Abstract
Introduction: Bilinguals constitute a significant portion of speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) caseloads. Insight into the cross-linguistic effect on voice is needed to guide SLPs to make linguistically appropriate observations when working with heterogenous populations. Method: Nineteen female English-Northern Sotho bilinguals performed three speech tasks (reading, picture description, and monologue) in each language. Acoustic analysis of mean fundamental frequency (f0), intensity, and articulation rate was conducted with Praat. A panel of blinded listeners reached consensus after independently reviewing the recordings during perceptual analysis of voice quality, resonance, and glottal attack. Results: The following statistically significant differences were found across and within the languages: The mean f0 was 204.61 Hz in the Northern Sotho picture description yet 196.50 Hz in the English picture description. The mean intensity of reading in Northern Sotho was 66.38 dB whereas the mean intensity of reading in English was 65.09 dB. Articulation rate was 3.78 syllables/s in English passage reading and 3.41 syllables/s in Northern Sotho passage reading. Within English, passage reading elicited a significantly quicker articulation rate than the picture description (3.34 syllables/s) and monologue (3.46 syllables/s). Within Northern Sotho, mean f0 was 203.83 Hz in passage reading yet 191.11 Hz in the monologue. Perceptual voice quality, glottal attack, and resonance were comparable across languages. Conclusion: Relationships between languages spoken, task performance, and vocal characteristics were observed in English-Northern Sotho bilingual females. SLPs must consider the interaction of language, task performance, and vocal characteristics when working with bilingual clients.
Journal Section:
Research Article
References
1.
Van der Merwe
A
, Le Roux
M
Idiosyncratic sound systems of the South African Bantu languages: research and clinical implications for speech-language pathologists and audiologists
.2.
3.
Godin
KW
, Hansen
JH
. Physical task stress and speaker variability in voice quality
. EURASIP J Audio Speech Music Process
. 2015 Dec
2015
1
29
3
.4.
Zhu
S
, Chong
S
, Chen
Y
, Wang
T
, Ng
ML
. Effect of language on voice quality: an acoustic study of bilingual speakers of Mandarin Chinese and English
. Folia Phoniatr Logop
. 2022
;74
(6
):421
–30
.5.
Nevo
L
, Nevo
C
, Oliveira
G
. A comparison of vocal parameters in adult bilingual Hebrew-English speakers
. CoDAS
. 2015
;27
:483
–91
.6.
Lee
B
, Sidtis
DV
. The bilingual voice: vocal characteristics when speaking two languages across speech tasks
. Speech Lang Hear
. 2017 Jul 3
20
3
174
85
.7.
Pépiot
E
, Arnold
A
. Cross-gender differences in English/French bilingual speakers: a multiparametric study
. Percept Mot Skills
. 2021 Feb
128
1
153
77
.8.
Ansaldo
AI
, Saidi
LG
. Aphasia therapy in the age of globalization: cross-linguistic therapy effects in bilingual Aphasia
. Behav Neurol
. 2014
;2014
:603085
–10
.9.
Pineda-Pérez
E
, Calvache
C
, Cantor-Cutiva
LC
. Bibliometric analysis and review of literature on the relationship between voice production and bilingualism
. J Voice
. 2021 Aug 14
.10.
Posel
D
, Hunter
M
, Rudwick
S
. Revisiting the prevalence of English: language use outside the home in South Africa
. J Multiling Multicult Dev
. 2020 Jun 9
43
8
774
86
.11.
Ng
ML
, Chen
Y
, Chan
EY
. Differences in vocal characteristics between Cantonese and English produced by proficient Cantonese-English bilingual speakers—a long-term average spectral analysis
. J Voice
. 2012 Jul 1
26
4
e171
6
.12.
Cantor-Cutiva
LC
, Bottalico
P
, Nudelman
C
, Webster
J
, Hunter
EJ
. Do voice acoustic parameters differ between bilingual English-Spanish speakers and monolingual English speakers during English productions
. J Voice
. 2021 Mar 1
35
2
194
202
.13.
Abu-Al-makarem
A
, Petrosino
L
. Reading and spontaneous speaking fundamental frequency of young Arabic men for Arabic and English languages: a comparative study
. Percept Mot Skills
. 2007
;105
(2
):572
–80
.14.
Järvinen
K
, Laukkanen
AM
, Geneid
A
. Voice quality in native and foreign languages investigated by inverse filtering and perceptual analyses
. J Voice
. 2017 Mar 1
31
2
261.e25
31
.15.
Khokhlova
I
. Lingua franca English of South Africa
. Procedia-Social Behav Sci
. 2015 Dec 5
214
983
91
.16.
Graham
C
. Fundamental frequency range in Japanese and English: the case of simultaneous bilinguals
. Phonetica
. 2014
;71
(4
):271
–95
.17.
Hudson
AI
, Holbrook
A
. Fundamental frequency characteristics of young black adults: spontaneous speaking and oral reading
. J Speech Hear Res
. 1982 Mar
25
1
25
8
.18.
Cheng
A
. Cross-linguistic pitch differences in bilingual speakers
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2019 Mar
145
3_Suppl ment
1825
.19.
McAllister
A
, Brandt
SK
. A comparison of recordings of sentences and spontaneous speech: perceptual and acoustic measures in preschool children’s voices
. J Voice
. 2012 Sep
26
5
673
e1–5
.20.
Ordin
M
, Mennen
I
. Cross-linguistic differences in bilinguals’ fundamental frequency ranges
. J Speech Lang Hear Res
. 2017 Jun 10
60
6
1493
506
.21.
Yamauchi
EJ
, Imaizumi
S
, Maruyama
H
, Haji
T
. Perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: a comparative analysis between the RASATI and GRBASI scales
. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol
. 2010 Oct 1
35
3
121
8
.22.
Levi
SV
. Another bilingual advantage? Perception of talker-voice information
. Biling
. 2018 May
21
3
523
36
.23.
24.
Mariette
K
. Census
2011
. in brief [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Census_in_brief.pdf.25.
Louw
C
, Swanepoel
DW
, Eikelboom
RH
, Myburgh
HC
. Smartphone-based hearing screening at primary health care clinics
. Ear Hear
. 2017 Mar 1
38
2
e93
100
.26.
Roberts
P
, Shenker
R
. Assessment and treatment of stuttering in bilingual speakers
. In: Conture
EG
, Curlee
RF
, editors. Stuttering and related disorders of fluency
. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc
. 2007
. p. 183
209
.27.
Kohnert
K
Language disorders in bilingual children and adults
San Diego, Ca; Oxford; Melbourne
Plural Publishing
. 2013
.28.
Keating
P
, Kuo
G
. Comparison of speaking fundamental frequency in English and Mandarin
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2012 Aug
132
2
1050
60
.29.
Altenberg
EP
, Ferrand
CT
. Perception of individuals with voice disorders by monolingual English, bilingual Cantonese–English, and bilingual Russian–English women
. J Speech Lang Hear Res
. 2006 Aug
49
4
879
87
.30.
31.
Goodglass
H
, Caplan
E
The assessment of aphasia and related disorders
. Lea & Febiger
. 1972
.32.
Ryabov
R
, Malakh
M
, Trachtenberg
M
, Wohl
S
, Oliveira
G
. Self-perceived and acoustic voice characteristics of Russian-English bilinguals
. J Voice
. 2016 Nov
30
6
772.e1
8
.33.
Boersma
P
, Weenink
D
Praat: Doing phonetics by computer Version 5.4.560) [Computer program]
. Available from: http://www.praat.org/.34.
Robb
MP
, Maclagan
MA
, Chen
Y
. Speaking rates of American and New Zealand varieties of English
. Clin Linguist Phon
. 2004 Jan
18
1
1
15
.35.
Kreiman
J
, Sidtis
D
Foundations of voice studies: an interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception
. John Wiley & Sons
. 2011 Mar 21
.36.
de Winter
JFC
, Dodou
D
Five-point likert items: t test versus mann-whitney-wilcoxon. (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation [Internet]
. 2019 Nov 23
[cited 2021 Apr 27];15(1). Available from: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol15/iss1/11/.37.
38.
39.
Tilsen
S
. A shared control parameter for F0 and intensity
. In: Speech prosody 2016
. ISCA
. 2016
.40.
Heugh
K
. Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections
. Annu Rev Appl Linguist
. 2013 Mar
33
215
37
.© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
