HOMOPHENOUS WORDS

Thesis for ”12 Degree 0‘ M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Ha Mae Roback
.1961

 

 

 

3

um um; wzuyujml in (IQ i in mm @118!!in; ll L

 

. LIBRARY
Michigan State ‘ 1
Univcrsity '

 

 

 

 

“-m—m.m_ -._.. ._. -,._... ..._—_._... 4.. -..._ H~.—.

 

 

 

 

 

HOMOPHENOUS WORDS

by

Ila Mae Roback

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech

% J J J.

1961

ABSTRACT

HOMOPHENOUS WORDS

by Ila Mae Roback

It has been estimated that fifty per cent of the words
in the English Language look alike on the lips. These are
called homophenous words.

Exactly what occurs in the production of many of the
homophenous words is not fully known. It is evident that
there are similarities among certain words, however, it has
not been shown that the lip movements are identical.

It appears that memorization and contextual association
are important in the recognition of homophenous words.

The problem under investigation in this study was to
determine the ability of viewers to correctly identify
homophenous words. The viewers were college students not
formally trained in lip reading. The homophenous words were
presented by Speakers on a silent film. Viewers indicated
Atheir responses on a multiple choice test form.

Results of the study revealed that viewers were able
to select only some of the words correctly. In the test that
contained seventy-five items and four parts to each item,
correct selection by chance alone would yield a score of
18.75.

The Chi Square statistic was applied to determine
whether viewers were able to function above chance level in

correct selection of the homophenous words uttered by speakers.

2 Ila_Mae Roback

It was observed that the viewers were able to select correctly
the homophenous words more frequently than would be expected
by chance alone.

The "t" tests for unrelated measures were employed to
measure the difference in performance among speakers. The
results show that there were some observable differences in
speaker performance.

Analysis of the data indicates that homophenous words,
even though highly similar, are not produced exactly alike
on the lips. A study investigating measurements of the
facial movements associated with the production of homophenous
words is indicated in order to specify the visible differences

among them.

HOMOPHENOUS WORDS

by

Ila Mae Roback

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech

1961 Rf/f

, I"

/(/;/ ((JJ.
/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.

Chapter
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .
Introduction of the Problem
Statement of the Problem and Purpose of
the Study . .
Importance of the Study
Definition of Terms.
Organization of the Thesis
II. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE .
III. SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
Subjects
Equipment
Procedures.
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Results.
Discussion.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary.
Conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX.

ii

Page
iii

\0 CIDU'IU'I J: i—'

32

32
33
33
36

36
Al

42

42
43

41+
47

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. Correct Viewer Scores by Speaker Subjects. . . 37
2. Result of "t" Test for Differences Between

Speakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . AC

3. Results of Chi Square Tests . . . . . . . 40

iii

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

. There are certain sounds that are quite similar
visually, such as (p-b—m), (t-d—n), (s-z), (k—g), et cetera.
These sounds are referred to as homophenous. That is to
say, they look alike on the lips. When, for example, the
acoustic components of (p, b, m) are not available to the
viewer-auditor he must derive his information of what has
been uttered from the visible signal. Since (p, b, m) and
the other homophenous sounds are highly similar visually,
confusion often arises.

At the turn of the twentieth century, attention began
to be directed toward homophenous words by educators of the
deaf. Long lists were made.for the acoustically handicapped
student to memorize. Emma Snow1 in 1901 composed a list for
lipreading practice. In all there were 9,744 homophenous

words which were arranged in twenty-six lists. Edward Nitchie2

 

lEmma Snow, "M List of Homophenous Words," Association

Review, Vol. 5 (1903 , pp. 29-40, 119—131, 241-253.

 

. 2Edward B. Nitchie, Lip Reading Principles and Practice
(Philadelphia and New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1912).

 

l

utilized Snow‘s list in his arrangement that consisted of two
to fourteen words in a group, and Martha Bruhn,3 in her book,
included two parts on homophenous words.
4, ,6
JIt is estimated that approximately fifty per cent, 5
of the words in the English language have one or more words
homophenous to them. It would be impractical and unrealistic
for the acoustically handicapped to attempt memorization of
these combinations of words. However, memorization and con-
text association are means by which homophenous words can be
understood. This is indicated by Nitcnie7 in his statement:
The fact that the sounds in certain consonant groups
have the same visible movement gives rise to a consid-
erable body of homophenous words, that is, words that
appear alike on the lips. . . . The more familiar the
lip-reader is with words of homophenous formation the
better will he understand conversation. One of the

things for him to do, therefore, is to memorize with
each lesson the words that look alike.

 

3Martha E. Bruhn, The Muller-Walle Method of Lip
Reading for the Deaf (Lynn, Mass.: Thomas P. Nichols and Son,
Co., 1920).

“Martha E. Bruhn, Elementary Lessons in Lip Reading
(Lynn, Mass.: Thomas P. Nichols and Son, Co., 1927), p. Vii.

 

 

 

 

5Agnes Stowell, Estelle Samuelson, and Ann Lehman, Lip
Reading for the Deafened Child (New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1928), pp. 24—25.

 

6Cora Elsie Kinzie and Rose Kinzie, Lip—Reading for
Juniors Grade III (n.p., 1947), p. x.

 

 

7Nitchie, op. cit., pp. 176,178.

Goldstein8 states that:

There are many words which appear alike to the eye of
the speech-reader . . . letters and words which could

not be differentiated by the eye alone unless brought
into association with other words of a phrase, or
sentence.

Anna Bunger9 in speaking of the importance of contextual

association states:

Here again, is the associating of sound, pictures, and
sensation. Homophenous words and syllables will always
be confused when they are spoken alone and are not
heard. . . . They must always be distinguished because
of context.

lO

Stowell, Samuelson, and Lehman support the Bunger

assumption in the following statement:

As there are a number of different sounds that are
revealed by the same movement, we have many words that
differ widely in meaning, spelling, and sound, but look
exactly alike as they are seen on the lips. The only way
they can be distinguished one from another is by the
context.

Martha Bruhn}1 in both the 1927 and 1949 editions of
her book, suggests the importance of understanding homophenous
words through contextual association:
Homophenous words are words that look alike on the

lips. . . . They must be distinguished by the thought
or context of the sentence in which they are used.

 

8Max A. Goldstein, M.D., Problems of the Deaf (U.S.A.,
Laryngoscope Press, 1933), p. 297.

9Anna M. Bunger, Speech Reading--Jena Method (Danville,
Illinois: The Interstate, 1932), p. 52.

 

lOStowe11 and Others, op. cit., p. 40.

11Martha Bruhn, The Mueller—Walle Method of Lip Reading
fkor the pHard of Hearing (Boston, Mass. M. H. Leavis Pub.,
19 59.) 13.

As one peruses the early literature, statements similar
to the ones above appear frequently. It seems in recent
literature that many teachers of lip reading overlook the
problem of homophenous words.

There is still much to be known about the variables
related to the study of homophenous words. Scientific

research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between

homophenous words and visual discrimination of them. Jacobyl2

indicates this in the following statement:

I would like to ban from every book on lip reading the
introductory remarks that help to reinforce unhealthy
attitudes towards acquisition of the skill! Almost
every lipreading book starts out with a statement to

the effect it is not possible for even the most skillful
lipreader to comprehend 100 percent of what is said
because so many sounds in English look alike on the
lips. The statement isn't true. It may be partly true.
Many English sounds do look alike-—grossly alike. But
they do not look identical. For twenty—five years, the
written textbooks on lipreading have been emphasizing
gross discrimination. Isn't it time that we learned
from our Audiological experts and turned our attention
to fine visual discrimination? It can be taught. And
it can be learned. Despite all the statements made to
the contrary by Nitchie and his followers. . . . Most
differences that can be apprehended by the ear can be
apprehended by the eye. To teach fine discrimination,
you must be able to direct the lipreader's eye to the
significant visible elements.

Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study

 

The problem under investigation in this study was to
(determine the ability of viewers to correctly identify homo-

EDhenous words. The homophenous words were presented by

‘g

l2Beatrice Jacoby, Ph.D., "Lipservice to Lipreading,"
Héearing News, Vol. 25 (September, 1959), p. 18.

 

speakers on a silent film. Viewers indicated their responses

on a multiple choice test form. The following questions were

proposed:

1. IS it possible for college students without formal
training in lipreading to lip read homophenous
words presented on a silent film?

2. Does the recognition of homophenous words by college

students (not formally trained in lipreading) occur
significently beyond chance expectancy?

Importance of the Study

 

Systematic evaluation of the visual intelligibility of
homophenous words will yield additional information concerning
the visual components of oral language. In the main it has
been taught that homophenous words look exactly alike on the
lips. It is the contention of this investigator that since
no two things are exactly alike, it is reasonable to assume
that homophenous words appear somewhat different to viewers.
If it is found that viewers do select correctly above chance
occurrence the homophenous words that are presented, hard of
hearing persons need no longer labor under the false assumption
that their only method of understanding the homophenous
words is one of contextual associations. This in no way, how—
ever, would serve to minimize the importance of contextual

associations.

Definition of Terms

 

Homophenous sounds.—-Sounds whose visible pattern on

 

the face of the speaker appear similar.

14,15

:3: i 3: Ep%:g£)p‘mb)

s),  (3%3 soft (c)
d),

Example:

sh) (ch) (J), and soft (s)
t), 5 (nt- nd)
k c--hard), (g--hard), (ng)
nk) (ck)

Homophenous words.--Words whose visible pattern on the

 

face of the speaker appear similar.

Sample test.--Four groupings of four homophenous words

 

that were employed to provide practice for the viewing

subjects.

Homophenous word test.16——Seventy-five groupings of

 

four homophenous words. In this study it is the test em-
ployed in examining the lip reading ability of college

students. An example follows:

1. axe 1. money
2. hacks 2. muddy
3. hags 3. putty
4. hangs 4. bunny

Viewer subjects.—-College students not formally

 

trained in lip reading.

 

l”Nitchie, op. cit., p. 177.

15Bruhn, The Muellenwalle Method of Lip—Reading for
the Deaf, op. cit., p. 164.

 

l6Herbert Oyer, ”Homophenous Word Test, " 1958,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (unpublished).

Speaker subjects.--The two men and two women who were

 

were filmed while speaking the homophenous word lists.

Cue tract.—-Single system film with sound tract for

 

editing purposes only.

Single system.-—Combination sound tract and celluloid

 

film.

Sixteen millimeter—-tri—-X—reversal film.-—Black and~

 

white single system motion picture film.

L. C. Auricon Super 1200 camera.—-Motion picture

 

camera model employed for filming.

Twenty—five millimeter lens.—-One inch lens used in the

 

came ra .

Context.—-The environment in which a word is used in

a sentence or in a thought.

Visible_pattern.--Movements of the lips and other

 

facial muscles as perceived through the sense of sight.

Lip reading.--The ability to comprehend speech by the

 

visible movements of the lips and other movements of the

head and body.

Speech-reading.——A term used by some authorities in

 

place of lip reading.

Chance.--The number of correct responses that will occur
through the law of averages. Because of the fact that there
are seventy-five items in the test with four parts to each

item, chance occurrence would be 18.75.

 

Organization of the Thesis

Chapter I has included an introduction to the problem
of homophenous words, the purpose of the study, the ques-
tions asked, the importance of the study, the definition of
terms, and the organization of the thesis.

Chapter 11 consists of a survey of the literature
pertinent to the study of homophenous words.

Chapter III will describe the subjects, equipment, and
testing procedures employed in this study.

Chapter IV will discuss the analysis and results of
the study.

Chapter V will contain the summary of the study and

the conclusions.

CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE

Early in the twentieth century, attention was directed
toward the study of homophenous words by educators of the

deaf.

1

In 1894, Sarah Warren Keeler gave her objective in

teaching of the deaf. Her objective was.

The restoration to society of the deaf by training
the sense of sight to perform the office of the
sense of hearing.

She suggested:2

In giving a vocabulary list of words . . . it has

been found of practical value to place in the same
connection words formed in similar position, the pupil
thus acquiring a list of possible words from which to
choose and the sooner learning to avoid the confusion
of similar words as well as practice in substituting
one for another.

This material was reprinted in the 1905 Association Review.

 

In 1901, White3 recognized the problem of homophenous

sounds and described her method of teaching these sounds.

 

1Sarah Warren Keeler, "A Method of Teaching Speech-
Reading to the Adult Deaf," Association Review, VII
(February, 1905), p. 22.

 

2lbid., p. 4.

3Stella K. White, ”The Home Instruction of a Little
Deaf Child," Association Review, 111 (December, 1901), pp.
418-427.

 

10

The term homophenous, however, was not used. White states:

Though (m) or (1) in themselves were not hard to get,
there were difficulties in the way as the child
advanced in this science, because the eye alone cannot
distinguish the difference between many of the phonetic
sounds as (m), (b), and (p); (t). (d), (n). and (l);
(f) and (v); etc. Did you ever think how much alike
they are? If not, look in the mirror, and say to your—
self without voice, man, ban, and pan. . . . The sense
of touch was called into play to differentiate these.
The little pupils‘ hand was placed in front of the
mouth to catch the breath sounds . . . placing the hand
on the chin, also was a hel in distinguishing (b) from
(p), as well as (d) from (t . . . in fact, the mirror
has always played an important part . . . for without
that, she could not see whether she were imitating the
teacher's lip-movement perfectly or not.

The first reference in literature to the term homo-
phenous was found by the writer in the 1903 volume of the

Association Review. A study of the problem, and twenty-six

 

word lists were developed in 1901 by Emma Snow,5 a person
not professionally trained as an educator of the deaf. She
suggested memorization and context association for better
lip reading comprehension. These lists wace later utilized
by teachers interested in the problem of homophenous words.
Snow decided to compose a list of homophenous words
because of her own experiences in interpreting words similar
in appearance. The work enabled her to understand the move—
ments of the lip and tongue, and to judge more efficiently

the selection of the correct word. The completed work

 

ulbid., p. 420.

.SSnow, op. cit., pp. 29—48, 119-131, 241-253.

11

contained twenty-six lists, arranged in alphabetical order,
and in cross—reference style. There were 9,744 words in all.
Snow stressed context association as one means by which these
words could be understood. She used the (t), (d), (n), (l),
(p), (b), (m). (f). (v) (ph), (s). (c). (2). (g). (k), (ch),
(sh), (j), (q), (w), sounds as the bases for her lists. The
method employed in learning these words was explained by
Snow as follows:6

If the homophenous words in each line were formed in

phrases and sentences by the deaf learner, it would be

of very great assistance. After he has mastered the

elementary sounds, the practice of these exercises

would certainly forward final success in considering

the context, and being able to decide which word of

the several possible words . . . the one actually used.

The time element in learning these words was not dis-

closed. From the extensive list, and number of words, it
would appear to be a time consuming practice. She commented
as follows for those who found it difficult to memorize the
words:7

I believe also that those who do not immediately

apprehend the similarity between the given words in

any instance, will soon discover it for themselves by

repeating the words before a mirror or having them

pronounced by some one without voice.

An editorial in the same volume describing Snow's works

seems to give the impression that some of these words can

 

6Ibid., pp. 30-31.

7Ibid., p. 31.

12

8

be distinguished out of context:

A review of this list with the aid of an expert lip—
reader has demonstrated to us that many of the words
given as similar, while having the same, or approxi-
mately the same appearance so far as lip—formation
goes, can be recognized, without any context by the
expression of the face and by certain movements of the
muscles of the throat and cheeks. By pronouncing the
words before a mirror adult lipreaders will learn to
note these differences for themselves and thus come to
distinguish the words more readily and cultivate the
closeness of observation that is essential to
proficiency in the art.

It seems that visual discrimination was encouraged in this
1903 editorial, but only in general terms. The lip reading
teachers during this period did not investigate all the

properties of homophenous words.

9:10

Edward Nitchie, in 1912, utilized Snow's lists in

his writings. The later revisions made by his wife,

11

Elizabeth Helm Nitchie were similar in context. Nitchie

describes the movements of speech as follows:12

Watch the mouth of anyone who is speaking, and you will
see many clearly defined movements of the lips, perhaps

 

8Editorial, Association Review, V (February, 1903),

pp. 92-93.

 

9Nitchie, op. cit.

10Edward B. Nitchie, "Homophenous Word Lists,"
Association Review, Vol. 18 (July, 1916).

 

llElizabeth Helm Nitchie, New Lessons in Lip Reading
(New York and Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1940,
1947, 1950).

12Edward B. Nitchie, Lip Reading Principles and Prac-
tice, op. cit., p. 14.

 

 

13

even of the tongue. The eye trained to associate certain
movements with certain sounds has the power of inter-
preting these movements into words and sentences.

Nitchiel3 believed that the difficulties of lip reading
are caused by the obscurity of many movements of speech which
cannot be eliminated by eye training alone. In his methods,
Nitchielu advises the lip reader to study the movements in
words or sentences because some sounds can not be identified
unless in context, and "one movement often modifies the ap-
pearance of another." He emphasizes that stress should be
placed on the "accuracy of perception of the easier movements,
leaving the mind to supply the harder movements."

Nitchie seems to have covered the problem of homophenous
words more completely than other teachers in the field, and
later writers appear to have used his material in their works.
The following states succinctly his viewpoint in the matter:15

The fact that the sounds in certain consonant groups
have the same visible movements gives rise to a con-
siderable body of homophenous words, that is,words

that appear alike on the lips. The two sounds of (f)
and (v) in "few" and "View" appear exactly the same
when the words are spoken naturally. . . . These words
must be distinguished by the thought or context in
Awhich they are used. There can be no question about
the difficulty of telling these words apart, as words,
when spoken naturally, rapidly and without exaggeration,

It is the best evidence that no eyes, no matter how
well trained, could ever successfully read the lips

 

13Ibid., p. 17.

lulbid., pp. 17-18.

l5lbid., pp. 175—176.

_—

14

without help from the mind. But when the words are put
into sentences the mind readily supplies the right word.

Later in the text Nitchie states:16

When making up, or finding, the homophenous words of a
group it must be kept in mind that all movements (not
letters in the word must be alike. If the word begins
with (p), (b), or (m), then all other words in the group
must begin with p, b, or m.

Actual memorization of homophenous words is recommended by
Nitchie:l7

The more familiar the lipreader is with the words of
homophenous formation the better will he understand
conversation. One of the things for him to do, there-
fore,is to memorize with each lesson the words that
look alike.

In describing his method of memorization he suggests recog-

l8

nition of the homophenous formation.

He should also try each group of words before the
mirror, and verify on his lips their homophenous
formation. Then he should practice the sentence with
the mirror . . . and should compose as many sentences
as are naturally suggested by the words. . . . The
ability to quickly substitute another word with the
same movements when a sentence is not understood,
greatly increases the case with which a lip-reader can
follow conversation.

An additional chapter on homophenous words is included
in Nitchie's book. In abbreviated form he repeats his beliefs

19

and methods.

 

l61bid., pp. 177-178.
17

 

Ibid., p. 178.

181bid.,pp. 179-180.

191bid., p. 317.

15

Practice with homophenous words gives the best all
around training in lip-reading that can be had. The
student should memorize the words in each group of an
assignment for a lesson, and then have some one put
the words into sentences. He should be shown the first
word of the group, so that he may have a clue, and then
all the words should be used in sentences. . . . If the
sentences are given quickly, one after another , the
student will get training in the power of association
in thought-getting, in quickness, alertness and
concentration.

It is of interest to note that Nitchie does not
particularly emphasize skill in visual discrimination.
'BkeMueller—Wallenmthod described by Martha Bruhn20 in
1920 does not include lessons for teaching homophenous words.
However, context association is recommended for learning and
using "words which look alike." She states:21
There are many words which look alike when pronounced
by themselves, but these are rarely mistaken in a
sentence where the meaning helps to distinguish the
same . . . a systematic drill of well-arranged syllables
by an experienced teacher is necessary to train the eye
to distinguish the most insignificant movements of the
lips which are necessary in order to follow long and
difficult sentences.
In the above statement Bruhn seems to advocate visual dis-
crimination. However, later in the book she employes a
negative approach to visual discrimination and homophenous

word practice. Bruhn suggests:22

 

20
Bruhn, TheNmeller—Wallerthod of Lip-Reading for
the Deaf, op. cit.

 

 

21Ibid., p. 6.

22
Ibid., p. 17.

16

Letters that look alike are not used in the same group;
for- example (m). (b), (p), or (f), (v) or (k), (g), (0)..
They are not distinguishable . . . never try to see any
difference between co and go or ki and guy. If go is
practiced later in a sentence like "will you go with
me?" it will be correctly read. Occasionally a sentence
like "will you bake a cake?" might be mistaken for “will
you make a cake?" but this error is too slight to
deserve any notice here.

Bruhn appears to contradict her own statements. For instance,
she describes the difference of some sounds already estab-
lished as homophenous:23

In (n) the point of the tongue is placed behind the
upper gum. The teeth are only slightly separated,

the degree of opening depending upon the vowel that
follows. There is only a very slight visible outword
movement. It is very similar in appearance to (t) and
(d), but these have more jaw movement and are shorter.

. It is this movement that we see in the lower jaw
which is the visible characteristic. We have the same
movements for (k), (hard c) and (g), but in (t) and (d)
it is somewhat plainer.

It appears that Bruhn did have an understanding of homophenous
words, but discontinued her investigation before all the
variables were tested. She used existing beliefs to describe

the problem of homophenous words. In the 1930 edition of
24

her book Bruhn states:

My twenty—five years' experience in teaching lip reading

have convinced me that syllable drills are the most

logical and sequential way of training the eye to be

accurate, to be quick, and to do its work subconsciously
a strong argument . . . in favor of the

 

23Ibid., pp. 79, 142.

2“Bruhn Elementary Lessons in Lip Reading, op. cit.
(1930 edition), "Introduction," pp. vi- vii.

l7

Mueller7Wallermfifluxiof syllable practice is that it
requires only one mental process, while the individual
word practice requires two. Give a list of words to a
pupil and he must not only first recognize the move-
ments, but he must next find some word in his vocabulary
for which those movements stand. Considering the fact
that about fifty per cent of the words in the English
language have one or more words that are homophenous to
them, it is only natural that the wrong ones are often
given. The student watching the movements has endeavored .
to search his mind for some word that “looks likeW the
one the teacher has spoken, and has divided his attention
between the movement and the meaning. 0n the other hand,
in a syllable drill, the pupil‘s attention is entirely
upon the movement, and this, once having been mastered,
the knowledge is later easily applied to sentence prac-
tice. Then his mind unconsciously recognizes the move-
ment while his attention is directed to the thought,

just as one unconsciously recognized letters in a written
sentence, while thinking of the reading as a whole. If
he can recognize syllables in the abstract, with no
context, he surely can recognize them with the background
of sentences. This is building the foundation for lip-
reading.

Bruhn states in the 1930 and 1949 editions:25.26
The word "homophene" was coined to express to lipreaders
a word that has the same appearance (with respect-to the
visible vocal organs) as another word. . . . Homophenous
words must be distinguished by the thought or context
of the sentence in which they are used.
An extensive review of the literature seems to reveal
that many teachers of lip reading have utilized Nitchie, Snow,
and Bruhn‘s principles and methods of homophenous words.

Morgenstern‘s methods are similar to earlier teachers

of lip reading. In 1926 she stated:27

 

251bid., pp. 163-164.

26Bruhn, TheMueller-Walle Method of Lip Reading for the
Hard of Hearing, op. cit. (1949 edition), p. 13.

 

 

27Louise I. Morgenstern, Lip Reading for Class Instruc-
tion (New York: Noble and Noble Pub., 1926), p. xxv.

 

l8

Homophenous words may also be introduced to advantage.
This practice aims at developing in the pupils' minds
the power of building up the whole sentence from the
parts they have been able to recognize by sight. The
sentences should, therefore, be so constructed that
their context leaves no doubt as to which of the words
of the homophenous group have been employed.

In 1928, Stowell, Samuelson, and Lehman adivse:28

As there are a number of different sounds that are
revealed by the same movement, we have many words that
differ widely in meaning, spelling, and sound, but
look exactly alike as they are seen on the lips. The
only way they can be distinguished one from the other
is by the context.

The aims in this book suggest memorization and context
association:29

Immediate aim. To have the children able to write all
the homophenes of a given word that involve only the
letters (p), (b), and (m)°

Remote aim. To have thechildren sure of their ability
to find out by themselves all the homophenes of a given
word.

 

 

In regard to the number of homophenous sounds, these aims

would be difficult to accomplish.

Bunger,30 in 1932, stressed the negative approach to
development of visual discrimination and lip reading of
homophenous words. She states:

Homophenous word and syllables will always be confusedwhen
they are spoken alone and are not heard. But in com—
posite speech, they are not often spoken alone. They

must always be distinguished because of the context.

In the syllable drill, everyone must understand that

it is really quite all right to mistake (b) for (p),

(f) for (v), (wh) for (w), (t) for (d).

 

28Stowell, Samuelson, and Lehman, op. cit., p. 40.

29Ibid., p. 42.

3OBunger, op. cit., p. 52.

19
Goldstein31 in 1933 recognized the importance of eye

training and the ability to analyze the movements of speech.
However, he accepts the established beliefs about homophenous
words. He says:

There are many words which appear alike to the eye of

the speech—reader . . . letters and words which could

not be differentiated by the eye alone unless brought

into association with other words of a phrase or sen—
tence and the facial physiology which accompanies the

expressed thought. . . . The pantomine of language is
as vital to the speech—reader as is the formation of
the lips.

Goldstein adds one point other writers neglected, that is,
the importance of facial movements.

Leavis32 indicated that homophenous sounds are exactly
alike:

Show that (b) and (p) look like (m). They are made
the same way. . . . They look just alike on the lips.

Little explanation is given homophenous words in the text.

33

Leavis states: "For children just say some words look
alike on the lips."

The 1941 objectives for lip reading training in the New
York public schools would appear to be based on the principles

reviewed in the literature:34

 

31Goldstein, op. cit., p. 297.

32Mary Hadnutt Leavis, Beginning Lip Reading (Boston,
Mass.: 386 Commonwealth Ave., n.d.), p. 19.

 

331bid., p. 31.

34Acoustically Handicapped Children, The Committee for
the Care and Education of Physically Handicapped Children, A
Report prepared by the Public Schools (New York City: Board
of Education, 1941), pp. 64-65.

 

20

The training should include sufficient practices in the
mastery of thought context material as a whole and eye
training and visualization of the basic movements.

Berry and Eisenson's35 description of homophenous words
concurs with other writers in the field:

Through vision alone, sounds overtly alike, such as
(m), (b), (p), could not be differentiated from one
another. It is clear then that vision alone limits
the individual in his speech learning.

Davis36 in 1947 agrees with the context association
method, but adds other variables (clues), which are not
investigated:

It may seem impossible to read speech when only one-
third of the sounds are visible, but we are all
accustomed to the same sort of confusion to a lesser
degree. Two or more words like "ice" and "eyes"

may look alike or nearly so, and the speech reader
must recognize by the context and other clues which
one is intended.

The Kinzies37 in 1947 presented material that was
similar to earlier teachers of lip reading. Their lesson
plans consist mainly of the descriptions of the movements of
speech and sentences for practice. The Kinzies describe
homophenous words by stating that these words are alike in

movements and can not be identified by the eye alone. They

discuss the difficulties encountered as follows:38

 

35Mildred Berry and Jon Eisenson, The Defective in
Speech (New York and London: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc.,

19E2), p. 322.

36Hollowell Davis, Hearing and Deafness (New York and
Toronto: Murray Hill Books, Inc., 1947), pp. 259-260.

 

 

37Kinzie, op. cit , pp. ix-x. 381bid., p. x.

21

a) The obscurity of many of the movements . . . Perhaps
fifty per cent of the sounds in ordinary speech are
formed by obscure movements and are consequently incapable
of identification even when uttered perfectly.

b) The rapidity of all the movements.' The average num-
ber of sound movements per second in ordinary speech is
thirteen, while the eye is capable of seeing consciously
eight or at best nine or ten movements per second. In
ordinary speech, therefore, the eyes would be unable to
see consciously more than about three-fourths of the
movements even if all were plainly visible.

c; The homophenity of many of the sounds.

d The variation of movements and of mouths.

West, Kennedy, and Carr39 in 1947 were among the few to
use a more positive approach to the problem of homophenous

words:

The first task of the student of lipreading is to
become thoroughly familiar with the positions.

Those that have similar positions must be learned,
and if possible distinguished from one another. The
next step is to become familiar with the individual
sounds that involve movement. . . . The third step is
to teach monosyllabic words. Here may be introduced
the problem of homophenes, or words whose visible
patterns are the same or almost so.

Fiedler‘suo description and methods of teaching lip
reading in 1952 coincides with earlier studies stressing a
negative approach:

It becomes obvious that, without knowing context, it

is impossible to distinguish these homophenous words
by lipreading alone . . . if we know the subject that

 

39Robert West, Lou Kennedy, and Anna Carr, The Rehabili—
tation of Speech (New York and London: Harper and Brothers,
Pub., 1947), pp. 249—250.

 

quarian F. Fiedler, Deaf Children in a Hearing World
(New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1952), p. 304.

 

22

is being talked about as well as hearing some and looking
some and putting them all together, then we have a more
complete picture. '

In 1957, Silvermanl'Ll

briefly described the problem of
homophenous words:
Lip—reading is further complicated by the ambiguities
that result from hidden movements . . . from homophenous
words (words that look alike on the lips, smell and
spell) and from the difficulty of appreciating patterns
of stress, intonation, and phrasing.

An interesting study done by Fusfeld}+2 in 1958, relates
the views of lip reading persons with those of the previously
cited authorities. However, there were variables not consid-
ered in the experiment. The method in which these deaf persons
were trained, and the amount of stress put on visual discrim-
ination. Fusfeld feltJfrom the testimony gathered, and from
the per cent of homophenous wordthhat the most skillful lip
reader could not comprehend every word spoken.

General statements made by the lip readers advocated
context association, key words, advance clues, skill, and

natural ability as most important to lip reading attainment.

Fusfeld'sl‘L3 conclusions to the study were:

 

418. Richard Silverman, "Clinical and Educational Proce—
dures for the Deaf," Handbook of Speech Pathology, ed. L.
Travis (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p.414.

42Irving S. Fusfeld, "Factors in Lipreading as Deter-
mined by the Lipreader," American Annals of the Deaf, Vol.
103 (March, 1958).pp. 229-239.

 

 

43Ibid., p. 237.

23

Lip movements visibly are the same or nearly so for

many sounds, a point long conceded as a baffling factor.

But the vision of moving lips is normally only one

element in the reception of speech.
It appears in this study that the popular beliefs about homo—
phenous words were accepted and lip readers were not encouraged
to develop visual discrimination.

Recent literature in the 1950‘s and 1960‘s indicate
that the ability for visual perception is again being investi—
gated. These studies might have some influence on an evalu-
ation of homophenous words. A survey of the literature did
not reveal any studies being conducted on the properties of
homophenous sounds or words, except where the homophenous
sounds were included in studies of visual perception on lip
reading ability.

A study was conducted by DiCarlo and Katajauu in 1951
concerning standardized achievement tests of lip reading
ability. Homophenous words were considered only in the re-
lationship to lip reading that they interferred with the
results. The belief was that homophenous sounds and words
provided another uncontrolled obstacle to the study. The
writers suggested the following:45

It can be seen that those items which have low dif-

ficulty indices also tend to be the ones with small
discriminating powers. Conversely, the easier items

 

uuLouis M. DiCarlo and Raymond Kataja, "An Analysis of
the Utley Lipreading Test," American Journal of Speech and
Hearing, Vol. 16 (September, 1951), pp. 226-240.

45

 

Ibid., p. 240.

24

are the ones that discriminate more sharply. The
replacement by more suitable items of those which
can be answered by only relatively few people might
result in a more valid and operationally efficient
instrument.

In 1954 O'Neillué utilized the 1939 "Visibility Study
of Consonants and Vowels" conducted by the W. P. A. of the
New York City Board of Education. His analysis concerning
the vowels and consonant sounds under investigation was as
follows:A7

There was no apparent correspondence between the
relative visibility of either vowels or consonants

. . and the visibility values that are attributed
to them by the study of the New York City Board of
Education.

As a result of this study, O‘Neill questioned the validity
of visibility ratings assigned by other teachers of lip

reading. The results of this study were compared with those

“8 O'Neill states:49

of Black.
Black found that the voicless continuants had greater
amounts of air pressure than the other types of con—
sonants. 0f the four voiceless consonants that he
studied (p), (t), (f), (s) all but the (t) were identi-
fied most frequently. . . . From these results it might
be tentatively postulated that pressure differences
assist in the visual identification of some consonants.

 

46John J. O'Neill, "Contributions of the Visual Compon-
ents of Oral Symbols to Speech Comprehension,l Journal of
Speech and Hearing, Vol.19 (December, 1954), pp. 429—439.

 

 

”71bid., p. 433.

MBJ. W. Black, "The Pressure Component in the Production
of Consonants," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Vol.
15 (1950), pp. 207-210.

 

49O‘Neill, op. cit., p. 438.

25

The results found in O'Neill‘s study would appear to support
the importance of visual discrimination. He summarizes:50
Individuals with normal hearing made appreciable use
of visual cues (lipreading) to gain information in
some communication channels. Visual recognition was
always greater than non—visual recognition
vision contributed 44.5% to the understanding of vowels,
72% for consonants, 64.1% for words, and 25% for
phrases. . . . There were significant differences in
the visibility and audibility of speech symbols. It
would appear that vision had the greatest apparent
effect on the identification of consonants, and lesser
effects, in order, on the recognition of vowels, words,
and phrases.

Donald Harris51 concurs with this principle, and
believes the eye is capable of responding to the same degree
of stimuli as the ear.

As one reviews the literature of the 1960's, there
appears to be a continuation of the experiments of the late
1950‘s. The emphasis is placed on lip reading ability, visual
lip movements, visual memory span, visual perception, and dis-
crimination ability. There has been little significant con-
tributions to lip reading materials on homophenous words.
However, there is evidence from the research that many of the
problems being investigated might influence studies pertaining
to homophenous words. It also appears that this is one of

the few areas of lip reading that remains a mystery, and in

which existing principles and methods are accepted without

 

50Ibid., pp. 438-439.

51J. Donald Harris, Some Relations Between Vision and
Audition (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Pub.,

1950): pp- 3-5-

 

26

question. In many of the studies the problem of homophenous
words is listed as an obstacle that can not be controlled.
A scientific investigation of this area might prove valuable
to related experiments in the field of lip reading.
Jacoby,52 although there may be others, is the only
published reference this writer has found that questioned
the existing principles and methods of homophenous words.
Oyer53 constructed a homophenous word test because he
doubted the principle that any two words were exactly alike.
A research program designed to apply structural
linguistics to the problems of visual perception was con-
ducted by Woodward and Barber5u in 1961. The long-range
objectives were:
To develop . . . a definition of the units of visual
perception of oral-aural stimuli and of the relation-
ships among these units in a system of oral-visual
communication. To establish the relationship of the
visually—perceived symbols to the underlying linguistic
system.
Test materials consisting of 229 syllable pairs were filmed

for presentation. The subjects were to designate similar

and contrasting pairs. Sentences were not used because they

 

52Beatrice Jacoby, "Lipservice to Lipreading,"

Hearing
News, September, 1959, pp. 7—8, 18, 20.

53Herbert Oyer, "Homophenous Word Test,” 1958, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio (unpublished).

52+Mary F. Woodward and Carroll G. Barber, "Phoneme
Perception in Lipreading," Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, Vol. 3 (September, 1960), p. 212.

 

27

would be difficult to control. The homophenous word problem
is one variable stressed as difficult to control. Woodward

and Barber state:55

The lipreader might discriminate for example between
the words "pill" and ”bill" when these forms occur in
such utterances as "he swallowed the pill" and "he
paid the bill," but it is not justifiable to infer from
this that the lipreader has actually distinguished the
contexts in which the two words occur. That the lip-
reader can sometimes discriminate between forms dis—
tinguished by the voiceless-voiced consonants of
English, then, does not necessarily mean that he can
see the articulatory differences between them.
It was hypothesized that the (p), (b), (m), (f), (v), (hw),
(w), (r), (ch), (zh), (sh), (j), and (y) were highly visible.
The (t), (d). (n). (l). (e), (2:). (th), (k). (g), (h) were
barely visible. The authors continue:56
While these units contrast visually with each other,
they are internally homophenous, that is, the members
of each unit look alike to the lipreader.

It was felt that only four visually§conétrastive units
are available consistently to the lip reader. The authors
are in accord with existing principles regarding perceptual
confusion among speech sounds. The homophenous words, how—
ever, were not included in this study.

Visual word recognition is another area that is under
investigation. Although the research does not include a

study of homophenous words, it is useful as background in—

formation to those investigating the lip reading process.

 

55Ibid., p. 213.

56Ibid., pp. 219-222.

28

Doehring and Rosenstein57 experimented in the area of
visual word recognition. They concluded from their study
that:

Accuracy of visual recognition of verbal material by
the older children was dependent upon an estimate of
the probability of occurrence of the verbal stimulus
rather than upon the more frequency of prior visual

and auditory stimulation.

Familiarity of words was investigated by Owens.58 The
results of research show that in visual perception words of
greater familiarity were significantly easier to recognize
than words of lesser familiarity.

A recent study that would have direct bearing on the
problem of homophenous words was done by Wong and Fillmore59
in 1961. The study was conducted for hearing persons to
determine the effect various vowels have on consonant sounds
and the cue they afford the listener in recognizing sounds.
These cues might also be applicable to lip reading homophen-
ous words. Wong and Fillmore state:60

In some American dialects, vowel duration has already
become the primary cue for word-pairs such as ”ladder-
latter," "bidder-bitter," and similar pairs, when the

(d) and (t) are both flaps, and such as "his—hiss,"
"eyes—ice," and similar pairs, when the (z) is unvoiced.

 

57Donald G. Doehring and Joseph Rosenstein, "Visual Word
Recognition by Deaf and Hearing Children," Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, Vol. 3 (December, 1960), p. 326.

 

 

58Elmer Owens, "Intelligibility of Words Varying in
Familiarity " Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol.4,
(June, 1961), p. 115.

 

59Wi11iam Wong and Charles J. Fillmore, "Intrinsic Cues
and Consonant Perception," Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, Vol. 4 (June, 1961), pp. 130—136.

60Ibid., p. 130.

 

29

The effects of the vowels on the homophenous sounds may have
a bearing on the ability to discriminate between them while
lip reading. This would be one variable to consider in a
study of homophenous words.

The authors felt that previous experiments had shown
that voicing was not a crucial feature in distinguishing the
(p,t,k) from (b,d,g) in the initial position. The results
of the research revealed:61

Results of correct identification of initial conson—
ants suggest that vowel amplitude, degree of formant
bend, and vowel nasalization are significant para-
meters in the vowel for identifying the consonant which
precedes it.
If this is true with hearing persons, it could be with the
hard of hearing. However, the properties of the vowel in
relation to homophenous words would have to be evaluated.

O‘Neill and Oyer62 stress the importance of visual
training in their text:

In fact, the relationship of visual skill to lip-
reading ability is one of the frontier areas of

research. The eye should be brought back into the
lipreading picture!

63

Included in this text is a review of Marie K. Mason's

"Visual Hearing Films for the Visual Comprehension

61Ibid., p. 136.

62John J. O‘Neill and Herbert J. Oyer, Visual Communi—
cation for the Hard of Hearing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 69.

 

 

63Marie K. Mason, "Visual Hearing Films,” cited in
John J. O'Neill and Herbert J. Oyer, Visual Communication
for the Hard of Hearing (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—
Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 147—153.

 

 

30

of Speech." Mason's definition of "Visual Hearing" is as

follows:64
Visual hearing is the comprehension of spoken thought
through the interpretation of visual stimuli when
response to auditory stimuli is inadequate or entirely
lacking.

The filmed tests consist of phonetic content, script con-

text, and objectives. Film number VII contains a test of

homophenous words. It is described as follows:65

 

 

 

Film

Number Phonetic Content Script Content Objectives

VII Homophenous words Series of two or To achieve visual

(Female (words having more unrelated alertness in de-

Speaker) identical visible sentences, each tecting, discrim-

speech aspects) containing words inating, and

differing in memorizing the
sound and spell- visibly identi—
ing but having cal phenomena

identical visible which make one
characteristics. word look like
another.

Mason appears to concur with Wong and Fillmore‘s66
belief that the vowels do modify the consonant sounds. Five
films pertain to the influencing factors of the vowels on
other consonants. Mason also includes a film on the effect

67

of consonants on other consonants. An example follows:*

 

64Ibid., p. 147.

65Ibid., p. 149.
66Wong and Fillmore, op. cit.

67Mason, op. cit., p. 149.

Film
Number Phonetic Content

 

VIII Group I of the

(Female Post dental

Speaker) sibilant conson—
ants: s) as in
"seal,' (2) as
in "zeal."

Script Content

 

Unrelated sen—
tences in
which these
consonants
occur frequent—

lY.

Objectives

 

To familiarize the
student with the
varying visible
speech character-
istics of (s) and
(z),when preceded
or followed by
vowels of widely
different appear-
ance.

As one reviews the literature of the 1950‘s and 1960‘s,

it appears that extensive research is being conducted on the

variables influencing lip reading ability.

has beencione on homophenous words.

However,

Little research

there is

evidence that attention is being directed toward an evalu-

ation of homophenous words by educators of the deaf.

CHAPTER III

SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

 

The problem under investigation in this study was to
determine the ability of viewers to correctly identify homo-
phenous words presented on a silent film. One hundred
viewer subjects participated in this study. They were stu—

dents without formal lip reading training.

Subjects

Selection of speaker subjects.——Four subjects were

 

selected as speaker subjects. The criteria employed in the
selection of the four subjects were sex and dialect. Two

were men and two were women with "General American"1 dialect.
Three of the subjects were actively engaged in the field of

speech and hearing and the fourth in music.

Selection of viewer subjects.—-Twenty—three male and

 

seventy—seven female subjects participated in this study.

They were enrolled in summer school in the College of

 

lCharles Kenneth Thomas, Phonetics of American English
(New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1947), p. 144.

 

32

33

Education or Communication Arts. The only criteria employed
in the selection were educational level and absence of

formal lip reading training.

Equipment

 

The following equipment was employed in this study:
L. C. Auricon Super 1200 model motion picture camera.
Twenty—five millemeter lens.

Tri—X-Reversal film; black and white.

Conventional standard flood lamps.

Bell and Howell projector. Model A. V. Filmsound
Specialist 399. Jewelled sapphire movement; 1000
watt, 117 V. A. C. or ten amps D. C.

Da—Lite Picture King projection screen. V. A.
glass beaded, A. A. 580.

Three hundred cue cards of homophenous words.
Seventy—five number cards.

Homophenous Word Test.2

Procedures

 

Filming situation.-—The filming of the speaker subjects

 

saying the homophenous words was accomplished at the Michigan
State University Film Production Studio.
The speaker subjects were seated seven feet from the

camera. Conventional standard flood lamps were employed with

 

2Oyer, op. cit. (see Appendix pp. 49-50).

34

a light to shadow ratio of three to one. As an assistant
held up a cue card on which a word was printed, the speaker
was filmed as he spoke twice the word printed on the card.
Voice was employed. Each speaker's list was comprised of
seventy-five words that were different from the other three
lists. The sound track was employed in order that editing
might be accomplished more easily.

Four seconds of film was allowed for each word presen-
tation. Six seconds of film were left between stimuli. The

total filming time was forty-eight minutes and twenty seconds.

Response forms.3-—The response forms were comprised of

 

four test sheets and one sample test sheet. The four test
sheets contained seventy-five groups of four words each. One
sheet was employed for each speaker participating in the
film. The sample test sheet consisted of four groups of four
words each and was used during the practice period. This
test was printed one on a sheet on the original. There was

one sheet for each speaker subject—-a total of four sheets.

Testing situation.-—The filmed "Homophenous Word Test"u

 

was presented to a total of one hundred college students in

groups ranging in size from fourteen to fifty—six subjects.

 

3See Appendix pages 51-54.

“Oyer, op. cit.

35

The following directions were given to the viewers:

You will be given a test in lip reading. I will
show a silent film with four speakers, two are men and
two are women. You have a sheet for each one and a
half sheet for practice. Look at your answer sheet.
There are seventy—five groups of four words each on
each page. Use sheet number one for the first speaker,
number two for the second speaker, number three for the
third speaker, and number four for the fourth speaker.
The speaker will say a word two times. Be sure to
watch the speaker repeat the word twice. Draw a circle
around the number and word you think is correct. Be
sure to mark only one word in each group. But be sure
to mark one work in each group. If all the groups are
not marked, the test will be invalid. The purpose of
this test is to gain insight into the problems con—
fronting the deaf. It will also give you a better under-
standing of the confusion and frustration experienced
by the deaf and hard of hearing. Would you like to
practice? Watch my lips carefully and I will say without
voice one word from the four lists on the sample test
sheet. Tip, bring, bunny, in. Let us proceed with the
test.

A practice period was given before the film presentation
in order to acquaint the viewers with the task that was to
follow.

In all instances, tests were administered in class-
rooms. The distance between the viewers and the screen

ranged from approximately ten to twenty-five feet.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Results

A basic question to be answered was whether or not sub—
jects who viewed the four filmed speakers were able to select
correctly the words that were spoken. A second question
raised by the investigation was whether recognition of words
occurred significantly above that to be expected by chance.
Upon inspection of the raw data in Table I, it is noted that
viewers were able to select only some of the words correctly.
In a test with seventy-five items and four parts to each
item, correct selection by chance alone would yield a score
of 18.75. For speaker number one, only thirteen viewers
made a score of chance or below. For speaker number two only
eleven viewers made scores of chance or below; for speaker
three, fourteen; and for speaker four, sixteen.

Upon inspection of the data it can be observed that
there is some difference in the degree to which individual
speakers can be successfully lip read. Although speaker dif-
ferences were expected, it was of interest to determine
whether these differences were statistically significant.

Therefore a "t" test for unrelated measures was employed.

36

37

TABLE I

CORRECT VIEWER SCORES BY SPEAKER SUBJECTS

 

Viewers Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4

 

1 22 22 _ 20 25
2 22 26 15 19
3 19 28 23 26
4 25 28 25 20
5 23 23 17 20
6 26 21 26 13
7 21 28 23 29
8 20 19 21 22
9 27 2o 22 22
10 26 21 19 23
11 21 20 20 23
12 24 23 24 11
13 17 23 J 19 22
14 18 21 24 21
15 24 23 31 21
16 27 27 21 ‘ 23
17 21 24 ‘ 20 30
18 30 27 17 29
19 19 25 19 20
20 19 17 27 16
21 25 18 21 26
22 25 22 18 24
23 27 24 21 * 23
24 21 28 25 24
25 27 24 23 26
26 22 19 23 28
27 . 24 24 20 26
28 18 19 22 23
29 25 22 15 18
30 27 20 28 23
31 25 23 20 28
32 20 22 11 23
33 21 20 23 26
34 27 29 22 31
35 18 17 20 23
36 19 23 23 20
37 14 21 18 11
38 2o 19 21 17
39 22 24 22 20
40 27 28 28 30
41 21 22 20 18
42 16 18 23 21

43 18 23 21 27

 

38

TABLE l--Continued

 

 

 

Viewers Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4

 

44 21 24 23 24
45 29 21 19 22
46 29 23 22 2o
47 21 16 21 24
48 21 29 22 26
49 18 27 17 22
50 23 28 24 30
51 23 31 23 l3
52 l7 25 27 33
53 22 17 25 26
54 26 24 22 19
55 14 15 23 21
56 22 17 17 21
57 19 24 20 22
58 24 27 22 23
59 25 23 l9 17
60 14 22 21 15
61 20 22 21 23
62 18 21 19 29
63 15 20 23 16
64 19 21 28 30
65 19 20 19 21
66 22 21 22 23
67 22 20 23 25
68 26 25 15 21
69 29 16 21 27
70 24 14 21 14
71 26 25 29 25
72 22 23 21 17
73 2o 23 25 16
74 22 20 24 16
75 23 27 24 20
76 20 24 20 18
77 29 30 27 18
78 28 ~ 23 15 25
79 25 29 29 29
80 27 23 25 22
81 22 19 20 23
82 18 21 22 22
83 25 17 18 26
84 23 23 24 21
85 21 21 24 24
86 24 23 13 22
87 26 22 24 25

88 2O 23 17 25

 

39

TABLE l--Continued

 

 

Viewers Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 4

 

89 24 33 24 31
90 19 23 19 26
91 25 19 19 28
92 3O 19 30 27
93 28 28 23 27
94 21 23 21 20
95 24 22 20 20
96 23 19 22 22
97 19 19 22 21
98 27 23 27 28
99 27 25 26 20
100 25 27 20 18

 

As shown by the results on Table 2 there were some
differences among speakers relative to the ease with which
they were lip read by the subjects. The reader will note
there were significant differences in the lip readability
of speakers one and two, also one and four. No signifi-
cant differences were noted between speakers one and three,
two and three, two and four, and three and four.

In order to determine whether viewers were able to
function above chance level in correct selection of the homo-
phenous words uttered by speakers a Chi Square Test was
applied. The test was applied to each of the one hundred
measures representing the mean performance of the four
speakers. Table 3 presents the results of these tests.

As can be observed, the viewers were able to select
correctly the homophenous word that was spoken more frequently

than would be expected by chance alone.

40

TABLE 2

RESULTS OF "t" TEST FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPEAKERS

 

 

 

Speakers Means t df Level*
1 and 2 25.6 - 22.6 3.06 99 1 per cent
1 and 3 25.6 — 21.7 .493 99 non significant
1 and 4 25.6 - 22.6 2.47 99 5 per cent
2 and 3 22.6 — 21.7 .136 99 non significant
2 and 4 22.6 — 22.6 .008 99 non significant
3 and 4 21.7 — 22.6 .951 99 non significant

 

*For significance at the .05 per cent level a ”t" of 1.95

is required,

and for the .01 per cent level, 2.57.

TABLE 3

RESULTS OF CHI SQUARE TEST

 

 

 

Speaker x2* df* Level
1 152.02 99 .01
2 153-33 99 .01
3 116.23 99 .01
4 188.97 99 .01

1-2—3-4

Combined 93.87 99 .01

 

*For df = 99, X2 = 50.89 for .01 level of significance.

41

Discussion

 

With this data at hand, one may conclude that those who
state that homophenous words look the same on the lips are
not completely accurate even though the words may appear to
be highly similar. This does not, however, discredit any
emphasis a teacher may place on the importance of contextual
association for discerning the homophenous words. It does,
however, arouse curiosity with regard to the subtle differ-
ences that are perceived by viewers of these homophenous
configurations that are so highly similar. A thorough study
involving measurement of the facial movements associated with
the productioncaf homophenous words is indicated in order to

specify the visible differences among them.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

It has been estimated that approximately fifty per
centl’g’3 of the words in the English language have one or
more words homophenous to them. That is to say, they look
alike on the lips. There are certain sounds that are quite
similar visually, such as (p-b-m), (t-d-n), (s-z), (k—g),
et cetera. Teachers of lip reading have frequently stated
that these homophenouswords appear alike on the lips; how-
ever, it has never been shown that the lip and facial move-
ments are identical.

It appears from reviewing the literature that memori-
zation and contextual association are methods employed in
teaching lip reading of homophenous words to the acoustically
handicapped.

The problem under investigation in this study was to
determine the ability of viewers to correctly identify

homophenous words. The viewers were college students not

 

1

Bruhn, Elementary Lessons in Lip—Reading, op. cit.,
p. vii.
2Stowell, Samuelson, and Lehman, op. cit., pp. 24-25.

3Kinzie and Kinzie, op. cit., p. x.

42

43

formally trained in lip reading. The homophenous words were
presented by speakers on a film. Viewers indicated their
responses on a multiple chOice test form.

In View of the fact that there were seventy-five items
in the test with four parts to each item, chance occurrence
was 18.75.

The results of the Chi Square analysis of data reveals
that correct selection of homophenous words as seen on a
speaker's lips occurs above that which is expected from

chance alone.

Conclusions

 

0n the basis of the data derived in this study, the

following conclusions appear to be warranted:

1. College students without formal training in lip
reading are able to lip read some homophenous
words when presented by speakers on a silent film.

2. College students not formally trained in lip
reading can recognize homophenous words correctly
a greater number of times than what is expected

by chance alone.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Berry, Mildred and Eisenson, Jon. The Defective in Speech.
New York and London: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1942.

 

Bruhn, Martha E. TheNmeller-WalLBMethod of Lip-Reading
for the Deaf. Lynn, Mass.: Thomas P. Nichols and Son
Co., 1920.

 

 

. Elementary Lessons in Lip Reading. Lynn, Mass.:
Thomas P. Nichols and Son Co., 1927.

 

The Mueller-:Walle Method of Lip Readingfor the
Hard of Hearing. Boston, Mass.: M. H. Leavis Pub.,

 

 

Bunger, Anna M. Speech Reading-—Jena Method. Danville,
Illinois: The Interstate, 1932.

 

Davis, Hallowell, M. D. Hearing and Deafness. New York and
Toronto: Murray Hill Books, Inc., 1947.

 

Fiedler, Marian F. Deaf Children in a Hearing World. New
York: The Ronald Press Co., 1952.

 

Goldstein, Max A., M. D. Problems of the Deaf. U.S.A.:
Laryngoscope Press, 1933.

 

Harris, J. Donald. Some Relations Between Vision and
Audition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas
Pub., 1950.

 

Kinzie, Cora E. and Kinzie, Rose. Lip-Reading for Juniors—-
Grade III. N.P., 1947.

 

 

Leavis, Mary Hadnutt. Beginning Lip Reading. Boston, Mass.:
386 Commonwealth Ave., n.d.

 

Morgenstern, Louise. Lip-Reading for Class Instruction. New
York: Noble and Noble Pub., 1926.

 

Nitchie, Edward B. Lip Reading Principles and Practice.
Philadelphia and New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co.,
1912.

 

44

45

Nitchie, Elizabeth Helm. New Lessons in Lip Reading.
Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Lippencott Co., 1940,-
1947, and 1950.

 

O‘Neill, John J. and Oyer, Herbert J. Visual Communication
for the Hard of Hearing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

 

 

Stowell, Agnes, Samuelson, Estelle, and Lehman, Ann. Lip-

Reading for the Deafened Child. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1928.

 

Thomas, Charles Kenneth. Phonetics of American English. New
York: The Ronald Press Co., 1947.

 

Travis, Lee Edward (ed.). Handbook of Speech Pathology. New
York: Appleton—Century~Crofts, Inc., 1957.

 

West, Robert, Kennedy, Lou, and Carr, Ann. The Rehabilitation
of Speech. New York and London: Harper afid Brothers
Pub., 1947.

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Acoustically Handicapped Children. The Committee for the Care
and Education of Physically Handicapped Children. A
Report prepared by the Public Schools. New York City,
New York: Board of Education, 1941. Pp. 64-65.

 

Black, J. W. ”The Pressure Component in the Production of
Consonants," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
Vol. 15 (September, 1950), pp. 207-210.

 

DiCarlo, Louis M., and Kataja, Raymond. "An Analysis of the
Utley Lipreading Test," Journal of Speech and Hearing

Disorders, Vol. 16 (September, 195T), pp. 226l240.

 

 

Doehring, Donald G., and Rosenstein, Joseph. "Visual Word
Recognition by Deaf and Hearing Children," Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, Vol. 3 (December, 1960),

 

 

 

p. 326.
“"Editorial," Association Review,“ Vol. 7 (February, 1903),
pp' 92-93 0
Fusfeld, Irving S. "Factors in Lipreading as Determined by -

l

the Lipreader,‘ The American Annals of the Deaf, Vol.
103 (March, 1958), p. 229.

 

Jacoby, Beatrice. "Lipservice to Lipreading," Hearing News,

Vol. 27 (September, 1959), pp. 7-8, 18, 20.

 

46

Keeler, Warah Warren. ”A Method of Teaching Speech—Reading
to the Adult Deaf," Association Review, VII (February,

1905), p. 22.

 

Nitchie, Edward B. "Homophenous Word List," Association
Review, Vol. 18 (July, 1916).

 

O'Neill, John J. "Contributions of the Visual Components of
Oral Symbols to Speech Comprehension," Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, Vol. 19 (December, 1954),'
pp. 429—439. ‘

Owens, Elmer. Vlntelligibility of Words varying in

 

 

 

 

Familiarity," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
Vol. 4 (June, 1961), p. 115.

Snow, Emma. "My List of Homophenous Words," Association
Review, Vol. 5 (February, 1903), pp. 29-40, 119-131,
241-253.

White, Stella K. "The Home Instruction of a Little Deaf
Child," Association Review, III (December, 1901), pp.
418*427.

 

Woodward, Mary F. and Barber, Carroll G. "Phoneme Perception
in Lipreading," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,“
Vol. 3 (September, 1960), p. 212.

 

Wong, William, and Fillmore, Charles J. "Intrinsic Cues and
Consonant Perception," Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, Vol. 4 (June, 1961), pp. 130-136.

 

Unpublished Material

 

Oyer, Herbert J. "Homophenous Word Test." The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, 1958. Unpublished.

APPENDIX

47

431A) [Di-4

PWRDH

HOMOPHENOUS WORD SAMPLE TEST

No. l
dim
dip
nip
tip

NO. 2

. brick
. bring
. prick

pI‘ig

48

4:00 [UH

4:110“)!—J

No. 3

. money
. muddy
. putty

bunny

No. 4

kid
hit
in

49

Sheet No. 1

 

 

perch

Name date Class Subject Sex:
“ M
F—
HOMOPHENOUS WORD TEST
No. 1 No. 8 No. 15 No. 22 No 29 No. 36
l. axe 1. bays 1. blade 1. brick 1. come 1. tame
2. backs 2. base 2. plain 2. bring 2. cup J 2. dame
3. hags 3. maze 3. platae 3. prick 3. titCH9’3 name
4. hangs 4. pays 4. played 4. prig 4. tingun»4. tape
No. 2 No. 9 No. 16 No. 23 NO 30 No »37
l. at l. bead l. bleat I. buck 1. came 1. dead
2. add 2. beat 2. bleed 2. bug 2. cape 2. debt
3. had 3. peat 3. plead 3. pug 3. game 3. den
4. hat 4. meat 4. pleat 4. mug 4. gape 4. ten
No. 3 No. 10 No. 17 No. 24 No 31 No. 38
1. bag 1. back 1. boat 1. bud l. crab 1. did
2. back 2. beg 2. mode 2. but 2. cram 2. din
3. bang 3. peck 3. moat 3. pun 3. grab 3. tit
4. pack peg 4. moan 4. mud 4. gram 4. tin
.No. 4 No. 11 No. 18 No 25 No 32 No. 39
1. bad 1. bed 1. bob 1. cab 1. crane 1. died
2. mad 2. bet . 2. mob 2. cap 2. great 2. tide
3. bat 3. met 3. pop 3. gab 3. grade 3. tight
4. mat 4. pet 4. mop 4. gap 4. grain 4. dine
No. 5 No. 12 No. 19 i No. 26 . No. 33 No. 40
1. batch 1. band“ 1. bold l. cOt 1. creed 1. dig
2. badge 2. mend 2. bolt. 2. cod 2. green 2. tick
3. match 3. meant 3. mold 3. got J 3. greed 3. nick
4. patch 4. pant 4. polled 4. god 4. great 4. dick
No. 6 No. 13 No 20 No 27 No 34 No 41
l. bait 1. bid 1. bound 1. clamor l. cud l. dim
2. made 2. been. 2. pound 2. clabber 2.icut 2. dip
3. mate 3. mitt 3. mount 3. clapper 3. gun 3. nip
4. paid 4. pit 4. mound .4. glamour 4. gut 4. tip
No. 7 No. 14 No. 21 No 28 No. 35 No 42 J
l. batter l. birch l. brood 1. coat 1. dab l.-eeme.imie
2. banner 2. merge 2. brute 2. cone 2. dam 2. dope
3. manner 3. purge 3. prune 3. goat 3. tap E. tome
4. matter 4. prude 4. code 4. tab . gnome

5O

 

Sheet No. l--Continued*
No. 43 No. 51 No. 59 No.67 N 75
1. don l. fade 1. snag 1. boon l. cord
2. dot 2. feign 2. snack 2. mood 2. corn
3. tot 3. vain 3. stack 3. mood 3. cort
4. not 4. fate 4. stag 4. boot 4. gourd
No. 44 No. 52 No. 60 No. 68
1. done 1. fight 1. spied l. bubble
2. ton 2. Vine 2. spite 2. bumble
3. nun 3. fine 3. spine 3. mumble
4. nut 4. vied 4. smite 4. pommel
No 45 No. 53 No. 61 No. 69
l. doom 1. guild l. tackle 1. bum
2. dupe 2. guilt 2. tangle 2. mum
3. tomb 3. killed 3. taggle 3. pup
4. tube. 4. kilt 4. dangle 4. pUb
No. 46 No. 54 No 62 No. 70
1. doubt 1. hid 1. nine 1. bus
2. down 2. hit 2. night 2. buzz
3- town 3. in 3. dine 3. pus
4. noun 4. it 4. tine 4. muss
No. 47 No 55 No. 63 NO. 71 ,.
1. dub 1. cane 1. toad 1.4dieadafe’
2. dumb 2. gain 2. dote' 2. dies
3. tUb 3. gate 3. tone 3. ties
4. numb , 4. kate 4. tote 4. nice
No 48 No. 56 No 64 No. 72
1. dude l. palate 1. train 1. money
2. dune 2. ballot 2. drain 2. muddy
3. tOOt 3. mallet 3. trade 3. putty
4. tuna 4. pallid 4. trait 4. bunny
No. 49 No. 57 No 65 No 73
1- dUCk l. peddle l. whine 1. pad
2. dug 2. metal 2. wide 2. pat
3.Ldbngue 3. medal 3. wine 3. man
4. tug 4, petal 4. White 4. pan
No. 50 No 58 No. 66 No. 74
1. fan 1. puzzle 1. arbor l. mind
2. fad 2. bustle l. harbor 2. pint
3._van 3. muscle 3. harper 3. bind
4. vat 4. muzzle 4. armor 4. bite

*The original homophenous word test was all on one sheet, with

a separate sheet for each speaker, a total of four sheets.

1-4
2-1
3-3
4-2
5—1
6-4
7-3
8-1
9-3
lO—2
11—2
12—2
13—3
14-2
15—4
16—3
l7—2
18—1
19-2
20-2
21-1
22—4
23-3
24-3
25-3

SPEAKER LIST NO.

hangs
at
bang
mad
batch
paid
manner
bays
peat
beg
bet
mend
mitt
merge
played
plead
mode
bob
bolt
pound
brood
prig
pug
pun

gab

51

l-—HOMOPHENOUS WORD TEST

26-4
27—1
28—3
29-4
30-4
31-3
32-4
33-1
34-4
35-1
36—4
37-3
38-1
39-2
40-2
41-1
42-3
43-4
44-1
54—4
46—4
47-2
48-4
49-1
50-4

god
clamor
goat
gum
gape
grab
grain
creed
gut
dab
tape
den
did
tide
tick
dim
tome
not
done
tube
noun
dumb
tune
duck

vat

51-2
52—3
53-2
54-4
55-4
56-3
57-4
58-4
59—2
60-2
61-4
62—3
63—1
64-1
65-3
66-4
67-3
68-4
69—2
70-4
71-4
72-3
73-2
74-2
75-4

feign
fine
guilt
it
kate
mallet
petal
muzzle
snack
spite
dangle
dine
toad
train
wine
armor
moon
pommel
mum
muss
nice
putty
pat
pint

gourd

11-3
12-3
13-2
14-1
15-3
16-4
17-1
18-3
19-3
20-4
21-4
22-3
23-2
24-4

25-1

SPEAKER LIST NO.

hacks
add
back
bat
match
mate
batter
pays
beat
beck
met
meant
been
birch
plate
pleat
boat
DOD
mold
mound
prude
prick
bug
mud

cab

52

2--HOMOPHENOUS WORD TEST

26—3
27-2
28-4
29—3
30—l
31-4
32-1
33-4
34-2
35-3
36-2
37-4
38—4
39-1
40-4
41—3
42-2
43-1
44-3
45-1
46-2
47-4
48-1
49-4

50-l

got
clabber
code
cub
came
gram
crane
greet
cut
tap
dame
ten
tin
died
dick
nip
dope
don
nun
doom
down
numb
dude
tug

fan

51-1
52-2
53-1
54-1
55-3
56—1
57-1
58—3
59-4
60-1
61-2
62-2
63-4
64-3
65-4
66-1
67-2
68-1
69—3
70—3
71-3
72—2
73-1
74-3
75-1

fade
vine
guild
hid
gate
palate
peddle
muscle
stag
spied
tangle
night
tote
trade
white
arbor
mood
bubble
pup
pus
ties
muddy
pad
bind

cord

1-3
2—4
3-4
4-1
5-4
6-1
7-2
8-3
9-1
10-4
11—4
12-1
13-4
14-3
15-1
16-2
17-3
18-4
19—4
20-1
21-3
22-1
23-4
24-2

25-2

53

SPEAKER LIST NO. 3--HOMOPHENOUS WORD LIST

hags
hat
pack
bad
patch
bait
banner
maze
bead
peg
pet
bend
pit
purge
blade
bleed
moat
mop
polled
bound
prune
brick
mug
but

cap

26-1
27-3
28-2
29—1
30-2
31—2
32-3
33-2
34-1
35-2
36-1
37-1
38-3
39-3
40-3
41—4
42-4
43-3
44-2
45-2
46-1
47-3
48-2
49-3
50-2

cot

clapper

cone

C ome

cape

C ram

grade

green

cud
dam
tame
dead

tit

tight

nick

tip

gnome

tot
ton

dupe

doubt

tub

dune

tongut’

fad

fl/

51-4
52-4
53-3
54—3
55-2
56-4
57—2
58-2
59—1
60-3
61-3
62-4
63-2
64-4
65-1
66-2
67-1
68—2
69-1
70-2
71-2
72-1
73-4
74—4
75-3

fete
vied
killed
in
gain
pallid
metal
bustle
snag
spine
taggle
tine
dote
trait
whine
harbor
boon
bumble
bum
buzz
dies
money
pan
bite

court

1-1
2-3
3-1
4—4
5-2
6-2
7-4
8—2
9-4

10-3

11-1

12-4

13-1

14—4

15—2

16-1

17-4

18-2

19-1

20-3

21-2

22-2

23-1

24-1

25—4

54

SPEAKER LIST NO. 4--HOMOPHENOUS WORD LIST

axe
had
bag
mat
badge

made

’Tfitter

base
meat
peck
bed
pent
bid
perch
plain
bleat
moan
mob
bold
mount
brute
bring
buck

bud

Sap

26—2
27-4
28-1
29—2
30-3
31-1
32—2
33-3
34-3
35-4
36-3
37-2
38-2
39-4
40-1
41-2
42-1
43-2
44—4
45-3
46-3
47-1
48-3
49-2
50-3

cod

glamour

coat

cup

game

crab

great

greed

gun
tab
name
debt
din
dine
dig
dip
dome
dot
nut
tomb
town
dub
toot
dug

van

51—3
52-1
53-4
54—2
55-1
56—2
57-3
58—1
59-3
60-4
61-1
62-1
63—3
64—2
65-2
66-3
67—4
68-3
69-4
70-1
71-1
72-4
73-3
74—1
75-2

vain
fight
kilt
hit
cane
ballot
medal
puzzle
stack—
smite
tackle
nine
tone
drain
wide
harper
boot
mumble
pub A
bus
dice
bunny
man
mind

COPH

Dis‘lfi'iesq WE 8‘ ‘f
63:38:: An} .13...

LL! “ '
"mew-“‘4 R
. _-.ar"i , -
.' -. _ ”)2,“
NW :3 413-1965"

 

 

'—
g

“ if: "3'7"” ‘7?
A- J‘! .1019; CLO!

/ a“

 

 

 

 

HICHIGQN STATE UNIV LIBRQRIES

 

3102775867