Intonation: buildings and bricks Francesco Cangemi Universität Zürich & Universität zu Köln [email protected]

Intonation: buildings and bricks Francesco Cangemi Universitt Zrich & Universitt zu Kln [email protected]

I. Theory 09:30 10:45 A. Architectures 1. Prosody and intonation 2. Abstractionist assumptions 3. Exemplarist challenges 4. Prosodic detail 11:00 12:30 B. Primitives 1. Partial Topics in Italian 2. Intonational meaning 3. Challenging primitives i. Contour warping ii. Individual behaviour II. Practice 14:00 15:00 C. Praat scripting 1. Basics 15:15 16:30 2. Plotting i. Synthesis (one example) ii. Analysis (many items)

LongShort A B Prosody and arbitrariness 4 Both highly universal and language-specific Physio- and psychologically motivated Acquisition Learning Pathology PhylogeniesOntogenesis FirstLast

5 hier soir, avant de s'endormir, Franois fumait une dernire cigarette, en relisant le cours d'allemand qu'il avait prpar pour ses lves de terminale. Puis, il crasa sa gauloise dans un cendrier, et teignit la lumire. Un moment plus tard, une odeur de brl le rveilla. La pice tait envahie de fume, et Franois s'aperut avec effroi que les rideaux de la fentre avaient pris feu. [Louis et alii, 2001] First to appear Last to disappear PROSODY The workmen from Boston were leaving LearningPathology

Prosody and function 6 Message encoding and decoding Disambiguation of (surface) syntactic structures PROSODY (Ill move on) (Saturday) (Ill move) (on Saturday)

7 PROSODY Lexical access [Christophe et alii 2004] Le livre racontait lhistoire [dun grand chat grincheux] [qui avait mordu un facteur]CHAGRIN [dun grand chat drogu] [qui dormait tout le temps]*CHAD Message encoding and decoding Disambiguation of (surface) syntactic structures

8 PROSODY Information structure Management of interaction e.g. backchannels [Benus et alii 2007] E.g., it.:Michele viene con me Micheal comes with me Modality Contrastivity Givenness Lexical access Message encoding and decoding Disambiguation of (surface) syntactic structures

Architectures 10 SUBSTANCE FUNCTION FORM Syntax Lexicon Information structure Interaction f0 amplitude duration voice quality

Architectures 11 SUBSTANCE FUNCTION FORM/kt/

Architectures (intonation) 12 Intonation refers to the use of suprasegmental phonetic features to convey post-lexical or sentence-level pragmatic meanings in a linguistically structured way. [Ladd, 1996] FORM FUNCTION SUBSTANCE

Architectures (prosody) (Prosody is a) branch of linguistics devoted to the factual description (phonetic aspects) and the formal analysis (phonological aspects) of the systematic elements in the phonic expression which are not coextensive to phonemes, such as accents, tones, intonation and quantity. whose actual manifestations in speech production are associated with variations in the physical parameters of f0, duration and intensity, which represent prosodys objective parameters. These variations are perceived by the listener as changes in pitch, length and loudness, which are prosodys subjective parameters. The prosodic elements play at (lexical prosody) or above (post-lexical prosody) the word level a bundle of grammatical, para-grammatical and extra-grammatical functions, related to what is said, how it is said and to speaker identity. These functions prove crucial in signalling the structure of utterances and of discourse, and in guiding their semantic and pragmatic interpretation. [Di Cristo 2004] 13 FORM FUNCTION SUBSTANCE

An alternative architecture these models introduce a phonological level of description that is intermediate between (abstract) function and (concrete) phonetic form it is our experience that one always get better results if one can do without such an intermediate level, i.e., if one can establish a direct link between (syntactic/semantic) function and phonetic form the unfortunate notion of pitch accent [Batliner and Mbius 2005] 15

An alternative architecture substancefunction FORM exemplar auditory properties f0,F1,F2,F3,dur category labels word,sex,speaker [Johnson 1997] [K. Schweitzer 2012] 16

Categorization Monothetic approach (classical view) Singly necessary and jointly sufficient features bug /b g/ bun /b n/ 17

Prototypic (probabilistic view) Categories center around members sharing many features Polythetic (Familienhnlichkeit) elements of a class share more or less features 18

Episodic (exemplar view) Online categories, comparing probe to stored exemplars A B C 19

Phonetic detail Exemplar-based models: Traces for words are stored without reducing phonetic information to an abstract phonological representation Phonetic detail: systematically produced and perceived phonetic information which is not included in abstract phonological representations 21

True prefix:discolour/ ds kl/ Pseudo-prefix:discover/ ds kv/ Spectrotemporal patterns [R. Smith et al. 2012] Production Intelligibility in noise [Baker et al. 2007] Perception Frequency [Bybee 2001] mammary[mmi] artillery[tli] memory[mm i] every[v.i] 22

Exemplar-based models: Traces for words are stored without reducing phonetic information to an abstract phonological representation + Functional approaches to prosody: No intermediate phonological level, but only a direct link between function and phonetics = Exemplar-based prosody: Words are stored along with their f0 contours 23 Exemplar prosody set of category labels set of auditory properties exemplar [K. Schweitzer 2012]

Words are stored along with their f0 contour Memory requirements Feature analysis A:I hear youll soon be a doctor in chemistry. B:a.Me?!b.A doctor in chemistry?! H L H Adapted from [Ladd 1996] Restrictive view of phonetic detail: systematically produced and perceived phonetic information which is not YET included in abstract phonological representations 24

Abstract forms (e.g. pitch accents) in AM theory are phonetically very underspecified PROSODIC CUES f0 duration amplitude spectral features events interpolations 25 Prosodic detail If systematically produced and perceived phonetic information is found to cue functional contrasts, phonological representations might be enriched either in inventory or grammar

PROSODIC CUES f0 duration amplitude spectral features events interpolations 27 Partial Topic constructions seem to have distinctive rise shape Interpolation rather than events?!

28 Narrowing down the Discourse Topic Non exhaustive answer [Bring 1997] Partial Topics in Neapolitan Italian A: How do your friends like their coffee? B: Milena drinks it black (as for the others, I wouldnt know) milenalovuoleamaro milenait-OBJwant-3SGunsweetened

Alignment Scaling Curve index: [Dombrowski & Niebuhr 2005; Cangemi 2009] 29 Reading task with contextualizing paragraph 3 sentences 2 contexts 7 speakers 5 repetitions 210 items Two-sample two-tailed T-tests Both with prosodic break after N L is acceleration peak (d)

C scaling Curve index L H start ofend of ScalingAlignment p

Some results Production - acoustics SpeakerAHDMHNMBWP Peak alignment broad * narrow * contrast broad * narrow/contrast broad * narrow * contrast Peak height broad * narrow * contrast broad * narrow/contrast broad * narrow * contrast Duration of target word broad/narrow * contrast broad/narrow * contrast broad * narrow * contrast broad * contrast broad * narrow * contrast Number of prenclear accents broad/narrow * contrast broad * narrow/contrast broad/narrow * contrast Duration of first word broad * contrast broad * narrow/contrast Expectations towards perception? AH > HN > DM > WP > MB ?

Some results Production - articulation Mcke and Grice, forthcoming

Some results Perception across listeners, BB>...>KS2 ~30% across speakers, AH>DM>HN>WP>MB ~10%

Some results Interactions Similarly significant results with mixed models, using intercepts and slopes for speaker-listener dyads (thanks Roger Mundry and SSSPP summerschool!) Logit linear model predicting correct answers (contrastive), Speaker and Listener as fixed factors Significantly different from model including interactions Pr(Chi) = 0.002 **

New questions Method: Listeners also performing reading task? (do they use strategies which are similar to those of the speakers they rated more consistently?) Speakers also performing the identification task (do they identify more reliably the productions of speakers which use strategies similar to their own?) and if yes: should they also rate themselves?!

New questions Assumptions: Can we really postulate that some speakers or listeners are more performative than others? universal donor and universal recipient Does this conflict with viewing similarity of production as an advantage for perception? Empedocles like is known by like Implications: From speaker/listener specific behaviour through speker/listener group behaviour to sound change? with listener-speaker mismatch? (Ohala, 1981) Back

Documents

Intonation: buildings and bricks Francesco Cangemi Universität Zürich & Universität zu Köln [email protected]