On 2006-10-02 06:09, Patrick Ryan wrote:
> Is the data in this table a _misrepresentation_ of Wiik's
> findings, and
> Cruttenden's, in which this table appears?
> YES OR NO?
No. I certainly wouldn't dispute them myself. In fact, just out of
curiosity I have managed to replicate them with satisfactory accuracy
using recordings of my own English, which, although non-native, turns
out to be a passable imitation at least in this respect. As Gimson's
book (revised by Cruttenden) is widely available, I suggest you should
have a look at the table in its proper context and the accompanying
discussion, rather than just a JPG "provided by a friend".
>
> Has someone come to different conclusions (disputed Wiik's
> data, e.g. Chen)?
> YES OR NO?
Wiik's data are quite typical (see above). But what "other conclusions"
do you mean? How do you know what conclusions have been drawn from them
by other people (Wiik himself, etc.), if all you've seen is the figures?
> In an absence of a response by Hrubis, I will be glad to discuss
> your response _to him_ in a subsequent message. But unless we can
> agree on a valid source for the data, your interpretation is as
> baseless as mine.
Be my guest. By the way, as I have suggested before, you might find it
an interesting exercise to download Praat (available for free, or some
other speech-analysing device) and do some experimental phonetics on
your own. The software is easy to use, provided that you know what a
speech spectrogram is, and measuring the duration of your own vowels in
various contexts is child's play. There's nothing like first-hand
experience.
Piotr