Summary
Background
In addition to language differences in fundamental frequency between bilinguals and
monolinguals, studies have also included other acoustic parameters to analyze differences
in voice production associated with the language spoken.
Aim
To identify differences in voice acoustic parameters during English productions between
monolingual and bilingual English speakers.
Method
Exploratory cross-sectional study with two groups of subjects: monolingual English
speakers (n = 40), and bilingual English-Spanish speakers (n = 13). Participants filled
out a questionnaire and recorded one reading in English (second sentence of Rainbow
passage “The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautiful colors”) under
a “virtual-simulated” acoustic condition of No Noise and Medium Reverberation Time
(0.8 seconds).
Result
Analysis by gender shows that monolingual speakers had higher fundamental frequency
mode, and lower standard deviation of fundamental frequency compared to bilingual
English-Spanish speakers. Bilingual male speakers had higher jitter and harmonics-to-noise
ratio than monolingual speakers. On the contrary, female bilingual speakers had lower
jitter and shimmer than monolingual speakers.
Conclusions
Speaking a second language may influence voice acoustic parameters, and therefore,
should be considered when comparing acoustic speech metrics.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Natural increase: a new source of population growth in emerging Hispanic destinations in the United States.Popul Dev Rev. 2008; 34: 327-346
- Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin.J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132: 1050-1060
- Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of white, African American, and Hispanic kindergartners.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1996; 39: 573-577
- Fundamental frequency in monolingual English, bilingual English/Russian, and bilingual English/Cantonese young adult women.J Voice. 2006; 20: 89-96
Chong Y-y: Vocal characteristics of English and Mandarin produced by Mandarin-English and English-Mandarin bilingual speakers: a long-term average spectral analysis. 2012.
- Comparisons of Harmony and Rhythm of Japanese and English Through Signal Processing.Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009
- Cross-linguistic effects on voice quality: a study on Brazilians’ production of Portuguese and English.in: International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech. Concordia Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (COPAL). 2014
- Stability of long-term average spectrum measures and cepstral peak prominence in connected speech.in: Conference on Phonetics & Phonology in German-speaking countries. 129. 2018
Statulator: An online statistical calculator. Sample size calculator for comparing two independent means [http://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss2M.html]
- The Rainbow passage.in: Fairbanks G Voice and Articulation Drillbook. Harper & Row, New York1960: 127
- Factors associated with vocal fry among college students.Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2018; 43: 73-79
- Vocal fry and vowel height in simulated room acoustics.Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2017; 69: 118-124
- Preclinical Speech Science: Anatomy, Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception.Plural Publishing, 2018
- Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice.2nd edition. Singular Publishing, San Diego2000
- Statistics notes: measurement error.BMJ. 1996; 312: 1654
- (Edited by)Jitter and shimmer measurements for speaker recognition.in: ISCA Eighth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association: 2007; Antwerp (Belgium). ISCA, 2007 (Edited by)
- Jitter, shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices.Proc Technol. 2014; 16: 1228-1237
- Vocal shimmer in sustained phonation of normal and pathologic voice.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1976; 85: 377-381
- Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging.J Voice. 2002; 16: 480-487
- Temporal and spectral estimations of harmonics-to-noise ratio in human voice signals.J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102: 537-543
- Harmonics‐to‐noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness.J Acoust Soc Am. 1982; 71: 1544-1550
- Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333
- Practical acoustics in clinical voice assessment: a Praat primer.Perspect ASHA Special Interest Gr. 2017; 2: 14-32
- Individual Features in Voice Quality.University of Edinburgh, Department of Linguistics, 1987
- The influence of language and speech task upon creaky voice use among six young American women learning French.Interspeech 2013. International Speech Communication Association, 2013: 2395-2399 (2013)
- Voice pitch characteristics of Cantonese and English produced by Cantonese-English bilingual children.Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 12: 230-236
- Is voice quality language-dependent? Acoustic analyses based on speakers of three different languages.Language. 2003; 6: 2
- Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the voice handicap index (VHI).J Voice. 2014; 28: 430-439
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 14, 2019
Accepted:
August 9,
2019
Footnotes
The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01DC012315.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
