Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T12:28:28.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long- and short-term within-speaker differences in the formants of Australian hello

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Phil Rose
Phil Rose
Affiliation:
Phonetics Laboratory, Department of Linguistics (Arts), Australian National University e-mail: philip.rose@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a forensic phonetic experiment which investigates the nature of long- and short-term within-speaker differences in the F-pattem of the same word hello said by six similar-sounding male speakers of Australian English. Short-term differences are obtained from recordings separated by about one minute, long-term differences from recordings separated by at least a year. Within-spcaker variation in the centre frequencies of the first four formants at well-defined points in the word is quantified by ANOVA, Scheffé's F and Euclidean distances. Very few significant differences occur in either the long- or short-term, and they appear largely random. Bom long- and short-term mean within-speaker differences are shown to be less than the corresponding mean between-speaker differences. Implications of the findings are discussed and directions for future research are outlined.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , June 1999 , pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1999

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

Bradley, D. (1989). Regional dialects in Australian English. In Collins, P. & Blair, D. (editors), Australian English. The Language of a New Society, 260–270. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Broad, D. J. (1972). Formants in automatic speech recognition. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 4, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clermont, F. & Itahashi, S. (1999). Monophthongal and diphthongal evidence of isomorphism between formant and cepstral spaces. Proceedings Spring Meeting of the Acoustical Society of Japan. Meiji University Press: 205–206.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elzey, F. (1985). Introductory Statistics: A Microcomputer Approach. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Giet, Van der (1987). Der Einsatz des Computers in der Sprechererkennung. In Künzel, H. (editor) Sprechererkennung: Grundzüge forensicher Sprachverarbeitung. Heidelberg: Kriminalistik Verlag.Google Scholar
Greisbach, R., Esser, O. & Weinstock, C. (1995). Speaker Identification by formant contours. In Braun, A. & Koester, P. (editors), Studies in Forensic Phonetics. Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 64, 49–55. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Cox, F. & Evans, Z. (1997). An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17, 155–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillcoat, T. O. (1994). An Evaluation of Selected Sibilant and Nasal Parameters for Use in Forensic Speaker Identification. Unpublished Master of Letters Thesis, University of New England.Google Scholar
Hollien, H. (1990). The Acoustics of Crime. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Ingram, J.C.L., Ong, S. & Prandolini, R. (1996). Formant trajectories as indices of phonetic variation for speaker identification. Forensic Linguistics 3, 129–145.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., Pant, G.M. & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Tenth reprint 1972. Cambridge, Mass.: MTT press.Google Scholar
Künzel, H. (1987). Sprechererkennung: Grundzüge forensicher Sprachverarbeitiung. Heidelberg: Kriminalistik Verlag.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. D. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1993). A Course in Phonetics. Third edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
Naik, J. (1994). Speaker verification over the telephone network: databases, algorithms and performance assessment. ESCA Workshop on Automatic Speaker Recognition, Identification and Verification: 31–38.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. (1983). The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oasa, H. (1989). Phonology of current Adelaide English. In Collins, P. & Blair, D. (editors), Australian English. The Language of a New Society, 271–287. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, B. & Vignaux, T. (1995). Interpreting Evidence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (1993). A linguistic-phonetic acoustic analysis of Shanghai tones. Australian Journal of Linguistics 13: 185–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, P. (1996). Speaker verification under realistic forensic conditions. In McCormak, P. & Russell, A. (editors), Proceedings of the Sixth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 109–114. Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (1997). A seven tone dialect in Southern Thai with super-high: Pakphanang Tonal Acoustics and Physiological Inferences. In Abramson, A. (editor), Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies in Honour of Vichin Panupong, 191–208. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (1998). A forensic phonetic investigation into long-term variation in the F-pattem of similar-sounding speakers. In Mannell, R. H. & Robert-Ribes, J. (editors), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 2, 217–220. Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (1999). Differences and distinguishability in the acoustic characteristics of Hello in voices of similar-sounding speakers: a forensic phonetic investigation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 21 (2): 1–42.Google Scholar
Rose, P. & Duncan, S. (1995). Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners. Forensic Linguistics 2 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Rose, P. & Simmons, A. (1996). F-pattem variability in disguise and over the telephone- comparisons for forensic speaker identification. In McCormak, P. & Russell, A. (editors), Proceedings of the 6th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 121–126. Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropology 70, 1075–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1971). Sources of inter- and intra-speaker variability in the acoustic properties of speech sounds. Proc. 7th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Montreal: 206–232.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1997). Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships. In Hardcastle, W.J. & Laver, J. (editors), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, 462–506. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sundberg, J. (1987). The Science of the Singing Voice. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Sundberg, J. & Nordström, P.E. (1976). Raised and lowered larynx – the effect on vowel formant frequencies. Quarterly Progress Status Report, Speech Transmission Laboratory 2–3, 35–39.Google Scholar
Titze, I. R. (1994). Principles of Voice Production. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wolf, J. J. (1972). Efficient acoustic parameters for speaker recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2044–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar