![]() Secondly, the ‘mismatch’ between acoustics and articulation demonstrates the benefit of including articulatory data in the analysis of vowel sounds. Firstly, Viby-i appears to be more widespread in Central Sweden than previously assumed, and it may already have replaced the standard variant, although further research is needed to confirm this. There are several implications of these findings for the wider literature. Frication during the vowel is associated with a raised, fronted tongue tip, or in velar contexts, by a raised tongue body. Young speakers retract more than old speakers, with no difference in acoustics. Surprisingly, the low F2 is not produced by lip-rounding or overall tongue backing, but appears to be caused by a combination of tongue lowering and post-dorsal retraction. The articulatory analysis reveals that Viby-i can be produced with a variety of tongue shapes, most of which involve a low, fronted tongue body, high tongue tip, and retraction of the postdorsal part of the tongue. All speakers in the sample are found to use Viby-i rather than standard, but regional differences exist in both acoustics and articulation. LinguisticĬontext has a small but reliable effect on formant values, and also affects the fricated offglide of the vowel. Usually lower than, and a relatively high F1, which is usually similar to. The acoustic analysis shows that Viby-i is characterised by a low acoustic F2, which is ![]() The articulatory analysis establishes the tongue gestures and lip positions used to produce Viby-i, and investigates the link between acoustics and articulation using a set of normalised articulatory measurement points, which are compared to the first two formants. Linguistic and social variation is also explored using a word list and a demographic questionnaire. The speakers’ /i:/ productions are analysed acoustically with regard to their formant values, dynamic properties, and frication. The study presents data from 34 Swedish speakers from Gothenburg, Stockholm, and Uppsala, recorded with simultaneous audio, ultrasound tongue imaging, and lip video. This thesis addresses the issues of how speakers produce Viby-i, how its acoustic properties relate to its articulation, and how it is used across different There are also indications that Viby-i may be subject to sociolinguistic variation, as it appears to be spreading across Sweden, and it is frequently used as a prestige marker in urban dialects. Previous research suggests that this vowel may be subject to articulatory trade-off, whereby speakers can achieve the same sound using different articulatory strategies. This sound is characterised by an unusual ‘thick’, ‘buzzing’ vowel quality, but its articulation has long been disputed. This thesis provides a phonetic case study of the Swedish /i:/ variant known as Viby-i (sometimes also called Lidingö-i). Caution is recommended especially before accepting F1-F4 results for children and B1-B4 results for all speakers. Manipulation of default settings yields improved output values in TF32 and CSL. Values of F0 and F1-F4 are generally consistent and fairly accurate for adult vowels and for some child vowels using the default settings in Praat, WaveSurfer, and TF32. Bandwidth measurements by AASPs were highly inaccurate as compared with manual measurements and published data on formant bandwidths. Results varied by vowel for women and children, with some serious errors. Results indicate that Praat, WaveSurfer, and TF32 generate accurate and comparable F0 and F1-F4 data for synthesized vowels and adult male natural vowels. The discrepancy between the software measured values and the input values (synthesized, previously reported, and manual measurements) was used to assess comparability and accuracy. Synthesized and natural vowels were analyzed using each of the AASP's default settings to secure 9 acoustic measures: fundamental frequency (F0), formant frequencies (F1-F4), and formant bandwidths (B1-B4). This study examines accuracy and comparability of 4 trademarked acoustic analysis software packages (AASPs): Praat, WaveSurfer, TF32, and CSL by using synthesized and natural vowels.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |