Topics: "Speech perception" by non-human animals.

Class:

• This week's question: How do humans come to have the phonetic abilities needed to perceive and produce sounds in their language?
• Relation to last week's topic: Do some of these abilities come for free, as part of auditory perception?
• E.g., category boundaries: Wholly learned, or correspond to regions of natural auditory sensitivity (Kuhl; Kluender; Diehl)? How to tell?
  • Other languages (last time)
  • Nonspeech analogues (last time)
  • Nonhuman subjects
  • Prelinguistic infants
• Nonhuman listeners (HO, Bb under "Course Documents")
  • Place discrimination by macaques (Kuhl 1984)
  • VOT labelling by chinchillas (Kuhl & Miller 1978)

• Keep working on projects; keep backing up your data!

Topics: Theories of categorical perception. HW 5.

Class:

• Review: Categorical perception vs. Weber's Law
• Two theories of categorical perception:
  • Linguistic labelling plus decay of detailed auditory memory (Pisoni; Fujisaki & Kawashima)
  • Natural auditory sensitivities (Kuhl; Pisoni)
• Where to look for evidence?
  • Between-language differences (HO: Miyawaki 1975; Williamson 1975, Bb)
  • Others?
• HW 5
• Time permitting: More cities!

• Keep working on projects; keep backing up your data!

Topics: Categorical perception. Final-project presentations.

Class:

• Categorical perception
  • Typical results from a categorical-perception experiment
  • How do these results conflict with Weber's Law? (Do they?)
• Two theories of categorical perception:
  • Linguistic labelling plus decay of detailed auditory memory (Pisoni; Fujisaki & Kawashima)
  • Natural auditory sensitivities (Kuhl; Pisoni)
  • How can we distinguish them?
• Information on final project:
  • Handout about analysis, presentation, and writeup. (Bb)
  • Model handout (Bb)
  • Sign up for presentation slots

• HW 5 due Friday the 20th..
• Keep going on final projects (are you backing up your data?)

Topics: Cross-linguistic differences in perception.

Class:

• Within perceptual-space model, languages can weight the auditory dimensions differently.
• Vowel spaces from the Terbeek 1977 dissimilarity matrices (Johnson Figure 6.11). What is the third dimension?
• Mandarin tones as perceived by Mandarin vs. English speakers (Johnson Figure 4.7).
• Production of English [D] by German and Dutch speakers (Johnson p. 61): What hypotheses are relevant? How can we distinguish them?

• For Wednesday, Nov. 18: Do this on-line demo of a categorical-perception experiment. Bring results to class for discussion.
• For Friday, Nov. 20: HW 5 (Bb)
• Continue working on projects! See me if you're having trouble!

Topics: Audiovisual speech perception.

Class:

• Audiovisual speech perception
  • High confusability of audio-only consonant place (Miller & Nicely 1955)
  • Demo of McGurk Effect.
  • Results of McGurk & MacDonald 1978
  • Integration of audio and video information via perceptual space (Braida et al. 1998, Johnson Figures 4.5 and 4.6).

• Read Johnson 6.6 (cross-linguistic vowel perception), 7.5 (dimensions of fricative perception) for next time.
• HW 5 (on Blackboard), due in one week (11/20).
• If you have technical questions about running your experiment, make an appointment with me.
• Back up your data, back up your data!

Topics: Speech perception. Perceptual spaces.

Class:

• Auditory perception vs. speech perception
• Useful theoretical tool: Perceptual spaces
  • Represent perceptual differences between stimuli
  • Categories correspond to regions in space
• Mapping out a perceptual space (one way to do it, J. Ch. 4)
  • Which acoustic/auditory differences are linguistically distinctive?
  • Estimating perceptual distance (confusability plus "Shepard's Law")
  • Example of confusion experiment using Praat is here.
  • Pinning down points in the space (MDS)
• Example (based on J. 4.3): English fricative perception

• For Friday, 11/13: Read Johnson 4.4 and 4.5 on perception of consonant place.
• Watch this video clip of the McGurk Effect.
• Send me final version of project plan and division-of-labor if you haven't done so already.
• Work on projects. Back up your data!

Topics: Anatomy and filtering effects of the ear. The Bark scale. Cochleagrams. Auditory representation of speech.

Class:

• Intensity and loudness: Filtering effects of the outer and middle ear.
  • A tone rising from 70 Hz to 17000 Hz at constant pressure amplitude. Notice how the loudness is not constant. (From last time.)
  • Equal-loudness curve (Johnson Figure 3.3)
  • Anatomy of the ear.
• Frequency resolution: Effects of the inner ear and nervous system
  • Animation of the cochlea.
  • Another one.
  • The same 50-Hz increment sounds smaller at some frequencies than others.
  • A series of 1000-Hz increments: 500 Hz, 1500 Hz, ... 13500 Hz. Notice the change in perceptual spacing, and in spacing on the cochleagram.
  • A series of 1-Bark increments, based on Zwicker (1961) JASA 33:248. Note even perceptual spacing, and compare the cochleagram.

• Back up your data after recording! You don't want to lose those sound files if your disk crashes, or if someone steals your computer.
• I'll have a handout for you next Wednesday about the in-class presentation, the writeup, and grading thereof.

Topics: Acoustics vs. audition. Intensity and loudness. Anatomy and filtering effects of the ear.

Class:

• Acoustics vs. audition.
• Intensity and loudness: Filtering effects of the outer and middle ear
  • A tone rising from 70 Hz to 17000 Hz at constant pressure amplitude. Notice how the loudness is not constant..
  • HO: Intensity, pressure, and amplitude (Bb).
  • A 1000-Hz tone being reduced in intensity in 3-dB steps.
  • A 1000-Hz tone being reduced in intensity in 10-dB steps.

• Read Johnson, Ch. 3 (Audition)
• Read Johnson, Ch. 4.1-4.3 (speech perception and perceptual maps)

Topics: Clicks, trills, taps, and flaps.

Class:

• Clicks
  • X-ray tracings from Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996 (Bb)
  • Nama clicks from the Ladefoged CD-ROM.
  • X-ray video of a click, same source.
  • Xhosa clicks with varying accompaniments, same source.
• Trills, taps, and flaps
  • X-ray tracings from Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996 (Bb)
  • French uvular trills, same source.
  • Bilabial and alveolar trills in Kele and Titan, same source.

Assignment for Friday, November 6:

• Submit required plan for division of labor in project!
• Make appointment to see me re project soon!
• View this animation of the cochlea.
• Read Johnson, Ch. 6.5 (acoustic vs. auditory spectra of vowels), 7.4 (fricatives), and 8.4 (stops)

Topics: Laterals and semivowels (including Am. Eng. /r/)

Class:

• Articulation of laterals (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996, Figures 6.1 and 6.6, Bb)
• Acoustic theory of laterals (Johnson Ch. 9, Figure 9.8).
  • Synthetic [l] made according to acoustic theory in Johnson Ch. 9.
  • Same, without the antiformant.
• Acoustics of natural laterals
  • Natural English laterals and semivowels.
  • Comparison of natural English [l] and [n].
  • Dental, alveolar, and velar laterals in Melpa (Ladefoged CD-ROM).
• Semivowels /j w r/
  • Compared with their corresponding vowels here.
  • /r/ticulation
  • Perceived rhoticity depends on F2-F3 distance.

Class:

• Hungarian palatal stops from the Ladefoged CD-ROM.
  • From the X-ray, predict the formants.
  • What should it sound like?
• Nunggubuyu stops from the Ladefoged CD-ROM.
  • Palato/linguograms and X-rays in Ladefoged.
  • Predict F2 transitions using perturbation theory.
  • What about two-tube theory?
• Discussion re project design

• Project proposals due!
• Read Johnson 9.3, on laterals.

Topics: Nasal consonants.

Class:

• Acoustic theory of nasal consonants (Johnson Ch. 9).
• Natural nasals before a schwa-like vowel.
• Synthetic nasals made from the simplified acoustic theory in Johnson Ch. 9, with closures at 100%, 90%, ..., 50% of the distance from the glottis to the lips.
• Swapping nasal murmurs:
  • [m] murmur with [n] transitions
  • [n] murmur with [m] transitions
• Mystery spectrograms: two more cities.

• Read Ladefoged Ch. 14, Sections 1-3, on consonant places of articulation for Friday 10/30.
• Project proposals are due Monday, Nov. 2! Meet with me!

Topics: Airstream mechanisms. Phonation types for stops.

Class:

• Airstream mechanisms: {pulmonic, glottalic} x {egressive, ingressive}
• Phonation types
  • Breathy-voiced (pulmonic egressive)
  • Ejectives (glottalic egressive)
  • Implosives (glottalic ingressive)
• Audio examples of stops, from the Ladefoged CD-ROM:
  • Hindi
  • Quechua
  • Sindhi
  • Owerri Igbo
• Typology: Inventory gaps involving ejectives and implosives.

• Read Johnson 9.1 (bandwidth) and 9.2 (nasals) for Wednesday the 28th. "FFT spectrum" is just an ordinary spectral slice. "LPC spectrum" we discussed on 9/25; Johnson talks about it in 5.5.
• Project proposal due Monday, Nov. 2. Talk to me!

Topics: Partnerships. Tube models for alveolars and labials. Spectrogram reading!

Class:

• Results of partnership survey.
• Articulation of alveolar stops (figures from Perkell 1997, Bb)
• Two-tube schematization
• Natural VdV syllables for various vowels.
• Natural b, d, and g before wedge. Note same F2 transition for d and g.
• Spectrogram reading: Identify [these famous cities]!

• Read Ladefoged on consonant phonation types: 13.4 (breathy voice), 13.7 (ejectives), and 13.8 (implosives)
• Article report due Monday the 26th
• Project proposals due Monday, Nov. 2nd. Talk to me!

Topics: Two-tube model of velars and the "velar pinch".

Class:

• Articulation of velar stops. Effect of vowel context. (Figures from Perkell 1997, Bb)
• Two-tube schematization.
• Predicted and natural
  • formant transitions and
  • burst

• Article reports due Oct. 26 (M).
• Project proposals due Nov. 2 (M). Talk to me!

Topics: Perturbation theory for stops between schwas. Partnership evaluation questionnaires.

Class:

• HW 4: perturbation theory of formant transitions near schwa.
• Synthetic stop-plus-schwa syllables, with constrictions 100%, 90%, ... 10%, 0% of the way from the glottis. (Best to download it and listen to it in Praat, so you can hear the syllables separately.)
• Partnership evaluation questionnaires

• Read Johnson 8.2 and 8.3 for Monday the 19th.
• Article report due Monday the 26th. Ask me and/or the Odum Institute if you're having trouble.
• Project proposals due Monday, Nov. 2. Come see me if you
  • Have a half-baked idea and want help baking it
  • Want to measure something but don't know how

Topics: Catch-up day for stop production and VOT. Final projects.

Class:

• Voicing, aspiration, and VOT.
• Practice final-project design.

• HW 4 is due Oct. 16 (Fri.)
• I will vet articles and let you know by end of this week.
• Article reports are due Oct. 26 (Mon.)
• Final-project proposals are due Nov. 2 (Mon.)

Topics: Voicing in fricatives. Production of stops.

Class:

• Voiced fricatives
  • Production of voiced fricatives.
  • Effect of voicing on frication (demo here; use Praat to filter out frequencies below 3000 Hz)
• Stops
  • HO: Sequence of events in stop production (Ladefoged 1993, Bb)
  • Natural English labial stops, illustrating voicing and aspiration
  • Passive devoicing
  • Acoustics:
    • Burst
    • Aspiration
    • Formant transitions

• HW 4 due Friday the 16th. (Should take at most one hour to solve. Hint: Johnson Figure 6.12.)
• Article selections due Wednesday the 14th.

Topics: Consonant place of articulation. Fricatives.

Class:

• Supralaryngeal VT anatomy.
  • Low-tech ways to observe your articulators
  • Active vs. passive articlator.
• HO: Naming conventions for consonant articulations (Bb).
• Voiceless fricatives: Source/filter again.
  • Turbulent (chaotic) source at constriction, with no f0.
  • Filter is tube between constriction and lips.
  • Synthetic frication source
  • Artificial frication unfiltered, then filtered by 2.5-cm, 5-cm, and 9-cm half-open tubes.
    For best view, in the Edit window go to View > Show Analyses and set "longest analysis" to 30s, use a narrow-band spectrogram, and set it so you can see up to 8000 Hz. The lowest fricative formants are at about 3400 Hz (2.5-cm tube), 1600 Hz (5-cm tube), and 1100 Hz (9-cm tube). Is this what you expect? What happens at higher frequencies?
  • Synthetic fricative noise with filter center frequency falling.

• Aricle choices due Wednesday the 14th!
• Read Johnson through end of 8.1 (source functions for stops and affricates) for next time.
• Thought problem: Why are voiced fricatives hard to make? (J. p. 124)

Topics: Vowel-system typology. Dispersion theory. Article reports.

Class:

• Dispersion theory: Vowels spread out in perceptual space.
• HO: Vowel-system typology (Crothers 1978) (Bb)
• Compare with plots from HW 3.
• HO: Article reports (Bb, under "Assignments").
• Field trip to Odum Institute (basement of Manning)

• for Wednesday, October 7:
  • Read Ladefoged 11.2 and 11.3 on place of articulation
  • Read Ladefoged 6.5 on fricatives
  • Read Johnson 7.1 and 7.2 on fricatives
  • Bring mirrors!
• by Wednesday, October 14: Choose articles for article report

Topics: Midterm. HW 3: Acoustic vowel space.

Class:

• Midterm
  • Finding f0
  • f0, F1, F2, and tone
  • Plausibility checking
• HW 3, the acoustic vowel space
  • Measuring the Ladefoged vowels
  • Theory and reality
  • Implications for percepual distinctness? (looking forward to Adaptive Dispersion Theory)
  • Impossible vowels

Announcement: UNDERLING meeting in Dey 304 tonight,

• Business from 5-6.
• "Linguistically-related games" from 6 on.
• Supper will be ordered out for.

Topics: MIDTERM.

• Note: On Question 4, p. 3, there is at most one example of each tone type.

Assignment: Continue working on HW 3 (due Friday, October 2).

Announcement: UNDERLING meeting here in Dey 304 on Friday.

• Business from 5-6.
• "Linguistically-related games" from 6 on.
• Supper will be ordered out for.

Topics: Vowel typology. Two-tube vowel models. Nomograms. Quantal theory.

Class:

• Vowel typology: near-ubiquity of /i a u/ (Crothers 1978, Maddieson 1984).
• Possible explanation: Quantal vowel theory (Stevens).
• Two-tube vowel models and nomograms
• Regions of stability as shown on nomograms

• Continue working on HW 3.
• Midterm is Wednesday the 30th (i.e., next time).

Topics: Nasalization and nasalized vowels.

Class:

• Vowel nasalization
• Video of French speaker producing oral and nasal vowel (on Ladefoged CD-ROM).
• French oral and nasal vowels (on Ladefoged CD-ROM).
• Go over goals for HW 3.
• Formant-measuring practice. Four methods, all requiring human supervision:
  • Measure wide-band spectrogram. (Easy but crude.)
  • Measure spectral slice of wide-band spectrogram.
    • Zoom in on a single glottal pulse.
    • Put cursor on most intense part of pulse (where the higher frequencies are darkest). Be careful not to fall between pulses!
    • Make slice. Find formants on slice.
  • Measure spectral slice of narrow-band spectrogram. Pick most-intense micropeak (harmonic) under each macropeak (formant).
  • LPC (see Ladefoged readings, and handout, on Bb)

• Read Johnson, sections 5.2 and 6.3 (quantal theory and adaptive dispersion); review 6.1 (two-tube theory).
• Midterm is Wednesday, September 30.
• HW 3 is due Friday, October 2.

• Friday, 9/25, 6 p.m., Dey 304 (right here): "Linguistics and the media"
• Saturady, 9/26, 5 p.m., Artichoke Basil Pizza (Franklin St.), dinner with linguists

Topics: English and non-English vowels. The IPA.

Class:

• The IPA vowel chart (this is also on your CD-ROM). Note error in "baby gamma" (mid-high back unrounded).
• Three phoneticians perform theIPA vowel chart. (Same problem with L's baby gamma.)
• Another talking IPA chart (York U.)
• What you need to know for this course about using the IPA for vowels (pdf).