Final Blog

Apologies; I completely forgot to do this on time. I'm not sure whether it still counts or not, but I felt I should finish out the quarter's blogs with one last one :-)

This quarter has gone by very fast, and I can't believe this class is over already. I have definitely noticed some linguistic changes in myself and others -- sketch, sketchy, creep, and creeper have become regular parts of people's vocabularies to describe shifty/shady people or things. The connotations are slightly different though: sketch seems to describe someone who's actually creepy, while creeper describes someone who's more of a stalker, ironically enough. Also, the phrase "epic fail" is thrown about frequently whenever something stupid or unexpected occurs that probably should not have... tripping down the stairs on the way to dinner is an "epic fail," which I believe comes from the terminology in some game.

Pronunciation hasn't changed as much, as far as I can tell, but I bet that will take longer. I do know that I notice linguistic issues more, including the variations in the way people say things. I always had noticed them, I guess, but I now pay attention to them and can sometimes figure out what is happening -- "that 'e' was said more in the front."
I'm definitely glad I took the class, and although not next quarter, I look forward to taking other linguistics classes in the future.

Thanks everyone (especially Meghan)!

The Most Important Thing in Language Comprehension: Revisited

After several weeks of exploring linguistics (admittedly on a pretty basic level), I don't think I need to change what I had said earlier. Although we still haven't gone through lexical differences as much and so maybe I might change my opinion after tomorrow's class, I still believe that the lexicon, followed perhaps by syntax are the important parts in understanding speech. Sounds are not as relevant.

I believe this to be true, and not just from English. When I speak to someone who is not a native English speaker (or even sometimes to those who are) who pronounce things differently, there is an adjustment period but I can soon work out what they are saying without much difficulty. There are sometimes even cases where I have no real idea how I figured out what they were trying to say, but I somehow knew. The same is true in Hindi; I'm taking a Hindi class here (and have heard non-Indians speak Hindi before), and even though some of the sounds are quite difficult to produce, even when people don't get them exactly right the words are possible to understand. This is usually due to context or perhaps the mind works through all the possibilities for that sound it's hearing and figures out which one it ought to be and processes it accordingly.

The context can help with a lexical problem, but there it's far more difficult: a new word entirely, sometimes one that does not seem to make sense, makes it difficult to understand speech. When a dialect is full of new/different phrases and words, it is far harder to understand simply because the outsider has no reference point. I sometimes get confused as to whether slang counts in this category; I think it must, because it is part of the lexicon and people use it in everyday speaking to refer to something (whatever it might be). This makes it all the harder because slang definitely does vary from place to place and can be difficult to pick up without being explicitly explained.

Lexical Differences

I think lexical differences are really interesting because they say a lot about the cultural divides between different groups, whether it's geographic (as we're mostly interested in) or between groups of different ages or social classes.

Over time the lexicon changes, and I find it interesting that one word from my parents' generation's slang that has remained in ours (though it has been added to) is the word "cool." My grandparents (who speak fluent English though they grew up in India) would not automatically understand the word cool to mean something generally positive. My parents, on the other hand, do understand this from their own context growing up, and it is still used today.

Speaking geographically, I like Sadie's example of bubbler because moving to Wisconsin although I didn't hear THAT many people use bubbler and not understand water fountain, there were definitely a few and it caused some serious problems. There is also a significant lexical difference between Indian and American English, and some of this might have to do with the British colonial influence that's much more immediate in India. One example that comes to mind is the verb "stay" which in Indian English has a connotation more of "live" (i.e. "Where do you stay?" = "Where do you live?"). The biggest difference I have noticed is that it is very American to say "I'm okay" for "no thanks" or " I'm fine the way I am." For example, my aunt asked me if I wanted a glass of water, and I said "No, I'm okay," but instead of accepting that she asked again, "Oh, no, I asked if you wanted a glass of water." I was implying "No, I'm okay without the water," but she didn't understand this. That has happened to me on more than one occasion, and I came to realize that it was a lexical difference.

Thoughts on the Perception Experiment

At first I thought this was way too scientific and technical for me to be able to understand, but I quickly got the hang of it as I read through. I was surprised by the extent of statistical manipulation that the team did on the data, and I especially liked the tree they created for the perceptional similarity for the different groups. I thought it interesting that the Mobile and Non-mobile Midlanders did not have a drastic difference in how they perceived other dialects, and I thought that the experimenters might have tried to explain that more. Clearly, moving around had a large effect on Northerners as the Non-mobile ones perceived themselves closer to the Midland than to the Northeast, the opposite for all three other groups. It seems like that is always the case: without exposure to other dialects, you tend to think that your own is the standard, or "without an accent." Since it seems that the Midland is the widely accepted "standard" dialect, perhaps that is why the Non-mobile Northerners were associating themselves with it.

It also seemed significant that the trials were held at Indian University in Bloomington, IN, an area that is quite certainly in the Midland area. The experimenters mentioned that they picked Northerners who had not been in the area for more than two years in order to avoid the effects of localization in the dialect, but to me that still seems to be a very long time. Within two years I think an accent would have adapted at least somewhat to the local area, and, more importantly, hearing that dialect around you all the time you are more likely to associate others with it. Therefore, perhaps the Non-mobile Northerners, having only been exposed to the North and the Midland, drew a similarity between the two for that reason only.

I liked the idea of examining mobility because I believe that does have a large effect on the way you perceive dialects. My own project will be quite similar to this, so I will use some of the techniques (especially in terms of randomizing the stimuli) when I conduct my own trials. I think in the future experiments based on exposure to the media would be good lenses with which to test dialect perceptions. After all, people who have not moved around much but who do watch a lot of TV where they are exposed to hearing different dialects in characters might perform better on these tests.

My Vowels: Heed, Hid, Head, Had, Hodd, Hawed, Hood, Who'd

This was a very interesting exercise for me as it made more real all the very theoretical stuff that was in the reading. I have a hard time figuring out what it means that a vowel is closed, or open, or back in the mouth, or in the front. The "whispering" and "creaky voice" techniques worked to some extent to help me figure that out, but more important was making my own vowel chart.
I had some trouble with Praat and figuring out with frequencies to use (where in the striation band), but I generally picked an area in the middle and I hope that was accurate. It may not have been though, as seen in my results. I was wondering what the blue line that shows up in Praat is, with blue dots connected... it seemed like the upper border of my first formant, but I wasn't sure.
In general, my "i" is far forward, with an F2 frequency of about 2100Hz, but my "ɪ" was relatively far forward (around 2000Hz) but quite a bit more open (F1 of 430Hz versus an F1 of 320Hz for my "i"). I thought the most interesting thing was that I have very little distinction between "ɔ" and "ɑ"... the F1 frequencies for these were nearly identical, meaning that I guess my "ɔ" has migrated downwards to become a lower vowel, though it is actually farther back (slightly) than my "ɑ." I was wondering whether other people saw this shift as well?

Also, I played the McGurk Effect example for a couple of my friends and they were all quite surprised by the extent to which the visual cues dictate what we think we hear. One of my friends particularly prides herself on having a good ear, as a musician, and she was thrown off by the clip. I think I realize that this comes into effect for me particularly when speaking Spanish, which is a second language for me: I have a much easier time understanding someone if I can watch them speak Spanish than if I just hear it (for me, comprehension from reading is the easiest). I guess this might have something to do with the McGurk Effect, as I maybe map what I see the person saying onto what I know of Spanish.

Response to Class, October 13

I thought our discussions in class yesterday were really interesting.
I am still not sure I understand Praat as well as I could, but I'm sure if I play around with it more (and as we go further in the quarter with some of the more acoustic stuff) I will start to get it. It was really interesting to compare notes on how that last assignment turned out. I thought it funny that so many people had tried for a Southern accent (including me); I guess this was because the accent is so strongly "regionally marked" and that it's not as hard to imitate, even if ithe imitation is horrible. Also, I thought the cross-cultural stuff we discussed was fascinating: Nikolas' comment about the Brazilian equivalent of "like" that he puts into English conversation, Fatima's comment about the Arabic "you know," and then the discussion on the German "isn't it?" that's sort of added on to things, along with Meghan's husband's semantical switch. I recently watched a clip of Russell Peters, a Canadian comedian, on a similar topic with the Chinese equivalent of the word "like," which is something like "nega." I am also looking forward to hearing more about some of the projects which I think will come out really well; if anyone has any suggestions on mine, which is to see how well people can determine other people's accents, please let me know.

Speaking of accents, I got 8 out of the 10 different accent types correct in the quiz. The ones I missed were #5 and #8, which were a Hispanic and a black person, respectively. The last one was very obviously Indian, with very few aspirated consonants and really closed "o"s (like in most Indian languages), along with a difference in the structure when he said "fleece as white as the snow." The black Caribbean person also had a pretty distinct accent, with the "a" in Mary and the third "e" in everywhere pronounced similarly (almost as I'd say the "ai" in fairy), along with an "o" that sort of became a "u", as in "go'u" and "sno'u." Lastly, his "r" was a bit different: it was like the "r" in butter if you were enunciating it properly. I know that if I knew more Caribbeans (or, better yet, if I were Caribbean) I'd be able to tell where in the Caribbean he's from, as there are subtle distinctions between Jamaicans, Trinidadians, Barbadians, Belizeans, etc. The African American people were relatively easy to identify. There was something especially pertaining to the "a" sound, which the first woman moved to almost an "iaa" ("lyamb") and the second man stretched out too. The "o" had a clear diphthong as well, which the Hispanic people, for example, did not have as much of. In fact, I think I determined the Hispanic people in part based on the way they said their "o"s at the end of the phrases, which was an "o" sound without as much "u". The Arab man was also relatively easy for me to pick out, perhaps because I am slightly more familiar with the accent; again, the "a" in Mary and the third "e" in everywhere had a different intonation from other American English heard in the trial, though it was not the same as the Caribbean -- more of a straight "e" as in the IPA.

This was an interesting exercise because while I think they chose people with relatively strong accents from their respective groups, I didn't get all of them and I know that I do make judgments about someone's ethnicity from their accent. This, and it relates to the matched guise experiment we watched in the housing PSA, is important in realizing that we can't make those kinds of judgments accurately always, and that some people out there do take it to the next level where they discriminate based on the assumptions they make.

Praat Comparison

This is my blog regarding the homework assigned from last class, the comparison of a simple sentence in two different pronunciations using Praat. The sentence, "The butter spilled on the cot," is a simple one that has a variety of vowel sounds in it. The schwa occurs in "butter" -- which also has the glottal "tt" -- and in "the." There's a short "i" sound in spilled and the "o" in cot and in "on" is often pronounced in a variety of ways across different dialects.

I attempted to use a Southern dialect to say the sentence. I used some of what we've read and some of what we discussed in class about vowel shifts to affect my accent. The short "i" in spilled I moved up towards the front and top of my mouth to produce more of an "iy" sound. This is visible in the spectrograph clearly. The pattern as compared to the "i" in my "normal" accent is much darker, and there is a downward (convex) arch along with two dark horizontal bands above and one below. In my normal accent, this curve exists but it is more concave and blends in with the bottom horizontal band (probably because my natural "i" is not moved forward).

I think the "o" is represented by the amount the final band is curved because in the "Southern" version there is more of a curve and I can distinctly hear a more stretched out, broader "o" sound in cot than in my normal rendition. I also notice that the "c" sound I made in the Southern accent is more drawn out and aspirated, which is seen in the spectrograph a stop in the spectography whereas in my normal one the graph is more blended in the word "cot."

Also, in the "Southern accent" the words are distinct but the sounds seem to blur together (ie. the bars aren't as distinct), which is probably the effect of the "drawl" that we hear. Related to this is the fact that it took longer to say the same sentence with the accent, (by 0.7s) something I did not do intentionally.

The word "butter" is quite different between the two versions. In the "normal" the amplitude is relatively high for the "bu" and then lower for "tter", while in the Southern it's all quite the same. Also, the drawing in the normal version shows three distinct areas of darkness, one sloping up during the "b", then a hazy middle area for the glottal "tt" and then a higher dark area for "er." In the Southern one these three areas are the same, but they are actually connected. The middle area is also much less hazy and clear as a dark spot. I think this might be from the fact that it's less glottal and approaches a "d" sound almost, which connects with the "er."

The last thing that I thought was interesting (which was the same in both) was the way I grouped words. I can tell where "The" starts and ends in each, but then "butter sp--" is relatively contiguous -- though you can make out which is which. There is then a space and then "-illed on the" and then, separately (probably due to the aspirated "c"), "cot." I would have thought that all my words would be relatively distinct or relatively together, not that some would be together and others apart. I guess this might vary from person to person though.

Thoughts on In-Class Discussion of Sept. 29 (Regional Accents, IPA)

I thought today's class was extremely interesting, particularly the discussion of the differences we found between our accents. For the most part, the accent quiz was accurate in pinpointing our accents, and I think that with a few additions it might have been improved, as we discussed. One possible addition to the quiz that I thought of afterward was the difference in pronunciation of the word "aunt," which I personally pronounce so the "au" rhymes with the "a" in father. Also, instead of just asking about "fill" and "feel," it might have helped to ask about "full" and "fool" which to me sound different, but to some people in my dorm are pronounced the same.

I noticed in the more detailed language dialect map that many major urban areas have their own particular dialects, some famous (such as Boston or New York) and others less so (Bay Area Urban). I think this makes sense, given the high concentration of people from different backgrounds in one place interacting all the time, that a new hybrid dialect might appear and develop independently of the surrounding areas. I also noticed a similar effect in mountain areas, with the Smoky, Appalachian, Ozark, and Rocky Mountain ranges all having their own distinct way of speaking; this makes sense too given the geographic isolation of these places and the lack of significant mixing with people from other areas (this same effect is true for the Georgia and Carolina shore islands with Gullah). We noticed in class that the borders of the Southern and Midland areas are changing, expanding, and I think this is natural too given the migration of people and the population patterns -- the Midwest and South are growing, while some areas of the Inland North are even declining in population as their people seek economic opportunities elsewhere. This migration would bring with it linguistic changes, a blurring of boundaries, as seen in the map.

Lastly, I'd like to comment on the IPA alphabet and how cool I thought it was. It's always been confusing for me to try and explain what a sound is using just the English alphabet, especially when I have to explain something from Hindi (which I am learning) to a non-Hindi speaker. Hindi is completely phonetic, so a letter is pronounced a certain way, or, at most, two ways; it's nice to see an international system that I can apply to sounds in Hindi, English and Spanish and any other language. At first it looks strange, but I began to get the hang of it after a while. I definitely did not understand some of the subtleties between the letters (particularly between velar and uvular) but after feeling that certain sounds in foreign languages are just beyond me, it's amazing that just using the placement of your tongue and shape of your mouth you can indeed make any sound, for any language, as long as you know how to do it precisely. I find it a little hard to believe that every single sound in every language is mapped by that chart, and I'm sure that some subtle variations might exist between two categories (as with vowels), but for the most part it seems like a great tool for linguists but also for people learning languages to help with pronunciation.

I'm looking forward to working with Praat and seeing how different sounds actually look on the spectrograph, and learning how to differentiate between them visually as opposed to just aurally.

What's Most Important to Understanding Language

I think that vocabulary and syntax are the most important in understanding language. Sounds do play a key role, but they are easier to become accustomed to if they differ from what one normally hears. This is why someone with a different accent, meaning that their pronunciation differs, is eventually easily understood by the people around them after a period of adjustment.

On the other hand, if vocabulary differs, the entire meaning of certain phrases is lost. For example, when a drinking fountain is referred to as a "bubbler," (in Wisconsin, for example) there is little likelihood that someone from outside the community would instinctively understand. There is a large potential for miscommunication in these cases, and the differences in vocabulary can be quite significant over just a short geographic distance. Furthermore, most people are extremely surprised to hear of a different word for something they have called by a particular word for their entire lives; the instinct is to characterize it as "weird" because our own vocabulary is so integral to the way we speak.

Syntax too matters a lot. The way we put sentences together is largely predetermined, with a standard set-up in English that is not often changed. Syntax does not vary as much geographically, as vocabulary can, but it often varies based on social class or education. While certain flexibility exists, a radical change in syntax is usually associated with a specific dialect and can occasionally carry stigma. Using different syntax can be considered "uneducated" or "lower class," and while this is not a fair judgment, it is a common one in today's society. Unlike other European languages, there is no central institute that mandates correct syntax and vocabulary for English, which allows for greater flexibility in theory, but social stigma and certain problems of understanding mean that there is a certain rigidity that must be adhered to if we want to understand each other.

Although sounds are easy to adjust to, it's much more difficult to adjust to different ways of speaking, that is, the vocabulary and syntax. Without standard vocabulary and syntax, the problems of understanding are far deeper than merely not understanding how someone is saying something. This is why I believe that these two aspects are the more important for language than sounds.

My Dialect

So I took the quiz, and I found out that I have a "Midland" accent, meaning that I'm supposedly from the area around Pennsylvania, southern Illinois, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and Missouri, but I might also be from any large Southern city, meaning that my accent is pretty nondescript. Apparently I would have a good voice for TV since it's not particularly regional.

This makes sense to me because I have moved around a lot, attending international American schools, and I have been surrounded by people with all types of American and non-American dialects in English which has prevented me from developing one particular accent. I also lived four years in Wisconsin during my middle school years (when my accent might still have been developing), which might explain the more Midwestern tilt of my accent. My next-closest matches were Boston and the Northeast, which is interesting to me because I have not spent very much time there at all, though I have friends from those places.

I thought it was interesting, the questions that were asked. They all centered around vowel sounds, particularly "o" and "a", which suggests to me that differences in accents are based primarily on these vowels. I thought it was also interesting that some of the answers were "sounds very similar but just a little bit different" which fit, at least for me, for quite a few of the answers. Perhaps that only slight differentiation led to my result of a nondescript accent, since I didn't have any really distinct ways of saying anything. For some of the other choices (Mary, merry, marry, for example) I had fun pronouncing the words the different ways -- that seemed pretty alien to me -- after I'd chosen my own selection.

This was an interesting test because it simplified a topic that must have many variables and various subtleties into just a few simple questions to determine accent. As such it's not completely accurate, but it's cool the way that accents can be determined, and I hadn't realized how many different ones there are (Boston as opposed to Northeast, North Central vs. Philly, etc.). I'll be on the lookout for the differences between some of these from now on.

-Mitul
(Linguistics 5N)