The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Natural languages and linguistics
Post Reply
Minjaben
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Location: Finland

The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Minjaben »

In Wells's A study of the formants of the pure vowels of British English in the chapter on duration under the heading Relationship between duration and tongue height there is the statement:
More interesting is the finding ... that the open vowels studied are regularly of greater duration than close vowels of the same linguistic "length"
And under the heading Vowel length in General American he states:
Forgie and Forgie measured the duration of nine speakers' pronunciations of ten vowels in the context /b-t/. They print a graph from which it appears that the vowels concerned fall into the following ranking, from short to long duration: /ɪ ʊ ʌ i ɛ u ɚ ɑ æ ɔ/.
If you group them into checked /ɪ ʊ ʌ ɛ æ/ and free /i u ɚ ɑ ɔ/ vowels, the correlation between vowel height and vowel duration becomes obvious.

I have some questions:
* Why are open vowels longer than close ones? What is the articulatory motivation behind it?
* Are there any other languages where vowel height correlates with vowel duration?
Last edited by Minjaben on Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Pabappa
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:36 am
Location: the Impossible Forest
Contact:

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Pabappa »

Well , velars&coronals are articulated with the same tongue movements as vowels, so the tongue moves less during a high vowel & it can thus be said more quickly.

In Japanese & Greek its the high vowels that are dropped to silence, never /a/. Slavic may have done this also, with the yers.
Kuchigakatai
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:19 pm

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Kuchigakatai »

Pabappa wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:02 pmIn Japanese & Greek its the high vowels that are dropped to silence, never /a/. Slavic may have done this also, with the yers.
In the history of Spanish, /a/ is generally maintained even if this prevents the vowel syncope seen in other vowels.

Lat. lampada > Sp. lámpara (instead of expected *[ˈlampa.a] > *lampa, cf. Lat. limpidum > Sp. limpio). (EDIT: Actually, this first example some problems.)
Lat. Salamantica > Sp. Salamanca (instead of expected *Salmanca)
Lat. stomachum > Sp. estómago (instead of expected *estongo, cf. manica > manga)
Lat. cantharum > Sp. cántaro (instead of expected *cantro, cf. dum interim > OSp. domientre, Lat. interānea > Sp. entrañas)

An exception: colaphum > golpe. Comparāre > comprar might reflect a spoken *compirāre, with the same vowel raising seen in per-facere > perficere, ob-cadere > occidere, re-capere > recipere.
Minjaben
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Minjaben »

I've done some Googling and found a relevant study. I'll quote the interesting bits here. The introduction:
F1 correlates with vowel height: the higher the vowel, the lower the F1. A number of studies have found a positive correlation between F1 and duration in vowels in various languages, such as English (Heffner, 1937; House & Fairbanks, 1953; Peterson & Lehiste, 1960; Scharf, 1962), German (Meyer, 1904; Fischer-Jørgensen, 1940; Maack, 1949), Swedish (Elert, 1964), Inari Saami (Äimä, 1918; Stone, ¨ 2014), Thai (Abramson, 1962), and Spanish (Navarro Tomas, 1916). In other words, high vowels are shorter than low vowels. This paper revisits that generalization, as well as the question of whether the generalization is phonetic (mechanical, extrinsic) or phonological (controlled, intrinsic).

The traditional explanation for the positive correlation between F1 and duration appeals to physiology: low vowels take longer to produce because of the extra time it takes for the jaw to open (e.g., Lehiste 1970:19, Lehnert-LeHouillier 2007:80), or because the jaw position of high vowels is close to the jaw position held during the production of most consonants (Catford 1977:197; Maddieson 1997; Gussenhoven 2007). An alternative explanation is that each vowel has a phonologized duration target. Several arguments have been put forward for this view. Lisker (1974) points out that if low vowels are longer because of the time it takes the jaw to move, we would expect the onset and offset formant movements towards low vowels to be longer, not the steady-state of low vowels. However, the steady state is in fact remarkably long (Lehiste & Peterson, 1961). In addition, Tauberer & Evanini (2009) found that duration does not increase as vowels are lowered in language change. Finally, Sole & Ohala (2010) present data from Japanese, Catalan and English, where they investigate the effect of speech rate on vowel duration. For Catalan and English, they find that the duration differences have different size depending on speech rates. This is not expected if the effect is solely mechanical. The results differed for Japanese, where they found a constant change in duration as the speech rate changed. Sole & Ohala (2010) conclude that the positive correlation between vowel duration and F1 is controlled (phonological or high-level phonetic) in English and Catalan, but mechanical (low-level phonetic) in Japanese.

If the duration of vowels depends directly on how much the jaw moves, we would expect a positive correlation within categories as well as between categories. In other words, multiple tokens of the same vowel (e.g., [ɪ]) would be expected to display a correlation similar to the correlation between vowels; that is, a slightly lower pronunciation of a given vowel should be slightly longer.

We investigate the vowel duration and height between and within categories in English and Swedish, using F1 as a measure of vowel height. The between-category investigation confirms previous studies: high vowels are shorter than low vowels. However, we did not find the same correlation within categories: a higher instance of the vowel [ɪ] is not shorter than a lower instance of [ɪ].
The conclusion:
Overall, the conclusions of our studies are clear: higher vowels are generally shorter than lower vowels, as has previously been found. However, two different realizations of the same vowel do not display the same tendency. In other words, the within-category results do not mirror the between category results; at least not in English and Swedish.

...

We interpret these data as problematic for the physiological explanation on intrinsic vowel duration. If the effect is purely mechanical, we would expect to find it within as well as between categories. ... If the jaw opening explanation is incorrect, what explains the universal tendency for high vowels to be shorter than low vowel? Sole & Ohala (2010:647) note: “Duration is one of several distinctive manifestations of vowel identity, but the specific durational targets of vowels may have originated in biomechanical differences. The cross-linguistic tendency then has a physiological explanation, but this tendency has been phonologized in some languages and not others.” This reasoning makes sense to us.

However, the results of this study (and also the results of Lisker (1974), Tauberer & Evanini (2009), and Sole & Ohala (2010), mentioned in the introdution) suggest that a straightforward production-based analysis is problematic, at least for Swedish and English. Perhaps a perception-based analysis is possible? Perhaps high vowels somehow “sound” shorter than low vowels and this gets phonologized? This is still an open question, but the results of Gussenhoven (2007) instead seem to suggest that high vowels in fact sound longer than short vowels.
User avatar
Pabappa
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:36 am
Location: the Impossible Forest
Contact:

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Pabappa »

Interesting, thanks. But I couldn't help noticing
This is still an open question, but the results of Gussenhoven (2007) instead seem to suggest that high vowels in fact sound longer than short vowels.
is this intentional? It looks like a mistake, and that leads me to wonder how professional a paper this is. The reasoning makes perfect sense, though, yes.
Minjaben
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Minjaben »

Somehow I didn't notice that mistake when I read it.

Something else I just realised. The Wells study I mentioned in the original post had this statement about the vowel /ʌ/:
The only vowel noticeably out of place is /ʌ/, which in spite of its half-open to open articulatory position is nearest in average duration, whether relative or absolute, to the short close vowels /ɪ/ and /ʊ/. It is not clear why this should be so.
And the study I just quoted stated:
Tauberer & Evanini (2009) found that duration does not increase as vowels are lowered in language change.
We know that /ʌ/ is a result of the ꜰᴏᴏᴛ-ꜱᴛʀᴜᴛ split, and that the vowel was originally [ʊ]. Perhaps this is the explanation for the length anomaly of /ʌ/: its original length as a high vowel was simply fossilised before it lowered and thus retains its original length in RP even though the actual vowel is relatively open.
Last edited by Minjaben on Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:25 am, edited 4 times in total.
Minjaben
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Minjaben »

I wonder if a language could develop a length contrast this way. You could have a sound change like:
  • ʊ > ʌ̆ > ɑ̆
And this new ɑ̆ would remain durationally distinct from the original open back vowel ɑ.
Frislander
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am

Re: The relationship between vowel duration and tongue height

Post by Frislander »

Minjaben wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:38 pm I wonder if a language could develop a length contrast this way. You could have a sound change like:
  • ʊ > ʌ̆ > ɑ̆
And this new ɑ̆ would remain durationally distinct from the original open back vowel ɑ.
See the entire history of the Uralic family (see for instance Samic, where original non-high vowels give either long vowels or diphthongs while original high-vowels give short ones).
Post Reply