I Bag Your Pardon: The Albertan ae/ɛ Vowel Shift as a Window into

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
I Bag Your Pardon: The Albertan ae/ɛ Vowel Shift as a Window into Community Grammars
by
Jacqueline Jones
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LINGUISTICS
CALGARY, ALBERTA
DECEMBER, 2015
© Jacqueline Jones 2015
Abstract
This thesis explores a vowel shift by speakers in Alberta in which [æ] is shifting before [g]. A
production experiment was designed to examine the direction, extent, and sources of this change.
I hypothesized that differing prompt modalities might elicit productions that could be used to
support the existence of a triadic grammar, where productions are influenced by the community
(auditory), the self (pictorial), and the standard (orthographic) grammars. I hypothesize a
refinement of Ohala’s Active Listener hypothesis to include “super” and “inactive” listeners as
other possible sources of sound change. The results show this is an in-progress merger by
approximation and that changing the prompt modality altered listener productions. Auditory
prompts had the greatest influence on production: Those most likely to merge the vowels [æ] and
[ɛ] were more likely to mimic auditory cues. This indicates that super perceivers spread sound
change to a greater degree.
ii
Acknowledgements
Primarily, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Stephen Winters, for his support and
guidance throughout this process. This work would not exist without his advice and patience. I
would also like to thank Dr. Darin Flynn and Dr. Robert Murray, whose work and teachings
inspired many of the questions you find herein. Thank you to Dr. Flynn, and Dr. Hayashi for
agreeing to be my examiners.
I’d like to express my gratitude to my friends. My linguistics crews, both the original
(Rein, Jen, Adrienne, and Jessi), and the new (Sarah, Kelly, Una, Saskia). The friendship and
much-needed humour provided by the OLLC, the Phonetics Club, and the Cool Freaks Cabal
cannot be underestimated. Extra special thanks are required for Sarah Greer, who not only served
as support, friend, and fellow Old Lady, but provided the extensive time and effort to serve as the
voice for my auditory stimuli. Thanks also to Emmett, a great friend and midnight-hour
proofreader. Finally, Emmett (the other one) and Saskia deserve gratitude for delivering some
tasty chicken curry at the time it was most needed.
I wish to acknowledge my family: Andrew, for always being there with hugs, flattery,
and the willingness to listen while I talked through my ideas before committing them to paper;
My mom, for bringing me fresh-baked goods and help with the laundry; and Io, for being very
soft and offering the support that only a cat sitting on the keyboard at 2:00am can provide.
When I was a little girl, I stole a book from the school's library about a little girl who
stole a book from the library. Diane Duane, through Kit and Nita, ignited in me a passion and
lifelong love of the inner workings of language, and I would be totally remiss to not
acknowledge her influence on my life. She taught me that you can open any door, change hearts,
and even change yourself, just by finding the right words at the right time, and saying them with
iii
the right intentions. (I eventually returned the book, although to a different library. I didn’t quite
know how those things worked). When I wrote to her, decades later, with the gushing fangirlism
reserved for childhood heroes, she told me "I suspect you might have found your way to where
you are without me, but I'm so pleased to have been of use on the journey. Go well." Dai’stiho,
Diane.
This thesis could not have been completed without the support of the University of
Calgary, my peers in the Linguistics department (and later, the LLC), and the SSHRC.
iv
Dedication
To Cynthia.
Do you see that sassy language maven over there? The one with the quick wit? The church lady
with the tricycle and the blue hair? …That’s you, that is.
v
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures and Illustrations ......................................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................4
2.1 Introduction. ...............................................................................................................4
2.2 Literature Review: Pre-Velar Raising........................................................................6
2.2.1 Previous Studies ................................................................................................6
2.2.2 Motivations for Pre-velar Raising .....................................................................8
2.3 A brief foray into classical Neogrammarian theories of sound change ...................13
2.4 Eckert’s Indexical Fields .........................................................................................16
2.5 Ohala’s Active Listeners ..........................................................................................20
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES ........................24
3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................24
3.2 The Three Grammars ...............................................................................................24
3.2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................24
3.2.2 Self grammar ...................................................................................................25
3.2.3 Community Grammar ......................................................................................25
3.2.4 Standard grammar ...........................................................................................27
3.2.5 The hidden influence of the triadic grammar ..................................................27
3.3 Identifying Mergers .................................................................................................28
3.4 Pilot Study................................................................................................................30
3.4.1 Participants ......................................................................................................30
3.4.2 Stimuli .............................................................................................................31
3.4.3 Procedure .........................................................................................................31
3.4.4 Results of Pilot ................................................................................................33
3.4.5 Pilot Conclusions .............................................................................................36
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................38
4.1 Research Objectives .................................................................................................38
4.2 Participants...............................................................................................................40
4.3 Materials and Procedure ..........................................................................................41
4.3.1 Demographic and Personality Questionnaire ..................................................41
4.3.2 Calibration .......................................................................................................42
4.3.3 Modality Stimuli ..............................................................................................42
4.3.4 Procedure .........................................................................................................46
4.4 Analysis ...................................................................................................................48
4.4.1 Finding Mergers and Splitters .........................................................................48
4.4.2 Correlations With Personality Characteristics .................................................54
4.4.3 ANOVAs .........................................................................................................56
vi
4.4.3.1 Introduction to ANOVAs.......................................................................56
4.4.3.2 ANOVAs Without [œ] Auditory Stimuli...............................................59
4.4.3.3 ANOVAs Run On Auditory Stimuli. .....................................................73
4.4.3.4 Influence of Order of Presentation. ........................................................77
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................79
5.1 Confirming Mergers ................................................................................................79
5.2 Personality and Demographic Data .........................................................................80
5.3 The Grammar Triad’s Variable Influence on Production. .......................................81
5.4 Factors influencing production ................................................................................83
5.4.1 When the only targets are [æ] and [ɛ]..............................................................83
5.4.2 In the [œ]/Non-English vowel condition .........................................................86
5.5 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................87
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................89
APPENDIX A: PILOT STUDY STIMULI .....................................................................100
APPENDIX B: SUBJECT QUESTIONAIRRE ..............................................................105
APPENDIX C: CALIBRATION VOWEL WORD LIST ...............................................107
APPENDIX D: EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI WORD LISTS .......................................108
APPENDIX E: PLOTS OF ANOVA RESULTS ............................................................113
APPENDIX F: POST HOC RESULTS ...........................................................................122
vii
List of Tables
Table 4-1: Significant Effects and Interactions in ANOVA on distance from calibration [æ]..... 59
Table 4-2: Significant effects and interactions in ANOVA on distance from calibration [ɛ] ...... 60
Table 4-3: Perceptual Possibilities for Auditory Stimuli .............................................................. 74
Table 4-4: Effects of experimental factors on participants' [æ] vowel: Significant results. ......... 75
Table 4-5: Effects of experimental factors on participants' [ɛ] vowel: Significant results. .......... 76
viii
List of Figures and Illustrations
Figure 2-1: Western Canadian Vowels. Lumber, 2008. Based on Labov et al., (2006). ................ 4
Figure 2-3: “The West” Dialect Region, from Labov et al. 2006 ................................................... 7
Figure 2-4: Liberman et al (1957), reproduced from Casserly & Pisoni (2010) .......................... 10
Figure 2-5: Frequency of second formant versus frequency of first formant for vowels spoken
by men and children, which were classified unanimously by all listeners. (Peterson &
Barney 1952) ......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2-6: taken from Eckert (2008) ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-1: Merger by Approximation (two subtypes). (Taken from Wassink, 2014)................. 28
Figure 3-2: Merger by Expansion ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-3: Merger by Transfer .................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3-4: Comparison of vowels [æ] (light) and [ɛ] (dark) before [g] and [k] .......................... 33
Figure 3-5: Productions by Modality: Pictorial (crosshatches), or Orthographic (shape) ............ 34
Figure 3-6: Combined Formants of Both Vowels and Contexts .................................................. 35
Figure 3-7: Gender differences in production of [æ] (green) and [ɛ] (blue) before [g] and [k] ... 36
Figure 4-1: Training slide from the Pictorial block ...................................................................... 44
Figure 4-2: Pictorial slide to prompt the nonword "bregg" .......................................................... 45
Figure 4-3: Labelled Spectrogram as prepared for each token by Praat and Perl Scripts. ........... 47
Figure 4-4: Comparison of Stimuli Vowels to Calibration Vowels, All Speakers ....................... 48
Figure 4-5: Production distances between calibration vowels and those before [g]..................... 50
Figure 4-6: A velar pinch. Image reproduced from Baker et al. (2007), green circle added by
me. ......................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4-7: A Merger and a Splitter's formants of both vowels before [g] .................................. 54
Figure 4-8: Correlation Matrix for Personality data (“Merger” highlighted) ............................... 56
Figure 4-9: Normalized Comparison of Stimuli Vowels to Calibration Vowels. ......................... 58
Figure 4-10: Main Effect of: Vowel Target .................................................................................. 61
ix
Figure 4-11: Main Effect of: Context ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 4-12: Main Effect of: Word ............................................................................................... 63
Figure 4-13: Main Effect of: Merge (only significant in regards to [æ])...................................... 63
Figure 4-14: Main Effect of: Stimtype (only significant in regards to [ɛ])................................... 64
Figure 4-15: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Context ................................................. 65
Figure 4-16: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Merge ................................................... 65
Figure 4-17: Two-Way Interactions between Context and Merge ............................................... 66
Figure 4-18: Two-Way Interaction between Stimulus Type and Word ....................................... 67
Figure 4-19: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Word .................................................... 68
Figure 4-20: Two-Way Interactions between Context and Word ................................................. 68
Figure 4-21: Three-Way Interaction between Stimtype, Target, and Context. ............................ 69
Figure 4-22: Three-way Interaction between StimType, Target, and Context with regards to
Calibration [ɛ] ....................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4-23: Three-Way Interaction between Stimtype, Target, and Word. ................................ 71
Figure 4-24: Three-way Interactions between Target, Context, and Merge ................................. 72
Figure 4-25: Three-way Interactions between Stimtype, Context, and Word. ............................. 72
Figure 4-26: Three-way Interactions between Target, Context, and Word. ................................. 73
Figure 4-27: Main Effect of: Presentation Order (With Target Included) .................................... 78
Figure 5-1: Normalized Plot of Mergers' and Splitters' [æg] and [ɛg] productions [_g], [_k],
and Calibration contexts. ...................................................................................................... 79
x
Introduction
A WORD is dead
When it is said,
Some say.
I say it just
Begins to live
That day.
— Emily Dickinson (Part One: Life: 89, line 1-6, 1924)
It might seem a little presumptuous to begin a Master’s thesis in Linguistics with a quote
from a poet. After all, isn’t poetry the exception to the rules? Aren’t the greatest wordsmiths
those that are considered to defy the expected and descriptive rules that linguists and educators
so carefully attempt to control and harness and write manuscripts about? But each time someone
speaks, even when reading a poem that has been read aloud thousands of times before, the
sounds that person produces are never exactly like those produced previously. Even the same
speaker reading the same poem on the same day does not produce exactly the same sounds.
Sometimes, these minute variations bring about larger changes. For example, Dickinson spoke
with a characteristic New England non-rhotic accent, as did most speakers throughout Maine,
New England, and Rhode Island in the 19th century, dropping the [ɹ] from “word” to pronounce
it as [wɜːd] (Miller, 2012:49). However, a speaker living in her home town of Amherst today
would likely pronounce it [wɜɹd], as, according to Labov et al., (2005:48), since the non-rhotic
dialect area has shrunk and now encompasses only the eastern coastline of Massachusetts. As
Dickinson says, it is when words are spoken that they are given life enough to change, and this
thesis concerns itself with the forces that shape and constrain that change: the speaker, the
listener, and the environment (which I will later identify as the primary influence on the self,
community, and standard grammars, resspectively). The specific sound change I am examining
1
in this manuscript is the possible vowel merger in Western Canada between the low front vowels
/æ/ and /ɛ/ before /g/, using three modalities (visual/pictorial, auditory, and orthographic) to
measure the influence of the three forces on the change.
Chapter 2 (Background) gives a brief explanation of vowel mergers of this type in other
areas of the world, and details the merging process and what can be expected in regards to
experimental findings to support the existence and direction of these changes. Chapter Two also
gives an overview of two different explanations for sound change from a social perspective:
Ohala’s active listeners and Eckert’s indexical field. I then propose an alternate catalyst of sound
change, combining the two previous theories to form what I call a “triadic grammar.” In the
triadic grammar, indexical fields and active/inactive listeners work in tandem to initiate, spread,
and resist sound change. It is via the triadic grammar that the intersection of these
aforementioned forces may be studied.
Chapter 3 (Research Objectives and Hypotheses) outlines in detail the specifics of the
phenomenon under study (that is, the æ/ɛ merger), and the hypotheses being tested. It also gives
an overview of a pilot study completed earlier to help focus and refine the current study. Chapter
4 (Methodology) provides the details of the testing materials, participants, procedure, and results
of the primary study conducted for this thesis. Chapter 4 also explains the statistical methods
used and explains why some methods and materials were chosen over others for this particular
study.
Chapter 5 (Analysis) presents the results of the statistical analyses of the experimental
data. Chapter 6 (Discussion and Conclusion) examines these results in light of the theories
presented in Chapter 2, and discusses whether the hypotheses were confirmed or disconfirmed.
Potential shortcomings, unexpected windfalls, and areas of future research are also highlighted.
2
It then summarizes all previous chapters, giving an overview of the thesis as a whole, while
encouraging the reader to determine whether the words contained herein give empirical support
to Dickinson’s intimation. I believe they do.
3
Background
2.1 Introduction.
Vowels are undergoing drastic changes across North America. The so-called “caught/cot”
merger of the low back vowels has been well-documented in Minnesota (Arctander et al, 2009),
Missouri (Majors, 2005), and Kentucky (Irons, 2007). The high back vowels [u] and [ʊ] are
fronted in California (Clopper et al 2005) and, to some extent, in Winnipeg English (Hagiwara,
1997). The retraction of the front lax vowels [æ], [ɛ], and [ɪ], dubbed the Canadian Shift, has
been documented in Montreal (Boberg, 2005), Ontario (Clark et al., 1995), Vancouver (SadlierBrown et al., 2008), and Winnipeg (Hagiwara, 2006).
This thesis examines a potential vowel merger in Western Canada between the low front
vowels /æ/ and /ɛ/ before /g/. Figure 2-1 highlights the vowels under study. The graph represents
Figure 2-1: Western Canadian Vowels. Lumber, 2008.
Based on Labov et al., (2006).
the “vowel space” from a sampling of speakers taken by Labov in western Canada between 1991
and 1993 (Labov, 2006). The X and Y axes represent the first formant (F1) and the second
4
formant (F2) of the vowel, the “characteristic resonance regions” (Peterson et al. 1952:175) or
frequency bands that distinguish vowels from each other. Vowel maps are traditionally presented
in this way, as they both elucidate acoustic structure, and represent (loosely) the tongue’s
position in the mouth at each point of articulation. The F1 corresponds to vowel ‘height,’
referring to the highest point of the tongue’s position in the vocal tract, while F2 refers to vowel
'backness,' the position of the highest point of the tongue either forward towards the lips or back
towards the throat. As displayed in the figure, the “normal” vowel positions for speakers in
Western Canada have [æ] produced lower and farther back than [ɛ]. I have informally observed,
however, that many speakers in the Calgary area, myself included, appear to be merging these
two vowels in certain contexts, among them before [g]. This makes “bag” ([bæg]) and “beg”
([bɛg]) homophones for these speakers.
Zeller (1997) first documented the existence of this particular change in parts of the
American Midwest in 1990, and identified it as an [æ] → [e] merger, taking place in the contexts
of [æg], [æŋ], and [æŋk]. It should be noted that most of the literature confirms with Zeller’s
observation that General American English produces [e] in these contexts, while Canadian
English speakers are considered to produce a sound closer to (and transcribed as) [ɛ] (Labov,
2005). This phenomenon of low front vowels increasing in F2 before [g] is called pre-velar
raising (Freeman, 2014).
The experiment conducted for this thesis will, as its first goal, determine the nature of the
æ/ɛ merger in Western Alberta. That is, it will seek to confirm or deny the change within the
population studied. After confirming that a significant percentage of speakers merge these
vowels in certain contexts, the next step is to determine the direction of this shift. While these
possibilities will be examined in depth in Chapter 3, the primary goals of this analysis were to
5
determine: (1) Whether [æ] is rising and fronting to encroach on the area generally reserved for
[ɛ], or vice-versa ([ɛ] backing and lowering); (2) Whether both vowels are moving towards a
central “non-æ, non-ɛ” point (a neutralization), or, finally; (3) A shift in other directions
indicating a chain shift or other phenomena more complex than a simple merger or
neutralization.
2.2 Literature Review: Pre-Velar Raising
2.2.1 Previous Studies
To examine pre-velar raising, and the [æ]/[ɛ] shift, it is important to situate Alberta
within the greater linguistic landscape of Canada (and, as we will see, the Pacific Northwestern
region of the USA). Labov, Ash, and Boberg’s 2006 edition of the Atlas of North American
English consider most of Canada a homogenous dialect region, saying “a single type of English
is spoken across the 3,000 miles (4,500 km) from Vancouver, British Columbia to Ottawa,
Ontario” (p. 216)
However, there is a growing body of evidence that supports dialectal variation within the
4,500km2 outlined by Labov et al. as homogenous. Boberg (2008) found that [ɛ] was produced
fronter in the Prairies (a higher F2) than all other regions in Canada, while Hagiwara (2006)
found that in Winnipeg [ɛ] does not appear to be lowering. Though just outside of Labov’s
region, in an earlier study Boberg (2005) also found that in Montreal the [ɛ] is moving towards
[ʌ] and [æ] is both lowering and retracting.
Complicating the distinction between the current variation in Alberta and some of the
similar mergers noted in the American Pacific Northwest is the ongoing Canadian Shift. The
merger between [ɔ] and [ɑ] (making caught and cot homophones) created a vacuum in the
Canadian vowel space. [æ] shifted lower and backer into this space, and [ɛ] followed suit (also
6
moving lower and backer) (Labov et al. 2006.): This is why Canadians produce [ɛ] in this
context, while the American vowel is [e]. According to Labov et al. (2006, p.222) in General
Canadian English “It is evident that /e/ is moving backward and downward in apparent time, and
/æ/ is moving backward.” This evidence is based on recordings and acoustic analysis of speakers
across Canada between the years of 1991 and 1993 (p. 20).
The extent to which Canadian dialect regions have been studied pales in comparison to
those in the United States, but it is prudent to mention here those studies carried out on a region
assumed by the Atlas to be similarily monolithic: The West. This region of the United States
encompasses all or portions of every state west and north of Texas (Figure 2-3, from pp. 138)
Figure 2-2: “The West” Dialect Region, from Labov et al. 2006
Researchers of American dialectology have already identified distinctive regions within
The West: most relevant to the current work is that group called the Pacific Northwest (PNW),
7
which encompasses the states of Washington and Oregon (and optionally Idaho, Montana,
portions of northern California, and southern British Columbia) (Findley & Coates, 2002, p.2).
The varying positions of the [æ] and [e] vowels were noted in this area as early as 1961, where
Reed observes an infrequent raising of [æ] in “bag” (p. 561). Zeller (1997) documented the
existence of this particular change in Wisconson in 1990 and identified it as an [æ] → [e]
merger, taking place in the contexts of [æg], [æŋ], and [æŋk]. Zeller’s findings were later
republished in the Atlas (p.182), but no further comment on this merger is made within. Wassink
et al. (2009) found, in a survey of 30 PNW speakers, that prevelar raising affected both [æ] and
[ɛ], and also showed a gender divide: Male participants merged [æ], [ɛ], and [e:] (the vowel
found in the word “bake”), while females maintained separate [æ] and [ɛ] vowels (but did tend to
merge [ɛ] and [e:]). More recently, Wassink (2015) confirmed this raising of [æ] before [g] in the
Pacific Northwest, and linked it to a continuing trend of both vowels towards the diphthong [eɪ],
though she find this is a Washington-area trend not shared by speakers in Vancouver, BC. A
small-scale study of 4 speakers from Oregon and Washington conducted by Riebold (2012)
showed a similar tendency in half of the speakers to merge [æ] and [ɛ], though no gender
divisions were found. Conn (2002) found evidence of the Canadian Shift in Oregon but no
evidence of merged vowels. Finally, Riebold (2015) found significant pre-velar raising in [ɛ]
before [g] across all participants, they found a subsequent raising of [æ] before [g], causing the
two vowels to maintain distinct areas within the vowel space for most speakers, and so did not
confirm a [ɛ]/[æ] merge.
2.2.2 Motivations for Pre-velar Raising
Shifts involving [æ], have been documented widely throughout history. Old English [æ]
lowered to become [a] in Middle English, which then shifted back upwards to [æ] in Early
8
Modern English (Baker, Mielke, Archangel, 2008). It is possible that [æ], rather than cycling
downwards again to [a], is continuing to rise. This causes it to encroach on the vowel space
occupied by [ɛ]. Once this encroachment happens, speakers are forced to alter their vowel spaces
to accommodate the change, either through collapse or expansion. The options available to these
speakers in regards to these two vowels can be explained cohesively via Dispersion Theory.
According to Dispersion Theory (Liljencrants & Lindblom, 1972; see also Burzio 2007)
“insufficient distance” between vowels in the vowel space is viewed as a form of markedness.
The vowels [ɛ] and [æ] become insufficiently distant from each other when [æ] shifts higher and
fronter in the vowel space, and so one of two repair strategies applies—either the vowels are
pushed further apart in the vowel space (dispersion), or they are collapsed into a single phoneme
(neutralization).
If [ɛ] and [æ] are becoming neutralized before before [g] and [k], the explanation for this
neutralization may have its roots in coarticulation. It is well documented that velar articulations
drive F2 and F3 together immediately before closure, an effect known as the classic “velar
pinch” (Ladefoged 2006:193). Bringing the F2 up in anticipation of this pinch may be behind the
neutralization of the two vowels before velars. Bauer & Parker (2008) conducted a series of
production experiments using ultrasound and concluded that this coarticulatory motivation was
responsible for the raising of [æ] in Wisconsin (though, unlike Zeller, they did not identify a
merger between [æ] and [ɛ[ before [g]).
Many vowel shifts have taken place in North American English dialects even in the
relatively brief time since colonization. The reason for this frequency is due to the gradient
nature of vowels within the vowel space, and the way humans perceive and categorize these
incoming sounds. Liberman et al. (1961) demonstrated the phenomenon of categorical
9
perception using synthetic speech and the stop sounds [b], [d], and [g]. Acoustically, two of the
distinguishing features that separate each of the sounds from the others is: (1) The frequency of
the second formant at the onset, and; (2) the length of delay between the onset of the first
formant relative to the second (and third) formants. Liberman et al. (1957) created stimuli that
altered this time delay in 10ms increments (therefore altering its F2 transition cue), and asked
subjects to label the sounds in an ABX task. Figure 2-4 illustrates their results.
Figure 2-3: Liberman et al (1957), reproduced from Casserly & Pisoni (2010)
The Y-axis shows the percentage of participants that labelled the sounds as [b], [d], or [g]. The
X-axis shows which stimulus was being labeled by participants, with each “stimulus value”
varying in its F2 by 120 cycles per second (or Hertz) (recall that this change in F2 is a product of
the 10ms time delay). As shown, humans’ “discrimination between different tokens of the same
category (analogous to two shades of red) is very close to chance. They are highly accurate at
discriminating tokens spanning category boundaries, on the other hand.”(Casserly & Pisoni
2010:4) This discrete cataloguing of incoming gradient data, known as categorical perception, is
not limited to speech perception but has also been found to affect other modalities, such as size,
colour, and texture (Goldstone & Hendrickson, 2010).
10
Categorical perception relates to the vowel shift under study for two reasons: It, like
speech perception in general, is found to be cross-modal (and I am examining the influence of
different modalities on production, which are based on listener perception of input), and because
vowels in natural speech have much wider categories: They can be produced with much more
variation than stop sounds and still be reliably identified (Pisoni 1973; Peterson & Barney 1952).
Physiologically, the sounds [b] and [d] differ in their place of articulation: [b] is produced with
the lips and [d] is produced with the tongue against the alveolar ridge (Ladefoged, 2006:10-11).
The amount of variation with which speakers can produce these stop categories is limited,
because each corresponds to a relatively stable "quantal state" (Stevens & Keyser (2010), where
a wide amount of articulatory variation yields more or less the same acoustic output.
The acoustic characteristics of vowels, on the other hand are more sensitive to variation
in articulation, but the identities of those vowels can be still be gleaned by the listeners so long as
these productions are “close enough”, acoustically, to other members of the category. It has also
been found that listeners may engage short-term memory more when perceiving vowels than
consonants: Pisoni (1973), in studying perceptual categories in vowels, found that “steady-state
vowels have been found to be perceived continuously, much like nonspeech sounds…
differences in discrimination between consonants and vowels are primarily due to the differential
availability of auditory short-term memory for the acoustic cues distinguishing these two classes
of speech sounds.” (pp.1-2).
Figure 2-5 shows the results of an experiment (Peterson & Barney, 1952) in which 75
people were asked to categorize the vowels of men and children, and it illustrates that vowels are
produced with variable points, but that their (relative) meaning remains clear as long as the
vowels do not stray too far from the designated perceptual boundaries. F1 is represented on the
11
x-axis and F2 is represented on the y-axis. (It should be noted that this paper predates the
conventional way to chart vowel spaces, and rotating the following figure 180° will place it in
the same orientation as the other vowel charts in this thesis.)
Figure 2-4: Frequency of second formant versus frequency of first formant for vowels
spoken by men and children, which were classified unanimously by all listeners. (Peterson
& Barney 1952)
The figure also illustrates, once again, the influence of people’s knowledge of community
grammars in perception. Listeners know that children’s voices are generally higher in both F1
and F2 than either women’s or men’s voices, due to their relatively short vocal tracts. As
illustrated in Figure 2-5, the pure acoustic properties of the child’s [ʌ] vowel (the central sound
in the word “bud”) places it closer acoustically to the [æ] produced by adult men than the adult
12
male [ʌ]. However, indexical (non-linguistic) knowledge, such as pitch (or, in the case of the
world outside of the experiment booth, the visual knowledge of the speaker) allow listeners to
accommodate for these factors and extract the intended meaning (Nearey, 1989, see also Klatt,
1979 and Johnson, 2008). To put it another way, listeners unconsciously adjust their own
perception to align with what they know about the world. It seems likely that if you played
listeners a pitched-up male voice producing these vowels, while showing them a picture of a
child, you could create a misperception, similar to that found by McGurk (1976), in which the
listener “hears” the vowels they would expect to hear from a child, rather than the altered speech
of an adult source. In this way, community grammars and the application of paralinguistic
knowledge are potentially able to contribute to sound change.
2.3 A brief foray into classical Neogrammarian theories of sound change
The study of sound change as a phenomenon is one of the earliest concerns of linguists
(or their predecessors, the philologists). Many of its methods of approach and rules of description
date back to the 19th century (Koener, 1989:15) and the Neogrammarians, a group of German
linguists at Leipzig. Among these scholars was Karl Bruggmann, who described sound change
thusly: “Every sound law must be conceived of as allowing no exceptions; everything that
diverges from it must be assumed to be due to analogical formation.” (Koener, 1995:24) This
insistence on regularity is a marked change from the viewpoint of previous scholars. For
example, even Jacob Grimm allowed exceptions in his famous Grimm’s Laws, describing the
Germanic Sound Shift (Robins 2013:207). This insistence on regularity or movement towards
eventual regularity is justified by Robins (2013:207-208). “If sound change were not regular, if
word forms were subject to random, inexplicable, and unmotivated variation in the course of
time, [descriptions of sound change] would lose their validity, and linguistic relations could be
13
established historically only by extra-linguistic evidence.” All irregularities, regardless of origin
or spread, were filed under “analogy” by the Neogrammarians and regarded as not worth a
researcher’s time to examine.
This is quite a useful approach if one seeks to examine long-term diachronic change
(changes over long periods of time), such as the changes undergone by related languages like
German and English from their common ancestor Proto-Indo-European. But if one seeks to
explain the motivations for change to happen in the first place, or to study a change in progress
to examine its virility and identify the motivators that cause its adoption and spread, one cannot
dismiss everything out of hand as “analogy.” Labov’s seminal 1963 work “The Social
Motivation of a Sound Change” outlines specifically how random variation across speakers can
lead to a change across most (and eventually all) of a dialect region. In the initial stage,
variations are introduced into a language randomly, motivated by expected speech errors such as
coarticulation or assimilation, analogy (in the Neogrammarian sense), borrowing, or “any
number of processes in which the language system interacts with the physiological or
psychological characteristics of the individual.” (pp. 1-2). In the second stage, one of these
countless random variations begins to gain prestige and be used more widely, and in the last
stage only one of the possible options for a given sound (including the original, nonvaried
productions) remains, and the sound change (or lack thereof) is said to be complete. Labov
argues that it is the work of a linguist to identify not just the sound changes themselves, but also
the social structures that influence a given variable’s elevation or rise in prestige that allows it to
“triumph”(p.2) over other variables and become a completed sound change.
So while the Neogrammarian concern with regular mechanical (physiologicallymotivated) sound change is a useful starting point, I take Labov’s view that psychologically14
motivated meaning, classically dismissed as analogy, plays a significant, measurable role in this
change affecting the [æ]/[ɛ] vowels in southern Alberta.
The [æ]/[ɛ] merger studied herein can be classically considered a “conditioned regular
change” (Campbell, 2004:15). This is a change that, according to Campbell “takes place
uniformly wherever the phonetic circumstances … are encountered.” (p.17) – in this case, the
rise in F2 caused by the raising of the back of the tongue in forming the following velar
consonants [g] (and [k]/[ŋ]). This study was designed to examine, at its most basic level, the
existence of and direction of the change, and why it appears to be affecting vowels before [g] but
not [k]. To use classical terminology, I sought to determine whether æ > ɛ / _g (to be read as “[æ]
becomes [ɛ] when preceding [g]”), or ɛ > æ / _g (“[ɛ] becomes [æ] when preceding [g]”), or
possibly some third option where both vowels become something else. It should be noted that the
classical study of sound change concerns itself with the underlying representations of sounds, or
phonemes, which are related to, but not the same as their “surface” phonetic representations.
Since I examine a sound change in progress, affecting only some speakers of those studied, and
only under certain conditions, I remain agnostic about the state of these sounds at the phonemic
level. I use the classic terminology only as a means of explaining the phenomenon and not as an
assertion that these changes have reached some underlying mental representation. Whether the
speakers studied who merge these vowels on the surface have merged the phonemes
underlyingly is not a question I am prepared to answer. For these reasons, I will concern myself
only with the phonetic reality of the change, and leave the questions of underlying phonemic
representation aside.
15
2.4 Eckert’s Indexical Fields
Eckert (2008) identifies sound change as a product of speakers’ ongoing navigation of
their social geography and linguistic landscape. Social geography refers to those categories
which Labov (1963) first identified in New York and Martha’s Vineyard: variables such as social
class hierarchy, attitudes to geographical location, gender, etc. The linguistic landscape refers to
possible variations of a given sound, based on articulatory possibility (and ease), as well as the
frequency of given variations. The interaction between social geography and linguistic landscape
creates the indexical field, created by the “continual reconstrual of the indexical value of a
variable… A constellation of meanings that are ideologically linked (p.464),” or alternatively,
“the various variables that might have related indexical value (p.473).” On the next page is an
example indexical field for the variation between [ɪŋ] and [ɪn] for the (ING) ending in English
(p.466). In the centre of the indexical field are personality traits people associate with speakers of
the [ɪŋ] variant (“working”): They are seen as educated, formal, and articulate, and to use this
more formal variant is seen as “effortful” by listeners. On the edges of this central point are
perceptions of the [ɪn] variant (“workin’”): Uneducated, easygoing, etc. Different listeners
evaluate the nature of the same variant’s traits differently. For example, the [ɪn] variant may be
seen as easygoing (a positive trait) by a friend or coworker who would see the [ɪŋ] variant as too
pretentious. A boss, though, may judge the [ɪn] variant as lazy (a negative trait), or see its lack of
formality negatively. When speakers are aware of and have both variations open to them, the
relevant indexical field can affect both listener perception and speaker production.
16
Figure 2-5: taken from Eckert (2008)
Social geography enters the indexical field in that listener judgements and speaker
perceptions are not limited to the pure acoustic output of a given variant and the indexical
meanings attached to it, though they are both an inherent aspect of most social geographies. (One
can imagine situations where these things are not part of the social geography, for example in a
nunnery where all members have taken a vow of silence, but for the most part they are
inextricable parts of the whole). For example, the (ING) variant as a marker of speaker
authenticity will vary in listener perceptions, depending on the race, location, and reputation of
the speaker (Bucholtz 2003:410). In a similar fashion, the perception of the indexical field does
not necessarily have a basis in objective reality—it is arguably more effortful for a speaker who
doesn’t use [ɪn] regularly to produce the “easygoing” form, though perceptions of that form as
easygoing may not change. Influences outside of the individual speakers and listeners also affect
the indexical field. A speaker whose native style/dialect includes the “effortful” variant is still
17
likely to view it as “effortful” (or, at least, view the other production as “lazy”) based on the
society-wide perception of these variations. The [ɪn] variant acts as a social marker above the
phonetic level, marking its users as lazy and uneducated, due to its location outside of the
standard language forms. That is, speakers who most often use the [ɪn] variant are considered
“less than” by those in power. Therefore, the variant itself becomes undesirable to those seeking
power due to its association with less powerful groups (Lippi-Green, 1997:214).
The concept of the indexical field is useful in that it posits a perceptual whole made from
three disparate parts: the speaker, the listener, and the social landscape. For my thesis, I take this
triadic approach and apply it to grammar. The indexical field approaches sound change as
something that “unfolds in the course of day-to-day exchange, and that exchange involves
constant local reinterpretation and repositioning.” (Eckert 2008:472). I seek to examine sound
change at the individual level, positing a speaker’s production of variation as the outcome of
three grammatical influences: the self, the community, and the standard (that is, prescriptive
knowledge).
The grammar of the self is unique to each individual. Its analog in the indexical field is
the speaker. The self grammar is also the product of a given person’s experience. Under an
exemplar model, it is the entire collection of traces and weightings that the person utilizes when
producing speech. Within my experimental framework, the grammar of the self is studied via the
use of pictorial stimuli, as they contain no outside phonetic (acoustic or articulatory) influence on
production, and therefore participants must rely solely on their internal linguistic representations
or traces to produce a word.
Community grammar is the analog to Eckert’s listener. It is an individual’s perception of
the community’s standards, variants, and phonetic variations. Since, as in all perception, each
18
individual’s experiences are unique, so too are concepts of community grammar. However, there
is a wide range of overlap in separate individuals’ concepts of community grammar, depending
on how much shared experience overlaps between individuals. For example, Johnstone &
Kiesling (2008) found that Baby Boomers from Pittsburgh felt they spoke with the local accent,
“whether they did or not” (p.27), thus identifying with the local community. In that case, the
community grammar could be defined as an individual Pittsburgher’s collection of exemplars of
speakers from Pittsburgh, filtered through their perception of “what it means to be from
Pittsburgh.”
In its simplest form, community grammar is how “they” talk, and can be understood as
the average productions and variations produced by a given group of people. Within this paper,
the auditory stimuli stand in for the community grammar. A single voice is a poor substitute for
an entire community, but it is meant to test the influence of direct outside sources on an
individual’s choice of variants in speech production. The influence of other speakers on listener
productions, known as convergence or phonetic imitation, has been extensively studied (for
examples, see Goldinger 2005, Alan et al. 2015, and Meyerhoff (2011) p.74).
The standard grammar refers to the prescriptive rules of grammar taught and internalized
by most speakers as the “right” way to speak within a given community. It takes the same
position as the “landscape” in Eckert’s indexical field, but differs slightly in that it is ultimately a
fabrication created by those in power, based on stereotypes. For example, the same middle-aged
Pittsburghers described above, who identified with the local community, rated the local dialect as
both “charming” and “embarrassing,” indicating that the standard grammar and community
grammar can be at odds within an individual and create dissonance in speech. The orthographic
19
stimuli in my experiment represent the standard grammar, and were used to draw standard
productions out of my participants.
2.5 Ohala’s Active Listeners
Ohala (2012) posits that listeners are active agents in sound change. The active listener
can incorrectly reinterpret sounds they’ve heard when there’s an extenuating factor in the input.
These factors include simple speech errors, as well as perturbations in the signal caused by
coarticulation, environmental disturbances (such as noise or other people talking), or
psychological disturbances (such as too much cognitive load or a simple case of “not listening”).
These incorrect assumptions about the sound’s production cause the listener-turned-speaker to
reproduce these effects, and thus sound change spreads. In an ideal relationship, Ohala’s active
listener may be an infant acquiring speech for the first time, in which case the “incorrect”
representations become part of the child’s knowledge of their language. However, this
hypothesis can also extend to adults, by assuming a gradual shift in production. As an example
(taken from Flemming (2006) and Clements (1991)), California’s fronted /u/ may have begun in
certain coronal environments, such as in the word [dud] “dude”, and that fronting spread to other
environments not necessarily via “new” speakers, but by lexical diffusion, where active listeners
apply what they heard (the coarticulation caused by /u/ preceding coronals) to new words first
with similar environments (e.g. [tun] “tune”) and then to new environments, that no longer share
coronal articulation, such as [bum] “boom.”
Sound change via lexical diffusion is also supported by Bybee (2002), who tracked wordfinal t/d deletion (in words such as “grand”) and found that high-frequency items underwent this
deletion first. Bybee’s work is important to this thesis because it posits that even Neogrammarian
20
“regular” sound changes are observed to take place gradually via lexical diffusion, provided a
researcher can catch a given change before it has spread throughout an entire language.
My hypothesis breaks down these agents in sound change farther, identifying not just
active listeners as participants in sound change, but two additional types: “super perceivers” and
“inactive listeners.” Inactive listeners are less likely to spread an innovation in speech, because
their personality is self-focused. An inactive listener is less likely to attend to outside
productions, and any shifts in those productions, as they place more focus on their own stored
productions when producing speech. Super perceivers are the opposite—they attend to changes
and rebuild signals erroneously more often, because they are less likely to “check” their own or
stored productions compared to the speaker they have just heard. Super perceivers are more
likely to spread a sound change, and inactive listeners are more likely to resist it. However, under
this hypothesis, inactive listeners are more likely to initiate sound change, as they do not place
enough weight on the (‘standard’) productions of others to prevent their own speech from
drifting naturally. It is worth noting that this suggests a difference between initiators and
transmitters of sound change. Inactive listeners are initiators, not transmitters; super perceivers
are transmitters, not initiators.
Alan Yu (2015) found that individuals who ranked higher on an Autism Quotient test,
indicating neurotypical individuals with more “ “autistic” traits” (p.2) attended more to the
phonetic productions of speakers than to the word targets, as measured by lower rates of
perceptual compensation: That is, those with more autistic traits were more likely to be super
listeners. It should be noted here that the individuals studied were not diagnosed as on the
autistic spectrum themselves, but merely exhibited some traits considered “autistic.” That is,
while people with autism may not be considered “other-focused” (a requirement of super
21
listeners), some traits found in those with autism are also those traits that contribute to the
likelihood of a person being a super-listener.
While I hypothesize that there are other personality types that make some individuals
more likely to be super perceivers or inactive listeners, I think that these are tendencies and all
individuals are able to attend (or ignore) changes in the acoustic signal at different times. That is,
these tendencies within individuals are not discrete, but exist on a continuum.
In rough terms, sound change can be explained by its relationship to the three groups:
Super Listeners
Active Listeners
Inactive Listeners
1. Super Listeners (or perceivers): Spread sound change to a great degree. Less likely to
innovate their own changes, but this is difficult to observe experimentally. More likely to
apply shifts in environments where there is no physiological grounding for sounds to be
“misperceived.”
2. Active Listeners (or perceivers): Spread sound change to a mild-to-moderate degree.
Resist great shifts in language or only spread change in places where physiologically
sensible.
3. Inactive Listeners (or perceivers): Conservative speakers. May initiate sound change, but
always resist changes not of their own invention.
In the following chapter, I outline the particulars of the phenomenon under study, and
explain how the experimental design was structured. One goal of the study was to determine
whether each of my participants was a super, active, or inactive listener-turned-speaker, based on
22
how much they attended to (or did not attend to) stimuli with sources in the self, community, or
standard grammar. I also investigated whether these personality types affected the extent to
which the participants exhibited the [æ] to [ɛ] sound change in progress in southern Alberta.
23
Research Objectives and Hypotheses
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines my experimental goals. It begins with my proposition for a
theoretical framework of a triadic grammar within speakers. It then examines how possible
results can be interpreted in terms of identifying the type of change the vowels are undergoing.
Finally, I give the details and results of the pilot study done to narrow the scope of the research. I
conclude with the specific hypotheses and research objectives for the main project.
3.2 The Three Grammars
3.2.1 Introduction
When approaching any kind of sound change, either completed or in progress,
determining the empirical facts about the sounds involved answers only half the question.
Providing a satisfying answer to the explanation of why the sound change is occurring must be
considered with equal attention as that afforded to the what or the how. I have explained above
that the classical Neogrammarian view does not concern itself too deeply with these questions,
assuming either regularity or analogy sufficient to explain the motivations behind all sound
changes. As I leave this view behind, I turn now towards more contemporary theories of sound
change. Greater researchers than I have laid the groundwork, and I devote some time ahead to
outlining their theories which I find most applicable to the current research. I then add to those
theories my own idea of a triadic grammar, the three parts of which coexist inside each
individual speaker to inform their speech decisions and thus contribute to sound change.
The concept of the three grammars refers to three separate sets of mental representations
of sound within a speaker: The self-grammar, the community grammar, and the standard
grammar. I take the view that all three grammars outlined are arranged in an exemplar model in
24
the broadest sense. That is, “The representation of a concept consists of separate descriptions of
some of its exemplars.” (Smith & Medlin, 2002:208).
3.2.2 Self grammar
The self grammar refers to an individual’s sum of experiences with a given sound. This is
the broadest category, and includes, under an exemplar model (Pierrehumbert, 2001), all
instances in which the individual heard the sound uttered, including the ones they produced
themselves. It also includes related exemplars, such as similar sounds. For example, the word
(and sounds of the word) “hag” or “bog” may be activated when the listener hears the word
“bag.” Non-phonetic exemplars still considered related to the parent category can also be
included, such as the orthography for the word “bag” or an actual physical bag, or a drawing of
one. It should be noted that the self grammar refers only to representations of the category, and
not the objects or sounds themselves. If I see a bag, my memory of that bag will be stored as an
exemplar, but the bag itself does not become part of my self grammar. This is an important
distinction to make as the separation between an object and the representation of that object
leaves room for inaccurate perception (either misperception or assumption) to influence the
mental representation. In regards to phonetic variation, this means a listener can “store” a
representation that was unintended by the speaker (for example, a speaker produces [õ] but a
listener stores [on].) All other categories outlined below are, in some sense, contained within the
self grammar.
3.2.3 Community Grammar
The community grammar refers to an individual’s perceptions about how the community
speaks. This consists of exemplars of specific speech events (for example, if the mayor or
25
principal said “bag”), in addition to perceptions of the community. I may have never heard
someone speak German with an Australian accent, but I have a concept in my head of what that
would sound like, based on generalizations about my past experiences. That concept will
possibly influence my interactions with German-Australians (just as my interactions with
members of that community will alter my perceptions of it). The community grammar is the
collection of all exemplars of an individual’s perception of that community, coloured by their
idea of “what it means to be X.”
People define what they mean by community and community grammars in different
ways. You can draw a line geographically (as in Labov’s Atlas of North American English,
2005), by age (Johnstone & Kiesling, 2008), by social class (Lawson 2011), identity (Labov,
1972), personality (Yu, 2015), race (Sharman & Sankaran 2011), or generation (Maegaard et al.
2013). All of these have been found to contain trends unique to each definition. But when you
can find significance seemingly wherever you carve the lines, what are we really talking about
when we talk about community? Can you have a community of two, as in twin languages
(Bishop & Bishop 1998)? Do communities require some geographical link, or does the internet
age make it possible for community grammars to emerge without physical proximity, or even
spoken communication at all (Bourlai & Herring, 2014)? Johnston & Kiesling (2008 p. 7) point
out what they refer to as the “intentional fallacy”, which is a researcher’s assumption that a
hearer’s interpretation matches a speaker’s intention: That is, does part of the definition of
community require an understanding between speakers and listeners about the members, or can
communities emerge from mismatched interpretations and intentions? These are broad questions
which cannot be answered in the current study, but they are worth keeping in mind as any line
carved out and labelled “community” reflects the views of the researcher just as much, if not
26
more so, than reality. For the purposes of this thesis, “community grammar” refers to the specific
community that a given speaker feels they are themselves a part of. So, in the broadest sense, the
community under study in this thesis was “speakers from Alberta.”
3.2.4 Standard grammar
The standard grammar refers simply to an individual’s perception of the “right” way to
speak. Sometimes called the prescriptive rules of language (Pinker, 1999), it is the way that
grade school teachers have always taught us we “should” use language, but also the way none of
us consistently do. In short, it is an idealization, the Platonic form of language. The standard
grammar includes broad grammatical rules like “never end a sentence with a preposition” as well
as social rules like “Never swear in front of a lady” and “to speak properly you must say ‘eating’
and never ‘eatin’.’” This is the grammar imposed by the system (or rather, a speaker’s
impression of the system), and it exists in day-to-day life after grade school in the form of
orthography, formal communication, and “polite company.”
3.2.5 The hidden influence of the triadic grammar
In this thesis, I assume that this information and these categories are somewhat hidden
from each speaker—that their choices are informed by their three grammars but that they have no
access to the information or categories within. The nature of how this information stays hidden I
leave to future research, but it is necessary to hypothesize because of the inevitability of sound
change: Were people truly able to control their access to the hidden influences on speech, one
would expect to find instances where sound change is resisted completely, and that is simply not
borne out by history (though there are many examples of individuals resisting sound change, for
examples see Meyerhoff (2011), p.74, and Stanford (2008)). The reason for hypothesizing sound
change as an interplay of three grammars is based on the differing sources of influence, as is
27
evident in the names given to them. One should not assume they are anything more than
convenient descriptive labels applied to the observable results of cognitive and social influences,
and not specific cognitive acts or categories themselves. Though this experiment seeks to affirm
the existence of some interplay between these three influences on speech behavior, I leave it to
future researchers to determine whether there should be more, fewer, or different categories to
explain sound change. Now, I will briefly explore two other theories of sound change and how
they are incorporated into my concept of the grammar trinity.
3.3 Identifying Mergers
Once the existence of a merger is confirmed, the second step is determining what kind of
merger it is. In determining the direction of the shift, I three possible labels from Wassink
(2014). Mergers by approximation (Figure 3-1), mergers by expansion (Figure 3-2), and mergers
by transfer (Figure 3-3).
Figure 3-1: Merger by Approximation (two subtypes). (Taken from Wassink, 2014).
Mergers by approximation take one of two forms; either both sounds find some “middle
ground” between them and the original distinction is lost (left), or one sound moves nearer
towards the other until it encroaches on the space of the first, at which point a new vowel is
formed (right).
28
Mergers by expansion are those in which the boundaries around both sounds grow, until
each encroaches on the others’ space.
Figure 3-2: Merger by Expansion
Wassink notes that this type of merger that is “indistinguishable from merger by
approximation mid-course” (pp.7). That is, a merger by expansion looks like a merger by
approximation when it is in progress, and can only be categorized after the process is complete.
However, I believe this is only the case if one assumes sound change affects an entire population
to equal degrees at each point in time. My theory of different individuals perpetuating and
adopting changes at different rates means we should expect to find different subjects at different
stages of merging [æ] and [ɛ], making it possible to distinguish between a merger by expansion
and a merger by approximation for an individual listener/speaker, even if the change is not yet
complete. It is also possible to identify different strategies being employed by individuals: That
is, one speaker may approach the merge via expansion, and another via approximation.
The final type, merger by transfer, is a unidirectional shift as well. It differs from the
unidirectional subtype of merger by approximation in two ways: First, the shift is abrupt, with no
intermediate forms; and second, the first sound (A) is entirely subsumed into the second (B).
This is the classic, abrupt sound change of the Neogrammarians. Most cases of deletion could be
29
argued to be merger by transfer, one example is [k] becoming [tʃ] in Sanskrit (McMahon, 1999,
p.48).
Figure 3-3: Merger by Transfer
3.4 Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to determine more clearly the nature of the [æ]/[ɛ] vowel
shift and refine the methodological structure and research questions before committing to a
large-scale experiment. The results indicated that the two speakers tested in this pilot were both
shifting their vowels, but employed different strategies in rearranging their vowel spaces to
accommodate a shift in the production of [æ] before [g].
3.4.1 Participants
Participants were one female and one male speaker, who were born and had lived
virtually all of their lives in Alberta (Calgary and Edmonton area). Both participants were
phonetically trained native English speakers. Both speakers were aware of the [æ]/[ɛ] merger and
neutralization, but were unaware that this was the purpose of the current investigation before
participating.
30
3.4.2 Stimuli
Stimuli consisted of PowerPoint slides containing 100 pictures and 100 orthographic
words (see Appendix A: Pilot Stimuli for a complete list of stimuli), to determine if “self” and
“standard” grammars showed any difference in production output. Pictures and words were
presented in blocks, with the pictures first and words second. Stimuli consisted of three types of
words: Target words, which contained vowels before /g/, such as Maggie and legacy; control
words, which contained vowels before /k/, such as trachea and wax; and filler words, such as
baby, which contained no vowels of interest but which were included to prevent participants
from become aware of the task’s purpose.
3.4.3 Procedure
The research took the form of a participant-driven elicitation task. A PowerPoint
presentation of both visual and orthographic tokens was created, and participants were asked to
either name the object in the picture or read the word, while being recorded to a .wav format
sounds file on a Shure SM48 microphone with pop-filter. The recordings were made with Adobe
Audition 2.0 in mono at 44100Hz in a sound-attenuated booth at the Phonetics Lab of the
University of Calgary. A researcher controlled the recording levels and asked participants to
repeat tokens when necessary. Participants were allowed to take a break whenever they wanted
and were provided with water. Participants were asked to repeat tokens if they were pronounced
incorrectly or if there was clipping in the recording. They were also asked to repeat tokens in
case a variable pronunciation could be elicited (for example [ɛgz]-[ɛgs]-[ɛks] variation in words
spelled with ex like exit), indicating an incomplete merger within tokens. Finally, they were
asked to repeat tokens if the participant’s production contained creaky voice, breaks, and list or
31
rising intonation (‘uptalk’), as these can cause errors with the automatic scripts used to analyze
the recordings.
I used Praat to splice the recordings into files containing a single response. When
multiple repetitions of a single token were asked for, each repetition was spliced into its own file
(for example craig.wav, craig2.wav). This means that the number of words of each type in each
condition was not balanced, as some words had more responses than others. Each file was
checked for problems, such as clipping, incomplete tokens, noise, or tracking errors. They were
then annotated in Praat to include information about the start and end of the vowel portion of
each word. A combination of a Praat script and a Perl script created by Dr. Stephen Winters then
processed these files to pull the Hz measurement for F1, F2, and F3 from the 25%, 50%, and
75% mark from each vowel and output them to a tab-delimited table. This process made 9
measurements per token. The first two tokens from each speaker were measured by hand in Praat
and compared to the script’s output. No major deviations were found and so the values presented
by the script were used in further calculations.
32
3.4.4 Results of Pilot
Comparison of æ and ɛ
formants before k
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
Hz
Hz
Comparison of æ and ɛ
formants before g
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
25%
50%
75%
25%
Measured point (average)
50%
75%
Measured Point (average)
Figure 3-4: Comparison of vowels [æ] (light) and [ɛ] (dark) before [g] and [k]
The tables in Figure 3-4 compare all formant measurements across participants for [æ]
and [ɛ] before [g] (left) and [æ] and [ɛ] before [k] (right). These results were graphed to explore
the degree of neutralization between the vowels, and the quality of the vowel’s change. The most
obvious difference in quality was in the 2nd formant between both groups. Both vowels before [g]
show a greater rise in F2, much more than the vowels before [k], though both [k] and [g] have
the acoustic marker of the “velar pinch,” where F2 rises and F3 drops immediately before the
stop closure. The most drastic of these changes is the rise in the 75% point of [æ]’s F2, between
the voiced and voiceless stop compared to these stops in the before [k] context. In [æg]
sequences, F2 at 75% is 2117Hz, which is 380Hx greater than 1737Hz, the same measurement in
[æk] sequences. Compared to the change from [ɛg] to [ɛk] sequences (2243Hz - 1958Hz,
285Hz), the difference between the two differences is almost 100Hz. This is evidence that the
direction of the merger is upwards in the vowel space, causing the [æ] vowel to get nearer to the
same space as [ɛ]. The significance of this result was not possible to test, due to the low number
33
of participants and data points, but provides motiivation to continue the research in a larger-scale
study.
COMPARISON OF VOWELS BY
MODALITY, ɛg
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
HZ
HZ
COMPARISON OF VOWELS BY
MODALITY, æg
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
1
25%
2
50%
1 025%
0%
300%
75%
AVERAGE FORMANT AT EACH POINT
3
75%
AVERAGE FORMANT AT EACH POINT
250%
00%
Figure 3-5: Productions by Modality: Pictorial (crosshatches), or Orthographic (shape)
The two graphs above in Figure 3-5 compare the average Hz measurements of each
formant based on the type of stimuli presented. Though there was not enough data for a
statistical analysis, the graph shows that results of both modalities are nearly identical. While
some speakers show greater care in production in reading tasks compared to picture lists
(Meyerhoff, 2011:31), the two subjects of the pilot did not. This may be a flag that the merger in
progress is a sociolinguistic indicator, rather than a marker (that is, below the level of awareness,
rather than above it; see Meyerhoff 2011, p.23). However, this result may also be due to the
subjects’ awareness of the task (that is, the modality change rather than the vowel shift) or the
small sample size. Since there was no obvious difference between orthographic and pictorial
presentation of stimuli on the formant values of the vowels, all further results presented from the
pilot do not include this distinction. However, this modality split was retained in the main study,
34
and auditory stimuli were added on, as it was felt that a three-way division better represented
input in everyday life from three differing sources (the triadic grammar), and the influence of the
order of presentation on vowel production could be measured as well.
Figure 3-6 combines both vowels and consonants, and illustrates more obviously the
change of quality in [æ] when appearing before [g] and [k].
Figure 3-6: Combined Formants of Both Vowels and Contexts
Figure 3-7 (below) compares productions between the female speaker (left) and the male
speaker (right) across vowels before [g] (upper quadrant) and [k] (lower quadrant). Though the
[_g] trajectories of both speakers are more similar than those before [k], the female speaker
appears to be adopting this merger to a greater degree, especially in the F2 (which was shown
above to be the most prominent quality of the merger.) The role of women as progenitors and
35
earl adopters of language change is well documented (for examples, see Meyerhoff 2011:136),
so this is an expected result.
Vowel comparison of æ/ɛ before g,
Female
Vowel comparison of æ/ɛ before g, Male
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
Hz
Hz
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
Vowel comparison of æ/ɛ before k,
Female
Vowel comparison of æ/ɛ before k, Male
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
Hz
Hz
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
Figure 3-7: Gender differences in production of [æ] (green) and [ɛ] (blue) before [g] and [k]
3.4.5 Pilot Conclusions
Recent research in speech perception and production has moved beyond the simple sex
dichotomy of male/female. For example, Pierrehumbert et al. (2004) found that gay men’s vowel
spaces were wider than their straight counterparts, while lesbian and bisexual women fronted
vowels less than straight women. Davies et al. (2006) found significant differences in the speech
of transgender individuals compared to cisgender individuals. These differences in speech are
not limited to gender and sexual orientation, but also in terms of group identity. Labov’s seminal
research on Martha’s Vineyard (1963), half a century ago, concluded that young people’s speech
36
was determined in part by their feelings towards their hometown: Those who wanted to stay in
Martha’s Vineyard after graduation had a stronger local dialect than those whose eyes and
aspirations were set elsewhere. Conversely, Rosen & Scriver (2015) determined that Mormons in
Alberta patterned their speech more similarly to American Mormons than their geographic
neighbours, non-Mormon Canadians. These results show the speakers display an alignment and
solidarity that had nothing to do with plans to move somewhere else, but rather with how they
identified with a non-local group. These findings, along with the differences in gender found in
the pilot, inspired me to expand the scope of the demographic data gathered.
While for the most part this vowel merger acts as an indicator (a way of speaking that
operates below the level of speaker consciousness), there is evidence it may be a marker
(something speakers are aware of) (Meyerhoff 2011:23). Both speakers recorded were unaware
of the extent of their neutralization, even after being questioned after recording. However, it is
important to note that both participants were linguistics students late in the program, and as such
were aware of the possibility of a neutralization, and had discussed local dialects extensively
throughout the program, even if they were unsure of their own participation in it. Testing on truly
naïve speakers is important for determining the extent and nature of any social recognition that
this possible marker has, so I decided to test linguistically naïve speakers for the main study.
37
Methodology
4.1 Research Objectives
My experimental goals and hypotheses for this research project take, broadly speaking,
two forms: the empirical and the perceptual. That is, I seek to explain what is happening to [æ]
and [ɛ] in a measurable way, and I seek to form an explanation for why these vowels may be
undergoing these shifts. To that end, what follows are each of my hypotheses and a brief
explanation of what can be expected from the experimental design:
I.
Albertan speakers are merging [æ] and [ɛ] before [g], producing a sound somewhere
between the category boundaries for [æ] and [ɛ] in other contexts.
If this is the case, I expect to find significant acoustic differences between the acoustic output of
[æk] and [ɛk], but no significant differences between the acoustic outputs of [æg] and [ɛg]. As a
consequence of this merger, I would also expect to find significant differences between [æk] and
[æg], and [ɛk] and [ɛg].
II.
This is a change-in-progress. Only some speakers are merging these vowels.
As I hypothesize, based on my own informal observations and the results of the pilot study
(where the female speaker was merging her vowels before [g] but the male speaker was not), that
only some speakers in this area are shifting their vowels, I expect to find that only some speakers
produce data that aligns with hypothesis (I). It is also expected that speakers may be undergoing
the merger at varying rates, as in Bybee’s findings about lexical diffusion (2002).
III.
Certain personality types are more likely to innovate new changes (“inactive
listeners”). Certain personality types are more likely to adopt changes made by others
38
(“super listeners”), and it is possible to measure these personality types’ effect on
speaker production.
IV.
There exists some measurable influence of self, standard, and community grammars.
This can be measured by examining the relationship between the influence of
differing modalities on each speaker’s vowel productions and the personality
characteristics of those speakers.
In the previous chapter I outlined a continuum based on Ohala’s Active Listener hypothesis, in
which I posit that some listeners-turned-speakers are more active than others. The possible
existence of these so-called “Super Listeners” and their counterparts at the opposite end of the
spectrum (the inactive listeners, or the innovators) can be confirmed experimentally in two ways:
First, by measuring how closely a given listener-turned-speaker mimics the nonstandard speech
of another; and, second, by finding correlative personality traits between subjects at similar
stages of the merger in progress.
The first measure is determined simply by introducing a target and measuring how
closely each listener-turned-speaker mimics that target. The “targets” in this case refer to the
words prompted by stimuli presented in different modalities and how those modalities align with
the three grammars. Presenting subjects with pictorial stimuli seeks to engage their self grammar,
free of outside influence (or as free as can be expected in any experimental setting). Asking
subjects to read orthographic texts attempts to determine the extent to which they align with the
standard grammar, as reading is an unnatural learned skill (compared to speaking), and the
sound-letter correspondences are considered proper and correct speech. Presenting both words
and nonwords was done for two reasons: First, Hay et al (2013) found that speakers tend to show
greater distinctions when producing nonsense words compared to words in conditional mergers,
39
so they may provide finer grain data about the nature of this merge even among those whose
productions of both [æ] and [ɛ] are identical. Second, presenting both words and nonwords tests
the influence of the grammars even more directly, by forcing participants to generalize to a new
production based on their existing exemplars (a person has probably said “bag” before, but has
probably never said “gug” before). Finally, asking them to mimic nonstandard auditory speech
seeks to quantify the degree of influence of the community grammar, as the voice presented acts
as a representation of how “they” speak, where “they” represents the community speech that is
sourced in the neither the self nor the standard grammars.
By looking at correlations between personality traits and performance on this multifaceted task, I attempted to measure the relationship between the degree of influence of
community grammars on a subject’s speech, and the extent to which they exhibited the merger in
progress. I hypothesize that self-focused subjects (those that consider themselves introverted and
leaders) are the innovators, as they are more likely to introduce variations in the speech signal,
and less likely to reproduce the sounds of others. Similarly, other-focused subjects (those that
consider themselves extroverted and followers) are more likely to reproduce changes that they
have heard.
4.2 Participants
Participants were 19 students at the University of Calgary between the ages of 19 and 26
years. They were compensated with research participation credit for the Linguistics 201 course at
the University of Calgary. No participants reported significant speech or hearing disabilities. One
participant’s data was removed due to recording error, leaving 7 male and 11 female participants.
40
4.3 Materials and Procedure
Experimental materials consisted of a background questionnaire, calibration prompts, and
three sets of prompts in different modalities.
4.3.1 Demographic and Personality Questionnaire
Participants filled out a background questionnaire before any recording took place. This
questionnaire consisted of two types of questions. The first type addressed basic demographic
information: Age, gender, sexual orientation, highest level of education completed (and parents’
highest level of education completed), handedness, hometown, other places lived, mother tongue,
and other languages spoken. The second set of questions asked participants to align themselves
along the following “personality binaries”: Rural/Urban, Liberal/Conservative, Familyfocused/Friend-focused, Introverted/extroverted, Tech-savvy/tech-apathetic,
Religious/Nonreligious, Leader/Follower, and Thinker/Feeler. The full questionnaire can be
found in Appendix B: Subject Questionnaire.
Interpreting social data is difficult, and other research (e.g. Alan et al. 2013, Dimov et al.
2013, Herrero 2008) has supported the validity of using results from tests designed for other
spheres of study to determine the linguistic influence of broad personality traits. However, I used
a short and focused personality questionnaire because no current existing psychometric tests
could accurately answer the questions posed by my hypothesis while still allowing enough time
for participants to complete the entire experiment without losing attention. Most tests of this type
take upwards of an hour to complete, in addition to requiring too much of the researcher’s time
to interpret and process responses to make it suitable for statistical analysis. Also, many
personality tests use a Likert scale, but the personality questionnaire I designed forced
41
participants to choose between two extremes in order to exaggerate the underlying effects of
broad personality types.
4.3.2 Calibration
In the calibration portion of the experiment, participants produced 19 “baseline” vowels,
providing recordings of all Canadian English vowels in [h_d] and [h_rd] contexts. The number is
uneven because three instances of [ɑ] were collected; in “hawed”, “hod”, and “hard” – These
vowels have already merged in most of Canada (Labov, 2005), and they were collected as
separate tokens to identify nonlocal dialects. Since there is no word “hawrd” in English, the
baseline vowels are uneven. All vowels were collected so that each participant’s vowel space
could be fully defined and make the determination of possible vowel shifts within that space
more accurate. Participants were presented with orthographic depictions of words in black text
on a white computer screen, and were asked to repeat each word three times, with a pause in
between each repetition. A researcher was present throughout the experiment and controlled the
speed and presentation of the stimuli. If the recording was unclear (due to someone bumping the
microphone or misspeaking on the participant’s part), participants were asked to repeat the word
a maximum of two times before moving on to the next one. The wordlist used in collecting
calibration vowels was taken from Peterson & Barney (1952) with the addition of the same
vowels in the context of [h_rd]. The complete wordlist can be found in Appendix C: Calibration
Vowel Word List.
4.3.3 Modality Stimuli
The modality prompts were presented in three blocks based on the modality of
presentation: Orthographic, Pictorial, and Auditory (explained in more detail below). In all three
blocks, participants produced a single word or non-word. The order in which the three modalities
42
were presented was counterbalanced across participants: Three participants were presented with
stimuli in the order of (A)uditory-(O)rthographic-(P)ictorial, three in APO, three in OAP, three
in OPA, three in PAO, and three in POA. The full breakdown of all stimuli by word/nonword
status and modality type can be found in Appendix D: Experimental Stimuli Word Lists. Each
stimulus was intended to prompt a word/nonword that contained the sequences [æk], [ɛk], [æg],
or [ɛg] in syllable-final position.
The presentation of the prompts in the Orthographic block presentation was identical to
the presentation of the prompts in the calibration block. Participants were presented with black
written words on a white background on a computer screen. They were asked to read the word or
non-word presented. There were 40 total prompts made up of 20 words and 20 non-words.
The stimuli for the Pictorial block consisted of 40 slides to produce 40 recordings: 20
words and 20 non-words. The pictorial stimuli that prompted real word responses differed from
the stimuli that prompted non-words. For words, participants were presented with a picture of an
object (such as an egg) or a person and asked to identify the object or name the person. If
participants didn’t know what an object or person was, they were given a specific clue (such as,
“He was the president of the USA in the 1980s” for “Reagan,” or “She is going to have a baby
because she is…” for “pregnant”). Only participants who were unsure or incorrect in identifying
the images were given the clue, but all participants who received a clue received the same one. In
cases where a participant did not know which target word to produce, after two prompts or hints
the item was skipped and the experiment moved on to the next target. Because of this, the
number of total productions per person varied. For non-word target prompts, participants were
initially given a set of three tutorial slides that instructed them how to create the “words” from
43
the pictures presented. None of the tutorial slides contained words with the phoneme target
sequences under study, [æg]/[ɛg] or [æk]/[ɛk]. Figure 4-1 shows one of the training slides.
Figure 4-1: Training slide from the Pictorial block
Participants were asked to take the onset (the “first sound”) from the first picture, and add it to
the rhyme (the “rest of the word”) of the second. The training slides contained complex onsets in
addition to the simple one displayed above, so participants were also tutored that, for example,
shrimp and desk created shresk. While complex onsets are technically/phonetically more than
one sound, saying “say the first sound of the first word and the rest of the second word” and
giving examples with complex onsets produced the most consistent and correct responses from
the (untrained) participants. As shown in Figure 4-2, the slides were identical to those presented
in the training portion, except that they did not contain any orthographic “hints.”
44
Figure 4-2: Pictorial slide to prompt the nonword "bregg"
All images used in the nonword pictorial slides were easily identifiable monosyllabic
nouns, and all participants were able to identify every picture. No prompts from the researcher
were necessary except for an occasional “try this again, please,” when the participant did not
include the entire onset of the first image (for example, saying “beg” for the slide presented in 42).
The Auditory block was the most complex set of stimuli, and contained over twice the
number of tokens (90) as the other blocks. Participants heard a sound clip, produced by a trained
phonetician, and were asked to repeat what they heard. The sounds presented took one of the
following forms:
1. A “basic” word with the appropriate nonmerged vowel, e.g. egg [ɛg], bag [bæg];
2. A “switched” word with the opposite nonmerged vowel than expected, e.g. freckle
pronounced [fɹækl] instead of [fɹɛkl] or dragon pronounced [dɹɛgən] instead of [dɹægən];
45
3. A word with a “nonvowel,” where the word/nonword was produced with the sound [œ],
which is not found in Canadian English, e.g. [bœg] for bag or [gœk] for g_k (neither
[gæk] nor [gɛk] are proper English words).
If participants mispronounced a word, or pronounced a nonword in a manner different
than expected, they were asked “Once more, please,” for a maximum of two times before
moving onto the next target. The speaker who produced the auditory stimuli also produced the
words in the calibration block of recording so that her baseline vowels could be compared to that
of participants. This factor was held consistent with the intention of having a baseline by which
to measure the degree to which her voice in the auditory portion influenced the speakers’
production.
4.3.4 Procedure
Participants completed the personality questionnaire first, before entering the recording
booth. Their responses were recorded to .wav files via a Shure SM48 microphone with a popfilter. The recordings were made with Adobe Audition 2.0 in mono at 44100Hz in a soundattenuated booth at the Phonetics Lab of the University of Calgary. A researcher controlled the
recording levels and asked participants to repeat tokens when necessary. Participants were
allowed to take a break whenever they wanted and were provided with water. Participants were
asked to repeat tokens if they were pronounced incorrectly, if they created clipping in the
recording, or if the participant’s production contained creaky voice, breaks, or list or rising
intonation (‘uptalk’), as these can cause errors with the automatic scripts used to process the
stimuli.
The recordings were spliced into files containing responses to a single stimulus in Praat,
then further into files containing a single word. Each file was annotated to include information
46
about the start and end of the vowel portion of each word, and during this annotation process
each file was checked for problems (such as clipping, incomplete tokens, noise, or tracking
errors). Figure 4-3 below is a labeled example of the values analysed.
æ
Figure 4-3: Labelled Spectrogram as prepared for each token by Praat and Perl Scripts.
A combination of a Praat script and a Perl script created by Dr. Stephen Winters then
processed these files to pull the Hz measurements for F1, F2, and F3 from the 25%, 50%, and
75% mark from each vowel and output them to a tab-delimited table (these are represented by
the blue dots in Figure 4-3). This process made 9 measurements per token. Since this was the
same procedure used to process the pilot data, and no deviations were found there between the
programmed responses and the hand-measured ones, the values presented by the script were used
in all statistical analyses.
47
4.4 Analysis
4.4.1 Finding Mergers and Splitters
The first step in analysing the data was to determine whether subjects were undergoing a
vowel shift at all. Figure 4-4 shows a graph of all vowels and environments under study, and is
formatted as the other vowel spaces in this thesis, with F1 along the y-axis and F2 along the xaxis, and the values plotted in reverse order to more closely mirror the traditional vowel charts
used throughout this thesis.
2200
2100
2000
F2
1800
1900
1700
1600
1500
1400
500
550
600
ɛg
Average of all Calibration vowels
ɛ
650
F1
700
æg
750
ɛk
800
æ
850
æk
900
950
Figure 4-4: Comparison of Stimuli Vowels to Calibration Vowels, All Speakers
This illustrates a rough idea of the vowel space of the speakers tested, and confirms that in all
contexts, [æ] is produced lower and farther back in the vowel space than [ɛ]. While this result is
expected and confirms there is nothing horribly awry with the testing materials, it doesn’t tell
anything about the way the individual speakers produce these vowels, nor does it allow us to
determine with confidence the nature of this vowel shift.
48
Because a change in progress may not affect the entire population under study, it was
necessary to examine each subject’s responses individually. Figure 4-5 (pp. 45) shows a
comparison of all subjects’ average formant values of [æ] and [ɛ], both before [g] and in the
“neutral” calibration environments (before [d] and before [ɹd]): Figure 4-5 is included merely as
another way to visualize the data presented in Figure 4-4, with the results separated by individual
participants rather than in aggregate. The x-axis lists the subject number, and the y-axis
represents the normalized z-scores of each production (the normalization process will be
explained later). Productions of both vowels before [g], for some speakers, appear to be more
similar to each other than either the [æ] or the [ɛ] in the calibration block. However, this
appearance must be justified statistically, and a uniform way of distinguishing those who are
merging these vowels from those who are not must be determined.
49
Production distance of Average F1 and F2 from Calibrated æ
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
æd/ærd
110
æg
111
ɛd/ɛrd
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
118
119
ɛg
Production distance of Average F1 and F2 from Calibrated ɛ
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
æd/ærd
110
æg
111
ɛd/ɛrd
112
113
114
115
116
117
ɛg
Figure 4-5: Production distances between calibration vowels and those before [g]
50
When determining if two vowels are merging, it is appropriate to compare an individual’s
vowel in one context with that same vowel in another context, as the individual’s vocal tract
serves as the reference point—it does not change across contexts. However, to obtain a
meaningful point of comparison across participants, some manipulation of the data is necessary,
as one person’s vocal folds and physiology differ in size, pitch, frequency, etc. from all others.
To this end, each participants’ vowels were normalized. Following the methods outlined in
Lobanov (1971) and Cheswick & Miller (2005), a z-score was calculated for each vowel
production by each participant, and a measure of Euclidean distance taken for each token
compared to the sounds produced in the calibration step. The mean and standard deviation of F1,
F2, and F3 measurements from each participant’s calibration vowels served as a base for the
normalization process. Z-scores were obtained using the formula z = x – μ / σ, where x = the
average F1 or F2 for each production. A Euclidean distance measure was then calculated
for each production by each participant in a two-dimensional space: The first dimension was F1
and the second dimension was F2. For each token, the two points measured represent firstly a
participant’s normalized sample production (s), and secondly the mean of that participant’s
calibration vowels (avg). Therefore, the Euclidean distance for each measurement was
deermined with the following equation: ((F1(s) – F1(avg))2 + (F2(s) – F2(avg))2)(½).
I compared the acoustic properties of each subject’s productions of [æ] and [ɛ] before [g]
to all the [æ] and [ɛ] vowels produced in the calibration block of recording (before [ɹd] and
before [d]). I then repeated this comparison for each subjects productions of [æ] and [ɛ] before
[k]. A series of paired sample t-tests was run to compare each subject’s F2 at the 50% mark in
the conditions of vowel ([æ] and [ɛ]) and environment (before [g] or before [k]). That is, for each
subject, I compared their productions of [æg] with their productions of [ɛg], and their
51
productions of [æk] with their production of [ɛk]. All participants maintained a significant (p ≤
0.05) distinction in F2 between [æk] and [ɛk]. Participants who showed no significant difference
in F2 (p > 0.05) between [æ] and [ɛ] before [g] were labelled “Mergers” (denoted by “M” in later
graphs), while those who did show a significant difference between these vowels in this
environment were labelled “Splitters” (denoted by “S” in later graphs). The 50% point of F2 was
chosen as the data point of comparison to reduce levelling effects caused by the other two time
points: The 25% point was likely to contain coarticulatory influences of the differing onsets, and
the 75% point would likely be influenced by following [g]/[k], which causes the distinctive
“velar pinch” towards the end of the vowel, as described in chapter 3 (Figure 4-6).
Figure 4-6: A velar pinch. Image reproduced from Baker et al. (2007), green circle added
by me.
Since this procedure classified half of the subjects tested (9/18) as Mergers, it seemed
possible that this classification scheme might be dividing up subjects by chance, since the
expected result of taking the mean in the first place would place half of the subjects “above” the
52
mean and half “below.” To verify the validity of this classification, two further t-tests were run
for each subject, comparing their production of [æ] with their production of [ɛ] in the calibration
block of testing, which contained vowels in the environments [h_d] and [h_rd]. All subjects
showed significant (p < 0.05) differences between the F2 at the 50% mark of [æ] and [ɛ] in the
calibration block. That is, Splitters maintained a vowel distinction in both calibration and testing,
while Mergers had a distinction in calibration that was lost during testing. Figure 4-7 shows the
full vowel trajectories of [æ] and [ɛ] for a Merger and a Splitter. These two particular subjects
were chosen after the t-tests determined their categorisation for having the clearest graphs.
Comparison of a Splitter's [æ] and [ɛ] Vowels [_g]
3500
3000
2500
ɛg F1
2000
Hz
ɛg F2
ɛg F3
1500
æg f1
1000
æg f2
æg f3
500
0
10
25
40
55
Relative Time (%)
53
70
85
Comparison of a Merger's [æ] and [ɛ] Vowels [_g]
3000
2500
ɛg f1
Hz
2000
ɛg f2
1500
ɛg f3
1000
æg F1
æg F2
500
æg F3
0
10
25
40
55
70
85
Relative Time (%)
Figure 4-7: A Merger and a Splitter's formants of both vowels before [g]
Frequency (Hz) is labeled on the y-axis and the relative time on the x-axis in Figure 4-7. Relative
rather than absolute time is used because the frequency was measured at the 25%, 50%, and 75%
mark of each token, regardless of how long that token was. Though the general trajectory of
vowels before [g] remains similar across participants, the Mergers’ frequency values are almost
identical regardless of the vowel being produced.
4.4.2 Correlations With Personality Characteristics
The participants’ responses to the questionnaire were used to create a correlation matrix.
Most responses were already binary by design, but the others were converted to binary responses
as follows: Orientation was recorded as straight (0) or “not straight” (1), with “not straight”
combining responses of “gay” or “bisexual”; Education was coded as “some university” (0) and
“More than university” (1), as all participants, being pulled from the Intro to Linguistics student
pool, had completed high school; Parents’ level of education was coded as “High school or
below” (0) or “Some university and above” (1); Other native language was coded as either
54
“English only” (0) or “English and other languages” (1); Other places lived was recorded as
“Alberta” (0) for those who had lived only in Alberta their entire lives, and “Outside of Alberta”
(1), for those who had spent at least one year living outside of Alberta. Gender was recorded as a
binary variable, as all participants responded either “male” or “female.”
The correlation matrix can be found in Figure 4-8. Correlations between variables that
did not reach significance (p ≥ 0.05) are crossed out, and the lower quadrant displays the degree
of correlation, with red indicating negative correlation and blue indicating positive correlation. In
all cases except those specified, the first response listed was coded as (0). For example, in the
response “Leader/Follower,” “leader” was treated as (0) and “follower” was treated as (1). Only
those correlations which reached significance will be discussed further.
Handedness and the number of other places lived were negatively correlated to merging,
while rurality had a positive correlation. That is, those who had spent at least a year outside of
Alberta were more likely to merge, as were those who identified as “rural” on the Rural/Urban
identity binary. Left-handed participants were also more likely to merge according to the tests.
However, since only one respondent was left-handed, this correlation will not be explored
further.
55
Figure 4-8: Correlation Matrix for Personality data (“Merger” highlighted)
4.4.3 ANOVAs
4.4.3.1 Introduction to ANOVAs
The last section served to identify Mergers and non-Mergers based on how much each
individual’s productions varied in the experimental contexts compared to their productions in the
“neutral” contexts obtained in calibration. This section looks at all participants’ results and
Chapter 6 interprets these results to outline a “hierarchy of influence” that different modalities
have on production and repetition.
A series of paired Five-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were run. The dependant
measure in the first ANOVA of each pair was the normalized Euclidean distance of each vowel
token from the combined F1 and F2 of the [æ] vowel obtained in the calibration portion of
recording. The dependant measure in the second ANOVA of each pair was the normalized
56
Euclidean distance of each vowel token from the combined F1 and F2 of the calibration [ɛ]
vowel.
The independent measures were the same in each ANOVA and consisted of the following:
1. Target: Whether the participant’s target was [æ] or [ɛ]. In the case of words, this was
determined by how the word is normally produced (by non-merging speakers). For nonwords this was determined by the letter presented (in the orthography block) or the sound
usually produced when naming the second picture (in the pictorial block).
2. Context: Whether the target sound was produced before the voiceless velar stop [k] or the
voiced velar stop [g].
3. Word: Whether the target sound was produced within the context of a word (e.g. bag) or
a nonword (e.g. kag).
4. Stimtype: The modality used to elicit the production. For these tests, this is either
Pictorial (P), Orthographic (O), or Auditory (A). As the auditory block of the experiment
contained more than two possible auditory targets (including [œ]), all auditory stimuli
whose target was not [æ] or [ɛ] was removed from this series of tests, leaving 42 of the
original 90 auditory tokens to be used in this analysis. Another ANOVA, outlined in the
next section, examined the auditory stimuli alone.
5. Merge: Whether the speaker was a Merger or a Splitter, based on the criteria outlined in
4.3.1.
6. Order: The order in which the different stimulus types were presented. These were
balanced across subjects: Auditory-Orthographic-Pictorial (AOP), Auditory-PictorialOrthographic (APO), OPA, OAP, PAO, and POA.
57
Merge and Order were between-subjects factors; the others were within-subject factors.
Order was removed from the following ANOVAs after an initial test showed multiple 2-, 3-, and
4-way interactions with Order. An ANOVA testing this factor was run separately, and the results
of this test can be found in section 4.3.3.4.
Figure 4-9 shows a normalized comparison of all vowels produced by all speakers, in relation to
their calibration vowels. It can be considered a companion chart to Figure 4-4, as it displays
roughly the same information in a new, appropriate way. F1 and F2 have been converted to
normalized z-scores, and the 0-0 point is the average F1 and F2 score of all speakers (and
therefore, negative values are possible).
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
eg
0
0.2
0.4
Calibration e
aeg
ek
0.8
F1
0.6
1
1.2
1.4
aek
1.6
Calibration ae
1.8
Figure 4-9: Normalized Comparison of Stimuli Vowels to Calibration Vowels.
Graphs of all the significant results and interactions can be found in Appendix E: Plots, though
graphs of some of the more illuminating results will be reproduced within the following sections.
58
Non-significant results will not be reported unless relevant to understanding the significant
results.
4.4.3.2 ANOVAs Without [œ] Auditory Stimuli.
Two 5-way ANOVAs were run to test the effects of the above outlined conditions (except
Order) on all speakers’ [æ] and [ɛ] vowels. Tables 1 and 2 list the results of these tests, while the
rest of this section reports on the post-hoc testing.
Table 4-1: Significant Effects and Interactions in ANOVA on distance from calibration [æ]
Factor
Degrees of Freedom
Residual DoF
F-Value
Pr(>F)
Target
1
2079
364
< 0.01
Context
1
2079
889
< 0.01
Word
1
2079
36
< 0.01
Merge
1
2079
259
< 0.01
Target:Context
1
2079
17
< 0.01
Target:Merge
1
2079
35
< 0.01
Context:Merge
1
2079
27
< 0.01
Stimtype:Word
2
2079
10
< 0.01
Target:Context:StimType 2
2079
7
< 0.01
Target:Word:StimType
2
2079
7
< 0.01
Target:Context:Merge
1
2079
25
< 0.01
59
Table 4-2: Significant effects and interactions in ANOVA on distance from calibration [ɛ]
Factor
Degrees of Freedom
Residual DoF
F-Value
Pr(>F)
Target
1
2079
79
< 0.01
Context
1
2079
548
< 0.01
Word
1
2079
46
< 0.01
StimType
2
2079
11
< 0.01
Target:Context
1
2079
240
< 0.01
Target:Merge
1
2079
19
< 0.01
Target:Word
1
2079
33
< 0.01
Context:Word
1
2079
9
< 0.01
Target:Context:StimType 2
2079
3
< 0.01
Target:Word:StimType
2
2079
6
< 0.01
Target:Context:Merge
1
2079
7
0.01
Target:Context:Word
1
2079
7
0.01
Context:Word:Stimtype
2
2079
9
0.03
60
TukeyHSD post-hoc tests were used to determine the direction of significance in all
cases. The results follow, with main effects first, then two-way interactions, then three-way
interactions. While generally main effects are passed over when significant interactions are
present, I choose to present a brief overview of main effects first. The reason I approach the data
this way is that the interactions are complex, and exploring the simpler main effects and two-way
interactions first allows me to more clearly and concisely explain the three-way interactions. Post
Hoc results for all ANOVAs can be found in Appendix F: Post Hoc Results.
Both ANOVAs showed significant main effects of Target, Context, and Word. The
ANOVA run using the [æ] vowel additionally showed a significant main effect of Merge, while
the ANOVA run using the [ɛ] vowel showed an additional significant main effect of StimType.
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
ɛ
0.4
Calibration e
0.8
æ
1
F1
0.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae 1.8
Figure 4-10: Main Effect of: Vowel Target
In general, all participants’ productions of [ɛ] in recording were closer to their
productions of [ɛ] obtained in calibration than the [æ] vowels elicited in the experiment proper,
as expected. However, participants’ productions of [æ] were significantly closer to their [ɛ]
61
calibration vowel than their [æ] calibration vowel (see Figure 4-10). This is likely due to the
effects of the merging subjects, as the interactions show below.
The main effect of context (Figure 4-11) shows that all participants’ productions of both
[æ] and [ɛ] are closer to the [ɛ] produced in calibration when the vowel appears before [g],
compared to the vowels produced before [k].
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Before [g]
0.2
0.4
Calibration ɛ
0.8
F1
0.6
1
Before [k]
1.2
1.4
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
Figure 4-11: Main Effect of: Context
In regards to the main effect of words (whether the sound produced was a word or
nonword of English), both words and nonwords are produced closer to [ɛ] than [æ] (Figure 4-12).
Words and Nonwords do not vary significantly from each other in regards to their distance from
[ɛ].
62
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Calibration ɛ
0.2
Words
0.4
0.8
1
F1
0.6
Nonwords
1.2
1.4
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
Figure 4-12: Main Effect of: Word
Post hoc testing on the main effect of Merge determined that all vowels produced by
Mergers were farther away from [æ] than the vowels produced by Splitters (Figure 4-13). This is
expected, due to the way Mergers were determined, by examining a similarity in both vowels
before [g].
F2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Mergers
Splitters
Calibration æ
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
F1
0.7
Figure 4-13: Main Effect of: Merge (only significant in regards to [æ])
63
The main effect of StimType was only significant with respect to the [ɛ] calibration
vowel. (Figure 4-14). The productions in response to the orthographic stimuli were significantly
farther away from the calibration [ɛ] than responses to the two other stimulus modalities.
0.8
0.6
F2
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
F1
Orthographic Stimuli
Pictorial Stimuli
Calibration [ɛ]
0.6
0.7
Auditory Stimuli
0.8
0.9
Figure 4-14: Main Effect of: Stimtype (only significant in regards to [ɛ])
Significant two-way interactions were found for both vowels between Target and Context
and Target and Merge. Additionally, the ANOVA run using the [æ] vowel found significant twoway interactions between Context and Merge and Stimtype and Word. The tests run with [ɛ]
found additional significant interactions between Target and Word and Context and Word.
The interaction between Target and Context shows that productions of both vowels when
produced before [g] are more similar to participants’ calibrated [ɛ] than their production of [æ] in
the calibration block (Figure 4-14). Participants produced [æg] closer to calibration [ɛ] when
before [g], compared to before [k].
64
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
ɛg
0
0.2
0.4
æg
0.6
ɛk
0.8
F1
Calibration ɛ
1
1.2
1.4
æk
1.6
Calibration æ
1.8
Figure 4-15: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Context
Post hoc testing of the interaction between Target and Merge continue the trend of [æ]
productions generally being closer to the [ɛ] produced in calibration (figure 5-12). Splitters’
production of [æ] is closer to their calibration [æ] vowels than Mergers, which is again expected
due to the way this division of subjects was calculated.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Splitters' [ɛ]
Mergers' [ɛ]
0.2
0.4
Calibration [ɛ]
0.8
Mergers' [æ]
Splitters' [æ]
1
1.2
1.4
Calibration [æ]
1.6
1.8
Figure 4-16: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Merge
65
F1
0.6
In examining the significant interaction of Context and Merge, all vowels produced
before [g] were closer to the calibration [ɛ] (further from calibration [æ]) for both Mergers and
Splitters. However, it is important to note that in both contexts, Mergers’ and Splitters’ vowels
were significantly different from each other.
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
Mergers'
productions
before [g]
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
Splitters'
productions
before [g]
0.4
0.8
Splitters' productions
Mergers' productions
before [k]
1
before [k]
1.2
F1
0.6
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae
1.8
Figure 4-17: Two-Way Interactions between Context and Merge
The only significant difference revealed by post hoc testing of the significant interaction
between stimulus type and word is that, in the orthographic block, both vowels produced in
words were closer to the calibration vowel [æ] than those vowels produced in nonwords (Figure
4-18). This interaction was not significant when examining the distance from the [ɛ] vowel.
66
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
Calibration [ɛ]
Auditory Nonwords
0.4
Orthographic Words
Pictorial Words
Auditory Words
Pictorial Nonwords
Orthographic
Nonwords
0.6
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Calibration ae
1.6
1.8
Figure 4-18: Two-Way Interaction between Stimulus Type and Word
The last two two-way interactions are between Target and Word, and Context and Word.
Vowels produced within words were closer to the calibration targets than vowels produced
within nonwords (Figure 4-19). For both words and nonwords, [ɛ] was produced significantly
closer to calibration [ɛ] than [æ] was produced to calibration [æ].
67
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Words with [ɛ]
Nonwords with
[ɛ]
Calibration [ɛ]
0.2
0.4
0.6
Words with [æ]
F1
0.8
Nonwords with [æ]
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration [æ]
1.8
Figure 4-19: Two-Way Interaction between Target and Word
Post hoc testing of the interaction between Context and Word (Figure 4-20) determined
that, regardless of vowel, words and nonwords that ended in [g] were produced significantly
closer to calibration [ɛ] than words and nonwords that ended in [k]. Nonwords were produced
significantly closer to [ɛ] than all other Word/Context pairs.
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Words that end in g
Nonwords that end in
g
Calibration e
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Nonwords that end in k
1.2
Words that end in k
1.4
Calibration ae
1.6
1.8
Figure 4-20: Two-Way Interactions between Context and Word
68
F1
0.8
Significant three-way interactions for both tests were: Target, Context, and StimType;
Target, Word, and StimType; and Target, Context, and Merge. The ANOVA run using the [ɛ]
vowel found additional three-way interactions between Target, Context, and Word; and Context,
Word, and StimType.
In examining the three-way interactions, post hoc testing was only done on those
interactions that shared 2 of the 3 factors being tested. The interactions between Stimtype,
Target, and Context showed a few general trends, with some deviation (Figure 4-21).
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.5
Orthographic [ɛg]
Auditory [ɛg]
0
Pictorial [ɛg]
Auditory [æg]
Calibration ɛ
0.5
Pictorial [æg]
Orthographic [æg]
F1
Auditory [ɛk]
Orthographic [ɛk]
1
Pictorial [ɛk]
Orthographic [æk]
1.5
Auditory [æk]
Pictorial [æk]
Calibration æ
2
Figure 4-21: Three-Way Interaction between Stimtype, Target, and Context.
There was a general trend of the same vowel and context being produced in a cluster among all
three modalities (Auditory, Pictorial, and Orthographic), with no significant difference in
distance from calibration between differing stimulus types of the same target+context cluster,
with the following exceptions: First, [æk] target+contexts, produced after hearing the auditory
stimuli, were closer to the [ɛ] calibration vowel than those produced after seeing the pictorial
69
stimuli. Second, sounds produced in the [ɛk] target+context pair were significantly closer to the
calibration [ɛ] when participants were responding after hearing the auditory stimuli, compared to
when they were reading the orthographic stimuli. Another notable difference becomes apparent
when graphing the z-scores of all three stimulus types and two targets in the [g] context with
regards to the calibration [ɛ] (see Figure 4-22). While there is no significant difference between
[ɛg] productions in any of the stimulus types, all three are significantly farther away from the
calibration [ɛ] when compared to the same stimulus types in the [æ] context (with the exception
of the orthographic [æg]). When these are charted, we see that the three [ɛg] productions are all
further from calibration [ɛ] in the opposite direction (higher and fronter) than we find [æ] in the
vowel space.
0.9
0.85
0.8
F2
0.7
0.75
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
-0.2
-0.1
Auditory_eg
0
Orthographic_eg
0.1
0.2
0.3
Auditory_aeg
Calibration e
Pictorial_aeg
Orthographic_aeg
F1
Pictorial_eg
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 4-22: Three-way Interaction between StimType, Target, and Context with regards
to Calibration [ɛ]
Both ANOVAs showed significant three-way interactions between StimType, Target, and
Word (Figure 4-23). For orthographic stimuli with an [æ] target, words were produced
70
significantly closer to the calibration [æ] than nonwords were. There were no significant
differences between this pair with respect to the [ɛ] calibration vowel.
0.7
0.6
F2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
Orthographic W [ɛ]
Orthographic NW [ɛ]
Calibration ɛ
0.4
0.6
Auditory NonWord [æ]
Pictorial Word [æ]
Pictorial Nonword [æ]
0
0
Auditory W [ɛ]
Auditory NW [ɛe]
Pictorial W [ɛ]
Pictorial NW [ɛ]
0.1
Orthographic Word [æ]
Auditory Word [æ]
Orthographic
Nonword [æ]
0.8
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Calibration ae
Figure 4-23: Three-Way Interaction between Stimtype, Target, and Word.
This pattern holds true for pictorial stimuli, but no significant interaction with target was found
for the pictorial stimuli. Nonwords with an [æ] target were produced significantly closer to the
[ɛ] calibration vowel in the auditory block, compared to both other stimulus types, but the
auditory and orthographic stimulus types were the only two [æ] nonwords that were significantly
different in distance from each other.
For the interaction of Target, Context, and Merge (Figure 4-24), in all targets and
contexts, with the exception of [æk], Mergers’ and Splitters’ vowels are significantly different
from each other. As Figure 4-23 shows, the greatest distance is between Mergers’ and Splitters’
[æg] productions, which fall on either side of the [ɛ] found in calibration.
71
F2
0.9
0.8
ɛgM
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
ɛgS
aegM
0.3
Calibration ɛ
ægS
0.8
ɛkS
F1
ɛkM
aekM
1.3
aekS
1.8
Calibration ae
2.3
Figure 4-24: Three-way Interactions between Target, Context, and Merge
In the interaction between StimType, Context, and Word, all productions from all stimuli
prompts before [g] were produced significantly closer to the [ɛ] calibration vowel than those
produced before [k] (Figure 4-25).
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Auditory Words [_g]
Orthographic Words [_g]
Pictorial Words [_g]
Auditory NonWords [_g]
0.2
0.4
Calibration ɛ
Pictorial Nonwords
[_g]
0.6
F1
0.8
Auditory Nonwords
1
[_k] Orthographic Words
Pictorial Nonwords
[_k] 1.2
[_k]
Pictorial Words [_k]
1.4
Auditory Words [_k]
Orthographic Nonwords [_k]
1.6
1.8
Calibration ae
Figure 4-25: Three-way Interactions between Stimtype, Context, and Word.
72
Pictorial nonwords were produced significantly closer to calibration [æ] than pictorial words
when produced before [k]. Similar results were found in the three-way interaction between
Target, Context, and Word (Figure 4-26).
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.5
Word [ɛg]
0
Nonwords [ɛg]
Nonwords [ɛk]
Words [æg]
0.5
Calibration ɛ
F1
Nonwords [æg]
1
Words [ɛk]
Words [æk]
1.5
Nonwords [æk]
Calibration æ
2
Figure 4-26: Three-way Interactions between Target, Context, and Word.
Generally, targets before [k] are produced significantly farther from calibration [ɛ] than those
same targets before [g]. In sounds produced in the same target+context combination, for both
[ɛk] and [ɛg], words were produced significantly farther from calibration [ɛ] than nonwords.
4.4.3.3 ANOVAs Run On Auditory Stimuli.
As mentioned in Chapter 5, statistical analysis revealed a confound in the auditory block
of testing after the experiment had been run. Participants were asked to repeat productions of one
73
of three vowels: [æ], [ɛ], or [œ]. The introduction of this third vowel, not found naturally in
Canadian English, was included with the intention of giving subjects a somewhat neutral sound,
so that I could test which vowel they “chose” as a replacement for it. However, this third option
opened up many more perceptual possibilities, especially in regards to the influence of word
formation. These 8 possibilities are listed in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Perceptual Possibilities for Auditory Stimuli
Auditory
Possible
Word Formation
Name
Label
Prompt
Target(s)
Options
[bæg]
1: [æ]
1: [æ] “bag”
[æ]
[æ]
[bɛg]
1: [ɛ]
1: [ɛ] “beg”
[ɛ]
[ɛ]
[blɛk]
2: [æ], [ɛ]
1: [æ] “black”
Switched [ɛ]
Ɛ
[kæg]
2: [æ], [ɛ]
1: [ɛ] “keg”
Switched [æ] Æ
[dœg]
3: [æ], [ɛ], [œ]
0
Neutral
_
vowel
[blœk]
3: [æ], [ɛ], [œ]
1: [æ] “black”
Neutral [æ]
_æ
[œg]
3: [æ], [ɛ], [œ]
1: [ɛg] “egg”
Neutral [ɛ]
_ɛ
[bœg]
3: [æ], [ɛ], [œ]
2: [æ] “bag”
Both
_b
[ɛ] “beg”
In regards to possible targets, it was felt that the non-English vowel would only become
available as a target immediately after it was presented in the experiment, and would not exist
among possible choices except as a short-term mimicry. Since this possible confound was
noticed only after testing was complete, the experimental materials are not balanced for all
possibilities. The 90 stimuli presented in the Auditory Block have the following distribution: 21
74
[æ], 21 [ɛ], 18 Neutral [œ], 11 Switched [ɛ], 8 Both, 6 Switched [æ], 3 Neutral [æ], and 2 Neutral
[ɛ].
Thus, a pair of two-way repeated measures ANOVAs were run, using the same factors as
those described in 5.1.3.2, with the following changes: First, a third level was added to the
“target” factor, making the possible options [æ], [ɛ], and [œ]. Second, the “StimType” factor was
removed (as all tokens were obtained from the auditory block), and the “Label” factor was added
(with the eight different levels from the table above). As described above, these labels referred to
the perceptual possibilities and possible word formations for each token. The first ANOVA was
run to compare the influence of the factors with regards to the normalized Euclidean distance
from the [æ] obtained in calibration. The second ANOVA used the distance from [ɛ]. Tables 4-4
and 4-5 report the significant main effects and interactions of these tests for [æ] and [ɛ],
respectively.
Table 4-4: Effects of experimental factors on participants' [æ] vowel: Significant results.
Factor
Degrees of Freedom
Residual DoF F-Value
Pr(>F)
Target
2
1528
288
< 0.01
Context
1
1528
336
< 0.01
Merge
1
1528
138
< 0.01
Label
5
1528
12
< 0.01
Target:Context
2
1528
44
< 0.01
Context:Word
1
1528
13
< 0.01
75
Target:Merge
2
1528
10
< 0.01
Context:Merge
1
1528
19
< 0.01
Context:Label
4
1528
6
< 0.01
Table 4-5: Effects of experimental factors on participants' [ɛ] vowel: Significant results.
Factor
Degrees of Freedom
Residual DoF
F-Value
Pr(>F)
Target
2
1528
32
< 0.01
Context
1
1528
112
< 0.01
Word
1
1528
11
< 0.01
Label
5
1528
8
< 0.01
Target:Context
2
1528
156
< 0.01
Context:Label
4
1528
11
< 0.01
Generally, the results follow the same trends as those found when other stimuli were
tested: vowels before [k] are produced significantly closer to [æ] than vowels produced before
[g]; [æk] was significantly closer to calibration [æ] than [æg]. Mergers produce all vowels
generally closer to [ɛ] than Splitters do; and vowels produced in words are closer to their
calibration targets than vowels in nonwords, indicating the influence of the standard grammar in
orthography encouraging production targets to remain closer to the “standard” vowel production.
With respect to results specific to this test, the three-level target factor, and the additional
“Label” factor, showed the influence of mimicry and the “neutral” vowel on participant
production.
76
The neutral vowel _ was produced significantly farther from both calibration vowels than
either [æ] or [ɛ]. Switched vowels of both types (Æ and Ɛ) were produced closer to calibration
[æ], though there was no significant difference in the distance between _æ and _ɛ. Æ vowels
were produced closer to calibration targets than any neutral vowel with possible word formation
(_æ, _ɛ, or _b). However, they were further from calibration targets than Ɛ vowels were. For
example, [mɛgpaɪ] was produced with a vowel closer to [æ] than [mœgpaɪ], and [mægə] was
closer to [æ] than [mœgæ]. In general, whether a word formation was possible had less influence
on the vowel produced than the vowel target. Specifically, in regards to the tests using the
calibration [ɛ], words were produced higher and fronter than nonwords. To put this in other
terms, the influences of the community and self grammars are stronger than the influence of the
standard grammar.
4.4.3.4 Influence of Order of Presentation.
Two initial repeated measures ANOVAs, testing the effects of all factors listed in the last
section (Target, Context, Word, StimType, Merge, and Order) on Euclidean distance from
calibration [æ] and calibration [ɛ] showed significant main effects and 2-, 3-, and 4-way
interactions of Order for both dependant measures. Thus, a simplified pair of two-way ANOVAs
were run to more closely examine the influence of the between-subjects factors, Order and
Merge, on participant production. It was felt that by determining the overall influence of the
Order of Presentations factor first, it could be removed from further regressions, and the post hoc
testing for the ANOVAs described above made marginally more manageable.
It was found that participants who completed the experiment in the order PictorialOrthographic-Auditory (POA) produced all vowels closer to the calibration targets. Participants
who completed the experimental sections with the pictorial component last produced vowels
77
farthest from those obtained in calibration, regardless of the order that the previous two blocks
were presented in. There was no significant difference between the remaining orders of
presentation (PAO, OPA, APO), except that all three were significantly distanced from both
the POA order and the two Pictorial-last orders (AOP and OAP).
Mergers show the greatest divergence from their calibration vowels when
presented with stimuli in POA order, and the least divergence in the PAO order (See figure
4.27: This figure includes Target vowels for clarity).
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
OPA - ɛ
AOP - ɛ
OAP - ɛ
PAO - ɛ
APO - ɛ
0.2
POA - ɛ
0.4
OPA - æ
Calibration e
0.6
PAO - æ
AOP - æ
APO - æ
0.8
F1
POA - æ
1
OAP - æ
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae
Figure 4-27: Main Effect of: Presentation Order (With Target Included)
The implications of these findings will be discussed further in the following chapter.
78
1.8
Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 Confirming Mergers
The analysis of the participants’ vowel productions confirms Hypotheses 1 and 2. About
half of the participants tested showed no significant differences in formant frequencies between
[æ] and [ɛ] before [g], while they maintained this difference in other contexts (before [k], before
[d], and before [ɹd]). The comparison of normalized productions (Figure 5-1, reproduced from
Chapter 5), in particular the distances between Splitters’ and Mergers’ production of [æg],
reveals the type and direction of the merge.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.5
Mergers' [ɛg]
Splitters' [ɛg]
0
Mergers' [æg]
0.5
Splitters' [æg]
Splitters' [ɛk]
Merger's [ɛk]
1
F1
Calibration [ɛ]
Splitters' [æk] 1.5
Mergers' [æk]
Calibration [æ]
2
2.5
Figure 5-1: Normalized Plot of Mergers' and Splitters' [æg] and [ɛg] productions [_g], [_k],
and Calibration contexts.
79
Only half of participants produced [æg] in a way statistically indistinguishable from their
productions of [ɛg]. I can conclude that [æ] before [g] in Alberta is currently undergoing a
merger by approximation of the unidirectional subtype. The division between vowels before [k],
and between speakers, means we can discount a merger by expansion and the “middle ground”
subtype of merger by approximation. It is not possible with just the Merge/Split data to
determine whether we are seeing a merger by transfer or the unidirectional subtype of a merger
by approximation. However, the variable productions noted when speakers were given differing
modality prompts, which caused variable productions, indicates this change is neither abrupt nor
complete, the two indicators of a merger by transfer. Recall Wassink’s 2015 research that
identified significant raising of [æ] before [g] in the Pacific Northwest that was not found in
Vancouver, BC (17). The reason for this is uncertain, though. Examining the other vowels of
Alberta English as they compare to the Northwestern US and BC Canada may explain why this
change seems to be “skipping” the western coast of Canada.
If the data from 19 subjects can be extrapolated to the entire population, with half
merging and half maintaining distinct vowels in all consonantal environments, it seems likely
this merger is at somewhat of an impasse. A re-examination of this phenomenon at a future time
will determine, assuming a triadic grammar, whether the merger will be completed due to
perpetuation by active and super listeners, or whether the inactive listeners will cause the vowels
to drift.
5.2 Personality and Demographic Data
Geography provided the only relevant personality/demographic influence on vowel
production. Participants who identified as “rural” and those who had lived outside of Alberta for
at least a year were both more likely to merge vowels. It is possible this can be attributed to a
80
more locally-focused identity, as established in Labov’s seminal study in Martha’s Vineyard
(1972). That is, those who travel away and then return while still under 30 are more likely to
retain local dialect features. However, I hesitate to attribute meaning to any of these results due
to the low number of data points. Of the 18 respondents, only 2 identified as “rural,” and 7 had
spent time outside of Alberta (two of those 7 were the “rural” responders). Hypothesis 3 – that
innovators and perpetuators of sound change can be identified by personality - cannot be
confirmed based on the results of this experiment.
5.3 The Grammar Triad’s Variable Influence on Production.
Balancing the order of presentation is not only good practice in experimentation, but also
provided an unexpected windfall in the analysis of these experimental results. The three
modalities were intended to act as stand-ins for the three grammars that form the keystone of the
theory presented: auditory for community grammar, orthographic for the standard grammar, and
pictorial for the self-grammar. Finding significant results based on the order of the presented
modalities allows me to further refine the grammar triad, but also to propose a hierarchy of
influence.
Recall that participants who completed the experiment in the order PictorialOrthographic-Auditory produced vowels closest to the ones produced in the calibration phase.
This is because POA presents stimuli in an order in which participants are initially given the least
external information that can be linked to specific phonetic data. They must first rely on the selfgrammar, then the standard, and finally the community. That is to say, in the auditory portion,
participants receive direct phonetic data which allows them to be susceptible to the process of
spontaneous phonetic imitation (Goldinger, 2005) as well as engage their short-term memory
(Pisoni, 1973).
81
When presented with orthographic prompts, there is no phonetic signal to imitate or
accommodate to. However, orthographic symbols are well known to influence readers’
production of words via sound symbolism (Ehri, 1980). Seeing the letter “a” or “e” may have
removed the ambiguity as to what the target sound was for the production, and may have
therefore been the reason the speakers in my experiment produced vowels closer to the sounds
(and standard grammar) symbolized by those letters ([æ] and [ɛ], respectively) and counteracted
the merging influence of [g].
The pictorial prompts contain the least amount of ‘bootstrapping’ data of all, as they
depend on speakers’ internal knowledge of the production of the word, their self grammar.
Therefore, when presented with the pictorial stimuli first (after the calibration wordlist),
participants are producing words in a state as free from external phonetic (or indirectly phonetic)
influences as possible in a lab setting. The nature of the pictorial task also lends itself to more
spontaneous (non-imitating) productions due to its gamification: The use of game mechanics and
approaches to solving non-game problems (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). As listeners are
trying to guess the word represented by the picture, this task took a much less formal tone than
that of the other two stimuli types. Participants are somewhat distracted by the effort required to
guess the word, so they are less careful about the actual sounds produced. This is dissimilar to
the other two tasks, which encourage more attention: The auditory block asked participants to
“repeat what you hear,” and the orthographic reading task is inherently formal. For these reasons,
participants given the pictorial block first are most likely to produce those vowels more similarly
to the baseline vowels they produced in calibration phase. In the following blocks, participants
had their own recent productions to draw on in order to potentially counteract the external
influences of the orthographic and auditory stimuli.
82
Participants who underwent the experimental sections with the pictorial component last
produced vowels farthest from those obtained in calibration, regardless of the order in which the
previous two blocks were presented. This is explained via the same mechanisms described
above: External influences in the auditory and orthographic blocks drive participant productions
farther from their “self” vowel production, and continue to influence this production through the
pictorial block due to their recency effects. Each block took 15 minutes or less to complete, with
only a few seconds between stimuli and each token reinforcing a drive away from “self”
productions, so it is possible participants’ short-term memory would still be engaged.
The middling position of the other blocks (PAO, OPA, APO) can be explained if one
assumes that the stimuli types present two sorts of influencing factors at odds with each other:
The pictorial block encourages productions truer to a participant’s self-grammar, their baseline
vowels. The auditory and orthographic blocks, on the other hand, discourage self-grammar
productions and drive participants towards a more imitative, “standard” production. Of these two
blocks, direct phonetic information – i.e. the community grammar – has a stronger influence on
participant vowels than the indirect sound symbolism of the standard grammar, represented in
the orthographic stimuli.
5.4 Factors influencing production
5.4.1 When the only targets are [æ] and [ɛ]
In general, participants’ production of [æ] before both velars was closer to their calibration [ɛ],
but not significantly so in all cases. This result has the possible implications that the actual target
for [æ] is drifting higher and fronter, and the variation within [ɛ] productions indicate this may be
a merger by expansion. However, the significant result of target on productions, when compared
to both vowels (for all but the Mergers’ before [g] context), suggests these are still distinct
83
sounds in listeners’ minds, even if their productions before [g] do not bear that out. Future
research may incorporate a perceptual experiment to determine the exact nature of these sounds
within listeners’ minds.
That the modality of the stimulus affected production supports the hypothesized
hierarchy of influence of the triadic grammar. In all cases, the orthographic stimuli prompted
participants to produce vowels closer to the calibration target. Recall that the orthographic
stimuli serve as a stand-in for the standard grammar. As explained above, the letters presented in
the orthographic block have an influence on speaker production, encouraging participants to
produce what they “see,” rather than what they “know.”
Regardless of whether a speaker was labelled a “Merger” or a “Splitter,” their production
of both vowels before [g] was significantly closer to their baseline [ɛ] than vowels produced
before [k]. This cannot be fully explained via the articulatory side effect of raising the velum to
create a stop closure (since both [g] and [k] share this). However, the-called “Canadian Shift” in
which front lax vowels ([æ], [ɛ], and [ɪ]) retract, may be the culprit, causing the vowels to shift
before [k] independently of what they are doing before [g]. Recall that Boberg (2005) found that
[ɛ] moving towards [ʌ] (the vowel in “bug”) and [æ] is both lowering and retracting, in Montreal;
a region just outside of the homogeneous “Canadian English” zone outlined by Labov et al. 2006
in the Atlas of North American English. The Albertan speakers studied in my experiment,
despite being closer geographically to those in Winnipeg, seem to be adopting something closer
to Boberg’s version of the shift, with both vowels retracting and lowering before [k].
There were no significant interactions between the Stimulus type and Word factors on
production distances from [ɛ]. In nonwords, orthographic and pictorial productions were aligned
to calibration vowels less closely than stimuli recorded in the auditory block, but the auditory
84
and orthographic stimulus types were the only two values that varied significantly in distance
from each other. This result may be a false positive, caused partially by the nature of the
analysis—only a portion of nonwords were tested (those that were produced with non-ambiguous
versions of either [æ] or [ɛ], and that did not form a word with either vowel). For this reason, the
tests lack the ability to determine the influence of the removed vowels that were presented
alongside the tested ones, both in words and nonwords. Still, these tests still indicate that
participants, when asked to (re)produce clear vowels, will do so, even in the ambiguous before[g] context.
The Word/Nonword status of productions had significant effects on both vowels (Figure
4-26). In most cases, words were produced closer to calibration targets than nonwords. In
English, vowels inside words that end with voiced consonants are longer in duration than
voiceless consonants, and it has been established by past research that listeners use these
durational cues in identifying the consonant (Raphael, 1972). The results of my experiment may
support the possibility of this perceptual bootstrapping happening in the opposite direction:
Listeners may be using the voicing status of the final consonant to help determine the vowel.
When presented with a nonword, listeners are unable to use this secondary cue to help determine
the quality of the vowel, because the voicing status of the final consonant is unknown. This may
have an effect on sound change: When inactive listeners hear a merged vowel, they can use the
voicing cues to determine the intended word spoken (or a near-merged vowel, as in the case of
[ɛ] and [æ] before [g]), and thus rebuild the vowel (resisting this particular sound change).
However, when a super listener hears the merged vowel, they may pay more attention to the
actual acoustic output than the secondary cues, and thus add a “not quite [æ]” to their
(community) grammar, which may be reproduced at a later time. To put it a different way,
85
inactive listeners hear the word being said, and assume the (corresponding) acoustic output,
while super listeners hear the sounds, and infer the word from the sounds. Thus, the differing
results when testing with words and non-words is caused by the differing perceptual approaches
of the two types of listeners.
5.4.2 In the [œ]/Non-English vowel condition
For the most part, the results from examining the data containing [œ] mirror those of the
previous tests, which were limited to [æ] and [ɛ]. Mergers produce all vowels closer to [ɛ] than
Splitters, regardless of what sound was actually produced by the stimuli voice in the auditory
block. This indicates that Mergers are inactive listeners—or, at least, that they are more inactive
than Splitters within the experimental context. Recall that, as outlined in Chapter 2.5, inactive
listeners may initiate sound changes, but resist sound changes not of their own invention. Though
the question of how the sound change was initially adopted by the Mergers remains, this result
indicates that its perpetuation is caused by the inactive listening of Mergers. That is, the Mergers
are resisting the influence of the community grammar represented in the experiment by the
auditory voice (and therefore resisting the influence of certain parts of the community that
happen to not be merging). The reasons why one “chooses” to merge (or rather, why one’s
method of perception encourages merging) in the first place cannot be answered with the data
available. However, the significant differences in response to auditory stimuli between the two
populations – Mergers producing all vowels closer to [ɛ] and Splitters producing all vowels
closer to [æ] – indicates that there is a difference in the way these two groups listen, in addition
to the way they speak.
Switched vowels of both types were produced closer to the baseline [æ], compared to the
neutral vowel [œ]. This may indicate that participants are more willing to merge two known
86
vowels than produce non-English vowels inside known vowel spaces. The influence of word
formation was only significant with respect to the [ɛ] vowel, which neither supports nor
disproves the bootstrapping posited in the last section.
When the neutral vowel [œ] was the target, in all cases it was produced significantly far
away from each calibration vowel. As the auditory modality served as the stand-in for the
community grammar, this result indicates that the community has the greatest influence on
production (or at least, has the greatest influence on production when research participants are
explicitly asked to repeat what they hear). That is, the sounds we encounter in our day-to-day
lives influence our own speech more than our internal representations or our perception of the
standard grammar, at least in the short-term.
5.5 Conclusion
I have confirmed the existence of a vowel shift among [æ]/[ɛ] in Alberta. I have
determined this is a merger by approximation of the second subtype, in which [æ] is rising and
fronting to the space of [ɛ]. I have further identified it as a merger in progress based on two
distinct populations that treat [æ] differently when presented in the specific context of preceding
a voiced velar stop [g], and that process information differently when it is presented auditorily.
Finally, I have gathered evidence that there exists a hierarchy of influence of stimulus modality
on speaker production. I hypothesize that these modality differences are caused by a triadic
grammar within each individual: the self grammar, the standard grammar, and the community
grammar.
Just as we are products of our experiences, our speech cannot be exclusively our own.
We present ourselves in the way we dress, our mannerisms and affectations, and who we choose
to associate ourselves with. The way we speak is not divorced from these performances. As
87
Emily Dickinson says in the poem quoted in Chapter One, a word’s life begins once it is spoken.
Our experiences make the sounds of each word individual, and words live on after the sound
fades away, via their influence on listeners. If speaking gives words life, then the three grammars
are their parents.
88
References
Alan, C. L., Carissa Abrego-Collier, & Morgan Sonderegger. (2013). Phonetic imitation from an
individual-difference perspective: Subjective attitude, personality and “autistic” traits.
PloS one 8.9
Arctander, K., Kinney, H., & Esposito, C. "Low‐back vowel merger in Minnesotan English." The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126 (2009): 2162.
Baker, A., Mielke, J., & Archangeli, D. (2008) "More velar than /g/: Consonant coarticulation as
a cause of diphthongization." Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics.
Baker, A., Archangeli, D., & Mielke, J. (2011). Variability in American English s-retraction
suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change, 23:
347-374.
Bauer, M., & Parker, F. (2008). /æ/-raising in Wisconsin English. American Speech, 83:4: 403431.
Becker, K. (2009). /r/ and the construction of place identity on New York City's Lower East
Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13:5:634-658.
Becker, K. (2010). Regional dialect features on the Lower East Side of New York City:
Sociophonetics, ethnicity, and identity (Doctoral dissertation, New York University).
Beddor, P. S. (2012) Perception grammars and sound change. In M-J Solé, & D. Recasens (Eds.)
The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production, and social factors. 37-56
Philidelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bell-Berti, F., & Krakow, R. A. (1991). Anticipatory velar lowering: A coproduction
account. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90.1: 112-123.
89
Bishop, D. V. M., & Bishop, S. J. (1998). Twin Language: A Risk Factor for Language
Impairment?. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41.1, 150-160.
Brandth, B. (1995). Rural masculinity in transition: gender images in tractor advertisements.
Journal of rural studies, 11.2, 123-133.
Boberg, C. (2005) "The Canadian Shift in Montreal." Language Variation and Change 17.2:
133-154.
Bourlai, E., & Herring, S. C. (2014). Multimodal communication on tumblr: i have so many
feels!. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on Web science. 171-175. ACM.
Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of
sociolinguistics, 7.3: 398-416.
Burzio, L. (2007) "Phonology and phonetics of English stress and vowel reduction." Language
Sciences 29.2: 154-176.
Bybee, J. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically
conditioned sound change. Language variation and change, 14.3: 261-290
Bybee, J. (2012) Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. In
M-J Solé, & D. Recasens (Eds.) The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production,
and social factors. 37-56. Philidelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Campbell, L. (2004). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. MIT Press.
Casserly, E. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Speech perception and production. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1.5: 629-647.
Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2005). Linguistic distance: A quantitative measure of the
distance between English and other languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 26.1: 1-11.
90
Clarke, S., Elms, F., & Youssef, A. (1995) "The third dialect of English: Some Canadian
evidence." Language Variation and Change 7.02: 209-228.
Clements, G. N. (1991). Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: a unified theory.
Working papers of the Cornell phonetics laboratory, 5: 77-123.
Clopper, C., Pisoni, D., & De Jong, K. (2005). "Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of
six regional varieties of American English." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 118:1661.
Conn, J. (2002). It’s not all Rain and Coffee: An Investigation into the Western Dialect of
Portland, Oregon. Presented at NWAV31, Stanford, California. Retrieved from
http://www.pds.pdx.edu/.
Davies, S., & Goldberg, J. M. (2006). Clinical aspects of transgender speech feminization and
masculinization. International Journal of Transgenderism, 9.3-4: 167-196.
Dickinson, Emily. 1924. “89. A word is dead.” The complete poems of Emily Dickinson. Boston:
Little, Brown, 1924; Bartleby.com, 2000. www.bartleby.com/113/.
Dimov, S., Katseff, S., and Johnson, K.. (2012) Social and personality variables in compensation
for altered auditory feedback. In M-J Solé, & D. Recasens (Eds.) The initiation of sounds
change: Perception, production, and social factors. 185-210. Philidelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Drager, K. (2010). Sensitivity to grammatical and sociophonetic variability in perception.
Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 1: 93-120.
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 12.4: 453-476.
Ehri, L. C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental variation in word recognition. Handbook
of language and literacy: Development and disorders. 433-460.
91
Esling, J., & Warkentyne, H. (1993) "Retracting of/æ/in Vancouver English." Focus on Canada.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 229-246.
Evans, B. (2004). The role of social network in the acquisition of local dialect norms by
Appalachian migrants in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Language Variation and Change, 16: 153167.
Findlay, J. M., & Coates, K. (2002). Parallel destinies: Canadian-American relations west of the
Rockies. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Flemming, E. (2003). The relationship between coronal place and vowel backness. Phonology,
20.03: 335-373.
Foulkes, P. & Docherty, G. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of
Phonetics, 34: 409-438.
Foulkes, P. (2010). Exploring social-indexical knowledge: a long past but a short history.
Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 1: 5-39.
Freeman, V. (2014). Bag, beg, bagel: Prevelar raising and merger in Pacific Northwest English.
32. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics.
Garrett, A. & Johnson, K. (2013). Phonetic bias in sound change. In A. Yu (ed.), Origins of
sound change: approaches to phonologization, 201-227.
Goldinger, Stephen D. "The cognitive basis of spontaneous imitation: Evidence from the visual
world." Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics. 19.1. Acoustical Society of
America, 2013.
Goldstone, R. L., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2010). Categorical perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews:Cognitive Science, 1.1: 69-78.
92
Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. (2012) The production and perception of sub-phonemic vowel
contrasts and the role of the listener in sound change. In M-J Solé, & D. Recasens (Eds.)
The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production, and social factors. 77-101.
Philidelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hagiwara, R. (1997) "Dialect variation and formant frequency: The American English vowels
revisited." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102: 655.
Hagiwara, R. (2006) "Vowel production in Winnipeg." The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La
revue canadienne de linguistique 51.2: 127-141.
Harrington, J. (2012) The coarticulatory basis of diachronic high back vowel fronting. In M-J
Solé, & D. Recasens (Eds.) The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production, and
social factors. 103-122. Philidelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Harrington, J. (2007). Evidence for a relationship between synchronic variability and diachronic
change in the Queen's annual Christmas broadcasts. In J. Cole & J.Hualde (Eds.),
Laboratory Phonology 9: 125-143. Berlin: Mouton.
Hay, J., Drager, K. and Thomas, B. (2013). Using nonsense words to investigate vowel
merger. English Language and Linguistics 17.2: 241-269.
Herrero, B. P. (2008). “Deep and raspy” or “high and squeaky”: a cross-linguistic study of voice
perception and voice labeling. Experimental Linguistics:109.
Irons, T. (2007). "On the status of low back vowels in Kentucky English: More evidence of
merger." Language variation and change 19.2: 137.
Johnstone, B. & Kiesling, S. (2008). Indexicality and experience: exploring the meanings of
/aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12.1: 5-33.
93
Johnson, K. (2008). 15 Speaker Normalization in Speech Perception. The handbook of speech
perception, 363.
Jose, B. (2010). The Apparent-Time Construct and Stable Variation: Final /z/ Devoicing in
Northwestern Indiana. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14.1: 34-59.
Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access.
Journal of phonetics, 7.312: 1-26.
Koerner, E. F. K. (1989). On ‘Unrewriting the History of Linguistics’. In Practicing linguistic
historiography: selected essays. 50. John Benjamins Publishing.
Koerner, E. F. K. (Ed.). (1995). Writings in General Linguistics: On Sound Alternation (1881)
and Outline of Linguistic Science (1883). 11. John Benjamins Publishing.
Labov, W. (1972). The social stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores. In W.
Labov (ed.), Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press,
43-54.
Labov, W. (1972). The social motivation of a sound change. In W. Labov (ed.), Sociolinguistic
Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1-41.
Labov, W., Ash, S. & Boberg, C. (2006). Canada. The Atlas of North American English. Berlin,
Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word-Journal of the International
Linguistic Association, 19.3: 273-309.
Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and Diffusion. Language, 83(2), 344-387.
Ladefoged, P. (1980). What are linguistic sounds made of?. Language, 485-502.
Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in Phonetics (5th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
94
Lawson, E., Scobbie, J., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2011). The social stratification of tongue shape for
postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15.2: 256-268.
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of
speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of experimental
psychology, 54.5: 358.
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Kinney, J. A., & Lane, H. (1961). The discrimination of relative
onset-time of the components of certain speech and nonspeech patterns. Journal of
experimental psychology, 61.5: 379.
Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The
role of perceptual contrast. Language, 839-862.
Lobanov, B. M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49.2B: 606-608.
Love, J. & Walker, A. (2013). Football versus football: effect of topic on /r/ realization in
American and English sports fans. Language and Speech, 56.4: 443-460.
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264: 746-748.
Maegaard, M., Jensen, T., Kristiansen, T., & Jorgensen, J. (2013). Diffusion of language change:
accommodation to a moving target. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17.1: 3-36.
Majors, T. (2005). "Low back vowel merger in Missouri speech: Acoustic description and
explanation." American speech 80.2: 165-179.
Meyerhoff, M. (2011). Introducing sociolinguistics. Taylor & Francis.
Miller, C. (2012). Reading in Time: Emily Dickinson in the Nineteenth Century. Univ of
Massachusetts Press.
95
Montgomery, C. (2012). The effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 16.5: 638-668.
Nearey, T. M. (1989). Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85.5: 2088-2113.
Ohala, J. (2012) The listener as a source of sound change: An update. In M-J Solé, & D.
Recasens (Eds.) The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production, and social
factors. 21-36. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24.2: 175-184.
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). lenition and contrast. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic
structure, 45: 137.
Pierrehumbert, J. B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). The
influence of sexual orientation on vowel production (L). The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 116.4: 1905-1908.
Pinker, S. (1999). The language mavens. The Workings of Language: From Prescriptions to
Perspectives, 3-14.
Pisoni, D. B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants
and vowels. Perception & Psychophysics, 13.2: 253-260.
Purnell, T. C. (2008). Prevelar raising and phonetic conditioning: Role of labial and anterior
tongue gestures. American Speech, 83.4: 373-402.
Raphael, L. J. (1972). Preceding Vowel Duration as a Cue to the Perception of the Voicing
Characteristic of Word‐Final Consonants in American English. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 51.4B: 1296-1303.
96
Reed, C. E. (1961). The pronunciation of English in the Pacific Northwest. Language, 559:564.
Riebold, J. M. (2012). Please merge ahead: The vowel space of Pacific Northwestern English.
Abstract for a paper presented at the Northwest Linguistics Conference, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Riebold, J. M. (2015). The Social Distribution of a Regional Change:/æg, ɛg, eg/in Washington
State (Doctoral dissertation).
Robins, R. H. (2013). A short history of linguistics. Routledge.
Rosen, N., & Skriver, C. (2015). Vowel patterning of Mormons in Southern Alberta, Canada.
Language & Communication.
Sharma, D. & Sankaran, L. (2011). Cognitive and social forces in dialect shift: gradual change in
London Asian speech. Language Variation and Change, 23: 399-428.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (2002). The exemplar view. Foundations of cognitive psychology:
Core readings, 277-292.
Solé, M.-J. (2012) Natural and unnatural patterns of sound change. In M-J Solé, & D. Recasens
(Eds.) The initiation of sounds change: Perception, production, and social factors. 123146. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stanford, J. (2008). A sociotonetic analysis of Sui dialect contact. Language Variation and
Change, 20.3: 409-450.
Stanford, J. & Kenny, L. (2013). Revisiting transmission and diffusion: an agent-based model of
vowel chain shifts across large communities. Language Variation and Change, 25: 119153.
97
Stevens, K. N., & Keyser, S. J. (2010). Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of
Phonetics, 38.1: 10-19.
Szakay, A. (2012). Voice quality as a marker of ethnicity in New Zealand: from acoustics to
perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16.3: 382-397.
Trawick-Smith, B. (2011, November 10). What’s with the Western US and Velars? [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://dialectblog.com/2011/11/10/the-western-us-and-velars/.
Wassink, A. B., Squizzero, R., Scanlon, M., Schirra, R., & Conn, J. (2009) Effects of Style and
Gender on Fronting and Raising of/æ/,/e:/and/ε/before/g/in Seattle English.
Wassink, A. B., & Riebold, J. M. (2013). Individual variation and linguistic innovation in the
American Pacific Northwest. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 49) Workshop on Sound
Change Actuation: 18-20.
Wassink, A. B. (2014). Vowel Raising in Washington State: What's the BAG deal? Presented at
the first meeting of the Cascadia Workshop in Sociolinguistics (CWSL). March 1-2, 2014
(U of Victoria).
Wassink, A. B. (2015) Vowel Raising in Washington State: the cat's out of the B(ɛ̝g).
Presentation given as part of the panel, "Western Speech". Annual meeting of the
American Dialect Society, Portland OR
Yu, A. (2013). Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound
change. In A. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: approaches to Phonologization. 201227.
Zeller, C. (1997) "The investigation of a sound change in progress:/æ/to/e/in midwestern
American English." Journal of English linguistics 25.2: 142-155.
98
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game
mechanics in web and mobile apps. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."
99
APPENDIX A: PILOT STUDY STIMULI
ORTHOGRAPHIC
PICTORIAL
exhumation
bag
segment
bagel
protagonist
bagpipe
lab
beggar
mandrake
Craigie Hall
agony
dagger
flake
dragon
pragmatic
egg
magnolia
flag
fable
Pregnant
exit
Jaguar
impregnate
leg
dishrag
magazine
rutabaga
maggot
exile
magnet
pagan
magpie
haggard
nag
Copenhagen
negative
100
break
Niagara (falls)
fragment
Maggie (simpson)
phlegmatic
peg
existential
plague
elect
Raggedy Anne (ragdoll)
flexible
reggae
vague
Megan Fox
wagtail
stag
nutmeg
Clegg (Nick)
blab
tag
hack
magma
negligent
Vegas
exaltation
Viagra
jagged
wag
agriculture
wagon / winnebago
handbag
zigzag
megabyte
stalactite
segregation
stalagmite
jab
mega man
legume
drag
magnitude
Legos
101
Baghdad
Haggis
zigzag
baby
stagger
crab
suspect
cab
braggart
cable
Blake
rabies
diagonal
bacon
apex
bake / bakery
slacken
cake
bootleg
cupcake
Winnebago
Scooby Doo
tag
hay(stack)
undertaker
earthquake
Drake
pancake
lag
rake
reneg
(rattle)snake
regular
steak
vagabond
toothaceh
muskeg
cactus
trachea
(snap, crackle, pop)
eclair
pterodactyl
102
subtract
raccoon
fragrance
axe
gag
raquet
segue
checkers
nag
cheque/paycheque
Lagos
textbook
Tobago
wax
agnostic
tax
hag
yak
quaker
quack
stagette
Legolas
coagulant
(daniel) Craig
integrity
Baggins (bilbo/frodo)
Shaganappi
Ewan McGregor
bake
airplane
eczema
Pythagoras
windbag
Reagan
magnate
carl sagan
gulag
san diego
icebreaker
schwarzaneggar
degradation
Winnipeg
103
thorax
Shaggy
vagary
Quagmire (family guy)
aggravate
Hagrid
excerpt
Jacob (twilight
dab
Beck(ham)
sag
bread
exhortation
gun
legacy
monkey
tobacco
flower
jagged
hamburger
stagnant
unicorn
vagrancy
throne
magnesium
king
flack
bamboo
acrimony
forest/rainforest
Deb
vegetables/salad
fake
machete
The Keg
chili pepper
flex
mail carrier
104
APPENDIX B: SUBJECT QUESTIONAIRRE
Subject Code: ____________________
QUESTIONNAIRE
Questions on this form are optional. Any question you do not wish to answer can be left blank.
1.
Date of Birth?
________________________________
2.
Gender
________________________________
3.
Sexual Orientation
________________________________
4.
What is your highest level of education?
_______________________________
5.
What is your parents’ highest level of education?
________________________________
6.
Where is your home town? (City, Province, Country)
________________________________
7.
Where have you lived? (City, # of years)
__Ex: Athens, Alabama, USA, 10 years_
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
8.
What is your first language(s)?
________________________________
9.
Other Languages Spoken
(list language, rate fluency from 1-3 where 1 = rudimentary and 3 = fluent, and list age learned)
_Ex: French, 3, 6 years______________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
105
12.
Do you consider yourself: (circle)
Rural / Urban
Liberal / Conservative
Family-focused / Friend-focused
12.
Introverted / Extroverted
Tech-savvy / Tech-apathetic
Religious / Nonreligious
Leader / Follower
Thinker / Feeler
Handedness
Left / Right
106
APPENDIX C: CALIBRATION VOWEL WORD LIST
Word
Heed
Hid
Hayed
Hoist
Had
Hud
Hawed
Hide
Hoed
Head
Hood
Who’d
Herd
Hod
How
Hard
Here
Hare
Whore
Vowel
i
ɪ
eɪ
ɔɪ
æ
ʌ
ɑ
aɪ
o / oʊ
ɛ
ʊ
U
ɜ˞
ɑ
aʊ
ɑɹ
ɪɹ
ɛɹ
ɔɹ
107
APPENDIX D: EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI WORD LISTS
Condition Word/Nonword
Number
Shared
Pictorial Word
20
6
Pictorial Nonword
20
6
Total
40
Orthographic Word
20
6
Orthographic Nonword
20
6
40
Auditory - Clear Word
15
6
Auditory – Clear Nonword
15
6
Auditory – Merged Word
15
4
Auditory – Merged Nonword
15
4
Auditory – Mismatched Word
15
4
Auditory – Mismatched Nonword
15
4
90
Total:
Shared Wordlist – Word:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
170
12 (see below)
Shared Wordlist – NonWord:
Egg
Stegosaurus
Dragon
Flag
Shrek
Black
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
108
Bregg (brain + egg)
Snegg (snake + egg)
Dag (dog + flag)
Chag (chair + flag)
Fek (fox + Shrek)
Vack (Vest + Yak)
170
Pictorial Words:
Pictorial Nonwords:
1. Magpie
2. Baggins
3. Hagrid
4. Magnet
5. Jaguar
6. Sandiego
7. Leg
8. Pregnant
9. Legolas
10. Regan
11. Freckle
12. Neck
13. Yak
14. Cactus
Orthographic Words:
1. vag
2. yag
3. skag
4. kag
5. pag
6. negg
7. jegg
8. hegg
9. regg
10. tegg
11. yeck
12. seck
13. dack
14. gak
Orthographic NonWords:
1. Stalagmite
2. Zigzag
3. Plague
4. Magma
5. Dagger
6. Negative
7. Winnipeg
8. Beg
9. Segregate
10. Reggae
11. Wreck
12. Peck
13. Stalactite
14. Attack
1. plag
2. trag
3. vag
4. twag
5. pag
6. deg
7. feg
8. jeg
9. zeg
10. yeg
11. sleck
12. teck
13. chack
14. skack
109
Auditory Words – Clear:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Auditory NonWords – Clear:
Maggot
Haggis
Plague
Mega
Winnipeg
Pregnant
Beg
Peck
Yak
Auditory Words – Merged:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
yag
skag
trag
pag
deg
zeg
yeg
teck
skak
Auditory NonWords – Merged:
1. B_g
2. P_g
3. N_g
4. L_g
5. _g
6. Dr_g
7. St_g
8. Pr_g
9. R_g
10. M_g
11. H_k
12. F_k
13. P_k
14. R_k
15. Bl_k
1. D_g
2. J_g
3. Qu_g
4. Gl_g
5. V_g
6. Y_g
7. Str_g
8. Th_g
9. Sp_g
10. Ch_g
11. F_k
12. G_k
13. V_k
14. Th_k
15. Sw_k
110
Auditory Words – Mismatched:
Word Target
Word Vowel
Replacement
New Word
Vowel
1.
Magpie
æ
ɛ
Mɛgpie
2.
Jaguar
æ
ɛ
Jɛguar
3.
Dragon
æ
ɛ
Drɛgon
4.
Shaggy
æ
ɛ
Shɛggy
5.
Zigzag
æ
ɛ
Zigzɛg
6.
Pregnant
ɛ
æ
Prægnant
7.
Stegosaurus
ɛ
æ
Stægosaurus
8.
Mega
ɛ
æ
Mæga
9.
Winnipeg
ɛ
æ
Winnipæg
10. Keg
ɛ
æ
Kæg
11. Cactus
æ
ɛ
Cɛctus
12. Black
æ
ɛ
Blɛck
13. Freckle
ɛ
æ
Fræckle
14. Crack
æ
ɛ
Crɛck
15. Yak
æ
ɛ
Yɛk
111
Auditory NonWords – Mismatched:
Word Target
Word Vowel
Replacement
New Word
Vowel
1.
vag
æ
ɛ
vɛg
2.
dag
æ
ɛ
dɛg
3.
trag
æ
ɛ
trɛg
4.
yag
æ
ɛ
yɛg
5.
skag
æ
ɛ
skɛg
6.
cheg
ɛ
æ
chæg
7.
yeg
ɛ
æ
yæg
8.
queg
ɛ
æ
quæg
9.
peg
ɛ
æ
pæg
10. theg
ɛ
æ
thæg
11. thak
æ
ɛ
thɛk
12. vak
æ
ɛ
vɛk
13. skak
æ
ɛ
skɛk
14. gek
ɛ
æ
gæk
15. strek
ɛ
æ
stræk
112
APPENDIX E: PLOTS OF ANOVA RESULTS
Main Effects of: Vowel Target
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
ɛ
0.4
Calibration ɛ
0.6
0.8
F1
æ
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration æ
1.8
Main Effects of: Context
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
Before [g]
0.4
Calibration ɛ
0.6
0.8
1
Before [k]
1.2
1.4
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
113
F1
0.8
Main Effects of: Word
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Calibration ɛ
0.2
Words
0.4
0.6
Nonwords
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration æ
1.8
Main Effects of: Merge
F2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
Mergers
0.6
Splitters
0.8
F1
0.7
1
1.2
1.4
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
114
Main Effects of: Order
0.8
0.7
0.6
F2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
OPA
0.4
PAO
Calibration e
AOP
APO
POA
0.6
OAP
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae
1.8
Main Effects of: Order (with Target)
F2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
AOP - ɛ
OPA - ɛ
PAO - ɛ
APO - ɛ
OAP - ɛ
POA - ɛ
0.2
0.4
OPA - æ
Calibration e
0.6
PAO - æ
AOP - æ
APO - æ
0.8
POA - æ
F1
0.9
1
OAP - æ
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae
115
1.8
Two-Way Interactions between Target and
Context
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.2
ɛg
0
0.2
0.4
Calibration ɛ
æg
0.8
F1
0.6
ɛk
1
1.2
1.4
æk
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
Two-Way Interactions between Target and
Merge
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
F2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Splitters' [ɛ]
Mergers' [ɛ]
0.2
0.4
Calibration [ɛ]
0.6
F1
0.8
Mergers' [æ]
Splitters' [æ]
1
1.2
1.4
Calibration [æ]
1.6
1.8
116
Two-Way Interactions between Target
and Word
0.8
0.7
0.6
F2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
Nonwords with [ɛ]
0.4
Calibration [ɛ]
0.8
Words with [ɛ]
1
Words with [æ]
F1
0.6
Nonwords with [æ]
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration [æ]
1.8
Two-Way Interactions between Context
and Merge
F2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
[_g] Merger
0.2
[_g] Splitter
0.4
0.6
0.8
F1
0.9
1
[_k] Splitter
[_k] Merger
1.2
1.4
Calibration æ
1.6
1.8
117
Two-way Interactions between Context and
Word
0.8
0.7
0.6
F2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Words that end in g
Nonwords that end in
g
Calibration e
0.2
0.4
0.6
F1
0.8
1
Nonwords that end in
1.2
k
Words
that end in k
1.4
Calibration ae
1.6
1.8
TwoWay interaction between Stimulus Type
and Word
F2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Calibration [ɛ]
0.2
Auditory Nonwords
0.4
Orthographic Words
Auditory Words
Pictorial Words Orthographic
Pictorial Nonwords
Nonwords
0.6
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Calibration ae
1.6
1.8
118
Three-way Interaction between StimType,
Target, and Context
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.5
Orthographic [ɛg]
Auditory [ɛg]
0
Auditory [æg]
Pictorial [ɛg]
Calibration ɛ
0.5
F1
Auditory [ɛk]
Pictorial [æg]
Orthographic [ɛk]
Orthographic [æg]
Pictorial [ɛk]
1
Orthographic [æk]
Auditory [æk]
1.5
Pictorial [æk]
Calibration æ
2
Three-way Interaction between StimType,
Target, and Word
0.7
0.6
0.5
Auditory W [ɛ]
Auditory NW [ɛe]
Pictorial W [ɛ]
Orthographic W [ɛ]
Pictorianl NW [ɛ]
Orthographic NW [ɛ]
Calibration ɛ
F2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
Auditory NonWord [æ]
Pictorial Word [æ]
Pictorial Nonword [æ]
0.2
0.6
Orthographic Word [æ]
Auditory Word [æ]
Orthographic Nonword
[æ]
0.8
F1
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Calibration ae1.8
119
Three-way Interactions between Target,
Context, and Merge
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
F2
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.5
ɛgM
ɛgS
0
aegM
0.5
Calibration ɛ
ɛkM
F1
ægS
ɛkS
1
aekS
1.5
aekM
Calibration ae
2
Three-way interactions between Stimtype,
Context, and Word
F2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Auditory Words [_g]
Orthographic Words [_g]
Pictorial Words [_g]
Auditory NonWords [_g]
0.2
0.4
0.6
Calibration ɛ
Pictorial Nonwords [_g]
F1
0.8
Auditory Nonwords [_k]
Pictorial Nonwords [_k]
Auditory Words [_k]
1
Orthographic Words [_k]
1.2
Pictorial Words [_k]
1.4
Orthographic Nonwords [_k]
1.6
1.8
Calibration ae
120
Three-way Interactions between Target,
Context, and Word
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.5
Word [ɛg]
0
Nonwords [ɛg]
Nonwords [ɛk]
Calibration ɛ
Words [æg]
0.5
Nonwords [æg]
F1
0.9
F2
0.4
1
Words [ɛk]
Words [æk]
1.5
Nonwords [æk]
Calibration æ
2
121
APPENDIX F: POST HOC RESULTS
Post hoc testing of the Analysis of Variance of the normalized score at 50% of the
Calibration [ɛ], of the non-[œ] stimuli, as influenced by
StimType:Target:Context:Word:Merge
Main Effect: StimType
diff
lwr
upr
p (adjusted)
O-A 0.08337593 0.01526796 0.1514839
0.0115068
P-A 0.09575212 0.0274172
0.16408704 0.002962
P-O 0.01237619 -0.05680438 0.08155677 0.9075402
Main Effect: Target
diff
e-ae -0.1591878
lwr
-0.2056059
Main Effect: Context
diff
lwr
k-g
0.448036
0.4011005
Main Effect: Word
diff
W-NW
0.1375615
upr
-0.1127697
p (adjusted)
0
upr
0.4949715
p (adjusted)
0
lwr
0.09078881
upr
0.1843342
p (adjusted)
0
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Context
diff
lwr
ae:k-ae:g
0.76050616 0.67731523
e:k-e:g
0.15469208 0.07288201
e:k-ae:k
-0.58683142 -0.68367482
upr
0.8436971
0.23650214
-0.489
p (adjusted)
0
0.0000074
0
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Word
diff
lwr
e:NW-ae:NW -0.24925665 -0.33062064
ae:W-ae:NW 0.06413977 -0.02212835
e:W-e:NW
0.23681741 0.15165063
e:W-ae:W
-0.07657901 -0.16644264
upr
-0.16789265
0.1504079
0.32198419
0.01328461
p(adjusted)
0
0.2233932
0
0.1260187
122
Two-Way Interaction: Context:Word
diff
lwr
k:NW-g:NW 0.40814003 0.32423072
g:W-g:NW
0.09648346 0.02773386
k:W-k:NW 0.16959594 0.06810373
k:W-g:W
0.48125251 0.39188582
upr
0.4920493
0.1652331
0.2710882
0.5706192
p(adjusted)
0
0.0017914
0.0001068
0
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Merge
diff
lwr
e:M-ae:M
-0.07808959 -0.16407133
ae:S-ae:M
0.1080304
0.02233037
e:S-e:M
-0.05355878 -0.13954052
e:S-ae:S
-0.23967877 -0.3253788
upr
0.007892156
0.193730431
0.032422963
-0.153978743
p(adjusted)
0.0905102
0.0066338
0.3779186
0
Three-way Interaction: StimType:Target:Context
diff
lwr
upr
O:ae:g-A:ae:g 0.185571926 0.055573565 0.315570286
A:e:g-A:ae:g 0.128183534 0.012992976 0.243374092
A:ae:k-A:ae:g 0.902681515 0.741941531 1.063421498
P:ae:k-P:ae:g 0.790179769 0.608468421 0.971891117
O:ae:k-O:ae:g 0.628157679 0.445274201 0.811041156
O:e:k-O:e:g 0.338715333 0.159062125 0.518368540
P:e:k-P:e:g
0.197838625 0.016001220 0.379676030
A:e:k-A:ae:k -0.715916866 -0.893929371 -0.537904362
O:e:k-O:ae:k -0.425917280 -0.639486150 -0.212348410
P:e:k-P:ae:k -0.559897272 -0.773466142 -0.346328402
O:e:k-A:e:k 0.201047676 0.014189497 0.387905856
P:e:g-A:ae:g 0.139438691 0.009268316 0.269609066
O:ae:k-A:ae:g 0.813729605 0.641999739 0.985459471
P:ae:k-A:ae:g 0.897174588 0.725444722 1.068904454
A:e:k-A:ae:g 0.186764648 0.049668098 0.323861198
O:e:k-A:ae:g 0.387812324 0.217328103 0.558296546
P:e:k-A:ae:g 0.337277316 0.166793094 0.507761537
A:ae:k-O:ae:g 0.717109589 0.544504370 0.889714807
P:ae:k-O:ae:g 0.711602662 0.528719185 0.894486139
O:e:k-O:ae:g 0.202240399 0.020526092 0.383954705
A:ae:k-P:ae:g 0.795686695 0.624323895 0.967049495
O:ae:k-P:ae:g 0.706734786 0.525023438 0.888446133
O:e:k-P:ae:g 0.280817505 0.100282919 0.461352091
123
p(adjusted)
0.0002000
0.0146819
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0195210
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0223528
0.0235609
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0005370
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0146541
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000251
P:e:k-P:ae:g
A:ae:k-A:e:g
O:ae:k-A:e:g
P:ae:k-A:e:g
O:e:k-A:e:g
P:e:k-A:e:g
A:ae:k-O:e:g
O:ae:k-O:e:g
P:ae:k-O:e:g
P:e:k-O:e:g
A:ae:k-P:e:g
O:ae:k-P:e:g
P:ae:k-P:e:g
O:e:k-P:e:g
O:e:k-A:ae:k
P:e:k-A:ae:k
A:e:k-O:ae:k
P:e:k-O:ae:k
A:e:k-P:ae:k
O:e:k-P:ae:k
diff
lwr
upr
0.230282497 0.049747911 0.410817083
0.774497980 0.612751721 0.936244240
0.685546071 0.512873962 0.858218179
0.768991054 0.596318945 0.941663163
0.259628790 0.088195480 0.431062101
0.209093782 0.037660471 0.380527092
0.853584523 0.683150525 1.024018520
0.764632613 0.583796908 0.945468318
0.848077596 0.667241891 1.028913301
0.288180324 0.108527116 0.467833531
0.763242824 0.590508015 0.935977633
0.674290914 0.491285124 0.857296704
0.757735897 0.574730108 0.940741687
0.248373634 0.066536229 0.430211039
-0.514869190 -0.719705362 -0.310033018
-0.565404199 -0.770240371 -0.360568027
-0.626964957 -0.814960320 -0.438969593
-0.476452289 -0.690021159 -0.262883419
-0.710409940 -0.898405303 -0.522414577
-0.509362263 -0.722931133 -0.295793393
p(adjusted)
0.0018509
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000497
0.0039148
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000109
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0005090
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Three-way Interaction: StimType:Target:Word
diff
lwr
upr
O:ae:NW-A:ae:NW 0.2074225577 0.049595841 0.365249274
O:e:NW-O:ae:NW -0.3737406325 -0.563804995 -0.183676271
P:e:NW-P:ae:NW -0.3050081136 -0.490003179 -0.120013048
O:e:W-O:e:NW 0.2277594586 0.041832422 0.413686495
P:e:W-P:e:NW 0.3503885835 0.160013811 0.540763356
O:e:NW-A:ae:NW -0.1663180748 -0.330057379 -0.002578770
O:ae:W-A:ae:NW 0.1696502532 0.005186820 0.334113686
P:e:W-A:ae:NW 0.1952911444 0.031191625 0.359390664
A:e:NW-O:ae:NW -0.2717179284 -0.429544645 -0.113891212
P:e:NW-O:ae:NW -0.3625199968 -0.547515062 -0.177524931
A:e:W-O:ae:NW -0.1976537529 -0.387718115 -0.007589391
A:e:NW-P:ae:NW -0.2142060451 -0.372032761 -0.056379329
O:e:NW-P:ae:NW -0.3162287493 -0.506293111 -0.126164387
A:ae:W-A:e:NW 0.2243102116 0.033740022 0.414880401
O:ae:W-A:e:NW 0.2339456239 0.069482191 0.398409057
124
p(adjusted)
0.0010777
0.0000000
0.0000049
0.0036518
0.0000001
0.0426057
0.0361567
0.0057302
0.0000013
0.0000000
0.0330867
0.0005787
0.0000038
0.0067523
0.0002161
P:ae:W-A:e:NW
P:e:W-A:e:NW
A:ae:W-O:e:NW
O:ae:W-O:e:NW
P:ae:W-O:e:NW
P:e:W-O:e:NW
A:ae:W-P:e:NW
O:ae:W-P:e:NW
P:ae:W-P:e:NW
O:e:W-P:e:NW
diff
lwr
upr
0.2237461547 0.062762192 0.384730118
0.2595865150 0.095486996 0.423686034
0.3263329158 0.108314140 0.544351691
0.3359683280 0.140357975 0.531578681
0.3257688589 0.133074734 0.518462983
0.3616092192 0.166304735 0.556913703
0.3151122801 0.101498378 0.528726182
0.3247476923 0.134059144 0.515436241
0.3145482232 0.126852357 0.502244089
0.2165388229 0.035797086 0.397280560
Three-way Interaction: StimType:Context:Word
diff
lwr
upr
A:k:NW-A:g:NW 0.374187855 2.459325e-01 0.50244325
O:k:NW-O:g:NW 0.584491000 3.823758e-01 0.78660619
P:k:NW-P:g:NW 0.387546284 1.982481e-01 0.57684451
O:k:NW-A:k:NW 0.229860320 2.570968e-02 0.43401096
P:k:W-P:k:NW 0.311225911 8.619120e-02 0.53626062
A:k:W-A:g:W 0.469940442 2.574537e-01 0.68242717
O:k:W-O:g:W 0.394700570 2.118778e-01 0.57752329
P:k:W-P:g:W 0.592903704 3.990040e-01 0.78680345
O:k:NW-A:g:NW 0.604048176 4.170381e-01 0.79105827
P:k:NW-A:g:NW 0.411672092 2.385940e-01 0.58475022
A:k:W-A:g:NW 0.526143923 3.391338e-01 0.71315401
O:k:W-A:g:NW 0.510774606 3.473138e-01 0.67423542
P:k:W-A:g:NW 0.722898003 5.484580e-01 0.89733801
A:k:NW-O:g:NW 0.354630680 2.052077e-01 0.50405365
P:k:NW-O:g:NW 0.392114916 2.028167e-01 0.58141314
A:k:W-O:g:NW 0.506586747 3.044716e-01 0.70870194
O:k:W-O:g:NW 0.491217430 3.106704e-01 0.67176442
P:k:W-O:g:NW 0.703340827 5.127966e-01 0.89388503
A:k:NW-P:g:NW 0.350062047 2.006391e-01 0.49948502
O:k:NW-P:g:NW 0.579922368 3.778072e-01 0.78203756
A:k:W-P:g:NW 0.502018115 2.999029e-01 0.70413331
O:k:W-P:g:NW 0.486648798 3.061018e-01 0.66719578
P:k:W-P:g:NW 0.698772195 5.082280e-01 0.88931640
A:g:W-A:k:NW -0.317984375 -4.811631e-01 -0.15480569
O:g:W-A:k:NW -0.258113819 -4.102787e-01 -0.10594891
125
p(adjusted)
0.0003557
0.0000160
0.0000664
0.0000014
0.0000023
0.0000001
0.0000942
0.0000018
0.0000030
0.0051767
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0125820
0.0003944
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000021
diff
lwr
upr
P:g:W-A:k:NW -0.244193556 -3.978726e-01 -0.09051453
P:k:W-A:k:NW 0.348710148 1.560082e-01 0.54141206
A:g:W-O:k:NW -0.547844695 -7.603314e-01 -0.33535797
O:g:W-O:k:NW -0.487974140 -6.921248e-01 -0.28382350
P:g:W-O:k:NW -0.474053877 -6.793356e-01 -0.26877220
A:g:W-P:k:NW -0.355468611 -5.558030e-01 -0.15513420
O:g:W-P:k:NW -0.295598056 -4.870680e-01 -0.10412808
P:g:W-P:k:NW -0.281677793 -4.743533e-01 -0.08900233
O:k:W-A:g:W 0.454571125 2.624845e-01 0.64665775
P:k:W-A:g:W 0.666694522 4.651824e-01 0.86820669
A:k:W-O:g:W 0.410069887 2.059192e-01 0.61422053
P:k:W-O:g:W 0.606823967 4.141221e-01 0.79952588
A:k:W-P:g:W 0.396149624 1.908679e-01 0.60143131
O:k:W-P:g:W 0.380780307 1.966955e-01 0.56486516
p(adjusted)
0.0000141
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000005
0.0000305
0.0001164
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Three-way Interaction: Target:Context:Word
diff
lwr
upr
ae:k:NW-ae:g:NW 0.813473615 0.69408726 0.93285997
e:g:W-e:g:NW 0.132284944 0.03106842 0.23350147
e:k:NW-ae:k:NW -0.732678343 -0.87200774 -0.59334895
e:k:W-e:k:NW 0.308341633 0.16528850 0.45139477
ae:k:W-ae:g:W 0.752940758 0.60509587 0.90078564
e:k:W-e:g:W
0.266240844 0.13330356 0.39917813
e:k:W-ae:k:W -0.414596331 -0.57719467 -0.25199799
e:g:W-ae:g:NW 0.122896061 0.02368165 0.22211048
ae:k:W-ae:g:NW 0.803733236 0.66731697 0.94014950
e:k:W-ae:g:NW 0.389136905 0.26542506 0.51284875
ae:k:NW-e:g:NW 0.822862498 0.70180720 0.94391780
ae:k:W-e:g:NW 0.813122119 0.67524288 0.95100136
e:k:W-e:g:NW 0.398525788 0.27320258 0.52384899
ae:g:W-ae:k:NW -0.762681137 -0.89497555 -0.63038672
e:g:W-ae:k:NW -0.690577554 -0.81949924 -0.56165586
e:k:W-ae:k:NW -0.424336710 -0.57293659 -0.27573683
ae:k:W-e:k:NW 0.722937964 0.56876606 0.87710987
e:k:W-ae:g:W 0.338344427 0.20213381 0.47455504
ae:k:W-e:g:W 0.680837175 0.53600244 0.82567191
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0019330
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0043508
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
126
Three-way Interaction: Target:Context:Merge
diff
lwr
e:g:M-ae:g:M
0.133066721 0.02475167
ae:k:M-ae:g:M
0.827769288 0.68915194
ae:g:S-ae:g:M
0.147509323 0.0404527
e:k:M-ae:k:M
-0.581147576 -0.7423237
e:k:S-e:k:M
0.002207789 -0.15601072
ae:k:S-ae:g:S
0.693751124 0.55590512
e:k:S-e:g:S
0.195606755 0.05973215
e:k:S-ae:k:S
-0.592430947 -0.75308748
upr
0.24138177
0.96638663
0.25456595
-0.41997146
0.1604263
0.83159712
0.33148136
-0.43177441
p(adjusted)
0.0048958
0
0.0007937
0
1
0
0.0003506
0
Post hoc testing of the Analysis of Variance of the normalized score at 50% of the
Calibration [æ], of the non-[œ] stimuli, as influenced by
StimType:Target:Context:Word:Merge
Main Effect: Target
diff
lwr
upr
p(adjusted)
e-ae
0.4762357
0.4137821
0.5386892
0
Main Effect: Context
diff
k-g
-0.7919444
lwr
-0.854333
upr
-0.7295558
p(adjusted)
0
Main Effect: Word
diff
W-NW
0.1536749
lwr
0.08802312
upr
0.2193266
p(adjusted)
4.70E-06
Main Effect: Merge
diff
S-M
-0.4023558
lwr
-0.4657429
upr
-0.3389688
p(adjusted)
0
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Context
diff
lwr
e:g-ae:g
0.5607509
0.4759516
ae:k-ae:g
-0.6968537 -0.8052571
e:k-ae:g
-0.3489462 -0.4548806
ae:k-e:g
-1.2576046 -1.3666626
e:k-e:g
-0.9096971 -1.0163012
e:k-ae:k
0.3479075
0.2217139
upr
0.6455502
-0.5884503
-0.2430119
-1.1485466
-0.8030931
0.474101
p(adjusted)
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
Two-Way Interaction: StimType:Word
diff
lwr
A:W-O:NW 0.22166738 0.043372
O:W-O:NW 0.25651325 0.09091575
P:W-O:NW 0.23292061 0.06405554
upr
p(adjusted)
0.39996277 0.0053465
0.42211076 0.0001519
0.40178567 0.0012095
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Merge
diff
lwr
e:M-ae:M
0.32621374 0.21522474
ae:S-ae:M
-0.55017197 -0.66079732
e:S-ae:M
0.07398338 -0.03690087
ae:S-e:M
-0.8763857 -0.98711605
e:S-e:M
-0.25223036 -0.36321936
e:S-ae:S
0.62415534 0.51353
upr
0.4372027
-0.4395466
0.1848676
-0.7656554
-0.1412414
0.7347807
p(adjusted)
0
0
0.3157889
0
0
0
Two-Way Interaction: Context:Merge
diff
lwr
k:M-g:M
-0.9369165 -1.0470297
g:S-g:M
-0.4923986 -0.5791384
k:S-g:M
-1.1404365 -1.2503211
g:S-k:M
0.4445179
0.3345214
k:S-k:M
-0.20352
-0.3325551
k:S-g:S
-0.6480379 -0.7578056
upr
-0.82680333
-0.40565876
-1.03055196
0.55451448
-0.07448489
-0.53827028
p(adjusted)
0
0
0
0
0.0003026
0
Three-Way Interaction: Stimtype:Target:Context
diff
lwr
upr
A:e:g-A:ae:g 0.63274487 0.448526785 0.816962956
O:e:g-A:ae:g 0.53754167 0.357083327 0.718000007
P:e:g-A:ae:g 0.55785722 0.373639136 0.742075308
A:ae:k-A:ae:g -0.752831
-0.987317131 -0.518344865
O:ae:k-A:ae:g -0.56737003 -0.803429303 -0.331310754
P:ae:k-A:ae:g -0.72620036 -0.962259639 -0.49014109
A:e:k-A:ae:g -0.27839965 -0.500613763 -0.056185532
O:e:k-A:ae:g -0.44255484 -0.677040973 -0.208068707
P:e:k-A:ae:g -0.29242819 -0.526914326 -0.057942061
A:e:g-O:ae:g 0.69162131 0.501116014 0.88212661
O:e:g-O:ae:g 0.59641811 0.409546018 0.783290198
P:e:g-O:ae:g 0.61673366 0.426228365 0.807238961
A:ae:k-O:ae:g -0.69395456 -0.933411676 -0.454497438
128
p(adjusted)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0025263
0.0000001
0.0027288
0
0
0
0
O:ae:k-O:ae:g
P:ae:k-O:ae:g
O:e:k-O:ae:g
A:e:g-P:ae:g
O:e:g-P:ae:g
P:e:g-P:ae:g
A:ae:k-P:ae:g
O:ae:k-P:ae:g
P:ae:k-P:ae:g
A:e:k-P:ae:g
O:e:k-P:ae:g
P:e:k-P:ae:g
A:ae:k-A:e:g
O:ae:k-A:e:g
P:ae:k-A:e:g
A:e:k-A:e:g
O:e:k-A:e:g
P:e:k-A:e:g
A:ae:k-O:e:g
O:ae:k-O:e:g
P:ae:k-O:e:g
A:e:k-O:e:g
O:e:k-O:e:g
P:e:k-O:e:g
A:ae:k-P:e:g
O:ae:k-P:e:g
P:ae:k-P:e:g
A:e:k-P:e:g
O:e:k-P:e:g
P:e:k-P:e:g
A:e:k-A:ae:k
O:e:k-A:ae:k
P:e:k-A:ae:k
A:e:k-O:ae:k
A:e:k-P:ae:k
O:e:k-P:ae:k
P:e:k-P:ae:k
diff
-0.50849359
-0.66732392
-0.3836784
0.53256953
0.43736633
0.45768188
-0.85300634
-0.66754537
-0.8263757
-0.37857499
-0.54273018
-0.39260353
-1.38557587
-1.2001149
-1.35894524
-0.91114452
-1.07529971
-0.92517306
-1.29037266
-1.1049117
-1.26374203
-0.81594131
-0.98009651
-0.82996986
-1.31068822
-1.12522725
-1.28405759
-0.83625687
-1.00041206
-0.85028542
0.47443135
0.31027616
0.4604028
0.28897038
0.44780072
0.28364552
0.43377217
lwr
-0.749491402
-0.908321738
-0.623135518
0.344022013
0.252490488
0.269134365
-1.090908859
-0.906998588
-1.065828923
-0.604391232
-0.780632701
-0.630506055
-1.625195204
-1.441273893
-1.600104229
-1.138768753
-1.314919045
-1.164792399
-1.527113736
-1.343211023
-1.502041359
-1.040533615
-1.216837578
-1.066710932
-1.550307555
-1.366386244
-1.52521658
-1.063881104
-1.240031397
-1.08990475
0.204504999
0.030160345
0.180286991
0.017676315
0.176506651
0.002211512
0.152338158
upr
-0.267495773
-0.426326109
-0.14422128
0.721117052
0.622242169
0.646229403
-0.615103813
-0.428092146
-0.586922482
-0.15275874
-0.304827655
-0.154701009
-1.145956534
-0.958955906
-1.117786242
-0.683520284
-0.835680376
-0.68555373
-1.053631593
-0.866612368
-1.025442704
-0.591349014
-0.743355435
-0.593228789
-1.071068885
-0.884068257
-1.042898593
-0.608632635
-0.760792727
-0.610666081
0.744357702
0.590391972
0.740518618
0.560264447
0.719094782
0.565079537
0.715206184
129
p(adjusted)
0
0
0.0000113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000003
0
0.0000048
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000007
0.0155924
0.0000055
0.0251952
0.0000048
0.0461858
0.000032
Three-Way Interaction: Stimtype:Target:Word
diff
lwr
A:e:NW-A:ae:NW 0.544280113 0.32031333
O:e:NW-A:ae:NW 0.428901487 0.19137891
P:e:NW-A:ae:NW
0.407562932 0.17757201
A:e:W-A:ae:NW
0.535302726 0.29778015
O:e:W-A:ae:NW
0.505054717 0.28141465
P:e:W-A:ae:NW
0.636877451 0.39889493
A:e:NW-O:ae:NW 0.710418952 0.46415479
O:e:NW-O:ae:NW 0.595040326 0.33638632
P:e:NW-O:ae:NW
0.573701772 0.32194645
O:ae:W-O:ae:NW
0.374010823 0.11450738
A:e:W-O:ae:NW
0.701441565 0.44278756
O:e:W-O:ae:NW
0.671193557 0.42522649
P:e:W-O:ae:NW
0.80301629 0.54393986
A:e:NW-P:ae:NW
0.465682581 0.21941841
O:e:NW-P:ae:NW
0.350303954 0.09164995
P:e:NW-P:ae:NW
0.3289654
0.07721008
A:e:W-P:ae:NW
0.456705193 0.19805119
O:e:W-P:ae:NW
0.426457185 0.18049012
P:e:W-P:ae:NW
0.558279919 0.29920348
A:ae:W-A:e:NW
-0.50375982 -0.78971953
O:ae:W-A:e:NW
-0.336408129 -0.59058786
P:ae:W-A:e:NW
-0.468612141 -0.7186325
A:ae:W-O:e:NW
-0.388381194 -0.68507769
P:ae:W-O:e:NW
-0.353233515 -0.6154663
A:ae:W-P:e:NW
-0.36704264 -0.65774464
P:ae:W-P:e:NW
-0.331894961 -0.58732574
A:e:W-A:ae:W
0.494782433 0.19808594
O:e:W-A:ae:W
0.464534424 0.17883053
P:e:W-A:ae:W
0.596357158 0.29929233
A:e:W-O:ae:W
0.327430742 0.06122933
O:e:W-O:ae:W
0.297182733 0.04329084
P:e:W-O:ae:W
0.429005467 0.16239359
A:e:W-P:ae:W
0.459634754 0.19740197
O:e:W-P:ae:W
0.429386746 0.17965902
P:e:W-P:ae:W
0.56120948 0.29856002
130
upr
0.7682469
0.66642407
0.63755385
0.77282531
0.72869479
0.87485997
0.95668312
0.85369433
0.82545709
0.63351427
0.96009557
0.91716063
1.06209273
0.71194675
0.60895796
0.58072072
0.7153592
0.67242425
0.81735635
-0.21780011
-0.0822284
-0.21859178
-0.0916847
-0.09100073
-0.07634063
-0.07646419
0.79147892
0.75023831
0.89342199
0.59363215
0.55107463
0.69561735
0.72186754
0.67911447
0.82385894
p(adjusted)
0
0.0000003
0.0000005
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0001621
0
0
0
0
0.0006057
0.0012025
0.0000006
0.000001
0
0.0000006
0.0009469
0.0000001
0.0011636
0.0006741
0.0022139
0.0013332
0.0000035
0.0000075
0
0.0034242
0.007334
0.00001
0.0000007
0.0000014
0
Three-Way Interaction: Target:Context:Merge
diff
lwr
e:g:M-ae:g:M
0.32970864 0.19783431
ae:k:M-ae:g:M
-0.97780128 -1.14656887
e:k:M-ae:g:M
-0.58686229 -0.75142909
ae:g:S-ae:g:M
-0.71746302 -0.84780521
ae:k:S-ae:g:M
-1.13526636 -1.30329798
e:k:S-ae:g:M
-0.83137458 -0.99594138
ae:k:M-e:g:M
-1.30750991 -1.47726274
e:k:M-e:g:M
-0.91657093 -1.08214796
ae:g:S-e:g:M
-1.04717166 -1.17878704
e:g:S-e:g:M
-0.25754246 -0.3904903
ae:k:S-e:g:M
-1.46497499 -1.63399614
e:k:S-e:g:M
-1.16108322 -1.32666025
e:k:M-ae:k:M
0.39093899 0.19470593
ae:g:S-ae:k:M
0.26033825 0.09177292
e:g:S-ae:k:M
1.04996745 0.88035971
e:g:S-e:k:M
0.65902847 0.49360018
ae:k:S-e:k:M
-0.54840406 -0.74400452
e:k:S-e:k:M
-0.24451229 -0.43714444
e:g:S-ae:g:S
0.7896292
0.65820099
ae:k:S-ae:g:S
-0.41780333 -0.5856318
ae:k:S-e:g:S
-1.20743253 -1.37630797
e:k:S-e:g:S
-0.90354076 -1.06896905
e:k:S-ae:k:S
0.30389177 0.10829132
131
upr
0.46158296
-0.80903369
-0.4222955
-0.58712083
-0.96723474
-0.66680779
-1.13775709
-0.7509939
-0.91555627
-0.12459462
-1.29595384
-0.99550619
0.58717204
0.42890358
1.2195752
0.82445676
-0.35280361
-0.05188015
0.92105741
-0.24997486
-1.03855709
-0.73811247
0.49949223
p(adjusted)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000001
0
0
0
0.0000806
0
0
0
0.0030457
0
0
0
0
0.0000705
Post hoc testing of the Analysis of Variance of the normalized score at 50% of the
Calibration [ɛ], of the auditory stimuli, including [œ], as influenced by:
Target:Context:Word:Merge:Label
Label
Notation
A
[æ]
E
[ɛ]
se
Switched ɛ
sa
Switched æ
_
Neutral
Fa
Neutral (word forms with æ)
Fe
Neutral (word forms with ɛ)
Fb
Both (word forms with both æ and ɛ)
Main Effect: Target
diff
ae-_
-0.12822532
e-_
-0.20495711
e-ae
-0.07673178
lwr
-0.2001949
-0.2748744
-0.1478432
upr
-0.056255782
-0.135039766
-0.005620351
p(adjusted)
0.0000913
0.0000000
0.0307692
Main Effect: Context
diff
k-g
0.2422242
lwr
0.1907012
upr
0.2937473
p(adjusted)
Main Effect: Word
diff
W-NW
0.02012197
lwr
upr
-0.04560166 0.0858456
Main Effect: Label
diff
e-a
-0.11363199
fa-a 0.06341507
fb-a -0.01929093
fe-a 0.02075313
oe-a 0.20259579
sa-a -0.04245673
se-a -0.04017165
fa-e 0.17704706
fb-e 0.09434105
fe-e 0.13438511
lwr
-0.22326455
-0.15294431
-0.16628789
-0.23641199
0.08772616
-0.19583393
-0.17017775
-0.03985025
-0.05344652
-0.12323274
upr
-0.003999417
0.279774454
0.127706021
0.277918240
0.317465415
0.110920474
0.089834452
0.393944369
0.242128623
0.392002963
132
0
p(adjusted)
0.5482414
p(adjusted)
0.0359183
0.9870240
0.9999267
0.9999974
0.0000028
0.9907708
0.9823304
0.2058434
0.5251444
0.7605303
oe-e
sa-e
se-e
fb-fa
fe-fa
oe-fa
sa-fa
se-fa
fe-fb
oe-fb
sa-fb
se-fb
oe-fe
0.31622777
0.07117526
0.07346034
-0.08270600
-0.04266194
0.13918071
-0.10587180
-0.10358672
0.04004406
0.22188672
-0.02316580
-0.02088072
0.18184266
diff
sa-fe -0.06320985
se-fe -0.06092477
sa-oe -0.24505251
se-oe -0.24276743
se-sa 0.00228508
0.20034812
-0.08295984
-0.05743904
-0.32068342
-0.36071703
-0.08041021
-0.34784227
-0.33146109
-0.23555667
0.07017351
-0.20577585
-0.18435381
-0.07804710
lwr
-0.34226580
-0.32785031
-0.40295552
-0.37808328
-0.16694823
0.432107420
0.225310352
0.204359716
0.155271407
0.275393144
0.358771642
0.136098674
0.124287654
0.315644787
0.373599926
0.159444259
0.142592377
0.441732421
upr
0.215846095
0.206000764
-0.087149509
-0.107451585
0.171518391
Two-Way Interaction: Target:Context
diff
lwr
upr
ae:g-_:g
-0.37849900 -0.47141182 -0.28558617
e:g-_:g
-0.25401402 -0.34781315 -0.16021490
_:k-_:g
-0.07674478 -0.19200335 0.03851380
ae:k-_:g
0.52559806 0.39472292 0.65647320
e:k-_:g
-0.18815686 -0.29922688 -0.07708684
e:g-ae:g
0.12448497 0.03197655 0.21699339
_:k-ae:g
0.30175422 0.18754358 0.41596486
ae:k-ae:g
0.90409706 0.77414386 1.03405026
e:k-ae:g
0.19034214 0.08035995 0.30032432
_:k-e:g
0.17726925 0.06233642 0.29220207
ae:k-e:g
0.77961209 0.64902374 0.91020044
e:k-e:g
0.06585717 -0.04487478 0.17658911
ae:k-_:k
0.60234284 0.45557915 0.74910653
e:k-_:k
-0.11141208 -0.24082548 0.01800131
e:k-ae:k
-0.71375492 -0.85725262 -0.57025722
Two-way Interaction: Context:Label
133
0.0000000
0.8568124
0.6852222
0.9656986
0.9999150
0.5346786
0.8882971
0.8666374
0.9998543
0.0002591
0.9999417
0.9999390
0.4000006
p(adjusted)
0.9973283
0.9971964
0.0000733
0.0000017
1.0000000
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.4025443
0.0000000
0.0000217
0.0017819
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000129
0.0001672
0.0000000
0.5339674
0.0000000
0.1379672
0.0000000
k:a-g:a
g:e-g:a
k:e-g:a
g:fa-g:a
k:fa-g:a
g:fb-g:a
k:fb-g:a
g:fe-g:a
k:fe-g:a
g:oe-g:a
k:oe-g:a
g:sa-g:a
k:sa-g:a
g:se-g:a
k:se-g:a
g:e-k:a
k:e-k:a
g:fa-k:a
k:fa-k:a
g:fb-k:a
k:fb-k:a
g:fe-k:a
k:fe-k:a
g:oe-k:a
k:oe-k:a
g:sa-k:a
k:sa-k:a
g:se-k:a
k:se-k:a
k:e-g:e
g:fa-g:e
k:fa-g:e
g:fb-g:e
k:fb-g:e
g:fe-g:e
k:fe-g:e
g:oe-g:e
diff
lwr
upr
0.855385614 0.685726721 1.02504451
0.144831536 0.012151093 0.27751198
0.103722739 -0.056377510 0.26382299
0.285372119 0.020935571 0.54980867
0.350464311 -0.007602672 0.70853129
0.215291399 0.032729201 0.39785360
0.240453836 0.017404480 0.46350319
0.264816956 0.003641891 0.52599202
NA
NA
NA
0.505862187 0.366353114 0.64537126
0.338403485 0.168744592 0.50806238
0.030580943 -0.138505045 0.19966693
diff
lwr
upr
1.268005507 0.900213807 1.63579721
0.111996043 -0.047668405 0.27166049
0.363434089 0.167953552 0.55891463
-0.710554078 -0.883650894 -0.53745726
-0.751662875 -0.946574388 -0.55675136
-0.570013495 -0.856867283 -0.28315971
-0.504921303 -0.879848459 -0.12999415
-0.640094215 -0.853840242 -0.42634819
-0.614931778 -0.864149400 -0.36571416
-0.590568658 -0.874418658 -0.30671866
NA
NA
NA
-0.349523427 -0.527908374 -0.17113848
-0.516982129 -0.719818388 -0.31414587
-0.824804671 -1.027161977 -0.62244737
0.412619893 0.028394513 0.79684527
-0.743389571 -0.937943275 -0.54883587
-0.491951525 -0.716831601 -0.26707145
-0.041108796 -0.204847789 0.12263020
0.140540584 -0.126114729 0.40719590
0.205632775 -0.154075901 0.56534145
0.070459864 -0.115301607 0.25622133
0.095622301 -0.130053092 0.32129769
0.119985421 -0.143435882 0.38340672
NA
NA
NA
0.361030651 0.217360372 0.50470093
134
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0172482
0.6805157
0.0200833
0.0627209
0.0055047
0.0203637
0.0429024
NA
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.9999996
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.5423601
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0004601
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
NA
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0214081
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.9999705
0.9133891
0.8458736
0.9958620
0.9871081
0.9744457
NA
0.0000000
k:oe-g:e
g:sa-g:e
k:sa-g:e
g:se-g:e
k:se-g:e
g:fa-k:e
k:fa-k:e
g:fb-k:e
k:fb-k:e
g:fe-k:e
k:fe-k:e
g:oe-k:e
k:oe-k:e
g:sa-k:e
k:sa-k:e
g:se-k:e
k:se-k:e
k:fa-g:fa
g:fb-g:fa
k:fb-g:fa
g:fe-g:fa
k:fe-g:fa
g:oe-g:fa
k:oe-g:fa
g:sa-g:fa
k:sa-g:fa
g:se-g:fa
k:se-g:fa
g:fb-k:fa
k:fb-k:fa
g:fe-k:fa
k:fe-k:fa
g:oe-k:fa
k:oe-k:fa
g:sa-k:fa
k:sa-k:fa
g:se-k:fa
k:se-k:fa
0.193571950 0.020475134 0.36666877
-0.114250593 -0.286785920 0.05828473
1.123173971 0.753783795 1.49256415
-0.032835492 -0.196148394 0.13047741
0.218602553 0.020130872 0.41707423
0.181649380 -0.099656584 0.46295534
0.246741572 -0.123958201 0.61744134
0.111568660 -0.094672253 0.31780957
0.136731097 -0.106080297 0.37954249
0.161094217 -0.117148074 0.43933651
NA
NA
NA
0.402139448 0.232819811 0.57145908
0.234680746 0.039769233 0.42959226
diff
lwr
upr
-0.073141796 -0.267554834 0.12127124
1.164282768 0.784181344 1.54438419
0.008273304 -0.178003624 0.19455023
0.259711350 0.041952313 0.47747039
0.065092192 -0.361185792 0.49137018
-0.070080720 -0.364749877 0.22458844
-0.044918283 -0.366246730 0.27641016
-0.020555163 -0.369429597 0.32831927
NA
NA
NA
0.220490068 -0.049627939 0.49060807
0.053031366 -0.233822422 0.33988515
-0.254791177 -0.541306494 0.03172414
0.982633387 0.548154746 1.41711203
-0.173376076 -0.454434240 0.10768209
0.078061970 -0.224780557 0.38090450
-0.135172911 -0.516112786 0.24576696
-0.110010475 -0.511927440 0.29190649
-0.085647354 -0.509909828 0.33861512
NA
NA
NA
0.155397876 -0.206885181 0.51768093
-0.012060826 -0.386987981 0.36286633
-0.319883368 -0.694551626 0.05478489
0.917541196 0.420492943 1.41458945
-0.238468267 -0.608980032 0.13204350
0.012969778 -0.374327101 0.40026666
135
0.0123314
0.6444423
0.0000000
0.9999985
0.0152602
0.6857761
0.6356857
0.8949202
0.8606684
0.8325497
NA
0.0000000
0.0039069
p(adjusted)
0.9962093
0.0000000
1.0000000
0.0045788
1.0000000
0.9999855
1.0000000
1.0000000
NA
0.2692144
0.9999995
0.1490717
0.0000000
0.7541594
0.9999585
0.9980060
0.9999107
0.9999984
NA
0.9854737
1.0000000
0.2014160
0.0000000
0.6909905
1.0000000
k:fb-g:fb
g:fe-g:fb
k:fe-g:fb
g:oe-g:fb
k:oe-g:fb
g:sa-g:fb
k:sa-g:fb
g:se-g:fb
k:se-g:fb
g:fe-k:fb
k:fe-k:fb
g:oe-k:fb
k:oe-k:fb
g:sa-k:fb
k:sa-k:fb
g:se-k:fb
k:se-k:fb
k:fe-g:fe
g:oe-g:fe
k:oe-g:fe
g:sa-g:fe
k:sa-g:fe
g:se-g:fe
k:se-g:fe
g:oe-k:fe
k:oe-k:fe
g:sa-k:fe
k:sa-k:fe
g:se-k:fe
k:se-k:fe
k:oe-g:oe
g:sa-g:oe
k:sa-g:oe
g:se-g:oe
k:se-g:oe
g:sa-k:oe
k:sa-k:oe
g:se-k:oe
0.025162437 -0.233012387 0.28333726
0.049525557 -0.242220290 0.34127140
NA
NA
NA
0.290570787 0.099872057 0.48126952
0.123112086 -0.090633942 0.33685811
-0.184710457 -0.398002031 0.02858112
1.052714107 0.662619300 1.44280891
-0.103295356 -0.309198150 0.10260744
0.148142690 -0.086624993 0.38291037
0.024363120 -0.294286685 0.34301293
NA
NA
NA
0.265408351 0.035651817 0.49516488
0.097949649 -0.151267973 0.34716727
diff
lwr
upr
-0.209872893 -0.458700855 0.03895507
1.027551671 0.616947217 1.43815612
-0.128457793 -0.370982058 0.11406647
0.122980253 -0.144485490 0.39044600
NA
NA
NA
0.241045230 -0.025880723 0.50797118
0.073586529 -0.210263472 0.35743653
-0.234236014 -0.517743957 0.04927193
1.003188550 0.570687201 1.43568990
-0.152820913 -0.430812674 0.12517085
0.098617133 -0.201381740 0.39861601
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.167458702 -0.345843649 0.01092625
-0.475281244 -0.653121399 -0.29744109
0.762143320 0.390245775 1.13404086
-0.393866143 -0.562773768 -0.22495852
-0.142428098 -0.345528294 0.06067210
-0.307822542 -0.510179848 -0.10546524
0.929602022 0.545376642 1.31382740
-0.226407442 -0.420961147 -0.03185374
136
1.0000000
0.9999999
NA
0.0000226
0.8380904
0.1821072
0.0000000
0.9411984
0.7214163
1.0000000
NA
0.0076211
0.9939749
p(adjusted)
0.2188087
0.0000000
0.9100891
0.9721662
NA
0.1317688
0.9999553
0.2500120
0.0000000
0.8820744
0.9991684
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0940820
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.5428217
0.0000237
0.0000000
0.0067966
k:se-k:oe
k:sa-g:sa
g:se-g:sa
k:se-g:sa
g:se-k:sa
k:se-k:sa
k:se-g:se
0.025030604 -0.199849472 0.24991068
1.237424564 0.853451813 1.62139732
0.081415101 -0.112639210 0.27546941
0.332853146 0.108404979 0.55730131
-1.156009463 -1.535927531 -0.77609140
-0.904571418 -1.300876405 -0.50826643
0.251438046 0.033999216 0.46887688
1.0000000
0.0000000
0.9883029
0.0000468
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0075012
Post hoc testing of the four-way interaction Order:Target:Context:Merge in the Analysis of
Variance of the normalized score at 50% of the Calibration [ɛ], of the auditory stimuli,
including [œ].
diff
lwr
upr
p
AOP:g:M:ae-AOP:g:M:_
0.490466924 0.790176954 0.190756894 0
AOP:g:M:e-AOP:g:M:ae
0.301672673 0.001962643 0.601382703 0.0452333
AOP:k:M:ae-AOP:g:M:ae 1.154155291 0.739913367 1.568397214 0
AOP:k:M:ae-AOP:k:M:_
0.757237735 0.287130591 1.22734488 0.0000001
APO:g:M:ae-AOP:g:M:ae 0.44491765 0.030675726 0.859159573 0.0149793
APO:g:S:ae-APO:g:M:ae
0.579653237 1.01813999 0.141166484 0.0001009
APO:g:S:e-APO:g:M:e
0.465135026 0.924148452 0.0061216
0.0407156
APO:g:S:ae-APO:g:S:_
0.680367905 1.0428385
0.31789731 0
APO:g:S:e-APO:g:S:_
0.371426256 0.7406348
0.002217712 0.045612
APO:k:S:ae-APO:g:S:ae
0.881121512 0.374800622 1.387442402 0
APO:k:S:e-APO:k:S:ae
0.604321387 1.170405351 0.038237422 0.0167543
OAP:g:M:_-APO:g:M:_
0.646396977 1.172003808 0.120790146 0.0007551
OAP:g:S:ae-APO:g:S:ae
0.336843436 0.006762599 0.666924272 0.0363893
OAP:k:M:_-APO:k:M:_
0.810559368 1.544288045 0.076830691 0.0087067
OAP:g:S:_-OAP:g:M:_
0.439348576 0.013908104 0.864789049 0.029938
OAP:g:S:ae-OAP:g:S:_
0.458838748 0.760953462 0.156724034 0.0000008
OAP:g:S:e-OAP:g:S:_
0.417528029 0.719642743 0.115413315 0.0000249
OAP:k:M:ae-OAP:g:M:ae 0.808673419 0.044984399 1.572362439 0.0194083
OAP:k:M:ae-OAP:k:M:_
0.85979061 0.012553712 1.707027509 0.0397844
OAP:k:M:e-OAP:k:M:ae
0.880283446 1.712953581 0.04761331 0.0199806
OAP:k:S:_-OAP:k:M:_
0.688092294 0.089005338 1.287179251 0.0038481
OAP:k:S:e-OAP:k:S:ae
0.748180475 1.213109289 0.28325166 0.0000001
OPA:g:M:e-APO:g:M:e
0.569690759 1.09529759 0.044083928 0.012623
OPA:k:M:ae-OPA:g:M:ae 1.358487066 0.599005731 2.117968401 0
OPA:k:S:ae-OPA:g:S:ae
0.882003138 0.16149588 1.602510395 0.0008499
OPA:k:M:ae-OPA:k:M:_
0.85535398 0.008117082 1.702590879 0.0431638
137
PAO:g:M:_-APO:g:M:_
PAO:g:M:ae-APO:g:M:ae
PAO:g:M:e-APO:g:M:e
PAO:g:S:ae-APO:g:S:ae
PAO:k:M:_-APO:k:M:_
PAO:g:S:ae-OAP:g:S:ae
PAO:g:S:ae-OPA:g:S:ae
PAO:g:M:ae-PAO:g:M:_
PAO:g:S:ae-PAO:g:M:ae
PAO:g:S:e-PAO:g:M:e
PAO:k:M:ae-PAO:g:M:ae
PAO:k:M:ae-PAO:k:M:_
PAO:k:S:_-PAO:k:M:_
PAO:k:S:e-PAO:k:S:ae
POA:g:M:_-APO:g:M:_
POA:g:S:_-APO:g:S:_
POA:g:S:_-OAP:g:S:_
POA:k:S:_-OAP:k:S:_
POA:g:S:_-PAO:g:S:_
POA:g:S:ae-PAO:g:S:ae
POA:g:S:e-PAO:g:S:e
POA:k:M:ae-POA:k:M:_
POA:k:M:e-POA:k:M:ae
POA:k:S:ae-POA:k:S:_
diff
0.551113839
0.498708121
0.57401031
0.941579533
0.76119761
0.604736098
0.788181213
0.370671631
0.860634418
0.514798576
0.789728779
0.658476272
0.644054623
0.824476003
0.53525049
0.389873117
0.505187396
0.610233927
0.620368305
0.847885144
0.660228714
1.157508358
1.066075355
0.714142782
lwr
1.010127264
0.938973733
1.031140291
0.50309278
1.402174976
0.188751039
0.275570382
0.737650668
0.420368806
0.065483359
0.267508454
0.067939416
0.003077257
1.617728386
1.060857321
0.759081661
0.844937863
1.091273835
1.08787665
1.288150755
1.109543931
0.348978735
1.859327738
0.136264135
upr
0.092100413
0.05844251
0.116880329
1.380066287
0.120220244
1.020721157
1.300792045
0.003692593
1.300900029
0.964113793
1.311949104
1.249013129
1.285031989
0.031223619
0.009643659
0.020664573
0.165436929
0.129194019
0.15285996
0.407619532
0.210913496
1.966037981
0.272822972
1.292021429
p(adjusted)
0.0013774
0.005194
0.0004365
0
0.0017934
0.0000043
0.0000005
0.0428429
0
0.0040617
0.000001
0.0072129
0.0464649
0.0268604
0.0376394
0.0203923
0.0000019
0.0003305
0.00009
0
0.0000029
0.0000075
0.000061
0.0006659
Post hoc testing of the Analysis of Variance of the normalized score at 50% of the
Calibration [æ], of the auditory stimuli, including [œ], as influenced by
StimType:Target:Context:Word:Label
Main effect of: Target
diff
lwr
ae-_ -0.8039317
-0.8982424
e-_ -0.3861260
-0.4777474
e-ae 0.4178058
0.3246196
upr
-0.7096211
-0.2945046
0.5109919
138
p(adjusted)
0
0
0
Main effect of: Context
diff
lwr
k-g
-0.4772643 -0.5500365
upr
-0.4044921
p(adjusted)
0
Main effect of: Merge
S-M -0.3180181 -0.3873292
-0.248707
0
Main effect of: Label
diff
lwr
upr
p(adjusted)
e-a
0.5283996020 0.385775882 0.671023323 0.0000000
fa-a 0.7284952328 0.447027959 1.009962506 0.0000000
fb-a 0.7280385693 0.536806595 0.919270544 0.0000000
fe-a 0.8315440676 0.496991609 1.166096526 0.0000000
oe-a 0.9969859431 0.847549201 1.146422685 0.0000000
sa-a 0.3341268313 0.134594635 0.533659028 0.0000115
se-a 0.4531838763 0.284055724 0.622312029 0.0000000
fa-e 0.2000956307 -0.082071448 0.482262709 0.3817436
fb-e 0.1996389672 0.007378462 0.391899473 0.0352905
fe-e 0.3031444656 -0.031996969 0.638285901 0.1100773
oe-e 0.4685863411 0.317835640 0.619337042 0.0000000
sa-e -0.1942727707 -0.394790928 0.006245387 0.0654855
se-e -0.0752157257 -0.245505966 0.095074515 0.8832303
fb-fa -0.0004566635 -0.310047365 0.309134038 1.0000000
fe-fa 0.1030488349 -0.310716898 0.516814568 0.9951601
oe-fa 0.2684907104 -0.017180560 0.554161980 0.0832901
sa-fa -0.3943684015 -0.709153776 -0.079583027 0.0037120
se-fa -0.2753113564 -0.571758766 0.021136053 0.0911116
fe-fb 0.1035054983 -0.255030307 0.462041304 0.9881377
oe-fb 0.2689473739 0.071579909 0.466314839 0.0009712
sa-fb -0.3939117380 -0.631473675 -0.156349801 0.0000149
se-fb -0.2748546929 -0.487520883 -0.062188503 0.0023213
oe-fe 0.1654418755 -0.172655146 0.503538897 0.8155683
sa-fe -0.4974172363 -0.860448025 -0.134386448 0.0008823
se-fe -0.3783601913 -0.725610228 -0.031110155 0.0215842
sa-oe -0.6628591118 -0.868279037 -0.457439186 0.0000000
se-oe -0.5438020668 -0.719837802 -0.367766331 0.0000000
se-sa 0.1190570450 -0.101102756 0.339216846 0.7250363
139
Two-Way Interactions: Target:Context
diff
lwr
ae:g-_:g
-0.65263988 -0.7752504
e:g-_:g
-0.18187395 -0.3056540
_:k-_:g
-0.14055326 -0.2926518
ae:k-_:g
-1.45044380 -1.6231505
e:k-_:g
-0.88803248 -1.0346037
e:g-ae:g
0.47076592 0.3486891
_:k-ae:g
0.51208661 0.3613709
ae:k-ae:g
-0.79780392 -0.9692940
e:k-ae:g
-0.23539260 -0.3805283
_:k-e:g
0.04132069 -0.1103480
ae:k-e:g
-1.26856985 -1.4408980
e:k-e:g
-0.70615852 -0.8522836
ae:k-_:k
-1.30989054 -1.5035642
e:k-_:k
-0.74747921 -0.9182569
e:k-ae:k
0.56241132 0.3730476
upr
-0.53002940
-0.05809389
0.01154531
-1.27773714
-0.74146124
0.59284273
0.66280231
-0.62631388
-0.09025690
0.19298940
-1.09624165
-0.56003342
-1.11621689
-0.57670152
0.75177508
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0004179
0.0891918
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000587
0.9713480
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Two-Way Interactions: Context:Word
diff
lwr
k:NW-g:NW -0.37544898 -0.4786742
g:W-g:NW
-0.01663223 -0.1591346
k:W-g:NW
-0.96104297 -1.1536794
g:W-k:NW
0.35881675 0.2028088
k:W-k:NW -0.58559400 -0.7884248
k:W-g:W
-0.94441075 -1.1697812
upr
-0.2722237
0.1258701
-0.7684066
0.5148247
-0.3827631
-0.7190403
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.9906036
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
Two-Way Interactions: Target:Merge
diff
lwr
ae:M-_:M
-0.64919574 -0.805668801
e:M-_:M
-0.31504210 -0.467032290
_:S-_:M
-0.17038388 -0.324353898
ae:S-_:M
-1.12742726 -1.283735590
e:S-_:M
-0.62637835 -0.778233876
e:M-ae:M
0.33415364 0.179335827
_:S-ae:M
0.47881186 0.322049925
ae:S-ae:M
-0.47823153 -0.637290728
e:S-ae:M
0.02281739 -0.131868221
_:S-e:M
0.14465822 -0.007629346
upr
-0.49272267
-0.16305191
-0.01641386
-0.97111894
-0.47452282
0.48897145
0.63557379
-0.31917233
0.17750301
0.29694578
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0201332
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.9983196
0.0737450
140
diff
ae:S-e:M
e:S-e:M
ae:S-_:S
e:S-_:S
e:S-ae:S
lwr
-0.81238517
-0.31133625
-0.95704338
-0.45599447
0.50104892
upr
-0.967036478
-0.461485632
-1.113640882
-0.608147631
0.346529950
Two-Way Interactions: Context:Merge
diff
lwr
k:M-g:M
-0.6093846 -0.74003391
g:S-g:M
-0.4016090 -0.50533492
k:S-g:M
-0.7474072 -0.87823815
g:S-k:M
0.2077756
0.07716471
k:S-k:M
-0.1380226 -0.29104834
k:S-g:S
-0.3457982 -0.47659085
p(adjusted)
-0.65773386 0.0000000
-0.16118686 0.0000001
-0.80044589 0.0000000
-0.30384130 0.0000000
0.65556789 0.0000000
upr
-0.47873531
-0.29788303
-0.61657624
0.33838656
0.01500316
-0.21500559
Two-Way Interactions: Context:Label
diff
lwr
upr
k:a-g:a
-0.75720025 -0.980542802 -0.53385770
g:e-g:a
0.62833022 0.453666882 0.80299356
k:e-g:a
-0.27374058 -0.484499930 -0.06298123
g:fa-g:a
0.45819223 0.110082376 0.80630209
k:fa-g:a
0.61794016 0.146573223 1.08930710
g:fb-g:a
0.56264525 0.322316520 0.80297399
k:fb-g:a
0.42821290 0.134586015 0.72183978
g:fe-g:a
0.61549508 0.271678709 0.95931146
k:fe-g:a
NA
NA
NA
g:oe-g:a
0.85512086 0.671468168 1.03877355
k:oe-g:a
0.64528640 0.421943846 0.86862895
g:sa-g:a
0.22935504 0.006766674 0.45194341
k:sa-g:a
-0.57576819 -1.059936951 -0.09159942
g:se-g:a
0.36796155 0.157775902 0.57814721
k:se-g:a
0.01000527 -0.247329441 0.26733998
g:e-k:a
1.38553047 1.157662164 1.61339878
k:e-k:a
0.48345967 0.226874038 0.74004530
g:fa-k:a
1.21539249 0.837772098 1.59301287
k:fa-k:a
1.37514041 0.881578386 1.86870244
g:fb-k:a
1.31984551 1.038465719 1.60122529
k:fb-k:a
1.18541315 0.857337807 1.51348849
141
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0002633
0.0939978
0.0000000
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0009722
0.0007434
0.0008067
0.0000000
0.0000719
0.0000001
NA
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0356600
0.0048037
0.0000003
1.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
g:fe-k:a
k:fe-k:a
g:oe-k:a
k:oe-k:a
g:sa-k:a
k:sa-k:a
g:se-k:a
k:se-k:a
k:e-g:e
g:fa-g:e
k:fa-g:e
g:fb-g:e
k:fb-g:e
g:fe-g:e
k:fe-g:e
g:oe-g:e
k:oe-g:e
g:sa-g:e
k:sa-g:e
g:se-g:e
k:se-g:e
g:fa-k:e
k:fa-k:e
g:fb-k:e
k:fb-k:e
g:fe-k:e
k:fe-k:e
g:oe-k:e
k:oe-k:e
g:sa-k:e
k:sa-k:e
g:se-k:e
k:se-k:e
k:fa-g:fa
g:fb-g:fa
k:fb-g:fa
g:fe-g:fa
k:fe-g:fa
diff
lwr
upr
1.37269533 0.999029196 1.74636147
NA
NA
NA
1.61232111 1.377491397 1.84715082
1.40248665 1.135468711 1.66950458
0.98655529 0.720167859 1.25294272
0.18143206 -0.324370343 0.68723447
1.12516181 0.869047198 1.38127641
0.76720552 0.471168636 1.06324240
-0.90207080 -1.117620267 -0.68652133
-0.17013798 -0.521168671 0.18089270
-0.01039006 -0.483918157 0.46313805
-0.06568496 -0.310225289 0.17885536
-0.20011732 -0.497201175 0.09696654
-0.01283514 -0.359608504 0.33393823
NA
NA
NA
0.22679064 0.037660049 0.41592123
0.01695618 -0.210912128 0.24482448
-0.39897518 -0.626104328 -0.17184603
-1.20409841 -1.690371438 -0.71782537
-0.26036866 -0.475357218 -0.04538011
-0.61832495 -0.879597265 -0.35705264
0.73193281 0.361615699 1.10224993
0.89168074 0.403683729 1.37967776
0.83638583 0.564885939 1.10788573
0.70195348 0.382311430 1.02159553
0.88923566 0.522951631 1.25551969
NA
NA
NA
1.12886144 0.905965492 1.35175739
0.91902698 0.662441343 1.17561261
0.50309562 0.247166190 0.75902505
-0.30202761 -0.802401152 0.19834594
0.64170213 0.396483250 0.88692102
0.28374585 -0.002916750 0.57040845
0.15974793 -0.401413416 0.72090927
0.10445302 -0.283455684 0.49236172
-0.02997933 -0.452982892 0.39302422
0.15730285 -0.301962827 0.61656852
NA
NA
NA
142
p(adjusted)
0.0000000
NA
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.9977503
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.9558320
1.0000000
0.9999297
0.6150781
1.0000000
NA
0.0041850
1.0000000
0.0000002
0.0000000
0.0035382
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000001
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
NA
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.7832579
0.0000000
0.0557917
0.9998539
0.9999274
1.0000000
0.9986633
NA
g:oe-g:fa
k:oe-g:fa
g:sa-g:fa
k:sa-g:fa
g:se-g:fa
k:se-g:fa
g:fb-k:fa
k:fb-k:fa
g:fe-k:fa
k:fe-k:fa
g:oe-k:fa
k:oe-k:fa
g:sa-k:fa
k:sa-k:fa
g:se-k:fa
k:se-k:fa
k:fb-g:fb
g:fe-g:fb
k:fe-g:fb
g:oe-g:fb
k:oe-g:fb
g:sa-g:fb
k:sa-g:fb
g:se-g:fb
k:se-g:fb
g:fe-k:fb
k:fe-k:fb
g:oe-k:fb
k:oe-k:fb
g:sa-k:fb
k:sa-k:fb
g:se-k:fb
k:se-k:fb
k:fe-g:fe
g:oe-g:fe
k:oe-g:fe
g:sa-g:fe
k:sa-g:fe
diff
lwr
upr
0.39692862 0.041339575 0.75251767
0.18709416 -0.190526225 0.56471455
-0.22883719 -0.606012011 0.14833762
-1.03396042 -1.605917285 -0.46200356
-0.09023068 -0.460221586 0.27976023
-0.44818697 -0.846855267 -0.04951867
-0.05529491 -0.556772208 0.44618239
-0.18972726 -0.718819248 0.33936472
-0.00244508 -0.560953165 0.55606300
NA
NA
NA
0.23718070 -0.239736374 0.71409777
0.02734623 -0.466215795 0.52090826
-0.38858512 -0.881806332 0.10463609
-1.19370835 -1.848033172 -0.53938353
-0.24997861 -0.737728124 0.23777091
-0.60793490 -1.117780689 -0.09808910
-0.13443235 -0.474299147 0.20543444
0.05284983 -0.331210568 0.43691023
NA
NA
NA
0.29247560 0.041435767 0.54351544
0.08264114 -0.198738644 0.36402093
-0.33329021 -0.614071748 -0.05250868
-1.13841344 -1.651942487 -0.62488440
-0.19468370 -0.465738487 0.07637109
-0.55263999 -0.861693124 -0.24358685
0.18728218 -0.232195152 0.60675952
NA
NA
NA
0.42690796 0.124451605 0.72936431
0.21707350 -0.111001846 0.54514884
-0.19885786 -0.526420245 0.12870453
-1.00398109 -1.544509465 -0.46345271
-0.06025134 -0.379515412 0.25901272
-0.41820763 -0.770305187 -0.06611008
NA
NA
NA
0.23962578 -0.111761188 0.59101274
0.02979131 -0.343874824 0.40345745
-0.38614004 -0.759355889 -0.01292420
-1.19126327 -1.760617184 -0.62190936
143
p(adjusted)
0.0126549
0.9469042
0.7765863
0.0000001
0.9999798
0.0114301
1.0000000
0.9977580
1.0000000
NA
0.9452357
1.0000000
0.3288787
0.0000001
0.9302221
0.0045957
0.9935614
1.0000000
NA
0.0066762
0.9997849
0.0049504
0.0000000
0.4985248
0.0000001
0.9787492
NA
0.0001598
0.6457917
0.7757861
0.0000000
0.9999994
0.0048994
NA
0.5934063
1.0000000
0.0339802
0.0000000
g:se-g:fe
k:se-g:fe
g:oe-k:fe
k:oe-k:fe
g:sa-k:fe
k:sa-k:fe
g:se-k:fe
k:se-k:fe
k:oe-g:oe
g:sa-g:oe
k:sa-g:oe
g:se-g:oe
k:se-g:oe
g:sa-k:oe
k:sa-k:oe
g:se-k:oe
k:se-k:oe
k:sa-g:sa
g:se-g:sa
k:se-g:sa
g:se-k:sa
k:se-k:sa
k:se-g:se
diff
lwr
upr
-0.24753353 -0.613487755 0.11842070
-0.60548981 -1.000414668 -0.21056496
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0.20983446 -0.444664176 0.02499525
-0.62576582 -0.859878356 -0.39165328
-1.43088905 -1.920462831 -0.94131526
-0.48715930 -0.709512870 -0.26480574
-0.84511559 -1.112480981 -0.57775020
-0.41593136 -0.682318789 -0.14954392
-1.22105458 -1.726856991 -0.71525218
-0.27732484 -0.533439449 -0.02121023
-0.63528113 -0.931318011 -0.33924425
-0.80512323 -1.310593070 -0.29965339
0.13860651 -0.116850680 0.39406371
-0.21934977 -0.514818082 0.07611854
0.94372974 0.443597570 1.44386191
0.58577346 0.064069197 1.10747771
-0.35795629 -0.644197356 -0.07171522
144
p(adjusted)
0.6078168
0.0000191
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1435127
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000114
0.0000000
0.0192103
0.0000000
0.0000063
0.8926184
0.4368322
0.0000000
0.0116379
0.0020049