Acoustic Analysis of the Voiced-Voiceless Distinction in Dutch Tracheoesophageal Speech PurposeConfusions between voiced and voiceless plosives and voiced and voiceless fricatives are common in Dutch tracheoesophageal (TE) speech. This study investigates (a) which acoustic measures are found to convey a correct voicing contrast in TE speech and (b) whether different measures are found in TE speech than in normal laryngeal ... Article
Article  |   April 01, 2010
Acoustic Analysis of the Voiced-Voiceless Distinction in Dutch Tracheoesophageal Speech
 
Author Notes
  • Contact author: P. Jongmans, Institute of Phonetic Sciences/ACLC, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: pjongmans@gmail.com.
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Voice Disorders / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech
Article   |   April 01, 2010
Acoustic Analysis of the Voiced-Voiceless Distinction in Dutch Tracheoesophageal Speech
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 2010, Vol. 53, 284-297. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0252)
History: Received December 6, 2008 , Accepted August 21, 2009
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 2010, Vol. 53, 284-297. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0252)
History: Received December 6, 2008; Accepted August 21, 2009
Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

PurposeConfusions between voiced and voiceless plosives and voiced and voiceless fricatives are common in Dutch tracheoesophageal (TE) speech. This study investigates (a) which acoustic measures are found to convey a correct voicing contrast in TE speech and (b) whether different measures are found in TE speech than in normal laryngeal (NL) speech. The main focus was on plosives.

MethodNine TE and 5 NL speakers were included in this study. Fourteen acoustic measures were selected and analyzed. Comparisons were made between voiced and voiceless for the groups separately and between TE and NL speakers. Conditional inference trees were used to establish the most important distinguishing cue.

ResultsTE speakers do not differ significantly from NL speakers, except for pitch-related measures. For plosives, all measures distinguished between voiced and voiceless for both speaker groups. The main distinguishing measure for the plosives was relative phonation time in the closure.

ConclusionsTE and NL speakers differ less in the way the voiced-voiceless distinction is conveyed than expected. Further research is needed to show whether the main acoustic cue is also perceptually most relevant.

Acknowledgment
We are grateful for the unrestricted research grant by the “Stichting Breuning ten Cate” that made this research possible.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access