Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityFigure 1: Normalized F0 measurement points forsentences 1-4 from nine speakers of the non-tonaldialect. Lexical tone in parenthesis refers to the to-nal dialect.Figure 3: Normalized F0 measurement points forsentences 5-6 from nine speakers of the non-tonaldialect. Lexical tone in parenthesis refers to the to-nal dialect.Figure 2: Normalized F0 measurement points forsentences 1-4 from ten speakers of the tonal dialect.Lexical tone is indicated in parenthesis.Plots for sentences 5 and 6 are presented inFigure 3 for the non-tonal dialect and in Figure4 for the tonal dialect. Alignment is from theend of the sentences. Both dialects show a similarintonation pattern exhibiting rise-fall excursionson each of the three nouns comprising thelisting of the three animals in each sentence. Asis the case for sentences 1-4, there is also here aclear difference in F0 range between the twodialects. The non-tonal dialect exhibits a muchwider overall range (6-9 St) than does the tonaldialect (3-4 St).The nouns in sentence 5 have high tone inthe tonal dialect, while those in sentence 6 haveFigure 4: Normalized F0 measurement points forsentences 5-6 from ten speakers of the tonal dialect.Lexical tone is indicated in parenthesis.low tone. A comparison of the F0 maximum ofthe nouns in the three positions for the nontonaldialect (Figure 3) shows that the noun inthe first and third position has a higher F0 insentence 6 than in sentence 5 but in the secondposition the noun has a higher F0 in sentence 5than in sentence 6. A comparison of the F0maximum of the nouns in the three positionsfor the tonal dialect (Figure 4) shows that theF0 maximum for the high tone (sentence 5) ishigher than the low tone (sentence 6) in the firstand second position but not in the third position.80
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityDiscussionIn general terms, the results presented hereshow considerable similarities in the basic intonationpatterns of the utterance-final accent inthe two dialects. There is a pronounced finalrise-fall excursion which marks the end of theutterance. The presence of lexical tone in thetonal dialect does, however, restrict the intonationin certain specific ways. The most apparentoverall difference is found in the restrictedrange of the tonal dialect. This is an interesting,but perhaps not such an unexpected difference.As the tonal differences have lexical meaningfor the speakers of the tonal dialect, it may beimportant for speakers to maintain control overthe absolute pitch of the syllable which can resultin the general reduction of pitch range.The lexical tones and the reduction of pitchrange seem to have implications for the realizationof focal accent. In the non-tonal dialect,the final color adjectives of sentences 2 and 4showed a much higher F0 maximum than didthe final nouns of sentences 1 and 3. Here thespeakers are free to use rather dramatic F0 excursionsto mark focus. The tonal speakers, onthe other hand, seem to be restricted from doingthis. It is only the final color adjective of sentence4 which is given a markedly higher F0maximum than the counterpart noun in sentence3. Since the adjective of sentence 4 hashigh lexical tone, this fact seems to allow thespeakers to additionally raise the maximum F0.As the adjective of sentence 2 has low lexicaltone, the speakers are not free to raise this F0maximum. Here we see evidence of interplaybetween lexical tone and intonation.In the listing of animals in sentences 5 and6, there is a large difference in the F0 maximumof the final word in the non-tonal dialect.The word “badger” in sentence 6 is spoken witha much higher F0 maximum than the word“chicken” in sentence 5. This can be explainedby the fact that the word “badger” is semanticallymarked compared to the other commonfarm animals in the list. It is quite natural inKammu farming culture to have a buffalo, apig, a chicken, a horse and a cat, but not abadger! Some of the speakers even asked toconfirm what the word was, and therefore it isnot surprising if the word often elicited additionalspeaker engagement. This extra engagementalso shows up in the tonal speakers’ versionsof “badger” raising the low lexical tone toa higher F0 maximum than the word “chicken”in sentence 5 which has high lexical tone. Here,speaker engagement is seen to override the to-81nal restriction, although the overall pitch rangeis still restricted compared to the non-tonal dia-betweenlect. Thus we see an interactionspeaker engagement, tone and intonation.ConclusionsIn this study we see that the general patterns ofintonation for these sentences are similar in thetwo dialects. However, there is clear evidenceof the lexical tones of the tonal dialect restrictingthe pitch range and the realization of focus,especially when the lexical tone is low. Speakerengagement can have a strong effect on the ut-accent, and can even neutralizeterance-finalpitch differences of high and low lexical tone incertain cases.AcknowledgementsThe work reported in this paper has been car-from tone” (SIFT), supported by theried out within the research project, “SeparatingintonationBank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation withadditional funding from Crafoordska stiftelsen.ReferencesFant, G. and Kruckenberg, A. (2004) Analysisand synthesis of Swedish prosody with outlookson production and perception. In FantG., Fujisaki H., Cao J. and Xu Y (eds.)From traditional phonology to modernspeech processing, 73-95. Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press, Beijing.Karlsson A., House D., Svantesson J-O. andTayanin D. (2007) Prosodic phrasing in tonaland ton-tonal dialects of Kammu. Proceedingsof the 16th International Congressof Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany,1309-1312.Karlsson A., House D. and Tayanin, D. (2008)Recognizing phrase and utterance as prosodicunits in non-tonal dialects of Kammu.In Proceedings, FONETIK 2008, 89-92,Department of Linguistics, University ofGothenburg.Sjölander K. and Beskow J. (2000) WaveSurfer- an open source speech tool. In Proceedingsof ICSLP 2000, 6th Intl Conf on SpokenLanguage Processing, 464-467, Beijing.Svantesson J-O. and House D. (2006) Toneproduction, tone perception and Kammutonogenesis. Phonology 23, 309-333.
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: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 41 and 42: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 79: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 131 and 132:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
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?