Article published in:
English World-Wide
Vol. 42:1 (2021) ► pp. 54–84

Extending automatic vowel formant extraction to New Englishes

A comparison of different methods

| University of Münster | University of Campinas
| University of Regensburg
| University of Münster
While different automated procedures for vowel formant prediction have recently been proposed, it is unclear how reliably these methods perform in the phonetic study of vowels in New Englishes and how such approaches could be applied to specific varieties. This paper compares different automatic methods for vowel formant prediction in New Englishes, using manual measurements of Trinidadian English as a baseline. The results show that all methods perform significantly better than default formant parameters often used in speech analysis packages, and that a Bayesian formant tracker calibrated with American (US-FAVE) and Trinidadian English (TRINI-FAVE) generally provides better results than an automatic procedure that optimizes formant ceilings on a vowel- and speaker-specific level. TRINI-FAVE measures vowels characteristic of Trinidadian English most accurately. Phonetic studies of vowels in New Englishes can benefit from these methods.
Keywords: automatic formant prediction, FAVE, Trinidadian English, vowels, New Englishes, formant ceiling optimization, automated acoustic analysis
Published online: 27 January 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00060.mee
References

References

Adank, Patti
2003 Vowel Normalization. A Perceptual-Acoustic Study of Dutch Vowels. Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.Google Scholar
Atal, B. S., and S. L. Hanauer
1971 “Speech Analysis and Synthesis by Linear Prediction of the Speech Wave”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50: 637–655. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2019 “Praat”, http://​www​.praat​.org.
Clopper, Cynthia G., David B. Pisoni, and Kenneth de Jong
2005 “Acoustic Characteristics of the Vowel Systems of Six Regional Varieties of American English”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118: 1661–1676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Li, Xiaodong Cui, Robert Pruvenok, Jonathan Huang, Safivy Momen, Yanyi Chen, and Abeer Alwan
2006 “A Database of Vocal Tract Resonance Trajectories for Research in Speech Processing”. Proceedings of ICASSP 31. Toulouse: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 369–372.Google Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar
2014 English in the Caribbean. Variation, Style and Standards in Jamaica and Trinidad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, Paola, Paul Boersma, Andréia Schurt Rauber, and Ricardo A. H. Bion
2009 “A Cross-Dialect Acoustic Description of Vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 1379–1393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evanini, Keelan
2009 “The Permeability of Dialect Boundaries. A Case Study of the Region Surrounding Erie, Pennsylvania”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Evanini, Keelan, Stephen Isard, and Mark Liberman
2009 “Automatic Formant Extraction for Sociolinguistic Analysis of Large Corpora”. Proceedings of Interspeech 10. Brighton: International Speech Communication Association, 1639–1642.Google Scholar
Ewald, Otto, Eva Liina Asu, and Susanne Schötz
2017 “The Formant Dynamics of Long Close Vowels in Three Varieties of Swedish”. Proceedings of Interspeech 18. Stockholm: International Speech Communication Association, 1412–1416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef
2013 “The Phonological Influence on Phonetic Change”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Glasberg, Brian R., and Brian C. J. Moore
1990 “Derivation of Auditory Filter Shapes from NotchedNoise Data”. Hearing Research 17: 103–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Philip T.
2013 “Making Accurate Measurements. An Empirical Investigation of the Influence of the Measurement Tool, Analysis Settings and Speaker on Formant Measurements”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert, and Hans van de Velde
2017 “Visible Vowels. A Tool for the Visualization of Vowel Variation”. Proceedings of Interspeech 18. Stockholm: International Speech Communication Association, 4034–4035.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James, Laura A. Getty, Michael J. Clark, and Kimberlee Wheeler
1995 “Acoustic Characteristics of American English Vowels”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 3099–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2011 “The Black Kenyan English Vowel System. An Acoustic Phonetic Analysis”. English World-Wide 32: 147–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Jessica E., Elaine T. Stathopoulos, Gina M. Curione, Theresa A. Ash, and Kenneth Johnson
1999 “Formants of Children, Women, and Men: The Effects of Vocal Intensity Variation”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106: 1532–1542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, and Charlotte Vaughn
2020 “Exploring Vowel Formant Estimation through Simulation-Based Techniques”. Linguistics Vanguard 6: 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A.
2008 “Standard American English Pronunciation”. In Bernd Kortmann, and Edgar W. Schneider. eds. The Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: De Gruyter, 37–51.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg
2006 The Atlas of North American English. Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ingrid Rosenfelder, and Josef Fruehwald
2013 “One Hundred Years of Sound Change in Philadelphia. Linear Incrementation, Reversal, and Reanalysis”. Language 89: 30–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Sungbok, Alexandros Potamianos, and Shrikanth Narayanan
1999 “Acoustics of Children’s Speech. Developmental Changes of Temporal and Spectral Parameters”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 1455–1468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leung, Glenda A.
2013 “A Synchronic Sociophonetic Study of Monophthongs in Trinidadian English”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Lobanov, Boris. M.
1971 “Classification of Russian Vowels Spoken by Different Speakers”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49: 606–608. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Olga, and Janet Fletcher
2009 “Acoustic and Durational Properties of Indian English Vowels”. World Englishes 28: 52–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, Michael, Michaela Socolof, Sarah Mihuc, Michael Wagner, and Morgan Sonderegger
2017 “Montreal Forced Aligner. Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi”. Proceedings of Interspeech 18. Stockholm: International Speech Communication Association, 498–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meer, Philipp
2019 “Sociolinguistic Variation in (Standard) Trinidadian English Vowels. A Semi-Automatic Sociophonetic Study of Selected Monophthongs and Diphthongs”. Paper presented at Congress of the Brazilian Linguistics Association, Maceió.
2020 “Automatic Alignment for New Englishes. Applying State-of-the-Art Aligners to Trinidadian English”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147: 2283–2294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meer, Philipp, and José A. Matute Flores
2018 “Making FAVE Ready for New Englishes. Applying and Modifying FAVE for Semi-Automatic Acoustic Analyses of Trinidadian English Vowels”. Paper presented at NWAV 47, New York University.
Mielke, Jeff, Erik R. Thomas, Josef Fruehwald, Michael McAuliffe, Morgan Sonderegger, Jane Stuart-Smith, and Robin Dodsworth
2019 “Age Vectors vs. Axes of Intraspeaker Variation in Vowel Formants Measured Automatically from Several English Speech Corpora”. Proceedings of ICPhS 19. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, 1258–1262.Google Scholar
Moore, Brian C. J.
2010 “Aspects of Auditory Processing Related to Speech Perception”. In Fiona E. Gibbon, John Laver, and William J. Hardcastle. eds. The Handbook of Phonetic sciences. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 454–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pilgrim, Imelda, Ken Haworth, Anthony Perry, Maria Darlington, Joyce Stewart, and Arlene Dwarika
2017 English A for CSEC (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Josef Fruehwald, Keelan Evanini, Scott Seyfarth, Kyle Gorman, Hilary Prichard, and Jiahong Yuan
2014 “FAVE (Forced Alignment and Vowel Extraction)”, https://​github​.com​/JoFrhwld​/FAVE.
Severance, Nathan, Keelan Evanini, and Aaron Dinkin
2016 “Examining the Reliability of Automated Vowel Analyses Using FAVE”. Paper presented at Second North-West Phonetics and Phonology Conference, University of Oregon.
Tan, Rachel Siew Kuang, and Ee-Ling Low
2010 “How Different are the Monophthongs of Malay Speakers of Malaysian and Singapore English?” English World-Wide 31: 162–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Erik R.
2011 Sociophonetics. An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Toefy, Tracey Lynn
2014 “Sociophonetics and Class Differentiation. A Study of Working- and Middle-Class English in Cape Town’s Coloured Community”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
Vallabha, Gautam K., and Betty Tuller
2002 “Systematic Errors in the Formant Analysis of Steady-State Vowels”. Speech Communication 38: 141–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Catherine I. and Zoe E. Evans
2016 “Sound change or experimental artifact? A study on the impact of data preparation on measuring sound change”. Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Parramatta: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, 261–264.Google Scholar
Wells, John C.
1982 Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Youssef, Valerie, and Winford James
2008 “The Creoles of Trinidad and Tobago”. In Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider. eds. The Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: De Gruyter, 320–338.Google Scholar