Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section
New journal!

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection

Paul De DeckerORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0166-3319
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, SN 3050B St. Johns Newfoundland A1B 3X9, Canada
  • ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0166-3319
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-03-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0010

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.

Keywords: sociophonetics; sociolinguistic interview; noise; vowel formants

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: [Crossref]

  • Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Cieri, Christopher. 2010. Making a field recording. Sociophonetics: A student’s guide. London: Routledge, 24–35.

  • Clarke, Sandra. 2010. Newfoundland and Labrador English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Clarke, Sandra, Ford Elms & Amani Youssef. 1995. The third dialect of English: Some Canadian evidence. Language Variation and Change 7(02). 209–228.

  • Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2000. Revisiting the observer’s paradox. American Speech 75(3). 253–254.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • De Fina, Anna & Sabina Perrino. 2011. Introduction: Interviews vs. natural’ contexts: A false dilemma. Language in Society 40(01). 1–11.

  • 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.

  • D’Arcy, Alex & Chris Coey. 2013. islr field recorder, version 1.1.

  • Dropbox.

  • Fought, Carmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community:/u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1). 5–23. [Crossref]

  • Fuller, Janet M. 2000. Changing perspectives on data: Interviews as situated speech. American Speech 75(4). 388–390.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Howell, Jonathon, Kyle Gorman & Michael Wagner. 2011. Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. Canadian Acoustics 39. 192–193.

  • 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. [Crossref]

  • Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • McCloy, Daniel. 2013. Praat script: Mix speech with noise.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Peterson, A.P.G. 1980. Handbook of noise measurement, 9th edn. West Concord, MA: General Radio Co.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Starks, Donna & Zita McRobbie-Utasi. 2001. Collecting sociolinguistic data: Some typical and some not so typical approaches. New Zealand Sociology 16(1). 79–92.

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Titze, Ingo R. Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: Summary statement. National Center for Voice and Speech, 1995. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.

  • 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.

About the article

Received: 2015-10-08

Accepted: 2016-02-07

Published Online: 2016-03-01

Published in Print: 2016-12-01



Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0010. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in