Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityfor each condition (cf. the example in the Introduction).While the frame context was presentedto the subjects exclusively in writtenform, the context question was only presentedauditively. For that, the context questions werepre-recorded by a 30-year-old male nativespeaker of Swedish.Recording procedure and subjectsThe data collection was performed using acomputer program, which both presented thecontexts and test sentences to the subjects andorganised the recording. First, for each trial,only the frame context was displayed on thescreen in written form. The subjects had to readthe context silently and to try to imagine thesituation described in the context. When ready,they clicked on a button to continue with thetrial. Then, the pre-recorded context questionwas played to them via headphones, and simultaneously,the test sentence appeared on thescreen. The subject’s task was to answer thequestion using the test sentence in a normalconversational style. The subjects were allowedto repeat each trial until they were satisfied.Besides the material for this study, the recordingsession included a number of further testcases not reported on in this paper. Five repetitionsof each condition were recorded, and thewhole list of items was randomised. One recordingsession took about 15 minutes perspeaker. Nine speakers of Standard Swedishwere recorded (5 female) in an experimentalstudio at the Humanities Laboratory at LundUniversity. Thus, a corpus of 270 utterancesrelevant to this study (6 conditions, 5 repetitionsper speaker, 9 speakers) was collected.Data analysisA first step in data analysis is reported in Ambrazaitis(in press). There, the goal was to providean overview of the most salient characteristicsof the F0 patterns produced in the differentconditions. To this end, F0 contours were timeand register normalised, and mean contourswere calculated in order to illustrate the generalcharacteristics of the dominant patterns found inthe different conditions (cf. examples in Figure1). The F0 patterns were classified according tothe F0 movement found in connection with thestressed syllable of the target word, as either‘falling’ or ‘rising’.In order to obtain duration measurements, inthe present study, the recorded utterances weresegmented into 10 quasi-syllables using spectrogramsand wave form diagrams. Theboundaries between the segments were set asillustrated by the following broad phonetictranscriptions: [ʋa], [ˈland], [əɹ], [fœ], [ˈlɛŋː], [əɹ],[tɪl], [nɔ], [ˈvɛmb], [əɹ]. In the case of [ˈland] and[ˈvɛmb], the final boundary was set at the time ofthe plosive burst, if present, or at the onset of thepost-stress vowel.It has been shown for Swedish that focallengthening in assertions is non-linear, in thatthe stressed syllable is lengthened more than theunstressed syllables (Heldner and Strangert,2001). Therefore, durational patterns were analysedon two levels, first, taking into accountentire word durations, second, concentrating onstressed syllables only. In both cases, theanalyses focussed on the three content wordsand hence disregarded the word “till”.For each word, two repeated-measuresANOVAs were calculated, one with word durationas the dependant variable, the other forstressed syllable duration. In each of the sixANOVAs, there were three factors: SPEECH ACT(with two levels: assertion, confirmation), FO-CUS (POSITION) (three levels: focus on initial,medial, final word), and finally REPETITION(five repetitions, i.e. five levels).All data were included in these sixANOVAs, irrespective of possible mispronunciations,or the intonation patterns produced (cf.the two strategies for confirmations, Figure 1),in order to obtain a general picture of the effectsof focus and speech act on duration. However,the major issue is whether focus in confirmationsmay be signalled by a falling F0 pattern.Therefore, in a second step, durational patternswere looked at with respect to the classificationof F0 patterns made in Ambrazaitis (in press).ResultsFigure 2 displays mean durations of the threetest words for the six conditions (three focuspositions in two speech acts). The figure onlyshows word durations, since, on an approximatedescriptive level, the tendencies for stressedsyllable durations are similar; the differencesbetween durational patterns based on entirewords and stressed syllables only will, however,be accounted for in the inferential statistics.The figure shows that the final word (“november”)is generally produced relatively longeven when unfocussed, i.e. longer than medialor initial unfocussed words, reflecting thewell-known phenomenon of final lengthening.Moreover, the medial word (“förlänger”) is74
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityms550500450400350300250Wallander förlänger novemberass 1 ass 2 ass 3 con 1 con 2 con 3Figure 2. Mean durations of the three test words forthe six conditions (ass = assertion; con = confirmation;numbers 1, 2, 3 = initial, medial, final focus),pooled across 45 repetitions by 9 speakers.generally produced relatively short. However,influences of position or individual word characteristicsare not treated in this study. The figurealso shows that each word is producedlonger when it is in focus than when it ispre-focal or post-focal (i.e. when another wordis focussed). This focal lengthening effect can,moreover, be observed in both speech acts, althoughthe effect appears to be smaller in confirmationsthan in assertions. For unfocussedwords, there seem to be no duration differencesbetween the two speech acts.These observations are generally supportedby the inferential statistics (cf. Table 1), althoughmost clearly for the medial word: Asignificant effect was found for the factorsSPEECH ACT and FOCUS, as well as for the interactionof the two factors, both for word duration([fœˈlɛŋːəɹ]) and stressed syllable duration([lɛŋː]); no other significant effects were foundfor the medial word. According to post-hoccomparisons (with Bonferroni correction),[fœˈlɛŋːəɹ] and [lɛŋː] were realised with a longerduration in assertions than in confirmations(ppre-focal (p=.003); stressed syllable: focal >post-focal (p=.023); focal > pre-focal (p=.001)).The situation is similar for the final word, themajor difference in the test results being that theinteraction of FOCUS and REPETITION was significantfor word durations (cf. Table 1). Resolvingthis interaction shows that significantdifferences between repetitions only occur forfinal focus, and furthermore, that they seem tobe restricted to confirmations. A possible explanationis that the two different strategies offocussing the final word in confirmations (risevs. fall) are reflected in this interaction (cf.Figure 3 below). As in the case of the medialword, post-hoc comparisons reveal that both[nɔˈvɛmbəɹ] and [vɛmb] were realised with alonger duration in assertions than in confirmations(p
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: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 41 and 42: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 73: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?