Vowel tensity in Standard Austrian and Standard German

Although the contrast between so-called tense and lax vowels forms part of many phonological systems, their phonetic distinction is neither well understood and often restricted to analyses based on static sections at the vowel target. One of the main aims of the proposal is to overcome these shortcomings by means of physiological analyses that take into account various dynamic differences in the tense-lax vowel contrast in German. A major focus of the proposal is a comparison of Standard German and Standard Austrian German (SAG; as spoken in Vienna) based on previous research suggesting that the [tense] vowel contrast is produced quite differently in these two varieties. Four specific aims form part of this proposal. Firstly, we seek to establish whether SAG front vowels are differentiated from their SG counterparts by a greater degree of pre-palatalization, as recent acoustic investigations have suggested. Secondly, we will analyse the extent to which the [tense] vowel distinction in the two varieties can be modeled in terms of the relative overlap of articulatory gestures and more specifically whether lax vowels are cut-off or truncated forms of tense vowels. Thirdly, we will test whether the distinction between [tense] vowels is phonetically less marked in SAG than in SG and whether this reduced distinction is brought about by an approximation of SAG lax towards tense vowels. A related aim is to test whether the differences between the varieties occur principally in front vowels or more generally for all non-low vowels at which the phonological [tense] contrast occurs. Fourthly, we will investigate the interaction of different levels of the prominence (stress) hierarchy and vowel tensity in order to test whether there is a collapse of the [tense] contrast at lower prominence levels that can be related to increasing consonant-on-vowel coarticulatory overlap. A prediction related to this and the preceding aim is that the interaction of prominence and tensity should be phonetically very different in these varieties. Finally, the extent of collapse of the [tense] contrast as a sound change in progress in SAG will be investigated using an apparent-time comparison between young and old speakers of this variety. In order to test these aims, we will collect physiological data of the movements of the upper and lower lips, jaw, and various points of the tongue using electromagnetic articulometry (EMA) from speakers of SG and young and older speakers of SAG. Additional acoustic data from a larger group of subjects in both varieties will be obtained. Subjects from both varieties will also participate in a number of forced-choice perception experiments using continua synthesized between minimal pairs differing in vowel tensity. The proposed project links the analyses of tense-lax vowels established from an acoustic and sociophonetic perspective of Austrian varieties at the ARI, Vienna with those based on physiology of Standard German vowels carried out over a number of years at the IPS, Munich. A further collaboration with leading scientists from the U.S.A. will form part of our long-term aim to develop a model at the phonology-phonetics interface that integrates the various findings from near-mergers, sound change, and the dynamic cues to the [ tense] contrast that are to be investigated in this proposal.

Across languages, the distinction between so-called tense and lax vowels, e.g., Miete Mitte (rent center) or Höhle Hölle (cave hell), is encountered in many languages. However, many different articulatory adjustments might cause this distinction, and these are language-specific.In the current project, we address this issue by analysing high tense and lax vowel pairs of the type bieten bitten (to offer to request), Hüte Hütte (hats hut), and Buße Busse (penance busses) in two related language varieties: Standard Austrian German (SAG) and Standard German German (SGG). Previous studies suggest that high lax vowel pairs like bitten, Hütte, or Busse tend to approximate their respective tense cognates bieten, Hüte, and Buße. The research questions were investigated by a) comparing the high tense and lax vowel pairs in SAG and SGG, b) by investigating whether high lax vowel pairs approximate their tense cognates in SAG, c) by investigating whether the high vowel pairs in SAG are distinguished by quality, by quantity, or by quantity relations with the following consonant, and d) by investigating whether an ongoing sound change can be observed in SAG, with young SAG speakers exhibiting a higher degree to merge the vowels than old SAG speakers.Main results:SGG speakers clearly distinguish the high vowel pairs by quality, whereas speaker-specific strategies can be observed in SAG, with some speakers distinguishing high tense and lax vowel pairs by quality, others merging the quality contrast, but restricting the merger to velar contexts only, and still others merging high tense and lax vowels altogether. In case of distinction, the differences between high tense and high lax vowels are less pronounced in SAG than in SGG and still less pronounced in the speech of young SAG speakers as compared to old SAG speakers. The same result was observed for quantity distinctions: All speakers differentiate the high vowel pairs by quantity, meaning that the tense vowels of the type bieten, Hüte, and Buße are longer than their respective lax cognates. Again, the differences are most pronounced in SGG and least pronounced in the speech of the young SAG speakers, meaning that the tense vowels of the type bieten, Hüte, and Buße are truncated in the speech of young SAG speakers as compared to old SAG speakers and SGG speakers. Results on the quantity interactions of vowel + consonant sequences prove quantifying aspects in SAG. Again, some age-specific differences emerged insofar as overall, young SAG speakers have shorter durations than old SAG speakers. However, they maintain the timing relations observed for the old SAG speakers. Results on perception strongly suggest that SAG speakers make use of quantity cues in order to distinguish the vowel pairs, whereas SGG speakers rather rely on cues connected with quality. Generally, it can be concluded that quantity distinctions are more relevant in SAG than in SGG.