Talk:Phonation/Archive 1

redirect

Unvoiced redirects here. The article should explain why!

voicing article

Voicing redirects here. Maybe there should be a separate voicing article? By voicing I mean the VOT, etc. of consonants.

Phonation is often mentioned with respect to vowels. But you can still discuss phonation independently from vowels or consonants...

Any other thoughts?

- Ish ishwar 20:59, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Some would argue that the 'glottals' are just that: independent phonation, rather than actual consonants. kwami 10:55, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

it seems that there is no article for Voice Onset Time (a.k.a. VOT). although this is mentioned in Stop consonant, it is very very brief. - Ish ishwar 21:03, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Nohat wrote ja reasonable stub soon after you wrote this, which I am linking from this article. kwami 08:17, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

ah, yes, good. re glottals: i would agree in many cases. there is nice book that i browsed once by Fujimura (i think). i may start a biblio for this article. by the way, i know this is so far linguistically oriented, but is there anything in Wikipedia on falsetto? i havent looked & i also dont know what this is physiologically. any takers? – ishwar  (speak) 05:19, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Found an interesting article that takes a broader look at phonation. However, it specifically excludes discussion of falsetto as not being relevant for normal language. Falsetto presumably involves more of the larynx than just the glottis, however.

Falsetto is a register associated with thinning of the vocal folds in the superior dimension and decreased mass involved in oscillation. It is relevant in a minor way to english in that it is used to indicate a mocking attitude and is often used while repeating what someone has just said.Nabaati (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

definition

I moved the quoted definition to the intro paragraph, since my comments on the glottis are not appropriate to the expanded article. Can whoever added it give the reference? kwami 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

non-harmonic overtones?

Regarding the sentence: This produces a fundamental tone accompanied by several non-harmonic overtones. I'd like to know why the overtones are non-harmonic. My high school physics has trained me to expect the production of harmonics from a vibrating source, so I find the statement surprising or out of the ordinary. Especially because I've read elsewhere that the vocal cords produce a harmonic series.

This page seems to make sense of that topic, though giving no more detail on the cause than blaming imperfection of the instrument (presumably whatever contributes to being less than a perfect harmonic oscillator): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overtone

Phonation/articulation

The two are not the same thing, but the interwiki links are a mix of articles about phonation and articulation, and the interwiki bots aren't making things easier. How do we fix it? • 辻斬り^? 08:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of new information

Kwamikagami please explain what problems you have with the changes I have made to the page. I have cited my sources quite clearly and have spent quite a lot of time researching this information.Nrswanson (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One topic you seem to be in conflict with is vocal resonation where you made the comment that is has nothing to do with phonation. Such an idea seems un-informed. The American Heritage dictionary gives the following defintion of phonation: "Phonation- the sound made by the vibration of vocal folds modified by the resonance of the vocal tract."Nrswanson (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not discussing it with you, but that is a different definition than the one that had been used in the article. At the time you had merely said that resonance used phonation as input, hardly on-topic for this article. Now that you've added info supporting the use of "phonation" to mean "resonance", I've moved it from the middle of the conflicting phonetics section and specified that it's a different usage of the word.

As for the (fact) tags, we hardly need them for claims in the lead which are referenced in the body of the article, or for stubs which link to dedicated referenced articles. (Unless you want In English (see English) every other sentence!) kwami (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I put in the citation tags because honestly it doesn't seem clear to me where the information comes from and frankly the info. seems somewhat suspect to me as I have not read anywhere about "glottal tension" being the traditional focus of phonational study. It is my understanding that the focus has centered around the action of the vocal folds from the very beginning and also laryngeal function in general not just the glottis. This also seems congruent with every book on phonation I can find. I have taken several classes within the field of phonetics so I am not exactly a novice in the area although I wouldn't say I'm an expert either. Also, some of the information, all bite interesting, seems to come from individual case studies that may or may not be embraced by the wider phonetics community. The fact that my recent additions have pretty much been foundational ones to the topic makes me question the older material of the article. Prior to my edits, the article really had a bad definition of phonation. Can you blame me for being suspicous? Also several of the external links listed as sources didn't work. Furthermore, some of the citations on this article are strange and don't really follow wikipedia guidelines for citing sources.Nrswanson (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically resources three and four are not following standard practice.Nrswanson (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming those two sources provided all the information in those topics. It is really not a good way to source material as it makes it impossible for others to insert other information from other sources. That is why it is important to cite often even if it is from the same source.Nrswanson (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up citations three and four but please check to make sure they are citing information that really comes from those sources. (I am assuming you are the one who read them?)Also, I think the information in the begining of the article must be cited. They are not statements which are supported later in the article as they make broader claims. And the section on Phonation in familiar languages was not citing any source.Nrswanson (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify.Citations can not internally reference wikipedia but must cite external sources. So you need to cite an external source in those spots. I don't know where that info came from or otherwise I would do it.Nrswanson (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You really want a cited reference that French distinguishes /p/ from /b/, when you have all the refs you could want in the French articles? kwami (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. How is a person who is not familiar with the French articles going to know to look there for references. It is not apparent to do that. And that is not wikipedia policy. You can't cite information on a seperate article and then use that same information on another article without transfering the references as well. Each individual article must present all references used even if such information is present within other articles.Nrswanson (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

definition

I deleted the refs in the intro, since evidently they're wrong (or perhaps were misread). We don't need refs in the intro anyway, since claims should be expanded in the body where they are ref'd.

The def. I reverted claimed that "Phonation ... is the process of producing vocal sound by the vibration of the vocal folds". This is clearly wrong. Voiceless phonation, for example, by definition does not involve vibration of the vocal folds. kwami (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support of previous definition in the following sources:

1. [1]

2. McKinney as cited

3. Green as cited

4. [2]

5. [3]

6. [4]

7. [5]

more coming in a sec Nrswanson (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The above supports the prior definiton.Nrswanson (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the five sources I could check, two do not support your claim, one does not concern linguistics, and the others are hardly reliable sources. In its broadest sense, phonation is "The production or utterance of vocal sound", usually as distinguished from articulation. It is sometimes used synonymously with "voicing". However, we are not concerned here with literary usage, but with phonetics: voiced, voiceless, murmured, creaky, ect. phonation. For that we need a linguistic reference, and not one that's been dumbed down at the expense of accuracy. The material already in the article is enough to tell you that your definition is not relevant. Here's a phonetic description (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth, a classic introduction, if somewhat dated): "When the moving body of air reaches the larynx, it is subject to phonation." They go on to say that two configurations of the vocal cords are "most significant", the one you describe, and "with the vocal cords relatively far apart so that ... there is no vibration." In phonetics, phonation is not synonymous with voicing. kwami (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which source does not support the prior definition? They all seem to to me. And which sources do you find unreliable? I bet you I can find better ones.Nrswanson (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. speaks of a "blast of air". This is dumbed down. It also lacks basic linguistic concepts. Not reliable.

4. is a common dictionary, not a linguistic source. it even gives "a singer takes good care of his voice" as a sample sentence, which doesn't even contain the word! No support, not reliable.

5. never mentions the word 'phonation'. it also only describes vowels, as if that's all there is to speech. No support, not reliable.

6. never defines 'phonation', and describes speech as if everything were voiced. No support, not reliable.

7. supports you, possibly repeating the inaccurate generalizations of your other sources, but is so short and gimmicky that it's obviously not concerned with detail, and I suspect it's been dumbed down.

You might want to check with some of the other editors who are interested in linguistics & phonetics. I seriously doubt you'll get anyone to agree with that definition. kwami (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the definition that the article has had for several months and nobody has complained so far except you. You have also failed to show alternative definitions in other resources which I am totally up for. Also, the "not reliable" sources of 6 and 7 are by two university proffesors who are highly respected. My concerns about your definition are the removal of key concepts like vocal resonation.Nrswanson (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it's been wrong for several months. As for the respected professors, I suspect they've simplified things to get the basic idea across as an introduction, and may not have even realized that they were in error. Or maybe they did realize it, but figured that it was asking too much to give everything at once, especially in telegraphese. I gave one ref, more credible than anything you offered, which contradicts them. Ladefoged never defines 'phonation' in SOWL, but cross-lists it with glottal states, which include several where there is no vibration. Also, although L assumed phonation involved the glottis, Edmondson (2006) at the end of the article is a professional ref which discusses new evidence that this is not always the case. Google "voiceless phonation" and you'll get all sorts of interesting hits targeted to a more scholarly audience than your PP presentations. The very phrase "voiceless phonation" gives lie to your definition. Also, 'vocal resonation' has nothing to do with phonation in phonetics. Even in the section on singing, it is defined as something which is done to the product of phonation (presumably meaning voiced phonation), and therefore is not part of phonation itself, so I don't see how it's relevant for the intro. kwami (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is voiceless, it is not phonation. Phonation is when there is vibration of the vocal folds, or voicing. Phonation is a subset of speech or singing. In speech, there are voiced and unvoiced sounds. Larynxdude (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the current definition is the persistent use of the vague term "vibration." I think a better definition might be something along the lines of "the cyclic increase and decrease in glottal volume along the length of the laryngeal airway caused by the medial compression and expansion of the vocal folds which itself results from sufficient airflow through the larynx." I think this is general enough to include the most common voice registers as well as incomplete closure. Also, despite the first sentence, phonation is not the same thing as voice quality. Phonation is a physical process that results in sound. Voice quality is a term that describes the perception of the the acoustic output of the larynx which results from phonation.Nabaati (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We're mixing up 'phonation' in singing vs. phonetics. As the intro currently states, many people use 'phonation' as a synonym for 'voicing'. However, in phonetics, both modally voiced and voiceless states of the glottis are considered phonations. Check out all the hits you get for "voiceless phonation" in professional articles, as well as Kenstowicz & Kisseberth, which was the standard introductory phonology text in the US for a generation. kwami (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally have never heard or read anyone refer to voiceless phonation, and it's certainly something I would remember as the thought is making me downright near apopletic right now. People who use it in such a way are using it incorrectly, which itself is not out of the norm for linguists. If phonation could be used as shorthand for a generic state of the vocal folds, then phonation threshold pressure would make no sense as a concept. It could always be 0, which is uninteresting. Also, the phonation in singing is no different than in speaking.Nabaati (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the phonation is different, only that the use of the word is different. kwami (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

phonation is the use of the laryngeal system, with the help of an airstream produced by the respiratory system, to create an audible source of acoustic energy which can then be modified by the articulatory actions of the rest of the vocal apparatus. ...

Both nil phonation and breath phonation will be covered by the term voicelessness. ... Vowels ... when voiceless almost always show breath phonation rather than nil phonation. ...

The phonation state called voicing is acoustically different from the breath and whisper phonation states in that while breath and whisper inject a continuous acoustic input into the vocal tract, vibration of the vocal folds in voicing creates a pulsed input... (Principles of Phonetics. John Laver, 1994, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.)

Voiced phonation, such as /z/, is regulated by the vocal fold vibration, while voiceless phonation, such as /s/, is not regulated by the vocal fold vibration. (Speech Skill Builder for Children, Daniel Zaoming Huang)

Ordinary voiceless phonation (sometimes whisper) can be used to produce voiceless vowels and [h]. (126.138 General Phonetics course notes, Kevin Russell, U Manitoba, Fall 2000)

Whisper and falsetto are both voice surrogates, ... That is, in normal English speech the adjustment of the vocal folds alternates between voiced and voiceless phonation; in whispering, it alternates between whispered and voiceless phonation, though the acoustic difference between the two states is minimal. [Had illustrated English phonation as one of two possibilities, voiced and voiceless, with glottal stop as a possible third, depending on definitions.] (Language History: An Introduction. Andrew L. Sihler, 1999, John Benjamins.)

The various positions and movements of the vocal folds within the larynx constitute the process of phonation. ... Voice quality, however, can be influenced by factors other than phonation. [gives as an example hyper-nasal voice quality] ... Voiceless phonation requires an open glottis ... (Phonetics for communication disorders. Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller. Routledge, 2005.)

All subjects produced maximum duration of phonation for /s/ and /z/ ... (The Voiced/Voiceless Phonation Time in Children With and Without Laryngeal Pathology. David N. Sorensen & Pamela Ann Parker. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.23 163-168 April 1992.)

Etc. etc. kwami (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Laver, p 132: Phonation concerns the generation of acoustic energy (including zero energy) at the larynx ... Nabaati, in linguistics, your "phonation threshold pressure" would most likely be called "voicing threshold pressure". kwami (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I should mention I am a phonetician, although I don't do linguistic phonetics, which appears to be your background. As for phonation threshold pressure, it is called nothing but phonation threshold pressure. In any event, I did my own looking through my books last night to see if I could find any reference to the way you use phonation, and much to my surprise, I found one reference. Let me give a summary of what I found:

- "During phonation, the vocal cords rapidly open and close in a quasi-periodic fashion." ( Speech Physiology, Speech Perception, and Acoustic Phonetics, Lierberman & Blumstein, p. 34)

- The inference here is that phonation requires oscillation of the vocal folds.

- "The different modes of phonation are distinguished both by the pattern of movement of the vocal folds and ... The modes range from falsetto, in which the bulk of the folds are still ... to chest voice, in which a wave travels through th mucosa..." ("The Aerodynamics of Speech," The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, Shadle, p. 51)

- Again, the inference here is that phonation requires oscillation of the vocal folds. Although her view of phonation coinciding with that of Lieberman and Blumstein's should not come as a surprise since she got her degree from Brown.

- "Several preconditions are required for normal phonation. The transglottal pressure ... and the airflow must be high enough, the glottal width small enough and the glottal resistence sufficiently low." ("Investigating the Physiology of Laryngeal Structures," The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, Hirose, p. 127). This was obtained from a section entitled "Vocal Fold Vibration During Phonation"

- Once again, one must infer that vocal fold oscillation is a prerequisite for phonation.

However:

- "By phonation, we mean any laryngeal activity of speech that has neither initiatory nor articulatory function." (Fundamental Problems in Phonetics, Catford, p. 93)

- This definition DOES include voiclessness as a phonation type.

What I suggest is that the definition of phonation be worded something along these lines: Among those who study laryngeal anatomy and physiology and the mechanisms of vocal fold oscillation in speech, phonation is the cyclic increase and decrease in glottal volume along the length of the laryngeal airway caused by the medial compression and expansion of the vocal folds which itself results from sufficient airflow through the larynx. The result of this process is the production of sound. In linguistic phonetics and those fields that do not study the larynx in the same detail, the term "phonation" has been generalized to include any oscillatory state of the vocal folds, including no oscillation at all. As such, one may see references to voiceless phonation in such literature, where one would not in the literature of the former fields.

I think that this accurately portrays the breadth of the usage of the word phonation. I personally consider the latter usage very sloppy and I would encourage people to follow Ladefoged and use "state of the glottis" or likewise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabaati (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but we're not here to be prescriptive. There's nothing sloppy about the linguistic use of phonation, since the use you're familiar with is called voicing. They're both well defined. Also, although Ladefoged may have been trying to avoid this very issue, "state of the glottis" is insufficient, since there are supra-glottal phonations. "State of the larynx", perhaps, but then we're inventing terms. "Phonation" is the term found in much of the linguistic literature.

Also, "those who study laryngeal anatomy and physiology and the mechanisms of vocal fold oscillation in speech", besides being awkward, is not accurate. There are linguistic phoneticians such as Edmundson who study such things. I don't want to call your field "non-linguistic phonetics", as a negative definition isn't much better than what you have. How would you define your field in contrast to linguistic phonetics?

I don't like "the cyclic increase and decrease in glottal volume along the length of the laryngeal airway caused by the medial compression and expansion of the vocal folds which itself results from sufficient airflow through the larynx". It's inaccessible. Especially in the introduction, we need something that someone who isn't already familiar with the term can readily understand. What's wrong with "vibration"? Or "quasi-periodic vibration of the vocal folds, creating a pulsed input"? You more detailed definition could go in the body of the article.

Finally, saying that "the result is sound" is misleading, since it implies that sound production requires phonation in your sense of the word. —kwami (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's sloppy because it points to people being careless with their definitions, which in turn leads to the kind of confusion experienced here. Supposedly, we're in the same field, but your definition of phonation includes the lack of my phonation. The only worse thing I can think of is if your phonation was only voicelessness so that it'd be as near to opposite of my definition as possible. But what I believe is neither here nor there. May I ask where you learned phonetics, though? I've never heard of anything referred to as supra-glottal phonations, and the only thing I can think of that you're referring to is trills. I find your terminology very odd in general.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And I find yours odd. I could argue that it's sloppy to use "phonation" as a synonym for "voice", but that would be rather narrow of me, wouldn't it? It's simply a matter of what we're used to, which I'm sure we can rise above. Supra-glottal phonation is described in the article. It wasn't something I was taught in school (though it was mentioned in colloquia that such things may be possible, and were an area for future research). kwami (talk)

Except that the original meaning of phonation clearly involves the production of sound hence the phon- part of it. What in my eyes appears to be a generalization by linguistic phoneticians to bridge a gap with phonology has served to undermine mutual comprehension with other fields of phonetics. That is why in scientific fields concepts are defined very precisely and they are adhered to with great effort, so we don't waste time with debates such as these. But, if it's use is as pervasive as you indicate, I'm fighting an uphill battle here. As for supra-glottal phonation, this is once again looks to be a generalization of my phonation, which only involves the vocal folds.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're using the word "sound" in a way that excludes many sounds! If someone says Shhh!, is that not a sound? In the linguistic sense, all pulmonic speech sound involves phonation, which would also seem to fit the etymology. kwami (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic phonetics is a subfield of phonetics which examines things like phonetic universals and the realization of sound systems of particular languages. People like Maddieson and Ladefoged are my stereotypical linguistic phoneticians, as is Laver from the little bit I've read of his book. So while Edmundson (never heard of him) may study laryngeal anatomy/physiology and may consider himself a linguist (as I do), he would not be a linguistic phonetician in my book. Also, people who study laryngeal anatomy/physiology are more often than not in speech pathology departments, so your second paragraph isn't really true. Ingo Titze is a prime example of such a person.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So linguistic phoneticians don't care about physiology because by definition if they do care, they're not linguistic phoneticians? How convenient! But I'll ask again: if you're not a linguistic phonetician, how would you describe yourself in contrast to linguistic phoneticians? I'd hate to use "non-linguistic phonetician", it sounds ridiculous. kwami (talk)

I have merely adopted the term that Ladefoged himself uses to describe his field. According to how he uses it, one can be a linguist and a phonetician (as in my case), but not do linguistic phonetics. I would urge you to take a look at The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences to see the breadth of fields in phonetics, and the book doesn't even include speech perception, which is often also lumped into phonetics. As for my field, until I decided to pop in here to fix the egregious errors I saw a few years back, I would have said my field is the study of phonation, which is a subfield of speech production.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with vibration is that it was used pervasively in the article without ever going into detail. I believe I've remedied that problem in the phonatory process section.Nabaati (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. kwami (talk)

Oh, I removed the section on resonation, as it belongs in a separate article. (Of course, it's related, but only at the level of articulation and airstream mechanism, neither of which are included here.)

Ladefoged does use "phonation" in the linguistic sense, I just missed it:

The phonation types listed in table 9.8 [voiceless, breathy, slack, stiff, creaky] were defined in chapter 3, when we discussed the different states of the glottis that can occur in conjunction with stops (and other consonants). Most languages use only the two different phonation types, voiced and voiceless; and these two types usually contrast only among consonants. ...

kwami (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ladefoged is inconsistent in his usage of the word and admits as much in Sounds of the World's Languages. I don't have the quote with me, but in his chapter in The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences he does not list voicelessness as a phonation type.Nabaati (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall him saying that, but it's been a while since I've read the whole book. It would be good to see it if you can find it.

Also, does "phonation threshold pressure" refer to modal voice only, or would it be used for breathy voice? Also, your definition of phonation includes whisper, does it not? kwami (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

These phonation types are arbitrary distinctions. The oscillatory behaviors, registers aside, form a continuum of behaviors. So, for example, spectral slope, a major correlate of breathiness/creakiness can very continuously from very large to very small. As such, PTP isn't defined in any other way than the minimum pressure required to achieve phonation, and will vary depending on the particular pre-phonatory geometry of the vocal folds.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We could always change "voice & voiceless phonation" to "with and without phonation" if it turns out that phoneticians agree that the latter is more correct. I just have always seen the former without apology. kwami (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the most practical course of action is to simply try not bias one definition over the other.Nabaati (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I like your definition better. I always thought "voiced" was an odd term, since using the voice doesn't mean voicing. I'm half tempted to edit it out. But I've never heard anyone speak of "phonated" sounds, only "voiced" sounds. "Phonation" has only popped up, that I can remember, when contrasting different types, usually voiced and voiceless. kwami (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yelling

Dear Phonetics experts,

Currently there is no article about yelling in wikipedia. How do phonetics people view yelling? Is it a register? Is it just loud modal voice? Is the larynx doing anything different or is it just the lungs and diaphram? DrG (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a phonation/register, but I've never seen anything on it. Now, if only voice teachers paid more attention to Heavy Metal ... kwami (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)