Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Pitch trajectories of English vowels produced by American men, women, and children

  • Received : 2018.10.28
  • Accepted : 2018.11.29
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Pitch trajectories reflect a continuous variation of vocal fold movements over time. This study examined the pitch trajectories of English vowels produced by 139 American English speakers, statistically analyzing their trajectories using the Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs). First, Praat was used to read the sound data of Hillenbrand et al. (1995). A pitch analysis script was then prepared, and six pitch values at the corresponding time points within each vowel segment were collected and checked. The results showed that the group of men produced the lowest pitch trajectories, followed by the groups of women, boys, then girls. The density line showed a bimodal distribution. The pitch values at the six corresponding time points formed a single dip, which changed gradually across the vowel segment from 204 to 193 to 196 Hz. The normality tests performed on the pitch data rejected the null hypothesis. Nonparametric tests were therefore conducted to discover the significant differences in the values among the four groups. The GAMMs, which analyzed all the pitch data, produced significant results among the pitch values at the six corresponding time points but not between the two groups of boys and girls. The GAMMs also revealed that the two groups were significantly different only at the first and second time points. Accordingly, the methodology of this study and its findings may be applicable to future studies comparing curvilinear data sets elicited by experimental conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ on September 9, 2018.
  2. Fant, G. 1973. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Fette, B., Gibson, R., & Greenwood, E. (1980). Windowing functions for the average magnitude difference function pitch extractor. ICASSP '80. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (pp. 49-52).
  4. Gerhard, D. (2003). Pitch extraction and fundamental frequency: History and current techniques. Regina: Department of Computer Science, University of Regina.
  5. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3099-3111. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.411872
  6. Jung, Y. J., & Rhee, S. C. (2018). Acoustic analysis of English lexical stress produced by Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese-Chinese speakers. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 10(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2018.10.1.015
  7. Karnell, M. P., Scherer, R. S., & Fischer, L. B. (1991). Comparison of acoustic voice perturbation measures among three independent voice laboratories. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 34(4), 781-790. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3404.781
  8. Lehiste, I. (1967). Readings in acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
  9. Lennes, M., Stevanovic, M., Aalto, D., & Palo, P. (2016). Comparing pitch distributions using Praat and R. Phonetician, 111(2), 35-53.
  10. Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906875
  11. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/ on September 3, 2018.
  12. Soskuthy, M. (2017). Generalised additive mixed models for dynamic analysis in linguistics: A practical introduction. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05339v1 on September 9, 2018.
  13. Vogel, A., Maruff, P., Snyder, P. J., & Mundt, J. C. (2009). Standardization of pitch range settings in voice acoustic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 318-324. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.318
  14. Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalised additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  15. Wu, K., Zhang, D., & Lu, G. (2016). iPEEH: Improving pitch estimation by enhancing harmonics. Expert Systems with Applications, 64, 317-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.08.018
  16. Yang, B. (1990). Development of vowel normalization procedures: English and Korean. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
  17. Yang, B. (1996). A comparative study of American English and Korean vowels produced by male and female speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 24(2), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0013
  18. Yang, B. (2009). Formant trajectories of English vowels produced by American males. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 1(3), 65-72.
  19. Yune, Y. (2013). A study on the pitch contour variation in reading sentence produced by Chinese Korean-learners. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 5(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2013.5.2.059
  20. Zheng, Y., & Brette, R. (2017). On the relation between pitch and level. Hearing research, 348, 63-69. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.02.014 on September 9, 2018.