Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (2)
Document Type
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (2)
- Akustische Phonetik (1)
- Annotation (1)
- Französisch (1)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (1)
- French (1)
- German (1)
- Gesprochene Sprache (1)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (1)
- Metadaten (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (1)
Ph@ttSessionz and Deutsch heute are two large German speech databases. They were created for different purposes: Ph@ttSessionz to test Internet-based recordings and to adapt speech recognizers to the voices of adolescent speakers, Deutsch heute to document regional variation of German. The databases differ in their recording technique, the selection of recording locations and speakers, elicitation mode, and data processing.
In this paper, we outline how the recordings were performed, how the data was processed and annotated, and how the two databases were imported into a single relational database system. We present acoustical measurements on the digit items of both databases. Our results confirm that the elicitation technique affects the speech produced, that f0 is quite comparable despite different recording procedures, and that large speech technology databases with suitable metadata may well be used for the analysis of regional variation of speech.
We investigated the effect of high-variability training (HVT) on the production and perception of French bilabial voiced and voiceless stops by German native speakers. Stop consonants in the two languages differ with respect to several articulatory and acoustic features. German learners of French (Experiment Group) trained the perception of word-initial bilabial stops spoken by six French native speakers using identification tests, whereas subjects of a Control Group did not perform a training. Additional perception and production tests of French words including bilabial, alveolar, and velar stops in all word positions were performed to capture the impact of HVT. Subjects were found to be quite good at distinguishing voiced and voiceless stops. However, voiceless stops received lower correctness scores than voiced ones and subjects of the Experiment group were able to further increase their scores after training. Results for production are mirror-inverted showing that subjects of the Experiment Group successfully produced longer negative VOT values but did not show an improvement for voiceless stops.