Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:42:07.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A psychoacoustical explanation for the number of major IPA vowels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Antti Iivonen
Antti Iivonen
Affiliation:
Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Vironkatu IB, P.O. Box 35, FlN-00014University of Helsinki, Finland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Christoph Friedrich Hellwag was probably the first scholar who tried to show the auditory relationships and the relative distances of the vowels (Hellwag [1791] 1991). He described the vowels in a space in which the vowels formed a triangle (He didn't actually use the word ‘triangle,’ but spoke instead about a ‘scale,’ ‘ladder,’ ‘stairs,’ or ‘symmetric scheme’ (Monin 1991: 22)). The cardinal vowel system, created by Daniel Jones, has been a valuable frame work for vowel quality description, but it is partly articulatory, partly auditory.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , December 1994 , pp. 73 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1994

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

Aulanko, R. (1991). The first 100 years of acoustic vowel studies at the University of Helsinki. In Aulanko, R. and Leiwo, M. (editors), Studies in Logopedics and Phonetics 2 (Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics and Speech Communication), 9–32.Google Scholar
Bannert, R., Gårding, E. and Wood, S. (1976). Vokaler och vokalsystem. In Gårding, E. (editor), Kontrastiv fonetik och syntax med svenska i centrum, 27–60. Lund: Liber Läromedel.Google Scholar
Barry, W. J. (1974). Perzeption und Produktion im sub-phonemischen Bereich. Linguistische Arbeiten 15. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Båvegård, M., Fant, G., Gauffin, J., Liljencrants, J. (1993). Vocal tract sweeptone data and model simulations of vowels, laterals and nasals. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report 4, 43–76.Google Scholar
Bladon, R. A. W. and Lindblom, B. (1981). Modeling the judgment of vowel quality differences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69, 1414–1422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boë, L. J., Perrier, P., Guérin, B. and Schwartz, J. L. (1989). Maximal vowel space. In Tubach, J. P. and Mariani, J. J. (editors), Eurospeech 89. European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Paris, 09 1989, 281–284.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. and Granström, B. (1979). Model predictions of vowel dissimilarity. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report 3–4, 84–104.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1948). Un triangle acoustique des voyelles orales du français. French Review 21.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. C., Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S. and Gerstman, L. J.(1952). An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color; Observations on one-and two-formant vowels synthesized from spectrographic patterns. Word 8, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disner, S.(1983). Vowel Quality: Universal and Language Specific Factors. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Elert, C.-C. (1970). Allmän och svensk fonetik. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Essner, C. (1947). Recherches sur la structure des voyelles orales. Archives Néerlandaises de PhonétiqueExperimentale 20, 40–46.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1966). A note on vocal tract size factors and non-uniform F-pattern scalings. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report 4, 22–30.Google Scholar
Fant, G. (1983). Feature analysis of Swedish vowels – a revisit. In Dahlstedt, K.-H., Hansson, A., Hedquist, R. and Lindblom, B. (editors), From Sounds to Words. Essays in Honor of Claes-Christian Elert 23.12.1983. (Acta Universitatis Umensis 60), 67–86. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1967). Perceptual dimensions of vowels. In To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 667–671. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1972a). Formant frequencies of long and short Danish vowels. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics 6, University of Copenhagen, 49–58.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1972b). Formant frequencies of long and short Danish vowels. In Firchow, E. S., Grimstad, K., Hasselmo, N. and O'Neil, W. (editors), Studies for Einar Haugen presented by friends and colleagues, 189–213. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1990). Intrinsic Fo in tense and lax vowels with special reference to German. Phonetica 47, 99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, J. L. (1955). A difference limen for vowel formant frequency. Jounal of the Acoustical Society of America 27, 613–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. W. (1931). Phonologie und Phonetik als Funktionswissenschaften. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4, 116–147.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. (1968). Distinctive features and response dimensions of vowel perception. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 21, 99–101.Google Scholar
Hellwag, C. F. [1781](1991). De formatione Loquelae. Translated by Monin, M.-P.. Bulletin de la Communication Parlée 1, 26–105.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. and Fairbanks, G. (1962). Diphthong formants and their movements. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5, 38–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtse, P. (1973). Identification and discrimination of closely spaced synthetic vowels. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics 7, University of Copenhagen, 235–264.Google Scholar
Honda, K., Hirai, H. and Kusakawa, N. (1993). Modeling vocal tract organs based on MRI and EMG observations and its implications on brain function. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 37–49.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1987a). Regional differences in the realization of Standard German vowels. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Tallinn. Vol. 4, 161–164.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1987b). The Critical Band in the Explanation of the Number of Possible Vowels and Psychoacoustical Vowel Distances (in Finnish with a summary in English). Mimeographed series of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki 12.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1989). Regional German Vowel Studies. Mimeographed series of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki 15.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1991a). Comparison of fundamental frequency height and variation range in Viennese and East Middle German. In Studia in honorem O. Vértes oblata a collegis et discipulis. Hungarian Papers in Phonetics 23. Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 77–86.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1991b). Acoustical data base as a tool for the research of vowel systems. Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Aix-en-Provence, Aug. 19–24, 1991, Vol. 2, 470–473.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1992). Articulatory vowel gesture presented in a psycho-acoustical F1/F2-space. In Aulanko, R. and Lehtihalmes, M. (editors), Studies in Logopedics and Phonetics 3 (Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics and Speech Communication) 4, 19–45.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. (1995). Number of possible basic vowel qualities and their psychoacoustical distance measure. In Elenius, K. and Branderud, P. (editors), Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, 13–19 Aug. 1995, Vol 1, 404–407.Google Scholar
Iivonen, A. and Toivonen, R. (1989). Simulation of the psycho-acoustical vowel space for linguistic applications. In Tubach, J. P. and Mariani, J. J. (editors), Eurospeech 89. European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology,Paris,September 1989, Vol 2, 289–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1967). An Outline of English Phonetics. 9th ed.Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1948). Acoustic Phonetics. (Language Monograph 23). Baltimore, Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H. P. (1969). Die gespannten und ungespannten Vokale in der norddeutschen Hochsprache mit einer spezifischen Untersuchung der Struktur ihrer Formantenfrequenzen. Phonetica 19, 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. (1980). Vowel Contrast Reduction. An Acoustic and Perceptual Study of Dutch Vowels in Various Speech Conditions. Amsterdam: Academische Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1967). Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., Harshman, R., Goldstein, L. and Rice, L. (1978). Generating vocal tract shapes from formant frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64, 1027–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. (1990). Vowels of the world's languages. Journal of Phonetics 18, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study on vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 1773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. J. and Jaeger, J. J. (editors), Experimental Phonology, 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (editors) (1991). Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. D. (1989). Auditory-perceptual interpretation of the vowel. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85, 2114–2134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monin, M.-P. (1991). Introduction à De Formatione loquelæ. Bulletin de la Communication Parl´e 1, 15–25.Google Scholar
Moore, B. C. J. (1977). Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London/Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Nagakawa, T., Saito, S. and Yoshino, T. (1982). Tonal difference limens for second formant frequencies of synthesized Japanese vowels. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 16, 81–88.Google Scholar
Nord, L. and Sventelius, K. (1979). Analysis and perception of difference limen data for formant frequencies. Experiments in Speech Perception, Phonetic Research Seminar 1978–1979, PERILUS, Report I, 24–37.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E. and Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pipping, H. (1894). Über die Theorie der Vocale. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ 20:11. Helsingfors: Societatis Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Plomp, R. (1970). Timbre as a multidimensional attribute of complex tones. In Plomp, R. and Smoorenburg, G. F. (editors), Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, 397–414. Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Pols, L. C., van der Kamp, L. T. and Plomp, R. (1969). Perceptual and physical space of vowel sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 46, 458–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroeder, M. R. and Atal, B. S. and Hall, J. L. (1979). Objective measure of certain speech signal degradations based on masking properies of human auditory perception. In Lindblom, B. and Ohman, S. (editors) Frontiers of Speech Communication Research, 217–229. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.-L. and Escudier, P. (1987). Does the human auditory system include large scale spectral integration? Schouten, M. E. (editor) The Psychophysics of Speech Perception 284–292. Dordrecht etc.: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J.-L., Beautemps, D., Abry, C. and Escudier, P. (1993). Inter-individual and cross-linguistic strategies for the production of the [i] vs. [y] contrast. Journal of Phonetics 21, 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundberg, J. and Nordström, P.-E. (1976). Raised and lowered larynx — the effect on vowel formant frequencies. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report 2–3, 35–39.Google Scholar
Suomi, K. (1984). A revised explanation of the causes of palatal vowel harmony based on psychoacoustical spectra. Nordic Journal of Linguists 7, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A. K. (1985). Aspects of a model of the auditory representation of American English vowels. Speech Communication 4, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, A. K., and Gopal, H. S. (1986). A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79, 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traunmüller, H. (1976). Einige Aspekte der Wahrnehmung quasistationärer Vokale. Papers from the Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 32, 8–23.Google Scholar
Traünmuller, H. (1981). Perceptual dimension of openness in vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69, 1465–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traunmüller, H. (1982). Der Vokalismus im Ostmittelbairischen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. 49, 289–333.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88., 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallée, N., Boë, L. J. and Payan, Y. (1995). Vowel prototypes for UPSID's 33 phonemes. In Elenius, K. and Branderud, P. (editors), Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm, 13–19 08 1995, Vol 1, 424–427.Google Scholar
Weitzman, R. S. (1992). Vowel categorization and the critical band. Language and Speech 35, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Wieringen, A., Boersma, P. and Pols, L. C. W. (1993). Perceptual asymmetry between initial and final glides: Psychoacoustics and cochlear encoding. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam, 79–96.Google Scholar
Wiik, K. (1965). Finnish and English Vowels. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. Series B, Tom. 94. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Zwicker, E. (1961). Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands (Frequenzgruppen). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar