Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

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

DOI QR Code

Changes in fundamental frequency depending on language, context, and language proficiency for bilinguals

한국어-영어 이중언어 화자의 사용 언어, 문맥, 언어 능숙도에 따른 기본 주파수 변화

  • Yoon, Somang (Department of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Mok, Sora (Department of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Youn, Jungseon (Department of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Han, Jiyun (Department of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Yim, Dongsun (Department of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University)
  • 윤소망 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 언어병리학과) ;
  • 목소라 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 언어병리학과) ;
  • 윤정선 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 언어병리학과) ;
  • 한지윤 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 언어병리학과) ;
  • 임동선 (이화여자대학교 일반대학원 언어병리학과)
  • Received : 2019.02.15
  • Accepted : 2019.03.14
  • Published : 2019.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the mean fundamental frequency (F0) changes depending on language, task, or language proficiency for Korean-English bilinguals. A total of forty-eight Korean-English speakers (28 balanced bilinguals and 20 Korean dominant bilinguals) participated in the study. Participants were asked to read aloud two types of tasks in English and Korean. For statistical analyses, the language ${\times}$ task two-way repeated ANOVAs were conducted within the balanced bilingual group first, and then group ${\times}$ language two-way mixed ANOVAs. The results showed that the females in both bilingual groups changed their mean F0 depending on the language they used and the tasks (p<.05), whereas no significant results were found in the males in either group under any conditions. The mean fundamental frequency in the Korean reading task was significantly higher than that in the English reading task for females in both balanced and Korean dominant bilingual groups. Thus, changes in mean F0 depending on language and context may reflect gender-specific characteristics, and females seem to be more sensitive to the socio-cultural standards that are imposed on them.

본 연구에서는 영어-한국어 이중언어 화자의 평균 기본주파수를 분석하여 언어 및 과제에 따른 차이가 있는지 살펴보고, 거주년수 및 언어 능숙도에 따라 언어 간 평균 기본주파수 상이한지 실펴보고자 하였다. 본 연구의 대상자는 영어권 나라에 7년 이상 거주한 한국어-영어 균형적 이중언어 집단 총 28명(남녀 각각 14명, 균형적 이중언어집단), 언어 노출기간 및 언어 능숙도에 차이를 두기 위해 추가로 모집한 영어권 나라 거주년수 3년 이하인 한국어 우세 이중언어 집단 총 20명(남녀 각각 10명, 한국어 우세 이중언어 집단)이다. 이들은 한국어와 영어로 읽기 및 자발화 과제를 수행하였고 Praat을 통해 녹음한 음성파일의 평균 기본주파수를 분석하였다. 이후 각 성별 내 언어 ${\times}$ 과제 이원 배치 분산 분석(two-way repeated ANOVA) 및 집단 ${\times}$ 언어의 이원 혼합 분산 분석(two-way mixed ANOVA)을 실시하였다. 그 결과, 언어 및 과제에 따라 균형적 이중언어 집단의 남녀 대상군 별로 상이한 결과가 나타났다. 여성의 경우 한국어보다 영어의 평균 기본주파수가 유의하게 높았으며(p=.003), 자발화과제보다 읽기 과제에서 평균 기본주파수가 유의하게 높았다(p=.002). 그러나 남성의 경우, 어떠한 조건에서도 유의한 결과가 나타나지 않았다. 두 번째로, 언어 능숙도에 따른 집단 간 비교에서 여성 대상자들에서만 언어 간 기본주파수 변화가 통계적으로 유의하게 나타났다(p=.000). 즉, 한국어 읽기 과제에서 평균 기본주파수가 영어 읽기 과제보다 유의하게 높았다. 그러나 언어 능숙도에 따른 평균 기본주파수의 변화는 통계적으로 유의하지 않았다(p=.830). 남성 대상자의 경우는 어떤 조건에서도 유의한 결과는 없었다. 결과적으로, 이중언어 화자의 언어 간 평균 기본주파수의 변화는 언어의 능숙도와 관계없이 성별에 따라 상이하게 나타났으며 본 연구를 바탕으로 언어 간 평균 주파수의 차이가 해부생리학적 요인이나 언어학적 요인보다도 사화문화적인 요인에 의한 것임을 생각해 볼 수 있도록 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Andreeva, B., Demenko, G., Mobius, B., Zimmerer, F., Jugler, J., & Oleskowicz-Popiel, M. (2014, September). Differences of pitch profiles in Germanic and Slavic languages. Proceedings of Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (pp. 1307-1311). Singapore.
  2. Awan, S. N., & Mueller, P. B. (1996). Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of white, African American, and Hispanic kindergartners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39(3), 573-577. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3903.573
  3. Barrett, K. C., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Cole, P. M. (1993). Avoiders vs. amenders: Implications for the investigation of guilt and shame during toddlerhood? Cognition & Emotion, 7(6), 481-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409201
  4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. J. M. (2001). Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9/10), 341-347.
  5. Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: Biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_9
  6. Busa, M. G., & Urbani, M. (2011, August). A cross linguistic analysis of pitch range in English L1 and L2. Proceedings of 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (pp. 380-383). Hong Kong.
  7. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676
  8. Chen, S. H. (2005). The effects of tones on speaking frequency and intensity ranges in Mandarin and Min dialects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(5), 3225-3230. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1872312
  9. Danziger, S., & Ward, R. (2010). Language changes implicit associations between ethnic groups and evaluation in bilinguals. Psychological Science, 21(6), 799-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371344
  10. Deutsch, D., Le, J., Shen, J., & Henthorn, T. (2009). The pitch levels of female speech in two Chinese villages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), EL208-EL213. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3113892
  11. Dolson, M. (1994). The pitch of speech as a function of linguistic community. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285626
  12. Eady, S. J. (1982). Differences in the F0 patterns of speech: Tone language versus stress language. Language and Speech, 25(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098202500103
  13. Eagly, A. H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.86
  14. Ellis, C., Kuipers, J. R., Thierry, G., Lovett, V., Turnbull, O., & Jones, M. W. (2015). Language and culture modulate online semantic processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(10), 1392-1396. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv028
  15. Fucci, D. J., & Lass, N. J. (1999). Fundamentals of speech science (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  16. Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1983). Speaking fundamental frequency: Some physical and social correlates. Language and Speech, 26(Pt 4), 351-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098302600403
  17. Graham, C. (2014). Fundamental frequency range in Japanese and English: The case of simultaneous bilinguals. Phonetica, 71(4), 271-295. https://doi.org/10.1159/000381627
  18. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Hanley, T. D., Snidecor, J. C., & Ringel, R. L. (1966). Some acoustic differences among languages. Phonetica, 14(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1159/000258520
  20. Hollien, H., & Shipp, T. (1972). Speaking fundamental frequency and chronologic age in males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1501.155
  21. Hollien, H., Hollien, P. A., & de Jong, G. (1997). Effects of three parameters on speaking fundamental frequency. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(5), 2984-2992. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.420353
  22. Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 387-467). New York, NY: Wiley.
  23. Keating, P., & Kuo, G. (2012). Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), 1050-1060. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4730893
  24. Kunzel, H. J. (1989). How well does average fundamental frequency correlate with speaker height and weight? Phonetica, 46(1-3), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261832
  25. Laver, J. (1980). The phonetic description of voice quality: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Lim, S. B., Lee, G., & Rhee, S.-C. (2016). Effect of language on fundamental frequency: Comparison between Korean and English produced by L2 speakers and bilingual speakers. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 8(4), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2016.8.4.015
  27. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
  28. Mennen, I., Schaeffler, F., & Docherty, G. (2012). Cross-language differences in fundamental frequency range: A comparison of English and German. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(3), 2249-2260. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3681950
  29. Morrison, M. D., & Gore-Hickman, P. (1986). Voice disorders in the elderly. The Journal of Olaryngology, 15(4), 231-234.
  30. Murry, T., Brown, W. S., Jr., & Morris, R. J. (1995). Patterns of fundamental frequency for three types of voice samples. Journal of Voice, 9(3), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80235-8
  31. Mysak, E. D. (1959). Pitch and duration characteristics of older males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 2(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0201.46
  32. Nevo, L., Nevo, C., & Oliveira, G. (2015). A comparison of vocal parameters in adult bilingual Hebrew-English speakers. CoDAS, 27(5), 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152015096
  33. Ogunnaike, O., Dunham, Y., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). The language of implicit preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 999-1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.006
  34. Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common crosslanguage utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261706
  35. Ohara, Y. (1999). Performing gender through voice pitch: A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and American English. In U. Pasero & F. Broun (Eds.). Wahrnehmung und Herstellung von Geschlecht (pp. 105-116). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
  36. Ordin, M., & Mennen, I. (2017). Cross-linguistic differences in bilinguals' fundamental frequency ranges. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(6), 1493-1506. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0315
  37. Ryabov, R., Malakh, M., Trachtenberg, M., Wohl, S., & Oliveira, G. (2016). Self-perceived and acoustic voice characteristics of Russian-English bilinguals. Journal of Voice, 30(6), 772.e1-772.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.11.009
  38. Shrivastav, R., Yamaguchi, H., & Andrews, M. (2000). Effects of stimulation techniques on vocal responses: Implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Voice, 14(3), 322-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80078-8
  39. Traunmuller, H., & Eriksson, A. (1995). The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults. Unpublished manuscript.
  40. Van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800303
  41. Van Dommelen, W. A., & Moxness, B. H. (1995). Acoustic parameters in speaker height and weight identification: Sex-specific behaviour. Language and Speech, 38(Pt 3), 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800304
  42. Voigt, R., Jurafsky, D., & Sumner, M. (2016). Between- and withinspeaker effects of bilingualism on F0 variation. In Interspeech 2016, 1122-1126.
  43. Yamazawa, H., & Hollien, H. (1992). Speaking fundamental frequency patterns of Japanese women. Phonetica, 49(2), 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261907
  44. Yuan, J., Ryant, N., & Liberman, M. (2014, May). Automatic phonetic segmentation in Mandarin Chinese: Boundary models, glottal features and tone. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp. 2539-2543). Florence, Italy.
  45. Zimmerer, F., Jugler, J., Andreeva, B., Mobius, B., & Trouvain, J. (2014). Too cautious to vary more? A comparison of pitch variation in native and non-native productions of French and German speakers. Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 7 (pp. 1037-1041). Dublin, Ireland.
  46. Zraick, R. I., Nelson, J. L., Montague, J. C., & Monoson, P. K. (2000). The effect of task on determination of maximum phonational frequency range. Journal of Voice, 14(2), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80022-3
  47. Zraick, R. I., Skaggs, S. D., & Montague, J. C. (2000). The effect of task on determination of habitual pitch. Journal of Voice, 14(4), 484-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80005-3