Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityharmonic.Figure 2: DFT spectra calculated at midpointof the open vowel in the first syllable ofmahne (same speakers).Neither nasals nor vocalic portions in a phonologicallynasal environment would be chosen assuitable contexts for measuring H1-H2. However,they do give us a clear indication of the spectralcorrelates of both vocalic and consonantalnasality, and in particular we were able to establishsystematic sex-specific harmonic differences.Figure 3: DFT spectra calculated at midpointof the open vowel in the first syllable of Pate(same speakers).Let us now turn to the type of context where onewould want to measure H1H2. The first syllableof the word Pate (“godfather”) contains a vowelin a phonologically oral context with an openquality which maximises F1 and hence minimisesits influence on the lower harmonics. Figure 3shows DFT spectra calculated at the midpoint ofthe long open vowel in tokens of the word Pate(“godfather”) for the same set of speakers. Incontrast to the categorically identical tokens in174
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universitythe nasalised environment in Figure 2, it issomewhat easier to estimate F1 and F2. However,the most striking similarity with the spectrain Figure 2 is evidence of a resonance in the region200–300 Hz, suggesting that here too,nasality is present, and as before is marked primarilyby a strengthened female fundamentaland a prominent second male harmonic.DiscussionIncreased spectral tilt is a reliable acoustic indicationof breathy voice. However, as I have attemptedto show in this paper, using the strengthof the first harmonic, without taking into considerationthe possibility that nasality may also beacoustically present, makes it an inappropriatepoint of reference when studying sexspecificdifferences. Indeed, data such as those shown inFigure 3 could have been used to show that inGerman, too, female speakers are more breathythan males. The female spectral tilt measured usingH1H2 is significantly steeper than that ofthe males.So, what of other studies? It is hard to makedirect claims about other studies in which individualspectra are not available. However, it isperhaps significant that Klatt and Klatt (1990)first added 10 dB to each H1 value before calculatingthe difference to H2, ensuring that theH1H2 difference is almost always positive(Klatt and Klatt, 1990: 829; see also e.g. Trittinand de Santos y Lleó, 1995 for Spanish). Themale average calculated at the midpoint of thevowels in reiterant [ʔɑ] and [hɑ] syllables is6.2 dB. This is not only significantly less thanthe female average of 11.9 dB, but also indicatesthat the male H2 in the original spectra is consistentlystronger, once the 10 dB are subtractedagain.I have not set out to show in this paper thatfemale speakers are less breathy than malespeakers. I am also not claiming that H1H2 isan unreliable measure of intraindividual differencesin breathiness, as it has been used in a linguisticcontext (Bickley, 1982). However, itseems that the method has been transferred fromthe study of intraindividual voice quality differencesto an interindividual context without consideringthe implications of other acoustic factorsthat confound its validity.ReferencesBenkenstein R. (2007) Vergleich objektiverVerfahren zur Untersuchung der Nasalität imDeutschen. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.Båvegård M., Fant G., Gauffin J. and LiljencrantsJ. (1993) Vocal tract sweeptone dataand model simulations of vowels, lateralsand nasals. STLQPSR 34, 43– 76.FischerJørgensen E. (1967) Phonetic analysis ofbreathy (murmured) vowels in Gujarati. IndianLinguistics, 71–139.Henton C. G. and Bladon R. A. W. (1985)Breathiness in normal female speech: Inefficiencyversus desirability. Language andCommunication 5, 221–227.Huffman M. K. (1987) Measures of phonationtype in Hmong. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 81,495–504.IPDS (1994) The Kiel Corpus of Read Speech.Vol. 1, CDROM#1. Institut für Phonetikund digitale Sprachverarbeitung, Kiel.Klatt D. H. and Klatt L. C. (1990) Analysis, synthesis,and perception of voice quality variationsamong female and male talkers. J.Acoust. Soc. Amer. 87, 820–857.Ladefoged P. (1983) The linguistic use of differentphonation types. In: Bless D. and Abbs J.(eds) Vocal Fold Physiology: ContemporaryResearch and Clinical Issues, 351–360. SanDiego: College Hill.Ladefoged P. and Antoñanzas Barroso N. (1985)Computer measures of breathy phonation.Working Papers in Phonetics, UCLA 61, 79–86.Laver J. (1980) The phonetic description ofvoice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Maeda S. (1993) Acoustics of vowel nasalizationand articulatory shifts in French nasalizedvowels. In: Huffman M. K. and KrakowR. A. (eds) Nasals, nasalization, and thevelum, 147–167. San Diego: AcademicPress.Pandit P. B. (1957) Nasalization, aspiration andmurmur in Gujarati. Indian Linguistics 17,165–172.Stevens K. N., Fant G. and Hawkins S. (1987)Some acoustical and perceptual correlates ofnasal vowels. In Channon R. and Shockey L.(eds) In Honor of Ilse Lehiste: Ilse LehistePüdendusteos, 241–254. Dordrecht: Foris.Titze I. R. (1989) Physiologic and acoustic differencesbetween male and female voices. J.Acoust. Soc. Amer. 85, 1699–1707.Trittin P. J. and de Santos y Lleó A. (1995)Voice quality analysis of male and femaleSpanish speakers. Speech Communication16, 359–368.175
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:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 173: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?