Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityOn utterance-final intonation in tonal and non-tonal dialectsof KammuDavid House 1 , Anastasia Karlsson 2 , Jan-Olof Svantesson 2 , Damrong Tayanin 21 Dept of Speech, Music and Hearing, CSC, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden2 Dept of Linguistics and Phonetics, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, SwedenAbstractIn this study we investigate utterance-final intonationin two dialects of Kammu, one tonaland one non-tonal. While the general patternsof utterance-final intonation are similar betweenthe dialects, we do find clear evidencethat the lexical tones of the tonal dialect restrictthe pitch range and the realization of focus.Speaker engagement can have a strong effecton the utterance-final accent in both dialects.IntroductionKammu, a Mon-Khmer language spoken primarilyin northern Laos by approximately600,000 speakers, but also in Thailand, Vietnamand China, is a language that has developedlexical tones rather recently, from thepoint of view of language history. Tones arosein connection with loss of the contrast betweenvoiced and voiceless initial consonants in anumber of dialects (Svantesson and House,2006). One of the main dialects of this languageis a tone language with high or low toneon each syllable, while the other main dialectlacks lexical tones. The dialects differ onlymarginally in other respects. This makes thedifferent Kammu dialects well-suited for studyingthe influence of lexical tones on the intonationsystem.In previous work using material gatheredfrom spontaneous storytelling in Kammu, theutterance-final accent stands out as being especiallyrich in information showing two types offocal realizations depending on the expressiveload of the accent and the speaker’s own engagement(Karlsson et al., 2007). In anotherstudy of the non-tonal Kammu dialect, it wasgenerally found that in scripted speech, thehighest F0 values were located on the utterance-finalword (Karlsson et al., 2008). In thispaper, we examine the influence of tone, focusand to a certain extent speaker engagement onthe utterance-final accent by using the samescripted speech material recorded by speakersof a non-tonal dialect and by speakers of a tonaldialect of Kammu.78Data collection and methodRecordings of both scripted and spontaneousspeech spoken by tonal and non-tonal speakersof Kammu were carried out in November, 2007in northern Laos and in February, 2008 innorthern Thailand. 24 speakers were recordedranging in age from 14 to 72 years.The scripted speech material was comprisedof 47 read sentences. The sentences were composedin order to control for lexical tone, toelicit focus in different positions and to elicitphrasing and phrase boundaries. Kammuspeakers are bilingual with Lao or Thai beingtheir second language. Since Kammu lacks awritten script, informants were asked to translatethe material from Lao or Thai to Kammu.This resulted in some instances of slightly differentbut still compatible versions of the targetsentences. The resulting utterances werechecked and transcribed by one of the authors,Damrong Tayanin, who is a native speaker ofKammu. The speakers were requested to readeach target sentence three times.For the present investigation six of the 47read sentences were chosen for analysis. Thesentences are transcribed below using the transcriptionconvention for the tonal dialect.1) nàa wɛ̀ɛt hmràŋ(she bought a horse)2) nàa wɛ̀ɛt hmràŋ yɨ̀m(she bought a red horse)3) tɛ́ɛk pháan tráak(Tɛɛk killed a buffalo)4) tɛ́ɛk pháan tráak yíaŋ(Tɛɛk killed a black buffalo)5) Ò àh tráak, àh sɨáŋ, àh hyíar(I have a buffalo, a pig and a chicken)6) Ò àh hmràŋ, àh mɛ̀ɛw, àh prùul(I have a horse, a cat and a badger)
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversitySentences 1 and 2 contain only words with a St = 12[ln(Hz/100)/ln2] (1)low lexical tone while sentences 3 and 4 containonly words with a high lexical tone. Sentences2 and 4 differ from 1 and 3 only in thatthey end with an additional color adjective followingwhich results in a reference value of St=0 semitonesat 100 Hz, St=12 at 200 Hz and St=-12 at50 Hz. Normalization is performed by subtract-the noun (red and black respectively).Sentences 2 and 4 were designed to elicit focalaccent on the final syllable. Sentences 5 and 6ing each subject’s average F0 in St (measuredacross the three utterances of each target sentence)from the individual St values.convey a listing of three nouns (animals). Theon thenouns all have high lexical tone in sentence 5 Resultsand low lexical tone in sentence 6.Of all the speakers recorded, one non-tonal Plots for sentences 1-4 showing the F0 measurementpoints in normalized semitones arespeaker and four tonal speakers were excludedfrom this study as they had problems reading presented in Figure 1 for the non-tonal dialectand translating from the Lao/Thai script. All and in Figure 2 for the tonal dialect. Alignmentthe other speakers were able to fluently translatethe Lao/Thai script into Kammu and were exhibit a pronounced rise-fall excursionis from the end of the sentences. Both dialectsincluded in the analysis. Thus there were 9 nontonalspeakers (2 women and 7 men) and 10 clear difference in F0 range between the twoutterance-final syllable. There is, however, atonal speakers (6 women and 4 men) included dialects. The non-tonal dialect exhibits a muchin this study. The speakers ranged in ages from wider range of the final excursion (6-7 St) than14 to 72.does the tonal dialect (3-4 St).The subjects were recorded with a portable If we are to find evidence of the influenceEdirol R-09 digital recorder and a lapel microphone.The utterances were digitized at 48 KHz differences between sentence pairs 1 and 2 onof focus on the F0 excursions, we would expectsampling rate and 16-bit amplitude resolution the one hand and 3 and 4 on the other handand stored in .wav file format. Most of the where the final words in 2 and 4 receive focalspeakers were recorded in quiet hotel rooms. accent. In the non-tonal dialect (Figure 1) weOne speaker was recorded in his home and one find clear evidence of this difference. In the tonaldialect there is some evidence of the effectin his native village.Using the WaveSurfer speech analysis program(Sjölander and Beskow, 2000) the waveblyreduced and not statistically significant (seeof focal accent but the difference is consideraform,spectrogram and fundamental frequency Table 1).contour of each utterance was displayed. Table 1. Normalized maximum F0 means for theMaximum and minimum F0 values were then sentence pairs. 1 st and 2 nd refers to the F0 max forst ndannotated manually for successive syllables for the 1 and 2 sentence in the pair. Diff is the differenceeach utterance. For sentences 1-4, there wasgenerally very little F0 movement in the syllablesof the normalized F0 values for the pair, andthe ANOVA column shows the results of a singleleading up to the penult (pre-final syllable).Therefore, measurements were restricted ance is shown in parenthesis.factor ANOVA. Measurement position in the utter-to maximum F0 values on the pre-penultimatesyllables, while both maximum and minimum Sentence pairvalues were measured on the penultimate and Non-tonal1 st 2 nd diff ANOVAultimate syllables. For sentences 5 and 6, the 1-2 (final) 1.73 3.13 -1.40 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:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 41 and 42: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 77: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 129 and 130:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
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?