Measuring Vowels

doi:10.1017/9781108644198.011

10 - Measuring Vowels

from Section III - Measuring Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2021

Byunggon Yang

Edited by

Rachael-Anne Knight and

Jane Setter

Show author details

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

Book contents

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.

Keywords

vowel measurement formant duration pitch intensity auditory scales normalisation cross-linguistic comparison

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 261 - 284

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644198.011 [Opens in a new window]

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

10.7 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. 167–200.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. 13–34.Google 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, 22–30.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), 1–28.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, 489–504.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.Google Scholar

Hillenbrand, J. (2019). Alvin3. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~hillenbr/.Google Scholar

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.Google 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google 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, 57–60.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.Google 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, 7–18.Google Scholar

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.Google 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), 1–29.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97–100.Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar

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.Google 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. 75–87.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.Google Scholar

Yang, B. (2006). Discrimination of synthesised English vowels by American and Korean listeners. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 13(1), 7–27.Google Scholar

Yang, B. (2009a). Formant trajectories of English vowels produced by American males. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 1(3), 65–72.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.Google 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), 1–8.Google 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.Google Scholar

Yost, W. A. (2000). Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction. London: Academic Press.Google 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.Google Scholar

Zwicker, E. (1961). Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(2), 248.Google 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.Google Scholar