Comments on: a better vowel chart for scottish english http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/ a heady mix of scottish calvinism and phonological theory Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:02:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: cath http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-766 cath Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:33:10 +0000 http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-766 Incidentally, it turns out that there's also a vowel chart available in an article on the acquisition of Scottish English by Scobbie et al in the 2006 QMUC Working Papers. There's a reference there to Abercrombie 1979, but i'm not sure if the chart itself comes from there or if the ref just covers what's in the text: <a href="http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/ssrc/pubs/scobbie_et_al%202006%20WP7.pdf" rel="nofollow">Acquisition of Scottish English Phonology: an overview</a> http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/ssrc/pubs/scobbie_et_al%202006%20WP7.pdf Incidentally, it turns out that there’s also a vowel chart available in an article on the acquisition of Scottish English by Scobbie et al in the 2006 QMUC Working Papers. There’s a reference there to Abercrombie 1979, but i’m not sure if the chart itself comes from there or if the ref just covers what’s in the text:
Acquisition of Scottish English Phonology: an overview
http://www.qmuc.ac.uk/ssrc/pubs/scobbie_et_al%202006%20WP7.pdf

]]> By: cath http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-691 cath Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:21:15 +0000 http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-691 In a recent Language Log post Mark Liberman has given an argument for using 'artificially designed' material for speakers to read out. It's to answer a different & more complex question, measuring cross-linguistic final lengthening, but i think you can generalise many of the points - http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005127.html In a recent Language Log post Mark Liberman has given an argument for using ‘artificially designed’ material for speakers to read out. It’s to answer a different & more complex question, measuring cross-linguistic final lengthening, but i think you can generalise many of the points –
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005127.html

]]> By: cath http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-679 cath Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:34:55 +0000 http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-679 There is some risk of that, although it's minimised when the speaker is used to being recorded and feels no need to alter the way they speak when they're being recorded. There is an ongoing debate about how comparable "lab speech" is with natural speech, but there are disadvantages and limitations with both. Natural speech is more difficult to record, especially if you're determined to only record the most natural and unaffected speech, and what you gain in terms of naturalness you lose in terms of replicability and experimental control. Since my original aim was to find a more representative chart for contemporary Scottish English than the published one/s, it was important to get values that can be as broadly generalisable as possible. I think that the the figures plotted in those charts can be confidently expected to be very similar to what I'd get if I recorded any other speaker with roughly the same characteristics as this speaker (gender, age, education/SES, regional background, etc). Maybe I'll consult with my speaker and see if I can get consent to make the audio files available and put your mind at rest :) There is some risk of that, although it’s minimised when the speaker is used to being recorded and feels no need to alter the way they speak when they’re being recorded.

There is an ongoing debate about how comparable “lab speech” is with natural speech, but there are disadvantages and limitations with both. Natural speech is more difficult to record, especially if you’re determined to only record the most natural and unaffected speech, and what you gain in terms of naturalness you lose in terms of replicability and experimental control.

Since my original aim was to find a more representative chart for contemporary Scottish English than the published one/s, it was important to get values that can be as broadly generalisable as possible. I think that the the figures plotted in those charts can be confidently expected to be very similar to what I’d get if I recorded any other speaker with roughly the same characteristics as this speaker (gender, age, education/SES, regional background, etc).

Maybe I’ll consult with my speaker and see if I can get consent to make the audio files available and put your mind at rest :)

]]> By: Peter Reynolds http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-677 Peter Reynolds Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:53:42 +0000 http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/a-better-vowel-chart-for-scottish-english/#comment-677 Won't you get a record of how the person thinks they speak (or ought to speak), if they have to specifically differentiate sounds like that, rather than have them recorded in natural speech? Won’t you get a record of how the person thinks they speak (or ought to speak), if they have to specifically differentiate sounds like that, rather than have them recorded in natural speech?

]]>