1 / 52

The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German questions and statements

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. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II

barb
Download Presentation

The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German questions and statements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

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

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

  4. Results Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion HØ 50% pre AP nucl Pren/Rise Pren/Fall Nucl/Rise Tune composition * * * • 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

  5. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion (L)H* H* L- L% Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung (“Katherina searches for a flat”) (L)H* H* H- H% Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung? (“Does Katherina search for a flat”) (L)H* H* L- L% Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung? (“Does Katherina search for a flat”) Q/S in German • Marked by syntactic (subject-verb inversion), lexical (e.g., wh-words) and/or intonational means (final F0 rise/fall) : Statement Yes/No question : • AND: • 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Q/S in German • Characteristic function of such questions: request for confirmation • BUT: • with regard to the assumed functional differences between final rises/falls in German questions 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

  13. Q/S in German H* H* L-L% Statement + steep + convex Ka the ri sucht Woh nung na ‘ne H* L+H* H-H% Yes/no Question + shallow + concave Ka the ri sucht Woh nung? na ‘ne

  14. Q/S in German H* H* L-L% Statement + steep + convex Ka the ri sucht Woh nung na ‘ne H* L+H* H-H% Yes/no Question + shallow + concave Ka the ri sucht Woh nung? na ‘ne H* L*+H L-L% Intonation Question? + shallow + concave Ka the ri sucht Woh nung? na ‘ne

  15. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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 « Questionhood » « Assertion » + late rise-fall alignment + concave fall + early rise-fall alignment + convex fall

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

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

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

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

  20. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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 The speaker sounds… -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 certain uncertain

  21. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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.)

  22. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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.) • Statistical analysis:Linear mixed model • - Fixed: Scales; Tune fragments • - Random: Subjects • - p < .05

  23. (1) (2) H* H* L-% H* H+L* L-% Results * * * n.s. n.s. n.s. In line with Niebuhr (2007), stimuli with early pren. rise/fall+convex fall: (3) H* L*+H L-% • 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 * * *

  24. (4) (5) H* L*+H H-% H* L*+H L-% 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 • Adding the “nucleus” increases “questioning” in long stimuli • Effects stronger in intonation base H-H% (4) than in L-L% (5) • Overall significant difference in responses between (1)-(2)-(3) vs. (4)-(5) base types for both short and long stimuli

  25. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Discussion 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

  26. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Discussion 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

  27. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Discussion 3.Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically 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”

  28. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Discussion 3.Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically 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)

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

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

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

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

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

  34. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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) 80 ms Late peak Early peak time

  35. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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) Late peak Early peak 50 ms time T4 T3 T1 T2

  36. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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) Late peak Early peak 50 Hz (see D’Imperio & Cangemi, PAPI 2009) time T4 T3 T1 T2

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

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

  39. Results: Timing & Slope 0.5 * * • Perception of ‘astonished statement’ decreases around the chance level as the end of the fall is shifted later • 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

  40. Results: Shape Late Early Late Early 0.5 * * * * • 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 • Small shape effects in late peak: Why?

  41. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Discussion • German listeners exploit the F0 prenuclear region for • Q/S perception, even in absence of a clear information • from the ‘nucleus’: • 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. = S Early fall = Q Late + concave fall

  42. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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

  43. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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 • 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

  44. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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

  45. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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

  46. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion 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

  47. Grazie/Danke!

  48. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion Corpus • 2 Base Types: Resynthesized stimuli from an astonished statement & an intonational question (H * L*+H L-%) ri Ka the na will ‘ne Ma le rin werden ri Ka the na will ‘ne Ma le rin werden?

  49. Introduction Experiment I Discussion Experiment II Discussion Summary & Conclusion (Pierrehumbert, 1980) 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) • For pitch accents: nuclear = prenuclear • No structural (only semantic) restrictions for com-binations of pitch accents + edge components For example: AM approach (Pierrehumbert 1980)

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

More Related