Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T18:54:00.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The articulatory and acoustic characteristics of Polish sibilants and their consequences for diachronic change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2016

Véronique Bukmaier
Affiliation:
Institute of Phonetics and Speech Processing, University of Munich, Germany bukmaier@phonetik.uni-muenchen.de, jmh@phonetik.uni-muenchen.de
Jonathan Harrington
Affiliation:
Institute of Phonetics and Speech Processing, University of Munich, Germany bukmaier@phonetik.uni-muenchen.de, jmh@phonetik.uni-muenchen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study is concerned with the relative synchronic stability of three contrastive sibilant fricatives /s ʂ ɕ/ in Polish. Tongue movement data were collected from nine first-language Polish speakers producing symmetrical real and non-word CVCV sequences in three vowel contexts. A Gaussian model was used to classify the sibilants from spectral information in the noise and from formant frequencies at vowel onset. The physiological analysis showed an almost complete separation between /s ʂ ɕ/ on tongue-tip parameters. The acoustic analysis showed that the greater energy at higher frequencies distinguished /s/ in the fricative noise from the other two sibilant categories. The most salient information at vowel onset was for /ɕ/, which also had a strong palatalizing effect on the following vowel. Whereas either the noise or vowel onset was largely sufficient for the identification of /s ɕ/ respectively, both sets of cues were necessary to separate /ʂ/ from /s ɕ/. The greater synchronic instability of /ʂ/ may derive from its high articulatory complexity coupled with its comparatively low acoustic salience. The data also suggest that the relatively late stage of /ʂ/ acquisition by children may come about because of the weak acoustic information in the vowel for its distinction from /s/.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2016 
Figure 0

Figure 1 The placement of the two sensors on the surface of the tongue.

Figure 1

Table 1 Distribution of CV sequences in real words and non-words used as target words.

Figure 2

Table 2 Total number of analysed CV sequences in real and non-words separately for each sibilant–vowel combination.

Figure 3

Figure 2 Schematic representation of landmark positions: gestural onset (gon), maximum velocity at gestural onset (von), onset of constriction plateau (pon), maximum in constriction (mon), offset of constriction plateau (poff), maximum velocity in gestural offset (voff), and gestural offset (goff).

Figure 4

Figure 3 Lobanov-normalized vertical (y-axis) and horizontal (x-axis) TT trajectories averaged across vowels between the two velocity maxima separately for the dental (grey), retroflex (dark grey) and alveolopalatal (black) fricative (with the circle marking the starting point of the trajectories).

Figure 5

Figure 4 Lobanov-normalized TT orientation (y-axis) and horizontal TT position (x-axis) shown separately for each speaker at the moment of the maximum constriction (mon in Figure 1) and separately for /s/ (grey triangle), /ʂ/ (dark grey cross) and /ɕ/ (black circle). The confidence ellipses are 2.47 standard deviations and enclose 95% of the data points.

Figure 6

Figure 5 Ensemble-averaged fricative spectra at the fricatives’ temporal midpoints separately for the dental (grey), retroflex (dark grey) and alveolopalatal (black) sibilants. The averaging was done across all fricatives produced by all speakers.

Figure 7

Figure 6 First (slope) and second (curvature) mel-scaled DCT coefficients separately for the dental (grey triangle), retroflex (dark grey cross) and the alveolopalatal (black circle) sibilants averaged across vowel contexts and speech rates.

Figure 8

Table 3 Results for correct classification of the three sibilants with Gaussian training/testing in the C1 × C2 space based on the leave-one-out method i.e. total of nine speakers (k = 1, 2 . . . 9), test on speaker k, train on all other eight speakers. The results are shown for classifications from the slow speech rate and from the fast rate in parentheses.

Figure 9

Figure 7 Trajectories of the vertical and horizontal TB (tongue body) position between the acoustic vowel onset and offset following the dental (grey), retroflex (dark grey) and the alveolopalatal (black) sibilants separately for each speaker.

Figure 10

Figure 8 Aggregated, time-normalized trajectories in an F2 (y-axis) × F3 (x-axis) space between the acoustic vowel onset and its temporal midpoint shown separately for each vowel following the three sibilants: dental (grey), retroflex (dark grey) and alveolopalatal (black). The averaging was carried out following Lobanov-normalization of the speaker data.

Figure 11

Figure 9 F1 (y-axis) and F2 (x-axis) extracted at the vowels' temporal midpoints in /ɕ/ (left panel) and in /s ʂ/ (right panel) contexts for /ɛ/ (grey), /a/ (black) and /ɔ/ (dark grey). The black vowel symbols (a’ ɛ’ ɔ’) in the left panel are the centroids extracted from the ellipses in the right panel, i.e. the centroids of the formants in vowels following /s ʂ/. The ellipses are 2.47 standard deviations and include at least 95% of tokens.

Figure 12

Table 4 Results for correct classification of the three sibilants with Gaussian training/testing based on the F2 and F3 values of the three values using the leave-one-out method i.e. total of nine speakers (k = 1, 2 . . . 9), test on speaker k, train on all other eight speakers. The results are shown for classifications from the slow speech rate and from the fast rate in parentheses

Figure 13

Figure A1 Ensemble-averaged spectra calculated using the methodology in Figure 5 (original) and using the multitaper approach (taper) shown separately for the three fricative categories.