- Nasalence,
- Vowels,
- Consonant vowel combination,
- Vowel effects.
Abstract
The present study investigated the mean nasalence value of three isolated vowels and explored the nasalence value across CV combinations based on various place of articulation of consonants. The subjects consisted of fifty (21 males, 29 females) normal young adults in the age range of 18 to 27 years. The subjects were instructed to repeat the isolated vowels and CV combinations. The mean nasalence value was calculated.Repeated measures of ANOVA were used to find the significant difference in within and across the condition (CV combination). The results indicated significant difference across vowels with the high nasalence value for the high front vowel / i / followed by / a/ and /u/. Unvoiced bilabial and retroflex stop consonants with / i / had high nasalence value followed by /u/ and /a/. This results support the finding that high front vowel have significantly higher nasalence value than other vowels. This result also aids the speech pathologists to develop the stimuli for assessing the Velopharyngeal closure.
References
Aparna Nandurkar (2002).Nasalance measures in Marathi consonant-vowel-consonant syllables with pressure consonants produced by children with and without cleft lip and palate. The Cleft palate-Cranofacial Journal, 39(1), 59-65.
Awan SN(1998). Analysis of nasalance: NasalView (the nasalance acquisition system). In Zigler W, Deger K, eds. Clinical
Phonetics and Linguistics. London:Whurr, 519–527.
Bell-Berti, F., Baer, T, Harris, K. S and Niimi, S (1979). Coarticulatery effects of vowel
Gopi Sankar R. & Pushpavathi M.quality on velarfunction, phonetica, 36, 187-193.
Carney & Sherman (1971).sevearity of nasality in three selected speech tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14,396-407.
Fletcher SG, Adams LE, & McCutcheon MJ. Cleft palate speech assessment through oral nasal acoustic measures. In: Bzoch KR, ed. CommunicativeDisorders Related to CleftLip and Palate. Boston: Little Brown; 1989:246–257.
Karnell M P(1995). Nasometric discrimination of hypernasality and turbulent nasal airflow. The Cleft palate-Craniofacial Journal, 32,145–148.
Kendrick K.R (2004). Nasalance Protocol Standardization. Unpublished Master Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
Kerry,L, Watterson ,T, & Terasa ,Q (2000). The Effect of vowels on nasalence Values. The Cleft palate-Cranofacial Journal, 37(6), 584-589.
Kuehn & Moon, (1998) Velopharyngeal Closure Force and Levator Veli Palatini Activation Levels in Varying Phonetic
Contexts,Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 41, 51-62
Lintz LB & Sherman D (1961). Phonetic elements and perception of nasality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Resarch, 4,381–396.
MacKay IR & Kummer A.W (1994). Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures. Lincoln
Park, Kay Elemetrics, NJ.
Mc Donald & Baker (1951) nasal air flow and nasal sound pressure level. In jhon hajek(Eds)universals of sound change in nasalization,pp.127-129.Boston:Blackwell.
Moore & Sommers (1973) .Phonetic contexts: their effect on perceived nasality in cleft palate speakers. The Cleft palate- Craniofacial Journal, 10, 72-83.
Neumann & Dalston (2001). Nasalence Values in noncleft individuals: Why not zero? The Cleft palate-Craniofacial Journal, 38(2), 106-117.
Watterson T, Hinton J & McFarlane S(1996). Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. The Cleft palate-Craniofacial Journal. 33 ,67–73.
Watterson T, Lewis KE & Foley-Homan N (1999). Effect of stimulus length on nasalance values. The Cleft palate-Craniofacial Journal, 36, 243–247.