Animal Onomatopoeia

How accurate are they? Fall 2011 Ling120 Intro to Speech Analysis Professor Jiahong Yuan Student Adrian Lin

  2  

 

INTRODUCTION  ....................................................................................................................................................  3  

METHOD  ..................................................................................................................................................................  4  

RESULTS  ..................................................................................................................................................................  5  

CHART  1.  ....................................................................................................................................................................  5  

DOG  ............................................................................................................................................................................  6  

ROOSTER  ....................................................................................................................................................................  7  

DUCK  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  8  

FROG  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  9  

BEE  .............................................................................................................................................................................  9  

CAT  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  10  

COWS  .......................................................................................................................................................................  11  

CONCLUSION  &  DISCUSSION  ..........................................................................................................................  11  

REFERENCES  .......................................................................................................................................................  13  

APPENDIX  ............................................................................................................................................................  14  

A.1  DOG  ONOMATOPOEIA  MAP  .............................................................................................................................  14  

A.2  PIG  ONOMATOPOEIA  MAP  ...............................................................................................................................  14  

A.3  ROOSTER  ONOMATOPOEIA  MAP  .....................................................................................................................  15  

A4.  FROG  ONOMATOPOEIA  MAP  ............................................................................................................................  15  

A5.  CAT  ONOMATOPOEIA  MAP  ..............................................................................................................................  16  

  3  

ABSTRACT:

This study examines animal sounds and their onomatopoeic equivalents from a phonetic point

of view that may shed light on the process of human perception of animal sounds as well as

examining possible factors that affect perception. Data was gathered from video clips of

animals and speakers producing their languages’ onomatopoeic words and analyzed on Praat.

In addition, syntheses were created to see how closely the sounds could be reproduced based

on vowel formants. I hypothesized that mammals sounds were most easily replicated by human

languages and were similar cross-linguistically, but found that while two of the three cross-

linguistically similar onomatopoeia were of mammals, other mammals showed various degrees

of dissimilarity both cross-linguistically and with regards to the actual animal call. Because of

the nature of the methodology and time constraints, this study remains inconclusive but sheds

some light and raises questions on the role of physical relatedness and onomatopoeic sounds.

INTRODUCTION   Each culture has onomatopoeia and a canonical way of representing animal sounds. Sometimes

these sounds are similar as in cows going “moo” in English and “mo” in Japanese, while at other

times they may differ radically such as roosters going “cock-a-doodle-doo” in English and

“wowowo” in Mandarin. In this project, I intend to examine the variety of animal sounds and

compare their onomatopoeic sounds cross-linguistically. Based on the formant analyses, I will

also examine whether certain features or animal classes may have an effect on onomatopoeia

matching actual animal sounds.

  4  

METHOD   This project aims to analyze animal sounds and as well as their onomatopoeic counterparts in

various languages to determine if any acoustic similarity is present and to investigate which

factors may lead to similarities between animal utterances and onomatopoeia as well as

onomatopoeia cross-linguistically.

Animal sounds were selected based on perceived commonality and availability. Sites including

animal onomatopoeia were consulted to determine which sounds seemed most common. Next,

animal sound clips were gathered from online sources, mainly from the video-sharing site

YouTube.com. Animal sounds without significant background noise were the most optimal

sources for analysis, but suitable clips were difficult to acquire. In the end, eight animals were

selected: dogs, cats, pigs, cows, roosters, ducks, frogs, and bees.

The foreign language onomatopoeia tokens were selected by Internet availability for each of the

eight selected animal sounds. I chose to use only those onomatopoeia that I could find sound

files for, despite the large amount of written information on foreign language onomatopoeia,

which was used as a reference (Abbott, 2004). This was to ensure that phonetic similarities could

be more accurately determined, as written words do not always accurately indicate the actual

phonetic production. Also, sounds that were not in the language’s phonology were removed; thus

pulmonic ingressives and clicks, which existed in some videos, were assumed to not be a lexical

item, but a direct imitation of the animal sound. The total list of languages ended up as: Arabic,

Bengali, Dutch, English, French, German, Hindi, Hokkien, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese,

Korean, Mandarin, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Turkish.

  5  

These sounds were then transcribed into narrow IPA and compared cross linguistically to find

patterns. If applicable, different onomatopoeic paradigms were constructed to categorized

different onomatopoeia. These were plotted on a map and geo-linguistic patterns were analyzed.

Finally, rudimentary syntheses based on formants in the animal clips were created for some

animal sounds in order to discover whether or not certain parts of the onomatopoeic sounds

could have been based on the formants in an animal’s utterance as well as to see any unexpected

formant or other articulatory difference reflected in the spectrograms of animal sounds.

Results  

Chart  1.   dog   cat   pig   cow   rooster   duck   bee   frog  

tagalog   aw  aw    

oink   mo   tik-­‐tilawk   kwak    

kokak  indonesian   kʊk  kʊk   mɛɐ̃ŋ   ŋok     mü   kukuruyuk   kwek   ŋuŋ   krok  

korean   mʌŋ   jaw   kɯɭɯ       ɯmme   kokioː   kwɛk    

kʰɛkɯɭ  japanese   waɴ   nja  /njaɴ   bɯçi   moː   kokekokko   kuakku   bɯn   keɭo  

english   wʊf   mjaʊ   ojŋk   muː   kʰɒkʰədudld̩uː   kʰwæk   bʌz   rɪbɪt  german   vʊf     mjaw   gʁʊnts   muː   kikeriki   kʰwak   zʊm   kʰwak  dutch   wɜf   mjaw   knor     bubu   kʉkelekʉ  

     italian   baw   mjaw    

muu   kikiriki   kwak   zz   kra  kra  french   waf   mjaw   gʁwã   mø   kokoriko  

 bzz  

 spanish   ɣʷaw   mjaw    

muu   kikiriki    

bzz    romania   hɐm   mjaw   grʊf   mou  

       russia   gav   mjaw   xrju   mu   kukareku        india     baw  waw   mjaw  

 bawwi   klʌk  klu  klʌk  

     bengali   ɡʰew   mew      

hamba   molok        arabic   haw     mjaw  

   bak  bvakgir  

 zzt  

 turkish   haw  haw   mjaw    

møː   ʉ  ʉrʉ  ʉ  ʉː        mandarin   waŋ  waŋ   mjaw  

 mow   ɔ  ɔ  ɔ  

     taiwanese   wɤŋ  wɤŋ   mjaw    

mow   kokokoo    

bʑʑ    

  6  

Dog

+cont[ ]( )V+back!

"#

$

%& +cont[ ] eg. [waŋ]

While dog sounds could all be analyzed into the structure above, several subdivisions seem to

exist which have greater within-group similarities than between-group similarities, especially

given the geo-linguistic ties within these groups (see appendix A1).

1. West Germanic + French: LAB+cont!

"#

$

%&V+back!

"#

$

%& f[ ] eg. [wʊf]

2. East Asian Sprachbund: LAB+cont!

"#

$

%&V+back!

"#

$

%&DOR+nasal!

"#

$

%& eg. [wɤŋ]

3. Scattered languages: (C) [aʊ] eg. [baʊ]

Three dog barks are shown in the spectrogram below. F2 and F3 generally seem to fall while F1

exhibits a slight rising and falling tendency, most clearly in the third bark. In addition, the

intensity seems to fall just before F1 falls in frequency, with the darkest energy bands happening

in the front. Without any noticeable difference in the background grey bands, it seems this most

closely resembles a low to high diphthong, something like /aw/. Indeed, the synthesis based on

these formants produced a low to high rising diphthong [aɰ]. Thus, an onset-less category 3 type

sound seems most similar.

 

 

  7  

Pigs

DOR+voice!

"#

$

%& rhotic[ ]

LAB−cons!

"#

$

%&(C)(C)(C)

(see appendix A2) eg. [gʁwã]

Pig sounds varied significantly. In addition, the spectrogram contained various phenomena other

mammals did not exhibit such as creakiness, shown by lines in the energy, and a static F1 that

mirrored closely the F2. Removing F1 from the synthesis created a sound similar to [əәi]. No

nasals can be clearly seen, nor final or initial consonant-like sounds. Also interesting is that the

higher formants seem to have successively later voice onset times. This analysis remains

inconclusive although the vowel indicated by formants and the synthesis points to an [oiŋk].

Rooster  [[k]V]σ [[k]V]σ [[liquid]V]σ [[k]V]σ (see appendix A3) eg. [kokoriko]

The rooster’s sound seems to have an overall syllabic shape cross-linguistically with three or

four syllables. This is reflected in the dips in intensity at specific parts. These dips in intensity

co-occur with slight dips in frequency. The large blank area with massively dipping intensity in

the beginning also may be interpreted as a stop, which lends support to the “cock-a-doodle-doo”

of English onomatopoeia. Another point of interest is that so many languages have a k as onsets

  8  

for each of these syllables, but given the geolinguistic ties, it may be loan word influence.

Another interesting finding is in the South Asian and Southeast Asian regions, several languages

represented the rooster’s call with a closed syllable with coda [k], despite the last part of the

spectrogram showing the clearest signs of pure vowel formants. The synthesis based on vowel

frequencies of F1 and F2 yielded a sound akin to [ɐ].

           

 

Duck

k[ ] w[ ]V−high"

#$

%

&' k[ ]

eg. [kwak]

The duck sounds exhibited an amazing degree of similarity with the majority of difference

existing solely in vowel height from [e] to [a] and aspiration of the velar stops. The below

spectrogram demonstrates this, showing a clear F2 and F3 transitioning from a single point into

two clear formants, along with a slight frication band of energy in higher frequencies. F1 also

appears as an arced band of faint energy. While a final velar pinch is not clearly seen, the

formants move in that position. Also, there is not a frication, but as in human speech, and also

  9  

because of the information-carrying capabilities of formant transitions, the sound is likely to

cause humans to perceive a [k]. Why there is a [w] glide is not as clear.

Frog

Western European Sprachbund: DOR−son−cont

"

#

$$$

%

&

'''

+son−nasal"

#$

%

&' V[ ]

DOR−son−cont

"

#

$$$

%

&

'''

(see appendix A4)

eg. [kroʊk]

Another interesting phenomenon is the frog croak, which cross linguistically is commonly

treated as another [k] sound. Here, we also see a velar pinch in both ends of the utterance as well

as lines showing a creaky voice. However, an [r] or [w] is not as visible since F2 and F3 stay

stable after transitions. It is possible that one of the other sounds is more accurate.

Bee LAB−cont"

#$

%

&'V z[ ] eg. [bʌz]

Bee sounds are rather uniform with a voiced coronal fricative in all onomatopoeia found. Despite

the sound being produced not orally, but by the beating wings, the source is still turbulence and

therefore acoustically is similar. The initial [b] in many onomatopoeia could be the interpretation

  10  

of the acceleration of the wings before full speed, as a lower frequency is characteristic of labials

and therefore it may be perceived as a labial.

Cat

+nasal[ ] j[ ] V[ ]−cons+round"

#$

%

&'

(see appendix A5) eg. [mjaʊ]

Cats had a very similar onomatopoeic representation throughout the world, with the vast majority

of languages all phonetically representating their cries as [mjaʊ]. If we look at the spectrogram,

it appears that the diphthong [aʊ] is quite clear in the formant movement, and the initial rising

band of energy may hint at a perceivable [j]. The nasal is less clear, although there is a faint band

of energy that is both visible and being picked up that may be nasal damping effects and thus

hint at a nasal onset.

   

  11  

Cows

m[ ]

V+back+round+long

!

"

####

$

%

&&&&

eg. [mu]

Cows similarly had near universal onomatopoeia. The spectrogram too showed most clearly the

possible reasons for this similarity. Clear formants gave a pure long vowel. The synthesis gave a

vowel similar to [ɒ], but I suspect that the sound is typically is given an [u] or [o] sound in

onomatopoeia because of the nasality seen in the beginning of the call heard throughout the

vowel. The nasal qualities may have effects on perception.

CONCLUSION  &  DISCUSSION   In conclusion, I found that the closest phonetic representations of animal sounds did not line up

as closely with biological similarity. Cats and cows, both mammals, had near universally similar

onomatopoeia which closely paralleled the spectrogram formant patterns. However, ducks,

which are not mammals, produced sounds that were similarly near identical with spectrogram

readings that did contain recognizable features. Less universal were dogs, roosters, and bees,

none of which were from the same animal family but showed a medium amount of phonetic

  12  

features cross-linguistically although these were not necessarily as traceable to the actual

spectrograms as the animals with the most similar onomatopoeia. Lastly, pigs and frogs showed

a high degree of variability with only one or two similar features: the [k] sounds with frogs.

The presence of mammals in various tiers of onomatopoeic similarities does not lend support to

genetic and physiological similarity as a factor. Still, as this was a phonetics study, it could be

that the assumption that similar genetics would mean similar physiology would need more

justification as it could be that certain animals even within the same family could have evolved

apart in the vocal tract area, or converged despite being in different evolutionary trees. Indeed,

this may be the reason why some of the syntheses had acoustic productions that differed from the

animal sound expected or suggested by the majority of surveyed languages.

A further area of study is whether or not certain sound patterns in animal calls are more easily

perceived. For example, both cows and cats share nasality in their onomatopoeia and this nasality

can be seen somewhat in the spectrograms, while pig and frog calls both exhibit creakiness.

  13  

REFERENCES   Abbott, D. (2004). Animal Sounds. Retrieved from http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/animal.html ESL Web. (ND). Hear What?: Animal Sounds in different languages. Retrieved from http://www.esl-languages.com/en/animal-sounds.htm Funnysexy0624. (2, Nov, 2010). My Korean Boyfriend: Korean animal sounds. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfN6tYHJWZU Immsl. (21, Aug, 2009). A Bee Buzz At My Sitting Room. (Very Noisy Buzz). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsDM-ktYLsc Keirmorse. (1, May, 2007). Pacific Tree Frog. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcFKQKjv0-o Kidslearningvideo.(30, Aug, 2010). Farm Animal Sounds. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuiwA4Ne_pU Properniceinnit. (ND). Bow Wow Meow – Animal Sounds in Different Languages. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/25215616 WoodGirl14. (20, Oct, 2009). Animal sounds in Japanese, Indonesian, German, Italian. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEpudI87Pew

  14  

APPENDIX

A.1  Dog  onomatopoeia  map  

A.2  Pig  onomatopoeia  map  

  15  

A.3  Rooster  onomatopoeia  map  

 

A4.  Frog  onomatopoeia  map  

  16  

A5.  Cat  onomatopoeia  map