Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German Ernst Dombrowski & Oliver Niebuhr Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (IPdS) Seminar.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German Ernst Dombrowski & Oliver Niebuhr Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (IPdS) Seminar."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 1 Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German Ernst Dombrowski & Oliver Niebuhr Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (IPdS) Seminar für allgemeine und vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany

3 2 Present subject Form and function of contour shape in German phrase-final rises Starting point Describing intonation in a contour-based approach by a small set of parameters that determine the shape of the contours. Introduction

4 3 Modelling the course of phrase-final rises A two-point description allows to characterize alignment and F0-range of rises Introduction F0 t t t A three-point description also renders the shape of rising movements F0 convex concave

5 4 German data Analysed the shape of constantly aligned nuclear rises: rising movement already towards the accented-vowel onset, further rise up to the end of the melodic phrase 3-point model: Range proportion to assess concave vs. convex rises Dombrowski and Niebuhr 2005: corpus study based on the Kiel Corpus of Spontaneous Speech (IPDS 1995ff) Introduction (1) Rise onset, (2) Joint at the end of the accented syllable, (3) Rise offset

6 5 Introduction Range proportion: a parameter to measure the shape of rising movements. offset onset joint convex concave F0 t Syllable with nuclear accent End of phrase Unaccented syllables

7 6 Introduction Range in the first section Total range Range in the first section of the rise (up to the joint) = Range Proportion (rprop) Total Range

8 7 Formal categorization of the rises in Dombrowski & Niebuhr (2005) and in the present study: Specifications of the early valley in the Kiel Intonation Modell (KIM, Kohler 1991). Concave vs. convex rises may also be captured by GToBI labels (Grice & Baumann 2002) resulting in a collection of possible tonal configurations. However, the range proportion of a rise is a contour feature that is expressed in the course of the nuclear pitch movement as a whole relating its 1st to the 2nd part. It seems to control one unique communicative dimension. Introduction

9 8 Basic communicative meaning opposition in the addressee-related structuring of the discourse: Activation vs. restriction Augmenting or reducing choices of the addressee in a conversation. Introduction Turn-yielding and turn-holding, also forms of question and continuation. Range proportion is the best predictor of the conditions, the total range does not contribute substantially. Concave and convex phrase-final rises are preferred in different discourse conditions:

10 9 Introduction Two Examples Sind sie Angela? Are you Angela? Concave: Give me an answer and tell me a bit more about you. activating Convex: Just tell me the name. restricting

11 10 Do listeners assign different semantic features to the two shapes of rises? Do semantic interpretations interact with the composition of the segmental string underlying the melodic pattern, particularly with the syllable count? Is there an interaction with the lexical semantics of the utterances? Introduction The semantic differential technique (Osgood, Suci, and Tan- nenbaum 1957) is used to answer these questions. Question of the present study Acoustics and function of concave and convex rises have been analysed with data from the Kiel Corpus. Can the corpus results be confirmed in a perceptual task?

12 11 Method Stimulus utterances of the perceptual task Six syntactically marked questions: (1a) Bist du im Urlaub? (Are you on holiday?) Bist du im Urlaub? (Are you on holiday?) Bist du im Urlaub? (1a) Bist du im Urlaub? (Are you on holiday?) (1b) Sind Sie der Eigentümer? (Are you the owner?) (2a) Liegt das bei Lübeck? (Is that near to Lübeck?) (2b) Liegt das in Niedersachsen? (Is that in Lower Saxony?) (3a) Sind Sie Angela? (Are you Angela?) (3b) Sind Sie Angelika? (Are you Angelika?) Combination of two variables with 2 and 3 steps: 1a) Bist du im Urlaub? (Are you on holiday?) Bist du im Urlaub? (Are you on holiday?) Bist du im Urlaub? disyllabic vs. polysyllabic condition lexical semantics of the questions (fact, place, name)

13 12 The stimulus utterances were produced naturally by a trained speaker. F0 manipulation with PSOLA in praat. Final rise section stylized between the 3 contour points rise onset, accented-syllable offset, rise offset. Middle contour point raised or lowered to create a 0.2 and a 0.8 rprop condition. Stimuli were judged on a Semantic differential (Osgood et al.1957) based on the activation-restriction concept. Method Production of the Stimuli

14 13 (activating – restricting) (calm – upset) (emotional – non-emotional) (friendly – unfriendly) (gives room–narrows options) (interested – not interested) (inviting – rejecting) (not challenging–challenging) (not dominant – dominant) (open – closed) (question. – non-questioning) (spontaneous utterance – rjroutine utterance) Method 12 semantic scales: 7 steps ( ) Specific predictions concerning 10 scales aktivierend – hemmend ruhig – erregt emotional – nicht emotional freundlich – unfreundlich gibt Spielraum – schränkt ein interessiert – uninteressiert einladend – abweisend nicht herausf.– herausfordernd nicht dominant – dominant offen – geschlossen fragend – nichtfragend spontane Äußerung – Routineäußerung

15 14 Method Total of 12x12=144 stimuli The 6 utterances were randomized, semantic scales were randomized Each stimulus was judged on one scale at a time 31 naïve Northern Standard German listeners participated, 11 male, 20 female, undergraduates at Kiel University Arrangement of the experimental task, procedure, subjects

16 15 Statistical evaluation Repeated measures MANOVA, 4 factors and interactions Results Factor 1: range proportion, rprop 0.2 vs. 0.8 Factor 2: syllable count, 2 vs 3 or 4 syllables in the nuclear stretch Factor 3: utterance pairs (3 semantic conditions) Factor 4: listeners gender Discriminant analyses (1) to interprete significant main effects and interactions, particularly semantic differences between rprop 0.2 and 0.8, (2) to get classification rates based on the semantic profiles of the contour shapes.

17 16 The factor range proportion is clearly significant (p=.000, η²=0.981). Average scale-point differences of 0.9 between the contour shapes. For activating – restricting and spon- taneous utterance – routine utterance larger differences. Syllable count and utterance pairs also significant, but smaller scale-point differences. No gender effects. Interactions between range proportion, syllable count, and utterance pairs. Average scale-point differences are 1.1 in the disyllabic condition, only 0.7 in the polysyllabic condi- tion (although both are significant: p=0.000, η²=0.954 and η²=0.942). Important: interaction range proportion x syllable count. Results MANOVA results:

18 17 Results The nature of this interaction can be elucidated by discriminant analyses (DA) on the utterances with disyllabic vs. polysyllabic nucleus. They show meaning differences between concave and convex rises (rprop 0.2 vs. 0.8) in both conditions. Both DAs are significant (canonical correlations of and 0.679, df=12, p=0.000 in both cases) Discriminant analyses:

19 18 Results rprop 0.2 rprop 0.8weightsloadings p activatingrestricting calmupset emotionalnon-emotion friendlyunfriedly gives roomnarrows opt interestednot interest invitingrejecting not challeng.challenging not dominantdominant openclosed questioningnot question spontaneousroutine (a) DA disyllabic nuclear rises

20 19 Results Activating – restricting Spontaneous utterance – routine utterance Questioning – non-questioning Interested – not interested Collection of scales characterizing rprop 0.2 vs. rprop 0.8 in disyllabic nuclear rises Activating – restricting contributes most.

21 20 Results rprop 0.2 rprop 0.8 weightsloadings p activatingrestricting calmupset emotionalnon-emotion friendlyunfriedly gives roomnarrows opt interestednot interest invitingrejecting not challeng.challenging not dominantdominant openclosed questioningnot question spontaneousroutine (b) DA polysyllabic nuclear rises

22 21 Results Open - closed Questioning – non-questioning Calm – upset Collection of scales characterizing rprop 0.2 vs. rprop 0.8 in polysyllabic nuclear rises Open – closed contributes most. Activating – restricting does not contribute. Profile differences are mainly determined by judgements on concave rises (low range proportion). The discriminant factor is mainly characterized by the scales not dominant – dominant and activating – restricting.

23 22 Rate of correct predictions of the judged stimulus type (rprop 0.2 vs. 0.8) based on the discriminant functions and the semantic profiles. Results for 6x2 stimulus utteran- ces Results Classification rates Disyllabic condition Polysyllabic condition Asking for a name (Angela, Angelika) 100,0% Asking for a place (Lübeck, Niedersachsen) 96,8%88,7% Asking for a fact in a conversation (Urlaub, Eigentümer) 91,9%82,3%

24 23 The meaning profiles of concave and convex phrase-final rises are different. Thus, data support the claim of two communicative types of rising movements. The terms activation vs. restriction characterize the meaning of the two types. The concave shape has no clear meaning profile in the polysyllabic nucleus condition. Discussion Deviation from the general line General line of the findings

25 24 Discussion Clear relative hight of the first step of the rise and proportion of the following perhaps gliding movement:. Activation – restriction Only a general impression of an extended or less extended rising movement in the polysyllabic condition:. Open – closed Perhaps two signalling mechanisms prevailing in the disyllabic vs. polysyllabic conditions of the experiment:

26 25 Discussion F0 t (in %) variable end of acc. syllable onset offset end of phrasesyllable with nuclear accent How to adjust the contour model? Position of the second pitch point (joint) depends on rhythmic or temporal structure. It only coincides with the end of the accented syllable if there are at least two nuclear syllables and just one before the second point. variable position of 2nd pitch point

27 26 Discussion Range proportion controls the relation between pitch information in the first part and in the second part of a rising movement, in particular the hight of the initial rising step and the amount of the sometimes gliding final part. Thus, it contributes to two holistic contour shapes, concave and convex, used in communication and related to the meaning distinction of activation vs. restriction. The two shapes can also be related to the notion of intonemes in Stock and Zacharias (1982) and Mixdorff and Pfitzinger (2005): Contact intoneme vs. non-terminal intoneme. Final remarks

28 27 End Thank you for listening

29 28 End Thank you for listening

30 29 End Thank you for listening

31 30 References Ambrazaitis, G. (2006). Prosodic signalling of (un)expected information in South Swedish – An interactive manipulation experiment. Proc. 3rd Inter- national Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany, Asu, E.L. (2006). Rising intonation in Estonian: an analysis of map task dialogues and spontaneous conversations. Phonetic Symposium 2006, Helsinki, Finnland, 1-9. Boersma, P. (2001). Praat – a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5, Dombrowski, E. (2003). Semantic features of accent contours: Effects of F0 peak position and F0 time shape, Proc. 15th ICPhS, Barcelona, Spain, Dombrowski, E. and Niebuhr, O (2005). Acoustic patterns and commu- nicative functions of phrase-final F0 rises in German: Activating and restricting contours, Phonetica 62: Dombrowski, E. and Niebuhr, O. (2005). Phrase-final rises in German: some examples. URL ter.en.html, 2005, accessed on 10 Nov Grice, M. and Baumann, S. (2002). Deutsche Intonation und GToBI, Linguist. Ber. 191: IPDS (1995, 1996, 1997). The Kiel Corpus of Spontaneous Speech. Vol Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung, Kiel

32 31 References Kohler, K. (1991). A model of German intonation. AIPUK 25, Christian- Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Kohler, K.(1991). Prosody in speech synthesis: the interplay between basic research and TTS application. JPhon 19, , Kohler, K. (2005). Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours, Phonetica 62: Mixdorf, J. and Pfitzinger, H. (2005). Analysing fundamental frequency contours and local speech rate in map task dialogs, Speech communica- tion 46: Niebuhr, O. and Kohler, K.J. (2004). Perception and cognitive processing of tonal alignment in German. Proc. of the International Symposium TAL, Beijing, China, Petrone, C. and Niebuhr, O. (2009). The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the identification of German questions and statements. Paper presented at the 4th PaPI conference, Las Palmas, Spain, kiel.de/Niebuhr_index.html. Petrone, C. and DImperio, M. (2008). From tones to tunes: The contribution of the prenuclear region in the identification of intonation contours in Italian. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Tone and Intonation, Lisbon, Portugal.

33 32 References Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonetics of English intonation. Bloomington: IULC, Osgood, C., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum (1957). The measurement of meaning, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Stock, E and Zacharias, C. (1982). Deutsche Satzintonation, Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.

34 33 Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German Ernst Dombrowski & Oliver Niebuhr Institute of Phonetics and Digital Speech Processing, Department of General and Comparative Linguistics Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany

35 34 Present subject Form and function of contour shape in German phrase-final rises Starting point Describing intonation in a contour-based approach by a small set of parameters that determine the shape of the contours. Introduction Previous studies on related issues: e.g. Dombrowski & Niebuhr 2005, Asu 2006, Petrone & DImperio 2008, Petrone & Niebuhr 2009, Mixdorf & Pfitzinger 2005

36 35 Modelling the course of phrase-final rises A two-point description allows to characterize alignment and F0-range of rises Introduction F0 t t t A three-point description also renders the shape of rising movements convex concave

37 36 Introduction Range proportion: a parameter to measure the shape of rising movements. offset onset joint convex concave F0 t Syllable with nuclear accent End of phrase Unaccented syllables

38 37 Introduction Range proportion: a parameter to measure the shape of rising movements.


Download ppt "1 Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German Ernst Dombrowski & Oliver Niebuhr Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (IPdS) Seminar."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google