Acoustic studies have shown that in Australian English (AusE), vowel length contrasts are realised through temporal, spectral and dynamic characteristics. However, relatively little is known about the articulatory differences between long and short vowels in this variety. This study investigates the articulatory properties of three long–short vowel pairs in AusE: /iː–ɪ/ beat – bit, /ɐː–ɐ/ cart – cut and /oː–ɔ/ port – pot, using electromagnetic articulography. Our findings show that short vowel gestures had shorter durations and more centralised articulatory targets than their long equivalents. Short vowel gestures also had proportionately shorter periods of articulatory stability and proportionately longer articulatory transitions to following consonants than long vowels. Long–short vowel pairs varied in the relationship between their acoustic duration and the similarity of their articulatory targets: /iː–ɪ/ had more similar acoustic durations and less similar articulatory targets, while /ɐː–ɐ/ were distinguished by greater differences in acoustic duration and more similar articulatory targets. These data suggest that the articulation of vowel length contrasts in AusE may be realised through a complex interaction of temporal, spatial and dynamic kinematic cues.
Phonetic aspects of many languages have been documented, though the breadth and focus of such documentation varies substantially. In this survey, phonetic aspects (here called "categories") that are typically reported were assessed in three English-language collections-the Illustrations of the IPA, articles from the Journal of Phonetics, and papers from the Ladefoged/Maddieson Sounds of the World's Languages (SOWL) documentation project. Categories were defined for consonants (e.g., Voice Onset Time (VOT) and frication spectrum; 10 in total), vowels (e.g., formants and duration; 7 total) and suprasegmentals (e.g., stress and distinctive vowel length, 6 total). The Illustrations, due to their brevity, had, on average, limited coverage of the selected categories (12% of the 23 categories). Journal of Phonetics articles were typically theoretically motivated, but 64 had sufficient measurements to count as phonetic documentation; these also covered 12% of the categories. The SOWL studies, designed to cover as much of the phonetic structure as feasible in an article-length treatment, achieved 41% coverage on average. Four book-length studies were also examined, with an average of 49% coverage. Phonetic properties of many language families have been studied, though Indo-European is still disproportionately represented. Physiological measures were excluded as being less common, and perceptual measures were excluded as being typically more theoretical. This preliminary study indicates that certain acoustic properties of languages are typically measured and may be considered as an impetus for later, fuller coverage, but broader consensus on the categories is needed. Current documentation efforts could be more useful if these considerations were addressed.