Conversational Phonetics: the Case of and and But
Conversational Phonetics: the case of ‘and’ and ‘but’
Melissa Wright
University of York
1. ‘Strong’ and ‘Weak’ forms of ‘And’
Word
/ ‘Strong’ form / ‘Weak’ form(s) / /
Table 1: The ‘Strong’ and ‘Weak’ forms of ‘And’ (taken from Jones 1960: 130)
Ø These shapes have been accounted for in very different ways e.g. Kaisse (1985), Zwicky (1977), Selkirk (1995)
Ø None based on naturally occurring conversation
2. Analyses of Conversation
Ø Some linguists, e.g. Local, Kelly & Wells (1986), Local & Kelly (1986), Simpson (1992, 2001), Local (1992, 1996), Kohler (1999), Ogden (1999, 2001) , Wells & MacFarlane (1998) have analysed conversation
Ø Some phonetic variability can be accounted for by grammar, interaction and phonology
3. Outline of Study
Ø Aims
-To examine the phonetics of ‘and’ in conversation
-To identify the constraints imposed by the sequential organisation and/or the interactional function
Ø Data
- 6 hours of telephone conversations
- 30 native British English speakers: 17 male and 13 female, 18-60 years old
Ø Methodology – interactional linguistics
4. ‘Return-to-topic’ ‘And-uhm’ Tokens
4.1 Schema
A: topic
B: intervening talk
C: ‘and-uhm’ + return-to-topic mentioned in A
Ø 33 tokens found
2
4.2 Transcription Conventions
(.) Micropause
(0.2) Measured silent pause
.h, .hh Inbreath (more ‘h’ represents a longer inbreath)
h, hh Outbreath (more ‘h’ represent a longer outbreath)
[ Simultaneous start or overlapping speech
= Latching between two turns or two words within a turn
( ) Transcriber doubt
Fragment 1: /Holt.X(C).1.1.1.p.1./
A: 1: Les: .hh an’ Carol said her: flat (.)
B: 2: she lives in a ground floor flat(0.4)
3: with a little ga:rd’n at the back
C: 4: and uh .hh i (.) it’s absolutely
5: spotless she said
Fragment 2: /Holt.10.88.1.8.p.6/
A: 1:: Joy: an’ the kids
B: 2: .hhh you know she's got a girl I
3: spoze about(.) fourteen an' a boy
4: about .hh twelve maybe
C: 5: .hhh a:n:d uh even the kids she
6: said're so happy with Ron you know=
Fragment 3: /Holt.May.88.2.4.p.15/
A: 1: Mar: if he gets the right grades this is
2: eez got'n offer in Newcastle (0.6) h-
3: Uh:: and an offer in Sheffie:ld
4: Dee: ya:[:h
B: 5: Mar: [all my kids seem t'wanna go
6: no:rth u-: (.)go ‘way as far as
7: possible I don'know what ih-ih-
8: something I said p'raps .hh[hhh
9: Dee: [ye:h
C: 10: Mar: a:nd uh: or: u- (.) eh Portsmouth
11: Poli.hh
5. Methods of Phonetic Analysis
Ø Instrumental + impressionistic observations
Ø Parametric listening (Kelly & Local (1989))
1) Quality of Vowel
2) Syllabicity
2
3) Place of articulation in the word junction
4) Manner of articulation in the word junction
5) Degree and Location of Glottal Constriction
6. The Phonetics of Return-to-topic ‘And-uhm’ Tokens
6.1 Variable
6.1.1 Degree of glottal constriction
-Initial glottal stop(27/33): /Holt. Mat.88.2.4.p.8/
Mar: a:n:d uh: it wz surprising
-Creakiness(2/33): /Holt. S/O (II). 2.2.p.4./
Ron: yes they do: a:n:d uhm:
-No creakiness(4/33): /Holt.88.U.2.2/
Kev: an:d um: (0.4) we had
6.1.2 Manner of articulation in word junction
– always with closure and complete release
-Oral release(14/33): /Holt.X(C).1.1.1.p.4a/
Les: there .hh and em ! .hh
-Affricated oral release(17/33): /Doggy 35/
Joa: (.) and uhm so I spent
-Lengthened nasal release(2/33): /Holt.X(C).1.1.3.p.4/
Phi: very busy en: uh .hh
6.1.3 Quality of vowel
-Open(26/33): /Holt.10.88.1.8.p.6/
Joy: twelve maybe .hhh a:n:d uh even
-Mid(7/33): /Holt.X(C).1.1.1.p.1./
Les: the back and uh .hh i (.)it’s
6.2 Not-variable
6.2.1 Syllabicity
-no syllabic nasals i.e. *[
6.2.2 Place of articulation in word junction
-always at the alveolar ridge: /Holt.May.88.2.4.p.5/
Mar: back problem a:n::d uh:::.hhhh
7. Summary of the Phonetics of ‘And-uhm’
Ø Return-to-topic ‘and-uhm’s typically have
-An open vowel
-An alveolar plosive at the word junction
Ø They never occur with
-A syllabic nasal
-Open or close approximation
8. Return-to-topic ‘But-uhm’ Tokens
Ø 18 tokens found
Fragment 4: /Holt.2.1.p.1/
1: Les: yes=I js s-u thought I'd che:ck=
2: Fos: =M[m:
3: Les: [i:n case there wz a:
4: misprin:[! (Again)
5: Fos: [yes no no
A: 6: we're havin:g ehm: (0.4)
B: 7: w'l I'm away actually
C: 8: but uh: it's just a group Sundee
9: Les: y[es
Fragment 5: /Holt. 88.U 2.2.p.3./
A: 1: she's been to:,h (0.7) a pla:y
2: Les: hYes Oh lovely
3: (0.4)
B: 4: Kev: uh:m (0.5) an:d eh: I think they were
5: g'nna be back rather lateish=
6: Les: =So they're staying[the night,h]
7: Kev: [It’s- more ]eh
8: considered more sensible she stayed
9: in Pru
10: Les: That's ri:ght=
11: Kev: =with Tracey rather than uh
4
12: (.)
13: Les: hYes .hhh
14: Kev: coming home
15: Les: hYes.h
16: (0.5)
[
C: 17: Kev: but uh
18: (0.7)
19: (L): [!
A: 20: Kev: [uh:m they were doi- eh seein:g (0.5)
B: 21: I don't know which came first
C: 22: but um (0.7) uh::(.) both: (.) Hamlet
23: (0.2)an:d Rosenkranz'n Guildenstern
24: in th'same day
25: Les: oh grea:t .h
9. The Phonetics of Return-to-topic ‘But-uhm’ tokens
9.1 Variable
9.1.1
Ø Glottal constriction
-Creakiness (3/18): /Holt.2.15p.1/
Joy: but um .p.hh I'm not clever at uhm:
-No creakiness (15/18): /Holt.Oct 88.1.8.p.2/
Les: .hh [but uhm: I: think they seem to think
9.2 Not-Variable
9.2.1 Manner of articulation in word junction
-Always affricated oral release: /Holt.2.1.p.1/
Fos: away actually but uh: it's just a group
9.2.2 Place of articulation in word junction
-Always at the alveolar ridge: /Holt.1.1.6.p.5/
[
Les: but uhm (0.2) she said oh I did think’ve
10. The Phonetics of Junction of word with ‘final /t/ + uhm’
e.g. ‘about + uhm’; ‘got + uhm’; not + uhm’ etc.
Ø 36 tokens found
1) Place of articulation in word junction
2) Manner of articulation in word junction
Ø 32/33 had an alveolar plosive
11. Comparison of words before a stressed vowel
Ø Resyllabification may explain the full forms before ‘uhm’
-e.g. -VC # ¢V- à -V.¢C # V-
Ø Compared the junctural properties of ‘and’, ‘but’ words with ‘final /t/’ before a stressed vowel
Ø Many differences were found
Figure 1: The Frequency Distribution of the Variable Phonetics of Junction in ‘and + V’ and ‘and + Uhm’ Tokens
Figure 2: The Frequency Distribution of the Variable Phonetics of Junction in ‘but/-t + V’ and ‘but/-t + Uhm’ Tokens
6
12. Conclusion
Ø The particle ‘uhm’ can constrain the phonetics of the preceding item. This is reminiscent of Jefferson’s (1974) and Fox-Tree & Clark’s (1997) findings on ‘thee-uhm’
Ø The analysis of conversation is fruitful as it can partially explain the distribution of ‘strong’ forms
References
Fox-Tree, J. E. & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing ‘the as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62: 151-167.
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Language in Society 2: 181-199.
Jones, D. (1960). An Outline of English Phonetics (Ninth Edition). W. Heffer & Sons Ltd: Cambridge.
Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected Speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Academic Press: London.
Kelly, J. & Local, J. (1989). Doing Phonology. Manchester University Press: Manchester.
Kohler, K. J. (1999). Articulatory prosodies in German reduced speech. ICPhS XIV, San Francisco, 89-92.
Local, J. (1992). Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (eds). The Contextualisation of Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia; Benjamins. pp.272 - 296
Local, J. (1996) Conversational phonetics: some aspects of news receipts in everyda talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.(eds.). Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. pp. 177-230.
Local, J., Kelly, J. & Wells, W. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: turn taking in Tyneside English. Journal of Linguistics 22: 411-437.
Local, J. & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and ‘silences’: notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9: 185-204.
Ogden, R.A. (1999) A declarative account of strong and weak auxiliaries in English. Phonology 16: 55-92.
6
Ogden R. A. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the Phonetic Association 31/3. 139-152.
Selkirk, E. O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 19: 439-469.
Simpson, A. (1992). Writing phonological statements from naturally occurring talk: an experiment in method. Unpublished D. Phil thesis, Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.
Simpson, A. (2001). Does articulatory reduction miss more patterns than it accounts for? Journal of the Phonetic Association 31/3. 29-39.
Wells, B. & MacFarlane, S. (1998). Prosody as an interactional resource: turn projection and overlap. Language and Speech 41. 3-4 (special issue on Prosody and
Conversation), 265-298.
Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
6