UCSD Phonetics Lab. On Quantifying Speech Rhythm. Tristie Ross, Naja Ferjan & Amalia Arvaniti University of California, San Diego. 1. Introduction. Rhythm categories and rhythm metrics
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
On Quantifying Speech Rhythm
Tristie Ross, Naja Ferjan & Amalia Arvaniti
University of California, San Diego
The images used
On Quantifying Speech Rhythm
results in green show corpus effects supporting our hypothesis
C-%V: no effect for C; the “syllable-timed” subset has the highest %V.
VarCos: no effects.
PVIs: no effect for nPVI; rPVI is highest in the “stress-timed” subset, and higher in the uncontrolled subset than in the “syllable-timed” subset.
C-%V: no effect, but trend for “stress-timed” subset to have lower %V.
VarCos: no effect for VarCoC; VarCoV is lower in the “stress-timed” subset than the other two subsets.
PVIs: no effect for rPVI; nPVI is higher in the “stress-timed” subset than in the “syllable-timed” subset.
There are no effects, largely due to high inter-speaker variation.
Metrics gave different scores per subset, but not always in the right direction (since N=1, statistical analysis was not possible).
L1 Grand Mean Results
Most score differences across languages are not statistically significant; those that are do not pattern in the expected direction.
C-%V: %V is lower in German than in English and Italian; there is no difference between English and Italian.
VarCos: German VarCoC is lower than English, but not different from Italian; there is no difference between English and Italian.
PVIs: there are no differences across languages.
There were no significant differences for any of the metrics either between L1 English and L2 English or between the Italian and German L2 English.
There is no evidence that the L2 scores corrrelate with either the L1 scores of the speakers or with the impression that these speakers’ accents give to L1 speakers.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
References: Arvaniti, A. 1994. Acoustic Features of Greek Rhythmic Structure. Journal of Phonetics 22.239-268. // Baltazani, M. 2007. Prosodic Rhythm and the Status of Vowel Reduction in Greek. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics from the 17th International Symposium on Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, vol. 1:31-43. Thessaloniki.// Bertinetto, P.M. 1989. Reflections on the Dichotomy ‘stress’ vs. ‘syllable-timing’. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 91-92-93.99-130. // Dauer, R. M. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing Reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11.51-62. // Grabe, E. & E. L. Low. 2002. Acoustic Correlates of Rhythm Class. Laboratory Phonology 7 ed. by C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner, 515-546. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. // Ramus, F., M. Nespor & J. Mehler. 1999. Correlates of Linguistic Rhythm in the Speech Signal. Cognition 73.265-292. // White, L. & S. L. Mattys. 2007. Calibrating Rhythm: First Language and Second Language Studies. Journal of Phonetics 35.501-522.