Research Article| Volume 35, ISSUE 2, P194-202, March 2021

Do Voice Acoustic Parameters Differ Between Bilingual English-Spanish Speakers and Monolingual English Speakers During English Productions?

Published:September 14, 2019DOI:



      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.


      To identify differences in voice acoustic parameters during English productions between monolingual and bilingual English speakers.


      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).


      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.


      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 access
      One-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 to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Johnson KM
        • Lichter DT
        Natural increase: a new source of population growth in emerging Hispanic destinations in the United States.
        Popul Dev Rev. 2008; 34: 327-346
        • Keating P
        • Kuo G
        Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132: 1050-1060
        • Awan SN
        • Mueller PB
        Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of white, African American, and Hispanic kindergartners.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1996; 39: 573-577
        • Altenberg EP
        • Ferrand CT
        Fundamental frequency in monolingual English, bilingual English/Russian, and bilingual English/Cantonese young adult women.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 89-96
      1. 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.

        • Nakano A
        Comparisons of Harmony and Rhythm of Japanese and English Through Signal Processing.
        Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009
        • Engelbert A
        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
        • Peters J
        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
      2. Statulator: An online statistical calculator. Sample size calculator for comparing two independent means []

        • Fairbanks G
        The Rainbow passage.
        in: Fairbanks G Voice and Articulation Drillbook. Harper & Row, New York1960: 127
        • Cantor-Cutiva LC
        • Bottalico P
        • Hunter E
        Factors associated with vocal fry among college students.
        Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2018; 43: 73-79
        • Cantor-Cutiva LC
        • Bottalico P
        • Ishi CT
        • et al.
        Vocal fry and vowel height in simulated room acoustics.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2017; 69: 118-124
        • Hixon TJ
        • Weismer G
        • Hoit JD
        Preclinical Speech Science: Anatomy, Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception.
        Plural Publishing, 2018
        • Baken RJ
        • Orlikoff RF
        Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice.
        2nd edition. Singular Publishing, San Diego2000
        • Bland JM
        • Altman DG
        Statistics notes: measurement error.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 1654
      3. (Edited by)
        • Farrús M
        • Hernando J
        • Ejarque P
        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)
        • Teixeira JP
        • Fernandes PO
        Jitter, shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices.
        Proc Technol. 2014; 16: 1228-1237
        • Kitajima K
        • Gould WJ
        Vocal shimmer in sustained phonation of normal and pathologic voice.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1976; 85: 377-381
        • Ferrand CT
        Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging.
        J Voice. 2002; 16: 480-487
        • Qi Y
        • Hillman RE
        Temporal and spectral estimations of harmonics-to-noise ratio in human voice signals.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102: 537-543
        • Yumoto E
        • Gould WJ
        • Baer T
        Harmonics‐to‐noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1982; 71: 1544-1550
        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Michael DD
        • Baroody MM
        • et al.
        Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333
        • Maryn Y
        Practical acoustics in clinical voice assessment: a Praat primer.
        Perspect ASHA Special Interest Gr. 2017; 2: 14-32
        • Laver J
        Individual Features in Voice Quality.
        University of Edinburgh, Department of Linguistics, 1987
        • Benoist-Lucy A
        • Pillot-Loiseau C
        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)
        • Ng ML
        • Hsueh G
        • Sam Leung C-S
        Voice pitch characteristics of Cantonese and English produced by Cantonese-English bilingual children.
        Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 12: 230-236
        • Wagner A
        • Braun A
        Is voice quality language-dependent? Acoustic analyses based on speakers of three different languages.
        Language. 2003; 6: 2
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Cohen SM
        Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the voice handicap index (VHI).
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 430-439