DFG Project BA 737/10: "Cross-language and individual differences in the production and perception of syllabic prominence. Rhythm-typology revisited." Rhythm-typology revisited. B. Andreeva & W. Barry Jacques Koreman

Outline Research questions Recordings Measurements Statistical analysis Results Discussion Conclusions and Outlook

Research questions How do different languages exploit the universal, psycho-acoustically determined means of modifying the prominence of words in an utterance? duration fundamental frequency energy spectral properties Do the different word-phonological requirements of a language affect the degree to which the properties are exploited? duration (length opposition; word stress) fundamental frequency (tonal word-accent) spectral properties (phonologized vowel reduction) Do speakers of a language vary in the strategies they adopt (for production and fot perception)?

For further clarification We have NOT investigated "word stress / word accent"….. …..but rather the change in a given word as a result of making it more or less informationally prominent in the utterance; i.e., the loss of length distinction in the [o] in German Philosophie vs. Philosoph or the vowel quality alternation between [ ɒ ] and [ə] in English philosopherand philosophical is not the focus of our investigation. (though it may have a bearing on our interpretation of results)

Phrasal (de-)accentuation Accentuation (phonological) can make prominent (phonetic) …. by lengthening, …. by increasing loudness, …. by changing the pitch and combinations thereof De-accentuation can reduce prominence …. by shortening (including segment elision), …. by decreasing loudness, …. by avoiding pitch changes, …. by reducing spectral distinctiveness. These properties determine the „rhythm type“

The link to ‘rhythm’? Speech rhythm (as a regular syllable-based or foot-based "beat") is an appealing myth….. Though we do have a very fine sense of the appropriate temporal patterning of any particular utterance (in any particular situation) …..... in fact we decode it in terms of information weight. Structural differences between languages are important.… because they determine the temporal patterns, and they may constrain how words are made prominent. 'Rhythm' = utterance dependent prominence pattern (not only determined by duration)

Principle of our approach Comparable production task across languages (different degrees of accentuation on same words by eliciting different focus conditions for the same sentence)

Material and elicitation Short sentences were constructed containing two one- or two-syllable "critical words" (CWs), one early (but not initial) and one late (but not final) in the sentence. + iterative versions (dada) to support comparisons across languages

Question:Was sagst du? (broad) Response:Der Mann fuhr den Wagen vor. Question:Wer fuhr den Wagen vor? (narrow early) Response:Der MANN fuhr den Wagen vor. Question: Was fuhr der Mann vor? (narrow late) Response: Der Mann fuhr den WAGEN vor. Question: Die DAME fuhr den Wagen vor? (narrow contr. early) Response: Der MANN fuhr den Wagen vor Question: Der Mann fuhr die KLAGEN vor? (narrow contr. late) Response: Der Mann fuhr den WAGEN vor. The questions were pre-recorded to accompany a PowerPoint presentation of the responses. German example (comparable in BG, F, N, RUS) text dada

Levels of prominence + stress + acc. + nucl. + narrow + stress - acc. - nucl. + narrow + stress - acc. - nucl. + narrow + stress + acc. + nucl. + narrow + stress + acc. - nucl. - narrow + stress + acc. + nucl. - narrow CW1CW2CW1CW2CW1CW2

Levels of prominence + stress + acc. + nucl. + narrow + stress - acc. - nucl. + narrow + stress - acc. - nucl. + narrow + stress + acc. + nucl. + narrow + stress + acc. - nucl. - narrow + stress + acc. + nucl. - narrow CW1CW2CW1CW2CW1CW2

Break down of analysis Material:6 sentences 6 repetitions 3 focus condition (broad, narrow, narow contr.) 2 sentence positions (early, late) 2 realisational variants (lexical, delexicalised iterative) Language: Bulgarian, French, German, Norwegian, Russian Speakers:6 regionally homogeneous Speakers (3 m, 3 f) per language (Sofia, northern standard French, Saarland, south-east Norway, Moscow area) Analysis total per language: 2160 utterances

Measurements DurationDuration (ms) of stressed vowels, stressed syllables, CWs, feet F 0 Mean F 0 across stressed vowel of CW F 0 change (comparison of stressed vowel in CW with preceding/following vowels) Energy intensity (dB) of stressed vowel in CW Spectral balance = difference between Hz band and Hz band in stressed vowel of CW Normalized relative to mean across corresp. units in sentence Spectr. def.F1–F3 at middle of stressed nucleus of CW

Statistical analysis One Way Repeated Measures ANOVA per parameter for CW1 and CW2 separately with dependent variables: - duration: syll, onset, vowel; F 0 mean, F 0 change; intensity, spectral tilt; F1, F2, F3); with within-subject variable: - prominence (broad, early narrow, late narrow, contr. early narrow, contr. late narrow) with between-subject variable: - language (BG, D, F, N, RUS) To see whether the prominence categories are realised differently across languages

Statistical analysis (cont.) Multivariate Anova’s per language for CW1 and CW2 separately with dependent variables: - duration: syll, onset, vowel; F 0 mean, F 0 change; intensity, spectral tilt; F1, F2, F3) with independent variable: - prominence (broad, early narrow, late narrow, contr. early narrow, contr. late narrow) To evaluate wich parameters are used to distiungish prominence categories in the five languages

main effects for language lang. x prominence Parameter CW1CW2 syllable dur. onset dur. vowel dur.  n.s.  n.s.  F 0 mean F 0 change    n.s. intensity spect. tilt   F1 F2 F3 n.s.  n.s.  n.s. ParameterCW1CW2 syllable dur. onset dur. vowel dur.  F 0 mean F 0 change n.s.  n.s.  intensity spect. tilt  n.s.  n.s. F1 F2 F3 n.s.  n.s.  n.s. Results: ANOVA with Repeated measures

Languages use the acoustic carriers of prominence to different degrees: * Results given here for CW1 but similar patterns for CW2 η2-values are a ratio of conditions (prominence) and total variance, and thus indicate the part of the total variance explained by the focus conditions. η 2 -values for prominence BG DF NRUS syllable onset vowel F1 F2 F3 intensity spec. Tilt F0 change F0 mean

Results: Duration Syllable duration range from accented to deaccented (from [dada] recordings): N > F > D ~ RUS > BG CS1 49% 30% 25% 24% 15% N > F > RUS > D ~ BG CS2 55% 37% 26% 19% 16% Note: No apparent connection between vowel-length opposition and use of duration for accentuation (compare N and D vs. F, RUS and BG)

Results: Duration CW1CW2 BG:nc_late < c_early D:c_late < c_early F:late, br < br, early N: late, br < early RUS:c_late < nc_early BG:early < c_late G: early, br < late F: early, br < late N: early < br < late RUS:early, br < late c. late nc. late broad c. early nc. early

Results: F 0 range F 0 range in % from accented to deaccented (from [dada] recordings): F > D > BG ~ RUS ~ N CS1 29% 23% 18% 14% 13% F ~ D > BG > RUS > N CS2 28% 27% 23% 16% 7% These values do not have any systematic link to pitch accent categories, but note Norwegian (lexical tones)

Results: F 0 change CW1CW2 BG:- D:late, br < early F: late, br < early N: late < br < early RUS:late < c_early BG:early, br < c_early, c_late < br, late D: early < br < late F: early, br < late N: - RUS:early, br < br, late c. late nc. late broad c. early nc. early

Results: Intensity Intensity range in dB from deaccented to accented (from [dada] recordings): BG > F > D = RUS > N CS BG > F ~ D > RUS > N CS Note: Larger intensity range for CS2 than CS1 due to greater post-nuclear than pre-nuclear de-accenting.

Results: Intensity CW1CW2 BG:late, br < early D: late < br < early F: late < br < early N: late, br < early RUS: late, br < br, nc_early < early BG: early, br < late D: early < br < late F: early < br < late N: early, br < br, late RUS:early, br < late c. late nc. late broad c. early nc. early

Perception tests Different values in production analysis imply differential perceptual judgements therefore pairwise presentation of different conditions ( broad, contrastive early, contrastive late, non-contrastive early, non-contrastive late ) Continuous prominence values preferable for statistical treatment therefore non-categorical judgements (using a graphic interface)

A mouseclick plays the two versions in sequence The sequence may be played as often as required Both sequences are offered during the course of the experiment Der Mann fuhr den Wagen vor. Erster Satz: Zweiter Satz: 1. stärker 2. stärker beide gleich stark Der Mann fuhr den Wagen vor. Erster Satz: Zweiter Satz: 1. stärker 2. stärker beide gleich stark Der Mann fuhr den Wagen vor. Interface for 1st critical word Interface for 2nd critical word

Perception tests (cont.) Signal manipulation: Change one parameter at a time to the value of the opposite prominence status (accented  unaccented and vice versa) Problems: Parameters are not totally independent: Durational change affects F 0 contours

Results Parewise comparison of natural stimuli: The subjects are well able to distinguish the different level of prominence. Perception with parameter manipulated stimuli: F 0 > Duration > Intensity (Russian subjects are slightly more sensitive to Intensity)

Discussion Isačenko & Schädlich 1966, Fry 1958 found the same hierarchy in their perception experiments but Kochanski et al., 2005, Tamburini & Wagner, 2007: Loudness/Intensity as the main predictor of „prominence“ in their production analyses N.B. Fry and Isačenko & Schädlich worked exclusively with lexical stress; Kochanski et al. and T&W combine lexical stress and phrasal prominence and worked only on production Our results (η2-values) show a similar importance of intensity in production, but the perception work supports Fry and Isačenko & Schädlich‘s conclusions!

Conclusions and Outlook The languages differ in the degree to which they exploit duration, F 0 and intensity in production and to some extent in perception The differences (in production and perception) are not directly linked to structural differences between the languages None of the results support the „mythological“ rhythm typology: stress-timed vs. syllable-timed The complex picture of language differences in production contrasts with an apparent universal perceptional hierarchy (F 0 > Duration > Intensity) All previos rhythm typology work has concentrated solely on duration. Natural communication combines intonation and segmental structure within an information structural framework. Languages will therefore differ rhythmically as a product of duration AND F 0 and rhythm measures need to reflect this.