2. 1 The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German questions and statements Caterina Petrone* & Oliver Niebuhr** *Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin ** Laboratoire Parole et Langage, Aix-en-Provence

3. 2 What´s a tune? Sequence of static tones (cf. AM model, Pierrehumbert,1980) or contour elements (KIM, Kohler, 1991) - No structural (only semantic) restrictions for combinations of pitch accents + edge components - For pitch accents: nuclear = prenuclear Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Compositionality -> Intonational meaning given by the independent contribution of individual tones (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990, inter alia) H*L-L% ++= Statement L*H-H% ++= Yes/No question Tunes Sentence mode ‘Nucleus’ (nuclear accent + terminal edge components) essential in conveying meaning Prenuclear region? BUT: English

4. 3 Q/S in Neapolitan Tr. “The mom wants to see the frog ” Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion La mam vuo levede re la rana?ma La mam vuo le ve derela rana ma Intonation only mean to distinguish Yes/No Q vs.S: Intonation only mean to distinguish Yes/No Q vs.S: - Late vs. Early nuclear rise (D’Imperio, 2000) - Late vs. Early nuclear rise (D’Imperio, 2000) - Convex vs. Concave prenuclear fall (Petrone, 2008) - Convex vs. Concave prenuclear fall (Petrone, 2008) LL H H time F0 AM (LH)* L+H* L*+H Q S L-L% + steep + convex + shallow + concave

5. 4 Pren/RisePren/FallNucl/Rise Tune composition Results Q/S effect already in the prenuclear accent region Score decreases for statement-base when a steep region is heard * * * Score increases for question-base stimuli only when the nuclear accent is present Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 50% pre AP nucl HØ

6. 5 Q/S in German Marked by syntactic (subject-verb inversion), lexical (e.g., wh-words) and/or intonational means (final F0 rise/fall) H* (L)H* L-L% H* (L)H* H- H% Statement Yes/No question : : Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung (“Katherina searches for a flat”) Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung? (“Does Katherina search for a flat”) Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung? (“Does Katherina search for a flat”) AND: H* (L)H* L-L% Questions with final fall: Dialogue partner is supposed to give a short answer according to the speaker’s expectation (cf. Stock 1996; Kohler 2004; Peters 2005). Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

7. 6 Q/S in German Peters (2005): Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*L- L% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), please Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

8. 7 Q/S in German Peters (2005): Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*L- L% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), please Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*H- H% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Answer Yes/No + Tell me a bit more about you! Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

9. 8 Q/S in German Peters (2005): Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*L- L% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), please Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*H- H% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Answer Yes/No + Tell me a bit more about you! Kohler (2004): Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H*L- L% (“Would that suit you”) = Say ‘yes’, please Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

10. 9 Q/S in German Peters (2005): Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*L- L% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), please Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H*H- H% (“Are you from Heidelberg”) = Answer Yes/No + Tell me a bit more about you! Kohler (2004): Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H*L- L% (“Would that suit you”) = Say ‘yes’, please Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H*H- H% (“Would that suit you”) = The final choice is up to you! Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

11. 10 Q/S in German Also questions with declarative syntax are possible: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung H* (L)H* H-H% (“Katherina searches for a flat”) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

12. 11 Q/S in German Also questions with declarative syntax are possible: In such cases the intonation is crucial, i.e. It MUST be raising. Isacenko & Schädlich (1970): “If an utterance contains no other syntactic or lexical cue to identify it as a question […] then only the last […] rising tone-switch provides the necessary information to allow the hearer to identify it as a question" (p.32) ( Cf. also Huddleston (1994) for English and Haeseryn et al. (1997) for Dutch) => known as ‘intonation question’ or ‘queclarativ’ (Sadock 1974) Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung H* (L)H* H-H% (“Katherina searches for a flat”) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

13. 12 Q/S in German BUT: Characteristic function of such questions: request for confirmation (a)with regard to the assumed functional differences between final rises/falls in German questions Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Q1: Is the final rise actually mandatory in German ‘intonation questions’, i.e. does it mean ‘question’ ? (b) …and in view of the domain and the cues for ‘question’ in Neapolitan Italian Q2: What role plays the prenuclear region? Our study started from observations in natural utterances

14. 13 Q/S in German Statement Yes/no Question Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? H*L-L% H* L+H*H-H% H* + steep + convex + shallow + concave

15. 14 Q/S in German Statement Yes/no Question Intonation Question? Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? H*L-L% H* L+H*H-H% H* L*+HL-L% H* + steep + convex + shallow + concave + shallow + concave

16. 15 Experiment I Similarly to Neapolitans, German listeners are able to identify Q/S sentences, i.e. asserting and questioning speech acts, well before hearing the ‘nucleus’ Differences in the prenuclear rise/fall cue questionhood independent of the presence of a terminal rise and interrogative syntax + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall « Assertion » + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall « Questionhood » Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

17. 16 Q Corpus 5 intonation Bases: Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion (1) (2) (3) H* H+L* L-% H* H* L-% H* L*+H L-% + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall -(1)-(3): nuclear pitch-accent difference with final fall. Known to signal meaning differences within statements, i.e. ‘settled’, ‘open’, ‘astonished’ (Niebuhr 2007; Grice & Baumann 2000; Kohler 1987) -(4): tune with final rise. Known to signal questions. The contour preceding the terminal mouvement is constant for (3) & (4) => clear Q/S difference - (3)+(5): difference in prenuclear region (H* alignment and shape/alignment of subsequent fall) => yields Q/S difference ? -(4)+(5): difference in final fall vs. final rise with constant preceding tune => yields Q/S difference ? S (4) (5) H* L*+H L-% H* L*+H H-% Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung

18. 17 Corpus 5 intonation Bases: 3 tune fragments: short Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? (1) (2) (3) H* H+L* L-% H* H* L-% H* L*+H L-% + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall Q S (4) (5) H* L*+H L-% H* L*+H H-% Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung

19. 18 Corpus Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung 5 intonation Bases: 3 tune fragments: medium Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) H* H+L* L-% H* H* L-% H* L*+H L-% + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall H* L*+H H-% S Q

20. 19 Corpus 5 intonation Bases: 3 tune fragments: long Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Katheri na sucht ‘ne Wohnung? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) H* H+L* L-% H* H* L-% H* L*+H L-% + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall H* L*+H H-% S Q Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung

21. 20 Methods Semantic differential task: -Three 7-point scales aiming at the Q-S difference: (1) astonished - not astonished; (2) questioning - not questioning; (3) uncertain - certain Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 3210-2-3 uncertain certain The speaker sounds…

22. 21 Methods Semantic differential task: -Three 7-point scales aiming at the Q-S difference: (1) astonished - not astonished; (2) questioning - not questioning; (3) uncertain - certain Procedure -One randomized block containing short and medium tune fragments -Long sentences at the end of the session -11 German subjects X 9 repetitions (1782 obs.) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

23. 22 Methods Semantic differential task: -Three 7-point scales aiming at the Q-S difference: (1) astonished - not astonished; (2) questioning - not questioning; (3) uncertain - certain Procedure -One randomized block containing short and medium tune fragments -Long sentences at the end of the session -11 German subjects X 9 repetitions (1782 obs.) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Statistical analysis: Linear mixed model - Fixed: Scales; Tune fragments - Random: Subjects - p <.05

24. 23 Results H* H+L* L-% H* H* L-% H* L*+H L-% * * * n.s. (1)(2) (3) n.s. * * * Judged as “assertive” already in the prenuclear region Assertiveness increases as the terminal fall is heard with H+L* (1), but NOT with H* (2) In (3), the L*+H accent conveys more astonishment In line with Niebuhr (2007), stimuli with early pren. rise/fall+convex fall:

25. 24 Results Stimuli with late prenuclear rise + concave fall : Judged as “questioning” already in the prenuclear region, i.e. independent of the presence the terminal rise Overall significant difference in responses between (1)-(2)-(3) vs. (4)-(5) base types for both short and long stimuli Adding the “nucleus” increases “questioning” in long stimuli Effects stronger in intonation base H-H% (4) than in L-L% (5) H* L*+H H-%H* L*+H L-% (4)(5) * ** * **

26. 25Discussion Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion The intonational signalling of pragmatic functions of sentences in German is not bound to the “nucleus” and the subsequent final F0 pattern: 1. Questioning vs. assertive sentences are well discriminable when only the prenuclear accent region is left in the stimulus This cannot depend on the phonological specification of the prenuclear accent -(H)* for the 5 intonation types- though phonetic factors such as speech rate or intensity might have affected listeners’ judgements

27. 26Discussion Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion The intonational signalling of pragmatic functions of sentences in German is not bound to the “nucleus” and the subsequent final F0 pattern: 1. Questioning vs. assertive sentences are well discriminable when only the prenuclear accent region is left in the stimulus This cannot depend on the phonological specification of the prenuclear accent -(H)* for the 5 intonation types- though phonetic factors such as speech rate or intensity might have affected listeners’ judgements 2. Contrast in listeners’ judgement for stimuli (1)-(2)-(3) vs. (4)-(5) already in the “short” condition This might be due to the differences in the alignment of the prenuclear rise and/or the shape of the fall between the two intonation groups

28. 27Discussion 3. Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Stimuli with patterns (5), ie. containing a terminal fall but preceded by a late rise-fall/concave fall, shifted the judgements towards more “astonished”, “uncertain” and “questioning”

29. 28Discussion 3. Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Stimuli with patterns (5), ie. containing a terminal fall but preceded by a late rise-fall/concave fall, shifted the judgements towards more “astonished”, “uncertain” and “questioning” 4. The perception of intonation modality is improved when the nucleus is also available, especially in ‘questioning’ stimuli (4)-(5) This suggests that prosodic cues in the prenuclear region are less stronger for Q than for S modality, so that listeners have to rely more on the nuclear pattern when perceiving Q (see also Petrone & D’Imperio, 2008 for Neapolitan)

30. 29 Experiment II German listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

31. 30 Experiment II German listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances +Q -Q time f0 Rise timing? Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

32. 31 Experiment II German listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances +Q -Q time f0 +Q-Q time f0 Rise timing?Fall timing? Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

33. 32 Experiment II German listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances +Q -Q time f0 +Q-Q time f0 Rise timing?Fall timing? Fall slope? Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion time f0 +Q-Q

34. 33 Experiment II German listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances +Q -Q time f0 +Q-Q time f0 time f0 -Q +Q Rise timing?Fall timing? Fall slope?Fall shape? Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion time f0 +Q-Q

35. 34 Corpus 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%) F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli. F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion time Early peak Late peak 80 ms

36. 35 Corpus Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion time Early peak Late peak T1T2 T3 T4 50 ms 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%) F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli. F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex)

37. 36 Corpus Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion time Early peak Late peak T1T2 T3 T4 50 Hz 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%) F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli. F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex) (see D’Imperio & Cangemi, PAPI 2009)

38. 37 Methods Procedure - Indirect identification test: “Does it match?” Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Test sentence Context “Katherina wants to become a painter” “Really? That’s a risky step” YES = astonished statement NO = intonational question - 11 German listeners x 5 repetitions (2460 obs.)

39. 38 Methods Statistical analysis: Generalized Mixed Model - Fixed: rise and fall alignment, slope, shape, base type - Random: Subjects - p <.05 Procedure - Indirect identification test: “Does it match?” Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Test sentence Context “Katherina wants to become a painter” “Really? That’s a risky step” YES = astonished statement NO = intonational question - 11 German listeners x 5 repetitions (2460 obs.)

40. 39 Results: Timing & Slope Perception of ‘astonished statement’ decreases around the chance level as the end of the fall is shifted later 0.5 This effect is stronger for earlier peak alignment at T3 & T4 Effects of the slope indistinguishable from those of the timing Small Base Type effect * *

41. 40 Results: Shape Early Late Strong interaction shape by fall alignment in early peak: the perception of ‘astonished statement’ goes much below the chance level for concave shape stimuli at late fall alignments 0.5 Small shape effects in late peak: Why? * * * *

42. 41 Discussion Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion German listeners exploit the F0 prenuclear region for Q/S perception, even in absence of a clear information from the ‘nucleus’: 1.Alignment and dynamic cues distributed in the prenuclear F0 region seems to be at work when perceiving the Q/S contrast in German The early fall alignment is a robust cue for ‘astonished statements’ perception. The late fall alignment is more ambiguous, and additional differences in the shape of the fall become crucial for ‘question’ perception. Late + concave fall Early fall S Q = =

43. 42 Discussion Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 2. The fall alignment/shape manipulation affected listeners’ judgment only when the prenuclear rise is early This can be due to our manipulation: the shift from the early to the late alignment could have been too “far”. The shape difference is more salient when the rise is earlier

44. 43 Discussion 2. The fall alignment/shape manipulation affected listeners’ judgment only when the prenuclear rise is early This can be due to our manipulation: the shift from the early to the late alignment could have been too “far”. The shape difference is more salient when the rise is earlier 3.The base stimulus produce a small but significant effect. This means that cues other than F0 (voice quality, speech rate, etc.) might have been exploited by listeners Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

45. 44 Conclusion Results from (Neapolitan and) German indicate that the prenuclear F0 region is relevant in conveying pragmatic functions, and thus it should be taken into account by theories of intonational meaning Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

46. 45 Conclusion Results from (Neapolitan and) German indicate that the prenuclear F0 region is relevant in conveying pragmatic functions, and thus it should be taken into account by theories of intonational meaning The influence of the prenuclear F0 region is accounted for by the interaction of multiple F0 dimensions (alignment, shape), thus suggesting that dynamic properties might help in interpreting linguistic information Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

47. 46 Conclusion Results from (Neapolitan and) German indicate that the prenuclear F0 region is relevant in conveying pragmatic functions, and thus it should be taken into account by theories of intonational meaning The influence of the prenuclear F0 region is accounted for by the interaction of multiple F0 dimensions (alignment, shape), thus suggesting that dynamic properties might help in interpreting linguistic information Our results suggest that intonation meaning is defined by the contour as a whole : the interrelation between tones in a tune cannot be captured by a strict compositional approach Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

48. 47 Grazie/Danke!

49. 48 Corpus 2 Base Types: Resynthesized stimuli from an astonished statement & an intonational question (H * L*+H L-%) Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Ka the ri nawill ‘neMalerinwerden? Ka the ri nawill ‘neMalerinwerden

50. 49 What´s a tune? Tunes of utterances can be decomposed into sequenc- es of static tones (cf. AM model, Pierrehumbert,1980) or contour elements (KIM, Kohler 1991) No structural (only semantic) restrictions for com- binations of pitch accents + edge components For pitch accents: nuclear = prenuclear Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion (Pierrehumbert, 1980) For example: AM approach (Pierrehumbert 1980)

51. 50 Meaning compositionality Intonational meaning given by the independent contribution of individual tones H*L-L% ++= Statement L*H-H% ++= Yes/No question English H* = L- = Tunes Sentence mode (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990) The accented item is instantiated in the open expression to be added to Hearer’s mutual belief The interpretation of the current ip does not depend on that of subsequent ips « Nucleus » (nuclear accent + terminal edge components) is essential for conveying meaning Prenuclear region? Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

52. 51 Tones-F0 mapping In their phonetic manifestation tonal targets are characterized by temporal alignment and F0 scaling Shape SlopeDuration L H L H L H L H L H L H F0 between targets defined by interpolation rules A Time F0 Mr H L Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion

53. 52 (LH*) L H* La mam vuo le ve de re la Di na ma (LH*) L* H La mam vuole ve de re la Di na? ma Speaker OM Tunes in Neapolitan Italian Intonation contrast: AP-tone… Intonation contrast: AP-tone… Tr. “The mom wants to see (the) Dina” Same phrasing & tonal composition butSame phrasing & tonal composition but ! different slope! Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion S Q