An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection
-
Paul De Decker
Abstract
Current trends in sociophonetic data analysis indicate a shift to entirely automatic measurements of spectral properties using programs like Praat. While such practices are useful for the rapid collection of acoustic data from large corpora, they, by default do not permit human analysts to provide quality control or make hand corrected measurements when needed. Under ideal signal-to-noise conditions, such as in a sound-proof room, this may not be a problem. However, analysis of audio recordings made in acoustically-uncontrolled environments, like many standard sociolinguistic interviews, are arguably susceptible to spurious estimates using automated routines. This paper presents the results of a highly controlled noise-interference experiment designed to examine the effects of different types of noise at varying signal-to-noise levels on automated LPC-based vowel formant measurements made in Praat. Findings indicate that some noises are more detrimental than others, affect some formant frequencies more than others and that louder noises make it inappropriate to conduct an analysis of F1 and F2. Results are discussed and suggestions for better practices in recording sociolinguistic interviews for sociophonetic data collection are presented.
References
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01Suche in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer.Suche in Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L. 1986. Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165990Suche in Google Scholar
Carson, C.P., D.R.S. Ingrisano & K.D. Eggleston. 2003. The effect of noise on computer-aided measures of voice: A comparison of cspeechsp and the multi-dimensional voice program software using the csl 4300b module and multi-speech for windows. Journal of Voice 17(1). 12–20.10.1016/S0892-1997(03)00031-6Suche in Google Scholar
Cieri, Christopher. 2010. Making a field recording. Sociophonetics: A student’s guide. London: Routledge, 24–35.Suche in Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 2010. Newfoundland and Labrador English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748626168.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra, Ford Elms & Amani Youssef. 1995. The third dialect of English: Some Canadian evidence. Language Variation and Change 7(02). 209–228.10.1017/S0954394500000995Suche in Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2000. Revisiting the observer’s paradox. American Speech 75(3). 253–254.10.1215/00031283-75-3-253Suche in Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia & Guy Bailey. 1995. An approach to sociolinguistic fieldwork: A site study of rural aave in a Texas community. English World-Wide 16(2). 159–193.10.1075/eww.16.2.02cukSuche in Google Scholar
De Decker, Paul & Jennifer Nycz. 2013. The technology of conducting sociolinguistic interviews. In Mallinson, Christine & Childs, Becky & Van Herk, Gerard (eds.), Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide. Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications 2. 118–126. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315535258-26Suche in Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna & Sabina Perrino. 2011. Introduction: Interviews vs. natural’ contexts: A false dilemma. Language in Society 40(01). 1–11.10.1017/S0047404510000849Suche in Google Scholar
Deliyski, Dimitar D., Heather S. Shaw & Maegan K. Evans. 2005. Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. Journal of Voice 19(1). 15–28.10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.07.003Suche in Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alex & Chris Coey. 2013. islr field recorder, version 1.1.Suche in Google Scholar
Dropbox.Suche in Google Scholar
Fought, Carmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community:/u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1). 5–23.10.1111/1467-9481.t01-1-00060Suche in Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet M. 2000. Changing perspectives on data: Interviews as situated speech. American Speech 75(4). 388–390.10.1215/00031283-75-4-388Suche in Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Felicitas Kleber & Ulrich Reubold. 2008. Compensation for coarticulation,/u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5). 2825–2835.10.1121/1.2897042Suche in Google Scholar
Hoffman, Michol. 2013. Sociolinguistic Interviews. In Kirk Hazen and Janet Holmes (eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide (GMLZ - Guides to Research Methods in Language and Linguistics). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. 266–290.Suche in Google Scholar
Howell, Jonathon, Kyle Gorman & Michael Wagner. 2011. Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics 39. 192–193.Suche in Google Scholar
Ingrisano, Dennis R.S., Cecyle K. Perry & Kairsten R. Jepson. 1998. Environmental noise: A threat to automatic voice analysis. American Journal of Speech – Language Pathology 7(1). 91.10.1044/1058-0360.0701.91Suche in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In John Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Suche in Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Instrumental techniques for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. In William J Hardcastle and John Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 137–166. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar
McCloy, Daniel. 2013. Praat script: Mix speech with noise.Suche in Google Scholar
Parikh, Gaurang & Philipos C. Loizou. 2005. The influence of noise on vowel and consonant cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(6). 3874–3888.10.1121/1.2118407Suche in Google Scholar
Perry, Cecyle K., Dennis R.S. Ingrisano, Melanie A. Palmer & E.J. McDonald. 2000. Effects of environmental noise on computer-derived voice estimates from female speakers. Journal of Voice 14(2). 146–153.10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80021-1Suche in Google Scholar
Peterson, A.P.G. 1980. Handbook of noise measurement, 9th edn. West Concord, MA: General Radio Co.Suche in Google Scholar
Plichta, Bartek. 2002. Best practices in the acquisition, processing, and analysis of acoustic speech signals. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8(3). 16.Suche in Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2007. Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a personal. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(4). 478–504.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00334.xSuche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Suche in Google Scholar
Starks, Donna & Zita McRobbie-Utasi. 2001. Collecting sociolinguistic data: Some typical and some not so typical approaches. New Zealand Sociology 16(1). 79–92.Suche in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801624Suche in Google Scholar
Titze, Ingo R. Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: Summary statement. National Center for Voice and Speech, 1995. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.Suche in Google Scholar
Zue, Victor W. & Martha Laferriere. 1979. Acoustic study of medial/t, d/in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(4). 1039–1050.10.1121/1.383323Suche in Google Scholar
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Phonetics & Phonology
- Phonotactic c(l)ues to Bantu noun class disambiguation
- Articulatory correlates of metrical structure: Studying jaw displacement patterns
- Language Acquisition & Language Learning
- Statistics and semantics in the acquisition of Spanish word order: Testing two accounts of the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors
- Historical Linguistics
- Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan
- Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals
- Morphology & Syntax
- What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics
- Structure vs. use in heritage language
- Sociolinguistics & Anthropological Linguistics
- An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection
- Cognitive Linguistics
- Fluid construction grammar as a biological system
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Phonetics & Phonology
- Phonotactic c(l)ues to Bantu noun class disambiguation
- Articulatory correlates of metrical structure: Studying jaw displacement patterns
- Language Acquisition & Language Learning
- Statistics and semantics in the acquisition of Spanish word order: Testing two accounts of the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors
- Historical Linguistics
- Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan
- Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals
- Morphology & Syntax
- What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics
- Structure vs. use in heritage language
- Sociolinguistics & Anthropological Linguistics
- An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection
- Cognitive Linguistics
- Fluid construction grammar as a biological system
