This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
The value of 17.5 cm. given here does not come with a citation. I imagine it is based on the assumption that a uniform tube with one closed end, with formant values of 500, 1500, and 2500 Hz. (for F1, F2, and F3), will have a length of 17.5 cm. This directly follows from the formula for determining resonance values for such a tube (Fn = c(2n-1)/4L). These formant values are nicely rounded for the purposes of explaining the concept of resonance, but may not reflect the most typical values for adult males.
Stevens (1999) cites work by U. G. Goldstein (1980), who, in his dissertation, claims that a male vocal tract will have a length of 16.9 cm. and a female a length of 14.1 cm. I haven't read this original source, but Stevens' work is the standard for any work on acoustic phonetics. Should the value of 17.5 cm. be changed?Lingboy (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.PNG)
