Effect of age, gender and task on speech rate of Farsi speakers

authors:

avatar Maryam Mokhlesin , avatar Zahra Ahmadizadeh , avatar Fatatemeh kasbi , avatar Hourieh Ahadi , *

Koomesh: Vol.19, issue 2; 327-332
published online: June 03, 2017
article type: issue_documents_importer
received: April 03, 2016
accepted: December 03, 2016

how to cite: Mokhlesin M, Ahmadizadeh Z, kasbi F, Ahadi H. Effect of age, gender and task on speech rate of Farsi speakers. koomesh. 2017;19(2):e151085. 

Abstract

Introduction: Rate of speech as a supra-segmental feature, directly affects the speech fluency and Intelligibility. Studies have shown some factors such as gender, age, living place, and accent can influence on speaking rate. So, it is important to consider norms of each language during assessment and diagnosis. Since studies to determine the standards for speaking rate is very limited in Farsi language, this survey was done to compare speaking rate and articulation rate in young and elderly Farsi speakers who live in Tehran city. Materials and Methods: 52 young and elderly men and women participated in this cross sectional study and convenience sampling approach was used for this selection. Two different speaking samples were recorded for each participant including a reading text sample and a 3 minute spontaneous speech sample. Speaking rate was determined and articulation rate in reading and spontaneous speech were considered after excluding filled and empty pauses. Results: The highest rate belonged to articulation during speaking, articulation during reading and spontaneous speech respectively. Both of speaking rate and articulation rates were significantly less in elderly than youth and also more in men than women. Conclusion: Age, gender and task affect on speaking rate. Hence, such factors are important to be considered by speech and language pathologists during diagnosing and assessing the fluency problems

References

  • 1.

    Walker JF, Archibald LM. Articulation rate in preschool children: a 3year longitudinal study. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2006; 41: 541-565.

  • 2.

    Andrade CR, Cervone LM, Sassi FC. Relationship between the stuttering severity index and speech rate. Sao Paulo Med J 2003; 121: 81-84.

  • 3.

    Van Zaalen-opt Hof Y, Wijnen F, De Jonckere P. Differential diagnostic characteristics between cluttering and stutteringPart one. J Fluency Disord 2009; 34: 137-154.

  • 4.

    Niedzielski NA, Preston DR. Folk linguistics: Walter de Gruyter; 2003.

  • 5.

    Jacewicz E, Fox RA, O'Neill C, Salmons J. Articulation rate across dialect, age, and gender. Lang Var Change 2009; 21: 233-256.

  • 6.

    Byrd D. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Commun 1994; 15: 39-54.

  • 7.

    Nation JE, Aram DM. Diagnosis of speech and language disorders: CV Mosby Company; 1977.

  • 8.

    Tsao YC, Weismer G, Iqbal K. Interspeaker variation in habitual speaking rate: Additional evidence. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006; 49: 1156-1164.

  • 9.

    Schachter S, Christenfeld N, Ravina B, Bilous F. Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. J Personal Soc Psychol 1991; 60: 362.

  • 10.

    Quen H. Multilevel modeling of between-speaker and within-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123: 1104-1113.

  • 11.

    Verhoeven J, De Pauw G, Kloots H. Speech rate in a pluricentric language: A comparison between Dutch in Belgium and the Netherlands. Lang Speech 2004; 47: 297-308.

  • 12.

    Roach P. Some languages are spoken more quickly than others: na; 1998.

  • 13.

    Ahadi H, Zandi B, Shahbodaghi M, Mokhlesin M, Faghihzadeh S. A comparative study of diadochokinesis and the rate of reading and speech in second grade primary school students of Tehran. Iran Audiol J 2009; 18: 63-69. (Persian).

  • 14.

    Nilipour R. Farsi aphasia test. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences publisher 1993; 1372.

  • 15.

    Talebi-Kharaji M M-RM. Speech rate in 6-11 years of old children live in Tehran city. Bsc dissertation Tehran: IUMS University 1996.

  • 16.

    Dehghan A, Ashayeri H, Shahbodaghi M. correlation between speaking rate of mothers and stuttering severity of their children. Adv Cogn Sci J 2006; 8: 52-57.

  • 17.

    Ahadi H, Shahbodaghi MR, Faghihzadeh S, Mahmoudi Bakhtiari B. Rate of speech and reading in second and fifth grade primary students in Tehran. Audiology 2006; 15: 30-37.

  • 18.

    Lundholm Fors K. Production and Perception of Pauses in Speech. Doctoral thesis Sweden: University of Gothenburg 2015.

  • 19.

    Sawyer J, Chon H, Ambrose NG. Influences of rate, length, and complexity on speech disfluency in a single-speech sample in preschool children who stutter. J Fluency Disord 2008; 33: 220-240.

  • 20.

    Shirazi S, Nilipour R. Diagnostic reading test. Tehran: Publication of university of welfare and rehabilitation sciences 2005.

  • 21.

    Crystal TH, House AS. Segmental durations in connected speech signals: Preliminary results. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72: 705-716.

  • 22.

    Hirose K, Kawanami H. Temporal rate change of dialogue speech in prosodic units as compared to read speech. Speech Commun 2002; 36: 97-111.

  • 23.

    Howell P, Kadi-Hanifi K. Comparison of prosodic properties between read and spontaneous speech material. Speech Commun 1991; 10: 163-169.

  • 24.

    Amir O, Grinfeld D. Articulation rate in childhood and adolescence: Hebrew speakers. Lang Speech 2011; 54: 225-240.

  • 25.

    Yuan J, Liberman M, Cieri C, editors. Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. INTERSPEECH; 2006.

  • 26.

    Whiteside SP. Temporal-based acoustic-phonetic patterns in read speech: Some evidence for speaker sex differences. J Int Phon Assoc 1996; 26: 23-40.

  • 27.

    Ramig LA. Effects of physiological aging on speaking and reading rates. J Commun Disord 1983; 16: 217-226.

  • 28.

    Smith BL, Wasowicz J, Preston J. Temporal characteristics of the speech of normal elderly adults. J Speech Hear Res 1987; 30: 522-529.

  • 29.

    Ray GB, Zahn CJ. Regional speech rates in the United States: A preliminary analysis. Commun Res Report 1990; 7: 34-37.

  • 30.

    Gooze JV, Stephenson DK, Murdoch BE, Darnell RE, Lapointe LL. Lingual kinematic strategies used to increase speech rate: Comparison between younger and older adults. Clin Linguist Phon 2005; 19: 319-334.

  • 31.

    Lowit A, Brendel B, Dobinson C, Howell P. An investigation into the influences of age, pathology and cognition on speech production. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 2006; 14: 253-262.##.