Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-5bz6h Total loading time: 1.074 Render date: 2022-06-29T07:13:47.815Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

10 - Measuring Vowels

from Section III - Measuring Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

Rachael-Anne Knight
Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an introduction to the acoustic and perceptual measurement of vowels. The measurable acoustic properties of vowels are formants, duration, pitch and intensity. Perceptual measurements include identification and discrimination of natural or synthesised vowels. After a brief review of the historical representation of the vowel space, technical details are given on measuring the acoustic properties of vowels, including perceptual measurements and speaker normalisation. This last plays a pivotal role in vowel space comparison among various language and gender groups. A few normalisation methods, along with the transformation of acoustic formant frequency values into auditory scales, are reviewed to provide a foundation for a cross-linguistic and curvilinear comparison of vowels. In addition, we describe competing models and theories and discuss correlations between vowel height and pitch, followed by practical scenarios and future studies on these measurements using software and internet resources.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adank, P., van Hout, R. & Smits, R. (2001). A comparison between human vowel normalization strategies and acoustic vowel transformation techniques. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech 2001). Aalborg, Vol. I. pp. 481–4.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 167200.Google Scholar
Best, C. T. & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception: Commonalities and complementarities. In Munro, M. J. & Bohn, O.-S., eds., Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigi, B. & Hirst, D. (2019). Speech phonetization alignment and syllabification (SPPAS): A tool for the automatic analysis of speech prosody. www.sppas.org/.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (2017). Cross-language and second language speech perception. In Fernandez, E. M. & Cairns, H. S., eds., The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 213–39.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1994). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chiba, T. & Kajiyama, M. (1941). The Vowel, Its Nature and Structure. Tokyo: TokyoKaiseikan.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1948). Un triangle acoustique des voyelles orales du Français. The French Review, 21(6), 477–84.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Gut, U. & Kristoffersen, G. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1967). A note on vocal tract size factors and non-uniform F-pattern scaling. Speech Transmission Laboratory: Quarterly Progress and Status Reports, 4, 2230.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1973). Speech Sounds and Features. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In Strange, W., ed., Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 233–77.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and constraints on second-language speech. In Birdsong, D., ed., Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 101–31.Google Scholar
Flynn, N. (2011). Comparing vowel formant normalisation procedures. York Papers in Linguistics Series, 2(11), 128.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signalling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garofolo, J. S., Lamel, L. F., Fisher, W. M., Fiscus, J. G., Pallett, D. S., Dahlgren, N. L. et al. (1993). TIMIT. Acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC93S1.Google Scholar
Gick, B., Wilson, I. & Derrick, D. (2013). Articulatory Phonetics. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, R. (1997). Dialect variation and formant frequency: The American English vowels revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102 (1), 655–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, J. (2006). Phonetic Analysis of Speech Corpora. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hermann, L. (1894). Beiträge zur Lehre von der Klangwahrnehmung. Pflügers Arch., 56, 467–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J. & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Phonetic Association. (2019). IPA Chart. www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart.Google Scholar
Johnson, K., Flemming, E. & Wright, R. (1993). The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Language, 69(3), 505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1917). An English Pronouncing Dictionary. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1948). Acoustic phonetics. Language Monographs, 23, 136.Google Scholar
Keen, J. A. (1940). A note on the comparative size of the cochlear canal in mammals. Journal of Anatomy, 73(4), 524–7.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J. & Gerratt, B. R. (2010). Perceptual sensitivity to first harmonic amplitude in the voice source. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(4), 2085–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladefoged, P. (2001). Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I. (1996). The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H-H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A., eds., Speech Production and Speech Modelling. London: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 403–39.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. & Sundberg, J. (1971). Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 50, 1166–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobanov, B. M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2B), 606–8.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, P. E. & Lindblom, B. (1975). A normalization procedure for vowel formant data. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences in Leeds, August, paper 212.Google Scholar
Öhman, S. (1964). Note on palatalization in Russian. MIT Quarterly Progress Report, 73, 167–71.Google Scholar
Passy, P. (1888). Our revised alphabet. The Phonetic Teacher, 7–8, 5760.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E. & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfitzinger, H. & Niebuhr, O. (2011). Historical development of phonetic vowel systems: The last 400 years. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, China, 160–3.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. B. (1975). Auditory short-term memory and vowel perception. Memory and Cognition, 3, 718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release). Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University. https://buckeyecorpus.osu.edu/.Google Scholar
Potter, R. K. & Steinberg, J. C. (1950). Towards the specification of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 803–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reetz, H. & Jongman, A. (2009). Phonetics: Transcription, Production, Acoustics, and Perception. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Renwick, M. E. L. & Ladd, D. R. (2016). Phonetic distinctiveness vs. lexical contrastiveness in non-robust phonemic contrasts. Laboratory Phonology, 7(1), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sóskuthy, M. (2019). Generalised Additive Mixed Models for Dynamic Analysis in Linguistics: A Practical Introduction [Computing Research Repository]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05339v1.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S., Volkmann, J. & Newman, E. B. (1937). A scale for the measurement of the psychological magnitude pitch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8(3), 185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N., Kasowski, S. & Fant, G. (1953). An electrical analog of the vocal tract. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(4), 734–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titze, I. R. (2011). Vocal fold mass is not a useful quantity for describing f0 in vocalization. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(2), 520–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hoof, S. & Verhoeven, J. (2011). Intrinsic vowel f0, the size of vowel inventories and second language acquisition. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 168–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilain, C., Berthommier, F. & Boë, L.-J. (2015). A brief history of articulatory–acoustic vowel representation. In 1st International Workshop on the History of Speech Communication Research (HSCR 2015), Dresden, France.Google Scholar
Watt, D. & Fabricius, A. (2002). Evaluation of a technique for improving the mapping of multiple speakers’ vowel spaces in the F1~F2 plane. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 9, 159–73.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & Levitt, A. G. (1995). The universality of intrinsic f0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 349–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, D. H., Magen, H. S., Pouplier, M., Kang, A. M. & Iskarous, K. (2004a). Vowel production and perception: Hyperarticulation without a hyperspace effect. Language and Speech, 47(2), 155–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whalen, D. H., Magen, H. S., Pouplier, M., Kang, A. M. & Iskarous, K. (2004b). Vowel target without a hyperspace effect. Language, 80(3), 377–80.Google Scholar
Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalised Additive Mixed Models: An Introduction, with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. (2003). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In Local, J., Ogden, R. & Temple, R., eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7587.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (1990). Development of Vowel Normalization Procedures: English and Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. http://fonetiks.info/bgyang/db/yangphd.pdf.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24(2), 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, B. (2006). Discrimination of synthesised English vowels by American and Korean listeners. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 13(1), 727.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (2009a). Formant trajectories of English vowels produced by American males. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 1(3), 6572.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (2009b). English vowel spaces produced and perceived by Americans and Koreans. In Lee, C., Simpson, G. B. & Kim, Y., eds., The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics. Volume III: Korean. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 390–7.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (2010). Formant trajectories of English high tense and lax vowels produced by Korean and American speakers. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 407–21.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (2018). Pitch trajectories of English vowels produced by American men, women, and children. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 10(4), 31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, B. (2019). A comparison of normalized formant trajectories of English vowels produced by American men and women. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 11(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, B. & Whalen, D. H. (2015). Perception and production of English vowels by American males and females. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yost, W. A. (2000). Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yun, W., Yoon, K., Park, S., Lee, J., Cho, S., Kang, D. et al. (2015). The Korean corpus of spontaneous speech. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 7(2), 103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicker, E. (1961). Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(2), 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicker, E. & Terhardt, E. (1980). Analytical expressions for critical-band rate and critical bandwidth as a function of frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68(5), 1523–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×