June 20-21st, 2005
Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2005 [PAPI 2005], Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Catalan Vowel Reduction and Dispersion Theory
Dylan Herrick
Mie University
1.
Introduction
5. Dispersion Theory and vowel reduction

Recent work on phonological vowel reduction has attempted to
tighten the link between phonetics and phonology. (Among
others: Barnes 2002; Crosswhite to appear; Flemming to appear;
Herrick 2003; Padgett 2004; Padgett and Tabain to appear).

Since these analyses are more phonetic in nature they make more
precise phonetic predictions; in turn, they require more
phonetically detailed data to determine the extent to which their
predictions are accurate.





This paper uses acoustic data collected from six varieties of
Catalan to examine the appropriateness of a Dispersion Theory
(DT; Flemming 1995; Padgett 1997; Sanders 2003) explanation of
vowel reduction.
Each language enforces a particular distance  which must be
maintained between contrasting vowel phonemes. See (6a).
Articulatory constraints against low vowels in unstressed
syllables result in a decrease in the available perceptual
distance between (unstressed) vowel pairs.
The distance between unstressed vowel phonemes is less than
the language particular distance . See (6b).
The result is neutralization among unstressed vowels (until the
language specific distance requirement  can be met). See (6c).
See Flemming (to appear); Padgett (2004); Padgett and Tabain (to appear); Herrick (2003) for a more
detailed explanation. For related but non-DT explanations, see Barnes (2002) and Crosswhite (to
appear).
9.
Neutralization


Neutralization is complete.
Anova (p < 0.01) show that there are no
statistically significant differences between
vowels which are reported to neutralize in
unstressed position – for all speakers and
for all varieties. (Herrick 2003)
10. Raising


The primary characteristic of Catalan Vowel Reduction is raising (along F1)
– not centralization (lowering, reduction of F2)
Predictions for raising (6-28% for
Western; 29-57% for Eastern) are met.
(Herrick 2003)
6. Illustration of DT Account of Vowel Reduction
2. Background
 Six varieties of Catalan:
11. Perceptual Distance
 Vowel Reduction in Catalan
Bages, Girona, Ciutadella,
Palma, Lloseta, and Lleida
7. DT Predictions and Assumptions
 Duration
The DT explanation depends, in large part, upon constraints against
duration and jaw lowering to drive the neutralization of contrasts.

3. Speakers



Three native speakers per
variety (regional dialect).
All female college students
between 18-25 years old.
Native: both parents are
native speakers; Catalan is
the speaker’s first language
and the primary language of
daily speech.
4. Dispersion Theory
 Three principles of Dispersion Theory (Flemming 1995)
A. Maximize the number of contrasts. (easy to make big lexicons)
B. Maximize the distinctiveness of contrasts. (easy perception)
C. Minimize articulatory effort. (laziness)
Neutralization
Distance (as a percent of
the total space) in F1 for
stressed front vowels

Predictions for minimal perceptual distance are not met. (Herrick 2003)

Raising
DT predicts that vowel reduction is due primarily to raising – and not
necessarily centralization (even for Western Catalan – which does not
reduce to schwa in unstressed position).

Perceptual Distance
Euclidian distance (F1 x F2;
as a percent of the total space)
for stressed front vowels
12. Conclusion
DT assumes that vowel reduction will result in the complete neutralization
of contrasting segments. (If not, one could argue that the vowels are
simply more crowded and easier to confuse, but still distinct.)




Data from six varieties of Catalan provide support for three
aspects of a DT analysis of phonological vowel reduction:
(a) Duration
(b) Neutralization
(c) Raising
The predictions for perceptual distance, however, are not met by
either a straightforward measure of linear distance (for F1) or the
Euclidian distance (F1 x F2) between neighboring vowel pairs.
DT makes extensive use of perceptual distance constraints – to what
extent do vowels obey a language specific minimal distance ?
Selected References
8. Duration


Unstressed vowels are shorter than stressed vowels
High vowels and schwa are shorter than other vowels
Barnes, J.A. 2002. Positional neutralization: a phonologization approach to typological predictions. Doctoral dissertation,
UC Berkeley.
Crosswhite, K. to appear. Vowel reduction. In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds.) Phonetic bases of markedness.
Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Flemming, E. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation. UCLA.
Flemming, E. to appear. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetic
bases of markedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrick, D. 2003. An acoustic analysis of phonological vowel reduction in six varieties of Catalan. Doctoral dissertation, UC
Santa Cruz.
Padgett, J. 1997. Perceptual distance of contrast: vowel height and nasality. Phonology at Santa Cruz, vol. 5: 63-78.
Padgett, J. 2004. Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies, 7:81-96.
Padgett, J. and M. Tabain. to appear. Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica.
Sanders, N. 2003. Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. Doctoral dissertation. UC Santa Cruz.