Communicative Functions Integrate Segments in Prosodies and Prosodies in Segments

This paper takes a new look at the traditionally established divide between sounds and prosodies, viewing it as a useful heuristics in language descriptions that focus on the segmental make- up of words. It pleads for a new approach that bridges this reified compartmentalization of speech in a more global communicative perspective. Data are presented from a German perception experiment in the framework of the Semantic Differential that shows interdependence of f0 contours and the spectral characteristics of a following fricative segment, for the expression of semantic functions along the scales questioning – asserting, excited – calm, forceful – not forceful, contrary – agreeable. The results lead to the conclusion that segments shape prosodies and are shaped by them in varying ways in the coding of semantic functions. This implies that the analysis of sentence prosodies needs to integrate the manifestation of segments, just as the analysis of segments needs to consider their prosodic embedding. In communicative interaction, speakers set broad prosodic time windows of varying sizes, and listeners respond to them. So, future phonetic research needs to concentrate on speech analysis in such windows.

[1]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  F₀-Based Rhythm Effects on the Perception of Local Syllable Prominence , 2009, Phonetica.

[2]  O. Niebuhr.  Coding of intonational meanings beyond F0: evidence from utterance-final /t/ aspiration in German. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  D. Ladd,et al.  Stability of tonal alignment: the case of Greek prenuclear accents , 1998 .

[4]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  THE PHONETICS OF EMPHASIS , 2007 .

[5]  Ruth E. Cumming.  The Language- Specific Interdependence of Tonal and Durational Cues in Perceived Rhythmicality , 2011, Phonetica.

[6]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[7]  V. V. van Heuven,et al.  Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  G. Bruce.  Swedish word accents in sentence perspective , 1977 .

[9]  J. Laver.  The phonetic description of voice quality , 1980 .

[10]  P. Ladefoged.  Three areas of experimental phonetics , 1967 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[12]  Dick R. van Bergem,et al.  Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress, and word class , 1993, Speech Commun..

[13]  R. Paget.  The Origin of Speech , 1927, Nature.

[14]  Yoshinori Sagisaka,et al.  Computing Prosody, Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech , 2011 .

[15]  Robert F. Port,et al.  All is prosody: Phones and phonemes are the ghosts of letters ∗ , 2008 .

[16]  D. Ladd,et al.  Constant "segmental anchoring" of F0 movements under changes in speech rate. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Arthur S. Abramson,et al.  Voice Register in Suai (Kuai): An Analysis of Perceptual and Acoustic Data , 2004, Phonetica.

[18]  Francis Nolan,et al.  The Pairwise Variability Index and Coexisting Rhythms in Language , 2009, Phonetica.

[19]  Klaus J. Kohler,et al.  Pragmatic and Attitudinal Meanings of Pitch Patterns in German Syntactically Marked Questions ∗ , 2005 .

[20]  D. Ladd,et al.  Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  Intonation segments and segmental intonation , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[22]  S. Baumann,et al.  TONAL AND ARTICULATORY MARKING OF FOCUS IN GERMAN , 2007 .

[23]  D. Fry.  The Dependence of Stress Judgments on Vowel Formant Structure , 1965 .

[24]  Martine Grice,et al.  Sources of variation in tonal alignment: Evidence from acoustic and kinematic data , 2009, J. Phonetics.

[25]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  On the Role of Articulatory Prosodies in German Message Decoding , 2011, Phonetica.

[26]  J. Ohala,et al.  An Ethological Perspective on Common Cross-Language Utilization of F₀ of Voice , 1984, Phonetica.

[27]  E Gårding,et al.  Sentence Intonation in Swedish , 1979, Phonetica.

[28]  A. Huggins,et al.  Just noticeable differences for segment duration in natural speech. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  On the Phonetics of Intensifying Emphasis in German , 2010, Phonetica.

[30]  D. Fry.  Duration and Intensity as Physical Correlates of Linguistic Stress , 1954 .

[31]  Klaus J. Kohler,et al.  What is emphasis and how is it coded? , 2006, Speech Prosody 2006.

[32]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  The Signalling of German Rising-Falling Intonation Categories – The Interplay of Synchronization, Shape, and Height , 2007, Phonetica.

[33]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  polysp: a polysystemic, phonetically-rich approach to speech understanding , 2001 .

[34]  Agaath M. C. Sluijter,et al.  Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  E Gårding.  Swedish prosody. Summary of a project. , 1982, Phonetica.

[36]  Amalia Arvaniti,et al.  Rhythm, Timing and the Timing of Rhythm , 2009, Phonetica.

[37]  Klaus J. Kohler,et al.  Paradigms in Experimental Prosodic Analysis: From Measurement to Function , 2006 .

[38]  Klaus J. Kohler.  ARTICULATORY PROSODIES IN GERMAN REDUCED SPEECH , 1999 .

[39]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[40]  KLAUS J. KOHLER.  PATTERNS OF PROSODY IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE SPEAKER AND THE APPEAL TO THE LISTENER , 2008 .

[41]  Oliver Niebuhr,et al.  Perception of phonetic detail in the identification of highly reduced words , 2011, J. Phonetics.

[42]  D. Fry.  Experiments in the Perception of Stress , 1958 .

[43]  J. Ohala.  Cross-Language Use of Pitch: An Ethological View , 1983, Phonetica.

[44]  Klaus J. Kohler,et al.  Timing and Communicative Functions of Pitch Contours , 2005, Phonetica.

[45]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[46]  A.M.C. Sluijter,et al.  Effects of Focus Distribution, Pitch Accent and Lexical Stress on the Temporal Organization of Syllables in Dutch , 1995 .

[47]  J. R. Firth,et al.  SOUNDS AND PEOSODIES , 1948 .

[48]  Klaus J. Kohler,et al.  Modelling Prosody in Spontaneous Speech , 1997, Computing Prosody.

[49]  Ruth E. Cumming.  The Interdependence of Tonal and Durational Cues in the Perception of Rhythmic Groups , 2011, Phonetica.

[50]  Jacques C. Koreman,et al.  Do Rhythm Measures Reflect Perceived Rhythm? , 2009, Phonetica.

[51]  Esther Grabe,et al.  Comparative intonational phonology: English and German , 1998 .

[52]  Carlos Gussenhoven,et al.  Preaccentual Pitch and Speaker Attitude in Dutch , 1998 .