 2.…”
Section: Fluency Metrics (Ar Sr Np)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that for all speakers, the Pillai score is >0.75, which is close to the maximum score of 1.00, indicating that these vowels are relatively distinct for all speakers. While Pillai scores are not necessarily comparable across studies, Nycz and Hall-Lew ( 2014 ) find Pillai scores of < 0.25 for speakers of Canadian and Scottish English, for whom /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ are merged. Hay et al ( 2006 ) find that speakers of New Zealand English differ greatly in the degree of overlap for the vowels /iə/ ( near ) and /eə/ ( square ): the speaker with the least distinct vowels in their sample received a Pillai score of 0.0009, while the speaker with highest degree of contrast received a score of 0.969.…”
Section: Experiments 1: Production Of the Ncvsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method returns a score ranging from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the two distributions are identical and where 1 indicates no overlap at all. It was first used in sociophonetic research by Hay et al ( 2006 ), and has since been applied in the literature by Hall-Lew ( 2010 ) and compared to other methods of measuring vowel distance by Nycz and Hall-Lew ( 2014 ). In this case, the Pillai score was used to measure the difference between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in F1, F2, and F3, while taking into account the preceding and following consonantal environments.…”
Section: Experiments 1: Production Of the Ncvsmentioning
confidence: 99%