Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:15:52.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2009

Anne H. Fabricius ,
Dominic Watt  and
Daniel Ezra Johnson
Anne H. Fabricius
Affiliation:
Roskilde University, Denmark
Dominic Watt
Affiliation:
University of York, UK
Daniel Ezra Johnson
Affiliation:
University of York, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article evaluates a speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithm initially proposed in Watt & Fabricius (2002). We compare how well this routine, known as the S-centroid procedure, performs as a sociophonetic research tool in three ways: reducing variance in area ratios of vowel spaces (by attempting to equalize vowel space areas); improving overlap of vowel polygons; and reproducing relative positions of vowel means within the vowel space, compared with formant data in raw Hertz. The study uses existing data sets of vowel formant data from two varieties of English, Received Pronunciation and Aberdeen English (northeast Scotland). We conclude that, for the data examined here, the S-centroid W&F procedure performs at least as well as the two speaker-intrinsic, vowel-extrinsic, formant-intrinsic normalization methods rated as best performing by Adank (2003): Lobanov's (1971) z-score procedure and Nearey's (1978) individual log-mean procedure (CLIHi4 in Adank [2003], CLIHi2 as tested here), and in some test cases better than the latter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , October 2009 , pp. 413 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

REFERENCES

Adank, Patti. (2003). Vowel normalization: A perceptual-acoustic study of Dutch vowels. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Adank, Patti, Smits, Roel, & van Hout, Roeland. (2004). A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116:3099–3107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bigham, Douglas. (2008). Dialect contact and accommodation among emerging adults in a university setting. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ayala. (1990). Graphical methods for testing the equality of several correlated variances. The Statistician 39(1):43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, David. (1990). Speaker normalization for automatic speech recognition. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Deterding, David. (1997). The formants of monophthong vowels in Standard Southern British English Pronunciation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disner, Sandra. (1980). Evaluation of vowel normalization procedures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67:253–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabricius, Anne. (2007a). Variation and change in the trap and strut vowels of RP: A real time comparison of five acoustic data sets. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37(3):293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. (2007b). Vowel formants and angle measurements in diachronic sociophonetic studies: Foot-fronting in RP. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken. 1477–1480. Available at: http://www.icphs2007.de/.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne, Watt, Dominic, & Johnson, Daniel E. (2008). A new speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithm for sociophonetics. Paper presented at Acoustics08, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Anne, Watt, Dominic, & Yurkova, Jillian. (2008). A new speaker-intrinsic vowel normalisation algorithm for sociophonetics. Paper presented at BAAP 2008, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Fox, Robert A., & Jacewicz, Eva. (2008). Analysis of total vowel space areas in three regional dialects of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5):3068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah, & Midgley, Jonathan. (2005). Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30:63–78.Google Scholar
Hindle, Donald. (1978). Approaches to vowel normalization in the study of natural speech. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 161–171.Google Scholar
Kamata, Miho. (2008). An acoustic sociophonetic study of three London vowels. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Koopmans–van Beinum, Florien J. (1980). Vowel contrast reduction: An acoustical and perceptual study of Dutch vowels in various speech conditions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change, volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, & Boberg, Charles. (2006). The atlas of North American English: Phonology, phonetics, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobanov, Boris M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2B):606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. (unpublished manuscript). Socio-phonetics and social change: Deracialisation of the goose vowel in South African English. Submitted.Google Scholar
Moreiras, Caroline. (2006). An acoustic study of vowel change in female adult speakers of RP. B.A. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Nearey, Terry. (1978). Phonetic feature systems for vowels. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alberta. (published 1978, Indiana University Linguistics Club).Google Scholar
Rosner, Burton S., & Pickering, John B. (1994). Vowel perception and production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. (2001). An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Publication of the American Dialect Society 85. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. (2002). Instrumental phonetics. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell. 168–200.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R., & Kendall, Tyler. (2007). NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite. Available at: http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/index.php.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 88(1):97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. (1997). Auditory scales of frequency representation. Available at: http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/bark.htm.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic, & Fabricius, Anne. (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 9:159–173. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/linguistics/WPL/WP2002/Watt_Fab.pdf.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic, Fabricius, Anne, & Kendall, Tyler. (forthcoming). More on vowels: Plotting and normalization. In di Paolo, M. & Yaeger-Dror, M. (eds.), Sociophonetics: A student's guide. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic, & Tillotson, Jenny. (2001). A spectrographic analysis of vowel fronting in Bradford English. English World-Wide 22(2):269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic, & Yurkova, Jillian. (2007). Voice onset time and the Scottish Vowel Length Rule in Aberdeen English. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany. 1521–124. Available at: http://www.icphs2007.de/.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar