Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityment in future research will be to have learnerspractice presentation skills without teachermodels.It is important to point out that we cannotdetermine from these data that speakers becamebetter presenters as a result of their participationin this study. A successful presentation entails,of course, very many features, and usingpitch well is only one of them. Other vocal featuresthat are important are the ability to clearlyarticulate the sounds of the language, the rate ofspeech, and the ability to speak with an intensitythat is appropriate to the spatial setting. Inaddition, there are numerous other features regardingthe interaction of content, delivery andaudience that play a critical role in how thepresentation is received. Our presentation data,gathered as they were from real-life classroomsettings, are in all likelihood too varied to allowfor a study that attempted to find a correlationbetween pitch variation and, for example, theperceived clarity of a presentation. However,we do wish to explore perceptions of the speakers.We also plan to develop feedback gaugesfor other intonational features, beginning withrate of speech. We see potential to develop language-specificintonation pattern detectors thatcould respond to, for example, a speaker’s tendencyto use French intonation patterns whenspeaking English. Such gauges could form atype of toolbox that students and teachers coulduse as a resource in the preparation and assessmentof oral presentations.Our study contributes to the field in a numberof ways. It is, to the best of our knowledge,the first to rely on a synthesis of online fundamentalfrequency data in relation to learnerproduction. We have not shown the speakersthe absolute fundamental frequency itself, butrather how much it has varied over time as representedby the standard deviation. This variableis known to characterize discourse intendedfor a large audience (Johns-Lewis,1986), and is also a variable that listeners canperceive if they are asked to distinguish livelyspeech from monotone (Hincks, 2005; Traunmüller& Eriksson, 1995). In this paper, wehave demonstrated that it is a variable that caneffectively stimulate production as well. Furthermore,the variable itself provides a meansof measuring, characterizing and comparingspeaker intonation. It is important to point outthat enormous quantities of data lie behind thevalues reported in our results. Measurements offundamental frequency were made 100 times asecond, for stretches of speech up to 45 minutesin length, giving tens of thousands of datapoints per speaker for the training utterances.By converting the Hertz values to the logarithmicsemitone scale, we are able to make validcomparisons between speakers with differentvocal ranges. This normalization is an aspectthat appears to be neglected in commercial pronunciationprograms such as Auralog’s Tell MeMore series, where pitch curves of speakers ofdifferent mean frequencies can be indiscriminatelycompared. There is a big difference inthe perceptual force of a rise in pitch of 30Hzfor a speaker of low mean frequency and onewith high mean frequency, for example. Thesedifferences are normalized by converting tosemitones.Secondly, our feedback can be used for theproduction of long stretches of free speechrather than short, system-generated utterances.It is known that intonation must be studied at ahigher level than that of the word or phrase inorder for speech to achieve proper cohesiveforce over longer stretches of discourse. Bypresenting the learners with information abouttheir pitch variation in the previous ten secondsof speech, we are able to incorporate and reflectthe vital movement that should occur when aspeaker changes topic, for example. In an idealworld, most teachers would have the time to sitwith students, examine displays of pitch tracings,and discuss how peaks of the tracings relateto each other with respect to theoreticalmodels such as Brazil’s intonational paragraphs(Levis & Pickering, 2004). Our system cannotapproach that level of detail, and in fact cannotmake the connection between intonation and itslexical content. However, it can be used bylearners on their own, in the production of anycontent they choose. It also has the potential forfuture development in the direction of morefine-grained analyses.A third novel aspect of our feedback is thatit is transient and immediate. Our lights flickerand then disappear. This is akin to the way wenaturally process speech; not as something thatcan be captured and studied, but as soundwaves that last no longer than the millisecondsit takes to perceive them. It is also more similarto the way we receive auditory and sensoryfeedback when we produce speech – we onlyhear and feel what we produce in the very instancewe produce it; a moment later it is gone.Though at this point we can only speculate, itwould be interesting to test whether transient106
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityfeedback might be more easily integrated andautomatized than higher-level feedback, whichis more abstract and may require more cognitiveprocessing and interpretation. The potentialdifference between transient and enduring feedbackhas interesting theoretical implicationsthat could be further explored.This study has focused on Chinese speakersbecause they are a group where many speakerscan be expected to produce relatively monotonespeech, and where the chances of achievingmeasurable development in a short period oftime were deemed to be greatest. However,there are all kinds of speaker groups who couldbenefit from presentation feedback. Like manycommunicative skills that are taught in advancedlanguage classes, the lessons can applyto native speakers as well. Teachers who producemonotone speech are a problem to studentseverywhere. Nervous speakers can alsotend to use a compressed speaking range, andcould possibly benefit from having practiceddelivery with an expanded range. Clinically,monotone speech is associated with depression,and can also be a problem that speech therapistsneed to address with their patients. However,the primary application we envisage hereis an aid for practicing, or perhaps even delivering,oral presentations.It is vital to use one’s voice well whenspeaking in public. It is the channel of communication,and when used poorly, communicationcan be less than successful. If listeners eitherstop listening, or fail to perceive what ismost important in a speaker’s message, then allactors in the situation are in effect wastingtime. We hope to have shown in this paper thatstimulating speakers to produce more pitchvariation in a practice situation has an effectthat can transfer to new situations. People canlearn to be better public speakers, and technologyshould help in the process.AcknowledgementsThis paper is an abbreviated version of an articleto be published in Language Learning andTechnology in October 2009. The technologyused in the research was developed in partwithin the Swedish Research Council project#2006-2172 (Vad gör tal till samtal).ReferencesBrazil, D. (1986). The Communicative Value ofIntonation in English. Birmingham UK:University of Birmingham, English LanguageResearchEdlund, J., & Heldner, M. (2006). /nailon/ --Software for Online Analysis of Prosody.Proceedings of Interspeech 2006Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary Stress and Intelligibility:Research to Motivate the Teachingof Suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly,38(2), 201-223.Hincks, R. (2005). Measures and perceptions ofliveliness in student oral presentation speech:a proposal for an automatic feedback mechanism.System, 33(4), 575-591.Johns-Lewis, C. (1986). Prosodic differentiationof discourse modes. In C. Johns-Lewis(Ed.), Intonation in Discourse (pp. 199-220).Breckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonationin discourse using speech visualizationtechnology. System, 32, 505-524.Pennington, M., & Ellis, N. (2000). CantoneseSpeakers' Memory for English Sentenceswith Prosodic Cues The Modern LanguageJournal 84(iii), 372-389.Pickering, L. (2001). The Role of Tone Choicein Improving ITA Communication in theClassroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 233-255.Pickering, L. (2004). The structure and functionof intonational paragraphs in native and nonnativespeaker instructional discourse. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 23, 19-43.Rosenberg, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2005). Acoustic/Prosodicand Lexical Correlates of CharismaticSpeech. Paper presented at the Interspeech2005, Lisbon.Strangert, E., & Gustafson, J. (2008). Subjectratings, acoustic measurements and synthesisof good-speaker characteristics. Paperpresented at the Interspeech 2008, Brisbane,Australia.Talkin, D. (1995). A robust algorithm for pitchtracking (RAPT). In W. B. Klejin, & Paliwal,K. K (Ed.), Speech Coding and Synthesis(pp. 495-518): Elsevier.Traunmüller, H., & Eriksson, A. (1995). Theperceptual evaluation of F 0 excursions inspeech as evidenced in liveliness estimations.Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 97(3), 1905-1915.Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaningin English discourse: A Study of Non-NativeSpeakers Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 399-421.Wennerstrom, A. (1998). Intonation as Cohesionin Academic Discourse: A Study ofChinese Speakers of English Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 20, 1-25.107
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 105: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?