Phonetik / Phonologie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- German (3)
- Akustische Phonetik (1)
- Annotation (1)
- Articulography (1)
- Artikulation (1)
- British English (1)
- Bulgarian (1)
- Bulgarisch (1)
- Dialectology (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
The present study introduces articulography, the measurement of the position of tongue and lips during speech, as a promising method to the study of dialect variation. By using generalized additive modeling to analyze articulatory trajectories, we are able to reliably detect aggregate group differences, while simultaneously taking into account the individual variation across dozens of speakers. Our results on the basis of Dutch dialect data show clear differences between the southern and the northern dialect with respect to tongue position, with a more frontal tongue position in the dialect from Ubbergen (in the southern half of the Netherlands) than in the dialect of Ter Apel (in the northern half of the Netherlands). Thus articulography appears to be a suitable tool to investigate structural differences in pronunciation at the dialect level.
This paper presents newly developed guidelines for prosodic annotation of German as a consensus system agreed upon by German intonologists. The DIMA system is rooted in the framework of autosegmental-metrical phonology. One important goal of the consensus is to make exchanging data between groups easier since German intonation is currently annotated according to different models. To this end, we aim to provide guidelines that are easy to learn. The guidelines were evaluated running an inter-annotator reliability study on three different speech styles (read speech, monologue and dialogue). The overall high κ between 0.76 and 0.89 (depending on the speech style) shows that the DIMA conventions can be applied successfully.
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.
The effect of manipulation of a speaker’s voice as well as exposure to a native speaker’s utterance was investigated regarding the pronunciation of stops by German learners of French. Three subject groups, a Control (CG), a Manipulation (MG), and a Native Speaker (NG) Group, were recorded on two subsequent days. The MG was presented with a manipulation of their voice on the second day and the NG listened to a native French speaker, while the CG did not receive any feedback. Results show that speakers of the MG and NG were able to extract useful information from the respective feedback and successfully adapted to it. Participants were able to reduce their voice onset time values, although speakers of the NG reduced it to a greater extent.
Based on specific linguistic landmarks in the speech signal, this study investigates pitch level and pitch span differences in English, German, Bulgarian and Polish. The analysis is based on 22 speakers per language (11 males and 11 females). Linear mixed models were computed that include various linguistic measures of pitch level and span, revealing characteristic differences across languages and between language groups. Pitch level appeared to have significantly higher values for the female speakers in the Slavic than the Germanic group. The male speakers showed slightly different results, with only the Polish speakers displaying significantly higher mean values for pitch level than the German males. Overall, the results show that the Slavic speakers tend to have a wider pitch span than the German speakers. But for the linguistic measure, namely for span between the initial peaks and the non-prominent valleys, we only find the difference between Polish and German speakers. We found a flatter intonation contour in German than in Polish, Bulgarian and English male and female speakers and differences in the frequency of the landmarks between languages. Concerning “speaker liveliness” we found that the speakers from the Slavic group are significantly livelier than the speakers from the Germanic group.
One was a distinguished natural scientist and engineer, the other a self-taught scientist and vilified as a conman: Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein (1723–1795) and Wolfgang von Kempelen (1734–1804). Some of the former’s postula-tions on human physiology and articulation of speech proved wrong in later years. Most of the latter’s theories are considered applicable even today. The perhaps most contrasting approaches to speech synthesis during the 18th century are linked to their names. There are many essential differences between their approaches which show that these two researchers were not only representatives of different schools of thought, but also representatives of two different scientific eras. A speculative and philosophical approach on the one hand versus an empirical and logical approach on the other hand. Both Kratzenstein and Kempelen published books on their research. But while the “Tentamen” [4] of the physician Kratzen-stein remains rather vague and imprecise in its descriptions of vowel production and synthesis, the “Mechanismus” [8] of the engineer Kempelen shows much more precision and correctness in almost every respect of human speech and lan-guage. The goal of this paper is to discuss the differences between these two con-temporaneous researchers on speech synthesis and to compare their theories with present-days findings.