Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:05:45.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Typology and acoustic strategies of whistled languages: Phonetic comparison and perceptual cues of whistled vowels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2008

Julien Meyer
Julien Meyer*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Dynamique Du Langage, Institut des Sciences de l'Homme, Lyon Laboratori d'Aplicacions Bioacustiques, Universitat Polytecnica de Catalunya, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whistled speech is a complementary natural style of speech to be found in more than thirty languages of the world. This phenomenon, also called ‘whistled language’, enables distant communication amid the background noise of rural environments. Whistling is used as a sound source instead of vocal fold vibration. The resulting acoustic signal is characterised by a narrow band of frequencies encoding the words. Such a strong reduction of the frequency spectrum of the voice explains why whistled speech is language-specific, relying on selected salient key features of a given language. However, for a fluent whistler, a spoken sentence transposed into whistles remains highly intelligible in several languages, and whistled languages therefore represent a valuable source of information for phoneticians. This study is based on original data collected in seven different cultural communities or gathered during perceptual experiments which are described here. Whistling is first found to extend the strategy at play in shouted voice. Various whistled speech practices are then described using a new typology. A statistical analysis of whistled vowels in non-tonal languages is presented, as well as their categorisation by non-whistlers. The final discussion proposes that whistled vowels in non-tonal languages are a reflection of the perceptual integration of formant proximities in the spoken voice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , April 2008 , pp. 69 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 2008

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

Bladon, Anthony & Fant, Gunnar. 1978. A two-formant model and the cardinal vowels. STL-QPSR 1-1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Brusis, Tilman. 1973. Über die phonetische Struktur der Pfeifsprache Silbo Gomero dargestellt an sonagraphischen Untersuchungen. Zeitschrift für Laryngologie 52, 292–300.Google Scholar
Busnel, René-Guy. 1970. Recherches expérimentales sur la langue sifflée de Kusköy. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 14/15, 41–57.Google Scholar
Busnel, René-Guy, Alcuri, Gustave Gautheron, Bernard & Rialland, Annie. 1989. Sur quelques aspects physiques de la langue à ton sifflée du peuple H'mong. Cahiers de l'Asie du Sud-Est 26, 39–52.Google Scholar
Busnel, René-Guy & Classe, André. 1976. Whistled languages. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busnel, René-Guy, Moles, Abraham & Vallancien, Bernard. 1962. Sur l'aspect phonétique d'une langue sifflée dans les Pyrénées françaises. The International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Helsinki, 533–546. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Calliope. 1989. La parole et son traitement automatique. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Carlson, Rolf, Granström, Björn & Fant, Gunnar. 1970. Some studies concerning perception of isolated vowels, STL-QPSR 2-3, 19–35.Google Scholar
Carreiras, Manuel, Lopez, Jorge, Rivero, Francisco & Corina, David. 2005. Linguistic perception: Neural processing of a whistled language. Nature 433, 31–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caughley, Ross. 1976. Chepang whistled talk. In Sebeok & Umiker-Sebeok (eds.), 966–992.Google Scholar
Chistovitch, Ludmilla A. 1985. Central auditory processing of peripheral vowel spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77, 789–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chistovitch, Ludmilla A. & Lublinskaja, Valentina V.. 1979. The center of gravity effect in vowel spectra and critical distance between the formants: Psychoacoustical study of the perception of vowel-like stimuli. Hearing Research 1, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chistovitch, Ludmilla A., Sheikin, R. L. & Lublinskaja, Valentina V.. 1979. Centres of gravity and spectral peaks as the determinants of vowel quality. In Lindblom, Björn & Öhman, S. (eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research, 143–157. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Classe, André. 1956. Phonetics of the Silbo Gomero. Archivum Linguisticum 9, 44–61.Google Scholar
Classe, André. 1957. The whistled language of La Gomera. Scientific American 196, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, George M. 1948. Mazateco whistle speech. Language 24, 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, George M. 1976. Whistled Tepehua. In Sebeok, & Umiker-Sebeok, (eds.), 1400–1409.Google Scholar
Cowan, Nelson & Morse, Philip A.. 1986. The use of auditory and phonetic memory in vowel discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79 (2), 500–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimou, Athanassia-Lida & Dommergues, Jean-Yves. 2004. L'harmonie entre parole chantée et parole lue: Comparaison des durées syllabiques dans un chant traditionnel grec. Journées d'Etudes de la Parole 2, 177–180.Google Scholar
Dreher, John J. & O'Neill, John. 1957. Effects of ambient noise on speaker intelligibility for words and phrases. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29, 1320–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, Thomas. 1978. Effect of speaking rate on vowel formant movements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 63, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, David M. 1985. Temporal factors in psychoacoustics. In Michelsen, Axel (ed.), Time resolution in auditory systems, 122–140. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Helmholtz, Hermann L. F. 1862. On the sensation of tone. Green & Co. [4th edn., London: Longmans.]Google Scholar
Jacobson, Steven A. 1985. Siberian Yupik and Central Yupik prosody. In Krauss, Michael (ed.), Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: Descriptive and comparative studies, 25–46. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Leroy, Christine. 1970. Étude de phonétique comparative de la langue turque sifflée et parlée. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 14/15, 119–161.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 1773–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alan Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombard, Etienne. 1911. Le signe de l'élévation de la voix. Annales des maladies de l'oreille, du larynx, du nez et du pharynx 37, 101–119.Google Scholar
Meyer, Julien. 2005. Description typologique et intelligibilité des langues sifflées: Approche linguistique et bioacoustique. Ph.D thesis, Université Lyon 2. Cyberthèse Publication. !http://www.lemondesiffle.free.fr/whistledLanguages.htm (28 November 2007).Google Scholar
Meyer, Julien. 2007. Acoustic features and perceptive cues of songs and dialogues in whistled speech: Convergences with sung speech. The International Symposium on Musical Acoustics 2007, 1-S4-4, 1–8. Barcelona: Ok Punt Publications.Google Scholar
Meyer, Julien & Gautheron, Bernard. 2006. Whistled speech and whistled languages. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 13, 573–576. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moles, Abraham. 1970. Etude sociolinguistique de la langue sifflée de Kusköy. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 14/15, 78–118.Google Scholar
Padgham, Mark. 2004. Reverberation and frequency attenuation in forests – implications for acoustic communication in animals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115 (1), 402–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plomp, Reinier. 1967. Pitch of complex tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 41, 1526–1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rialland, Annie. 2003. A new perspective on Silbo Gomero. The 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2131–2134. Barcelona.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie. 2005. Phonological and phonetic aspects of whistled languages. Phonology 22, 237–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risset, Jean-Claude. 1968. Sur certains aspects fonctionnels de l'audition. Annales des Télécommunications 23, 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risset, Jean-Claude. 2000. Perception of musical sound: simulacra and illusions. In Nakada, Tsutomu (ed.), Integrated human brain science: Theory, method, application (music), 279–289. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Jean-Luc & Escudier, Pierre. 1989. A strong evidence for the existence of a large scale integrated spectral representation in vowel perception. Speech Communication 8, 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. & Umiker-Sebeok, Donna Jean (eds.). 1976. Speech surrogates: Drum and whistle systems. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, Roger N. 1968. Approximation to uniform gradients of generalization by monotone transformation of scale. In Moskosky, David I. (ed.), Stimulus generalization, 343–390. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Smith S. & Davis, Hallowell. 1938. Hearing: Its psychology and physiology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Trujillo, Ramón. 1978. El Silbo Gomero: Analisis linguistico. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Andres Bello.Google Scholar
Trujillo, Ramón, Morera, Marcial, Guarro, Amador, Padrón, Ubaldo & Ortíz, Isidro. 2005. El Silbo Gomero: Materiales didácticos. Islas Canarias: Consejería de educación, cultura y deportes del Gobierno de Canarias – Dirección general de ordenación e innovación educativa.Google Scholar
Wiley, Haven R. & Richards, Douglas G.. 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 3, 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiromeritis, Nicolas & Spyridis, Haralampos C.. 1994. An acoustical approach to the vowels of the village Antias in the Greek Island of Evia. Acustica 5, 425–516.Google Scholar