It is well known that different languages use different vowel systems interms of variety and number. The Hebrew vowel system consists of five vowels /i, e, a, o, u/. The present research identified the acoustic features of the vowels produced by Hebrew speakers differing in age and sex. Ninety speakers (men, women, boys, and girls) were recorded. The vowels were presented in a nonword context that was placed in a meaningful Hebrew sentence. The data included measurements of F0, F1, F2, F3, F4, and vowel duration for the five different vowels produced by the four groups of participants. Conversion of the physical frequency measures of formants into a critical band (bark) scale was performed as well. The results indicated that the F2/F1 ratio is a distinctive feature of all five vowels, keeping with the findings of previous research in other languages. Nevertheless, the values of the F2/F1 ratios led to an overlap between different vowels producedby different groups of speakers. Applying the bark transformation as speaker normalization procedure succeeded in reducing speaker differences while increasing vowel differences.
Baken, R.J. (1987). Clinical measurementof speech and voice. Boston: Little, Brown and company (Inc.).
2.
Bennett, S. (1981). Vowel formant frequency characteristics of preadolescent males and females. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 231-238.
3.
Chen, M. (1972). Israeli Hebrew pronunciation . Leshonenu, 36, 212 - 219 (in Hebrew).
4.
Chermak, G.D., & Schneiderman, C.R. (1986). Speech timing variability of children and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 477-480.
5.
Colton, A.H., & Casper, J.K. (1990). Understanding voice problem. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
6.
Crothers, J. (1978). Typology and universals of vowel system. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
Delattre, P. (1969). An acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics , 7, 295-325.
8.
Disner, S.F. (1983). Vowel quality: The relation between universal and language specific factors. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics , 58, 1-158.
9.
Einat, I., & Gabriel, K.R. (1975). A study of the powers of several methods of multiple comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 70, 574 - 585.
10.
Fant, G. (1970). Acoustic theory of speech production. Paris: Mouton.
11.
Gay, T. (1978). Effect of speaking rate on vowel formant movements . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 63, 223-230.
12.
Jha, S.K. (1986). The nasal vowels in Maithili: Anacoustic study . Journal of Phonetics, 14, 223-230.
13.
Kallail, K.J., & Emanuel, F.W. (1984). Formant-frequency differences between isolated whispered and phonated vowel samples produced by adult female subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 245-251.
14.
Kent, R.D., & Forner, L.L. (1980). Speech segment duration in sentences recitations by children and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 8, 157-168.
15.
Kent, R.D., & Read, C. (1992). The acoustic analysis of speech. San-Diego, CA: Singular.
16.
Lass, N.J. (1976). Contemporary issues in experimental phonetics . New York: Academic Press.
17.
Laufer, A. (1981). Introduction to linguistics. Tel-Aviv, Israel: The Open University Press (Units 4-5) (in Hebrew).
18.
Laufer, A. (1983). The phonology of the New Hebrew. Tel-Aviv, Israel: The Open University Press (Units 4-5) (in Hebrew).
19.
Lee, S., Potamianos, A., & Narayanan, S. (1999). Acoustics of children's speech: Developmental changes of temporal and spectral parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 105, 1455-1468.
20.
Lehiste, I. (1970). Supra segmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Manuel, S.Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. Haskins Laboratories: Status Report on Speech Research, SR -103/104, 1-20.
22.
Manuel, S.Y., & Krakow, R.A. (1984). Universal and language particular aspects of vowel-tovowel coarticulation. Haskins laboratories: Status Report on Speech Research,SR-77/78, 69-78.
23.
Oliver, J.P., Greenwood, A., & Coleman, J. (1993). Acoustics of American English speech: A dynamic approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag ,
24.
Peterson, G.E., & Barney, H.L. (1952). Control methods used in the study of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 175-184.
25.
Pongweni, A.J.C. (1983). An acoustic study of the qualitative and pitch effect of breathy-voice on Shona vowels. Journal of Phonetics , 11, 129-138.
26.
Rakerd, B., Verbrugge, R.V., & Shankweiler, D.P. (1984). Monitoring for vowels in isolation and in a consonantal context. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 76, 27 -31.
27.
Shwartswald, O. (1972). Hebrew and English vowels: A spectrographic study . Balshanut Ivrit hapashit ,6, 1-11. (in Hebrew.)
Stevens, K.N. (1985). Speech production and acoustic goals. In Planning and Production of Speech in Normal and Hearing-Impaired Individuals. ASHA, 15, 38-42.
30.
Syrdal, A.K., & Gopal, H.S. (1986). A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1086-1100.
31.
Traunmüller, H. (1981). Perceptual dimension of openness in vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 1465 - 1475.
32.
Zwicker, E. (1961). Subdivision of the audible frequency range into critical bands. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 33, 248.
33.
Zwicker, E., & Terhardt, E. (1980). Analytical expressions for critical band rate and critical bandwidth as a function of frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68, 1523 - 1525.
