Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityExperiment 3This experiment differed from Exp. 1 in an invertedchoice of speakers. Sequence of stimuli:e ♀ e ♀ , e ♂ y ♀ x, y ♀ e ♂ x, e ♀ y ♀ n, y ♂ e ♂ nExperiment 4This experiment differed from Exp. 1 only inthe order of stimulus presentation. It was conductednot only in Swedish but also in Turkish.Sequence of stimuli:e ♂ e ♂ , y ♂ e ♀ x, e ♀ y ♂ x, y ♀ e ♀ n, e ♂ y ♂ nSubjectsFor the experiments with instructions in Swedish,most subjects were recruited via web fora:Forumet.nu > Allmänt forum,Flashback Forum > Kultur > Språk,Forum för vetenskap och folkbildning,KP-webben > Allmänt prat (Exp. 1).Since young adult males dominate on these fora,except the last one, where girls aged 10-14years dominate, some additional adult femalesubjects were recruited by distribution of slipsin cafeterias at the university and in a concerthall. Most of the subjects of Exp. 2 were recruitedby invitation via e-mail. This was alsothe only method used for the experiment withinstructions in Turkish. This method resulted ina more balanced representation of the sexes, ascan be seen in Figure 1.ProcedureThe instructions and the stimuli were presentedin a window 730 x 730 px in size if notchanged by the subject. There were eight ornine displays of this kind, each with a heading‘Do you also hear with your eyes?’. The wholesession could be run through in less than 3 minutesif there were no cases of hesitation.The questions asked concerned the following:First general question, multiple response:• Swedish (Turkish) first language• Swedish (Turkish) best known language• Swedish (Turkish) most heard languageFurther general questions, alternative response:• Video ok | not so in the beginning | not ok• Listening by headphones | by loudspeaker• Heard well | not so | undecided.• Used to dubbed speech | not so | undecided.• Discomfort (obehag, rahatsızlık) fromdubbed speech | not so | undecided.• Male | Female• Age in years .... .• Answers trustable | not so.If one of the negations shown here in italics waschosen, the results were not evaluated. Excludedwere also cases in which more than onevowel failed to be responded to.The faces were shown on a small videoscreen, width 320 px, height 285 px. The heightof the faces on screen was roughly 55 mm (♂)and 50 mm (♀).The subjects were asked to lookat the speaker and to tell what they ‘heard’ ‘inthe middle (of the syllable)’. Each stimulus waspresented twice, but repetition was possible.Stimulus-specific questions:Vowel quality (Swedes):• i | e | y | ö | undecided (natural stimuli)• y | i | yi | undecided (aud. [y], vis. [e])• e | ö | eö | undecided (aud. [e], vis. [y])Swedish non-IPA letter: ö [ø].Vowel quality (Turks):• i | e | ü | ö | undecided (natural stimuli)• ü | üy | i | ı | undecided (aud. [y], vis. [e])• e | eö | ö | undecided (aud. [e], vis. [y])Turkish non-IPA: ü [y], ö [ø], ı [ɯ] and y [j].Fig. 1. Population pyramids for (from left to right) Exp. 1, 2, 3, 4 (Swedish version) and 4 (Turkish version).Evaluated subjects only. Males left, females right.168
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm University• Female sounding male | male looking female| undecided (when voice♂ & face♀)• Male sounding female | female lookingmale | undecided (when voice♀ & face♂)• Natural | dubbed | undecided (when speakercongruent, vowel incongruent)Upon completing the responses, these weretransmitted by e-mail to the experimenter, togetherwith possible comments by the subject,who was invited to an explanatory demonstration(http://legolas.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/webexperiment/xmpl.se.htm, ...tk.htm).Subjects participating via Swedish web forawere informed within 15 minutes or so abouthow many times they had heard by eye.ResultsThe most essential stimulus specific results aresummarized in Table 1 for Exp. 1, 2 and 4 andin Table 2 for Exp. 3. Subjects who had not indicatedthe relevant language as their first ortheir best known language have been excluded.It can be seen in Table 1 and 2 that for eachauditory-visual stimulus combination, therewere only minor differences in the results betweenExp. 1, 2, and the Swedish version ofExp. 4. For combinations of auditory [e] andvisual [y], the influence of vision was, however,clearly smaller than that observed within theframe of the previous experiment (Traunmüllerand Öhrström, 2007), while it was clearlygreater in the Turkish version of Exp. 4. Absenceof lip rounding in the visible face hadgenerally a stronger effect than visible presenceof lip rounding, in particular among Swedes. Inthe Turkish version, there was a greater influenceof vision also for the combination of auditory[y] and visual [e], which was predominantlyperceived as an [i] and only seldom as [yj]among both Turks and Swedes. The response[ɯ] (Turkish only) was also rare. The proportionof visually influenced responses substantiallyexceeded the proportion of stimuli perceivedas undubbed, especially so amongTurks.The results from Exp. 3, in which thespeakers had been switched (Table 2), showedthe same trend that can be seen in Exp. 1, althoughvisible presence of roundedness had aprominent effect with the female speaker withinthe frame of the previous experiment.A subject-specific measure of the overall influenceof vision was obtained by counting theresponses in which there was any influence ofvision and dividing by four (the number of incongruentstimuli presented).A preliminary analysis of the results fromExp. 1 to 3 did not reveal any substantial effectsof habituation to dubbing, discomfort fromdubbing, sex or age.Table 2.Summary of stimulus specific results forExp. 3 arranged as in Table 1.StimulusVoice & FacePrev.exp.n=42,20 ♂, 22 ♀ OExp 3n=4741 ♂, 6 ♀Naty ♂ & e ♂ 79 4 81 66e ♀ & y ♀ 86 3 34 11y ♀ & e ♂ - 2 85e ♂ & y ♀ - 1 28Table 1. Summary of stimulus specific results from Exp. 1, 2, and 4: Percentage of cases showing influenceof vision on heard roundedness in syllable nucleus (monophthong or diphthong). No influence assumedwhen response was ‘undecided’. O: Order of presentation. Nat: Percentage of stimuli perceived as natural(undubbed) shown for stimuli without incongruence in sex. Corresponding results from previous experiment(Traunmüller and Öhrström, 2007) shown in leftmost column of figures.StimulusVoice & FacePrev.exp.n=42,20 ♂,22 ♀ OExp. 1n=185122 ♂,63 ♀ Nat OExp. 2Informedn=99,57 ♂,42 ♀ Nat OExp. 4Swedsn=84,73 ♂,11 ♀ NatExp. 4Turks,n=71,30 ♂,41 ♀ Naty ♀ & e ♀ 83 4 82 72 4 81 66 3 81 61 99 64e ♂ & y ♂ 50 3 26 15 3 25 11 4 23 9 79 23y ♂ & e ♀ - 2 80 2 65 1 75 94e ♀ & y ♂ - 1 41 1 42 2 52 83169
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 167: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?