Although much is known about the linguistic function of vowel nasality, whether contrastive (as in French) or coarticulatory (as in English), and much effort has gone into identifying potential correlates for the phenomenon, this study examines these proposed features to find the optimal acoustic feature(s) for nasality measurement. To this end, a corpus of 4778 oral and nasal vowels in English and French was collected, and data for 22 features were extracted. A series of linear mixed-effects regressions highlighted three promising features with large oral-to-nasal feature differences and strong effects relative to normal oral vowel variability: A1-P0, F1's bandwidth, and spectral tilt. However, these three features, particularly A1-P0, showed considerable variation in baseline and range across speakers and vowels within each language. Moreover, although the features were consistent in direction across both languages, French speakers' productions showed markedly stronger effects, and showed evidence of spectral tilt beyond the nasal norm being used to enhance the oral-nasal contrast. These findings strongly suggest that the acoustic nature of vowel nasality is both language- and speaker-specific, and that, like vowel formants, nasality measurements require speaker normalization for across-speaker comparison, and that these acoustic properties should not be taken as constant across different languages.
References
1.
M.
Haspelmath
, The World Atlas of Language Structures
(Oxford University Press
, Oxford
, 2005
).2.
A.
Lahiri
and W.
Marslen-Wilson
, “The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon
,” Cognition
38
, 245
–294
(1991
).3.
P. S.
Beddor
and R.
Krakow
, “Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: Evidence for partial compensation
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
, 2868
–2887
(1999
).4.
R.
Scarborough
, “Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation
,” J. Phon.
41
, 491
–508
(2013
).5.
R.
Scarborough
, “Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords
,” Lingua
122
, 164
–176
(2012
).6.
W.
Styler
, “On the acoustical and perceptual features of vowel nasality
,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder
, Boulder, CO (2015
).7.
M. Y.
Chen
, “Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
102
, 2360
–2370
(1997
).8.
M. Y.
Chen
, “Acoustic parameters of nasalized vowels in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing speakers
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
98
, 2443
–2453
(1995
).9.
M.
Schwartz
, “The acoustics of normal and nasal vowel production
,” Cleft Palate J.
5
, 125
–140
(1968
).10.
11.
V.
Delvaux
, T.
Metens
, and A.
Soquet
, “Propriétés acoustiques et articulatoires des voyelles nasales du Français
” (“Acoustic and articulatory properties of French nasal vowels”), in XXIVèmes Journées d'Étude sur la Parole
, Nancy
(June 24–27, 2002
), Vol. 24, pp. 357
–360
.12.
N.
Macmillin
, J.
Kingston
, R.
Thorburn
, L. W.
Dickey
, and C.
Bartels
, “Integrality of nasalization and F1. II. Basic sensitivity and phonetic labeling measure distinct sensory and decision-rule interactions
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
, 2913
–2932
(1999
).13.
T.
Pruthi
and C.
Espy-Wilson
, “Acoustic parameters for automatic detection of nasal manner
,” Speech Commun.
43
, 225
–239
(2004
).14.
V.
Delvaux
, “Perception du contraste de nasalité vocalique en Français
” (“Perception of vocalic nasal contrast in French”), J. French Lang. Stud.
19
, 25
–59
(2009
).15.
R. A.
Krakow
, P. S.
Beddor
, L. M.
Goldstein
, and C. A.
Fowler
, “Coarticulatory influences on the perceived height of nasal vowels
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
83
, 1146
–1158
(1988
).16.
C.
Carignan
, “An acoustic and articulatory examination of the oral in nasal: The oral articulations of French nasal vowels are not arbitrary
,” J. Phon.
46
, 23
–33
(2014
).17.
C.
Carignan
, R.
Shosted
, M.
Fu
, Z.
Liang
, and B. P.
Sutton
, “A real-time MRI investigation of the role of lingual and pharyngeal articulation in the production of the nasal vowel system of French
,” J. Phon.
50
, 34
–51
(2015
).18.
R.
Shosted
, C.
Carignan
, and P.
Rong
, “Managing the distinctiveness of phonemic nasal vowels: Articulatory evidence from Hindi
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
131
, 455
–465
(2012
).19.
C.
Carignan
, R.
Shosted
, C.
Shih
, and P.
Rong
, “Compensatory articulation in American English nasalized vowels
,” J. Phon.
39
, 668
–682
(2011
).20.
J.
Kingston
, in The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology
, edited by P.
De Lacy
(Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, UK
, 2007
), pp. 435
–456
.21.
V.
Delvaux
and K.
Huet
, “Perception de la nasalité en Français de Belgique: Catégorisation dirigée et catégorisation libre
” (“Perception of nasality in French from Belgium: Controlled categorization and free categorization”), Rev. Parole
3
, 137
–176
(2006
).22.
S.
Hawkins
and K. N.
Stevens
, “Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the non-nasal–nasal distinction for vowels
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
77
, 1560
–1575
(1985
).23.
S.
Maeda
, “Acoustics of vowel nasalization and articulatory shifts in French nasal vowels
,” Phon. Phonol.
5
, 147
–167
(1993
).24.
T.
Arai
, “Cue parsing between nasality and breathiness in speech perception
,” Acoust. Sci. Technol.
27
, 298
–301
(2006
).25.
A. P.
Simpson
, “The first and second harmonics should not be used to measure breathiness in male and female voices
,” J. Phon.
40
, 477
–490
(2012
).26.
M.
Garellek
, A.
Ritchart
, and J.
Kuang
, “Breathy voice during nasality: A cross-linguistic study
,” J. Phon.
59
, 110
–121
(2016
).27.
K.
Stevens
and H.
Hanson
, “Classification of glottal vibration from acoustic measurements
,” in Vocal Fold Physiology: Voice Quality Control
, edited by O.
Fujimura
and M.
Hirano
(Singular Pub. Group
, Buckinghamshire, UK
, 1995
), pp. 147
–170
.28.
M.
Iseli
, Y.
Shue
, and A.
Alwan
, “Age, sex, and vowel dependencies of acoustic measures related to the voice source
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
121
, 2283
–2295
(2007
).29.
J.
Yuan
and M.
Liberman
, “Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus
,” in Proceedings of Acoustics 2008
, Paris, France
(2008
), pp. 3878
–3878
.30.
P.
Milne
, “The variable pronunciations of word-final consonant clusters in a force aligned corpus of spoken French
,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottowa
, Ottowa, ON (2014
).31.
J.
Ohala
and M.
Amador
, “Spontaneous nasalization
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
69
, S54
(1981
).32.
P.
Boersma
and D.
Weenink
, “Praat: Doing phonetics by computer
” [computer program] (Version 6.0.28), http://www.praat.org (Last viewed June 29, 2017
).33.
https://github.com/stylerw/styler_praat_scripts/tree/master/nasality_automeasure (Last viewed October 19, 2017).
34.
A.
Cohn
, “Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization
,” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, UCLA Department of Linguistics, Los Angeles, CA (1990
), Vol. 76.35.
D.
Bates
, M.
Maechler
, B.
Bolker
, and S.
Walker
, lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4
(2014
), R package version 1.1-6.36.
R.
Baayen
, Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R
(Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge
, 2008
), pp. 247
–248
.37.
J.
Laver
, The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality
(Cambridge University Press
, Cambridge, England
, 1980
), pp. 132
–135
.38.
M.
Gordon
and P.
Ladefoged
, “Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview
,” J. Phon.
29
(4
), 383
–406
(2001
).39.
A.
Sluijter
and V.
Van Heuven
, “Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
100
, 2471
–2485
(1996
).40.
P.
Murphy
, K.
McGuigan
, M.
Walsh
, and M.
Colreavy
, “Investigation of a glottal related harmonics-to-noise ratio and spectral tilt as indicators of glottal noise in synthesized and human voice signals
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
123
, 1642
–1652
(2008
).41.
P. S.
Beddor
, “A coarticulatory path to sound change
,” Language
85
, 785
–821
(2009
).© 2017 Acoustical Society of America.
2017
Acoustical Society of America
You do not currently have access to this content.
