Rights statement: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LVC The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Language Variation and Change, 21 (3), pp 413-435 2009, © 2009 Cambridge University Press.
Final published version, 192 KB, PDF document
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics
AU - Fabricius, Anne
AU - Watt, Dominic
AU - Johnson, Daniel Ezra
N1 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LVC The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Language Variation and Change, 21 (3), pp 413-435 2009, © 2009 Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2009/10/1
Y1 - 2009/10/1
N2 - This article evaluates a speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithm initially proposed in Watt & Fabricius (2002). We compare how well this routine, known as the S-centroid procedure, performs as a sociophonetic research tool in three ways: reducing variance in area ratios of vowel spaces (by attempting to equalize vowel space areas); improving overlap of vowel polygons; and reproducing relative positions of vowel means within the vowel space, compared with formant data in raw Hertz. The study uses existing data sets of vowel formant data from two varieties of English, Received Pronunciation and Aberdeen English (northeast Scotland). We conclude that, for the data examined here, the S-centroid W&F procedure performs at least as well as the two speaker-intrinsic, vowel-extrinsic, formant-intrinsic normalization methods rated as best performing by Adank (2003): Lobanov's (1971) z-score procedure and Nearey's (1978) individual log-mean procedure (CLIHi4 in Adank [2003], CLIHi2 as tested here), and in some test cases better than the latter.
AB - This article evaluates a speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithm initially proposed in Watt & Fabricius (2002). We compare how well this routine, known as the S-centroid procedure, performs as a sociophonetic research tool in three ways: reducing variance in area ratios of vowel spaces (by attempting to equalize vowel space areas); improving overlap of vowel polygons; and reproducing relative positions of vowel means within the vowel space, compared with formant data in raw Hertz. The study uses existing data sets of vowel formant data from two varieties of English, Received Pronunciation and Aberdeen English (northeast Scotland). We conclude that, for the data examined here, the S-centroid W&F procedure performs at least as well as the two speaker-intrinsic, vowel-extrinsic, formant-intrinsic normalization methods rated as best performing by Adank (2003): Lobanov's (1971) z-score procedure and Nearey's (1978) individual log-mean procedure (CLIHi4 in Adank [2003], CLIHi2 as tested here), and in some test cases better than the latter.
M3 - Journal article
VL - 21
SP - 413
EP - 435
JO - Language Variation and Change
JF - Language Variation and Change
SN - 0954-3945
IS - 3
ER -