DOCSLIB.ORG

Bbm:978-1-4612-1894-4/1.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bbm:978-1-4612-1894-4/1.Pdf Index AD, 480-492 Audiovisual intelligibility, 238 Accentcorrunand,333-346,405-412, Automatic segmentation, 197,262,275, 420-423 308-315 Accent component, 335-336, 403-408, Automatic stylization, 328, 347-349, 414,419-423 360-361 Accent function, 141-144, 150-154 Accent group, 405-409 Accent nucleus, 338 Bag-of-words strategy, 158 Accent pattern, 403,420,444 Baseline declination, 191-192 Accent realization, 370, 375 Bayesian classifier, 157-158, 165,170 Accent type, 189-192,333,338-341, Bigrams, 158-165 411,499-505 Boundary type, 320, 500, 505 Accent-lending rise, 583 Breath group, 123,448 Acoustic cue, 240, 328, 387, 550-553 British English, 92,117-118,191,293, Acoustic model, 42,306-308,314-322 302 Acoustic-phonetic information, 543, 550-553 Ad-restructuring, 481, 482-484, 489'-492 Case-based reasoning, 86 Adduction, 15 Centering theory, 144-148 Allophony, 10, 23 Cepstral distance, 286-290 Ambisyllabicity, 93,100-101, 107-115 Cepstral mismatch, 295 Amplitude envelope, 62-66 Cepstral representation, 63 Analogical reasoning, 86 Chinese, 329-332, 383-386, 397, 569 Angry style, 417-418, 424-428 Cliticization, 125-127 Anomalous sentence, 545-546 Close-copy stylization, 347, 348, Aperiodic component, 5, 41-55 353-362 Aperiodic ratio, 51 Closed-response format, 544-545 Articulatory goal, 228-229 Closure interval, 215-218 Articulatory synthesis, 175-184,201, Co-production model, 96, 100, 111 517,588 Coarticulation, 14,94,100,106-111, Aspiration noise, 32, 41, 214-215, 119,180-184,245,263-267, 566-570 314,355,378,465 Assimilation, 25, 74, 101-102, 107, COCOSDA,513-522 265,467,534 Cognitive effort, 544-552 Association domain, 434, 478-480, 492 Collocations, 160-170,290 Attentional state, 139-153,553 Compensatory effect, 394-398 592 Index Comprehension, 156,521-525, Downstep, 191-196,339,460,468, 541-556 473,487 Concatenation, 3, 24, 57, 101, 125, Duration rule, 96, 197,301,462,469, 187,200,217,261-274,279, 505,556-557 287-292,308,355-357,413, Dutch, 77-79, 86-87, 106,282,434, 459-461,470,530,563-588 463,477,485-487,492,526, Connectionism, 86 580,585-587 Consonantal closure, 216 Dyad, 181,563-571 Consonantal constriction, 211-218 Dynamic tone, 347, 358 Constraint-based phrase structure grammar, 93 Constriction, 4, 41, 124, 131, 183,200, Eagles, 516-526 211-218,229-231 Early peak, 461-463 Content word, 134, 158-162,372, Echo question, 406-413 444-445,452-453,583-585 English, 10-12, 20-27, 38, 77-82, Context dependency, 268 87,92-93, 105-107, 112, Context-free grammar, 123, 125-137 117-119, 125-127, 102-141, Continuity distortion, 279, 285-292 154,183-198,203,211,220, Coordinative structure, 227-232 247,275,282-302,334,343, Corpora, 83, 171, 197,262,279-280, 366,385-386,398,439,446, 314-316,332-333,365,383, 455,462,471,485,492, 435-436,533 522-532,543-545,564-572, Corpus-based method, 74, 313-314 577,587-588 Cross-sectional area, 200, 212-215, 226 EuroCocosda,519,526 Evaluation, 11, 25, 43, 50, 55, 69, 86, 91,97, 106, 125, 168-170, 180-182, 256, 262-264, Date expressions, 133 270-275, 287, 293, 309, Decision list, 82,157-171 315-322,341,365,417-419, Decision tree, 83-85, 157-158, 164, 424-427,463,470-471,506, 170,337 511-543,556,584-586 Declarative, 74, 91-94, 99-105,111, Excitation, 3-6, 13-28,41-66,215 189-191,343,404-414,427, 581-583 Declarative phonology, 74 Focontour, 15-16,24, 135, 194,262, Declination line, 406, 436-438 334-349,354,362,403-411, Definite clause grammar, 92 419-427,444-447,463,566 Deletion phenomena, 114 Fodeclination, 405-406, 414 Demisyllable inventory, 263, 269-273 Foend point, 467 Devocalization, 504 Fomaximum, 460 Diphone, 24-25,183-189,200-203, Fominimum, 460 261-275,280,293-303,378, Fopeak, 203, 462-465, 572 413,514,530-531,539, Foproduction, 403, 408 585-587 Fosynthesis, 23 Discourse model, 139-142, 195 Fo trace, 189,201 Discourse salience, 145, 153 Face model, 236-244 Discourse segment, 10, 142-152,448 Feature sharing, 95 Discourse structure, 139-146, 154, 192, Feature specification, 93-98, 460 397,499 Feature structure, 94, 101-102 Index 593 Final lengthening, 1I8, 394-397, 449, Global focusing, 144, 152-153 462,467 Global probability, 163-164 Finite state automaton, 136 Glottalftow,15-18,27-29,38-42,47 Firthian prosodic analysis, 109-1I0 Glottal opening, 28, 211-219 Foot-timed languages, 116 Glottal orifice, 212-214 Force field, 222-223 Glottal source module, 569 Formant bandwidth, II, 217, 496 Glottal stop, 5-9, 18-20, 25, 268-270, Formant filter, 41, 47-48 352 Formant frequency, 432, 495-497, Glottal waveform, 4-6,30-33,38 504-505 Glottalization, 6-25 Formant parameter, 53, 213-220 Grapheme-phoneme conversion, 529 Formant structure, 98, 105, 387, Grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, 504-505 77-88,521,530-539,572 Formant synthesis, 9, 25, 47, 188, 193, Greedy algorithm, 329, 383-387, 398 202 Formant synthesizer, 10, 38, 55, 91, 184,211-212,220 Hard palate, 227 Formant transition, 13-14,23,102-103, Harmonic modeling, 31 188,200,509 Hat pattern, 461, 474 Formant wave form, 41-43 Head based implementation, 22-23 French, 78-83, 127, 197,202-203, Hidden markov models, 306, 313-317, 239-240,245-248, 256-257, 452 329-332, 348-349, 357-372, High valley, 468, 473 378, 398, 529-532, 563, High-predictability sentence, 546-547 569-571,587-588 Homograph, 82-84,131, 157-171,313, Frequency domain, 28, 43-45, 51-54, 566 408 Hurried style, 417-418, 424-428 Frication noise, 4, 41, 214-215 Fujisaki model, 329,420 Function word, 105, 136, 283, 372, 444, 449-453,460,466,478,585 Idioms, 128, 133, 137 Fundamental frequency contour, 66, Information gain, 79-85 187-194,203,343,367,401, Information status, 140-145, 150-153, 414-427,439 454 Fundamental frequency modification, Information theory, 83, 311 61 Initial demisyllable, 263, 268-270, 413 Instantaneous frequency, 48-49 Instantaneous phase, 48-49 Generative phonology, 105, 11 0, Intermediate phrase, 478 186-187,432-436 Internal clock, 366-372 . German, 12,23-25,261-272,328-334, Interrogative, 136,407-412,581 401,411-414,432,459-462, Intervocalic consonant, 1'00-101, 266, 468-471,485,514,529-533, 274 538-539, 563, 569-571, Intonation group, 134-135 587-588 Intonation model, 181, 192, 342, German intonation, 401, 41I 348-349, 358, 401-403, German language, 531,539 410-411,459,569 Given/new information, 140, 145, Intonation module, 569 150-153 Intonation stylization, 348, 362 594 Index Intonation synthesis, 137, 175, 187, Linguistic features, 119, 129,401, 193,362 406-409 Intonation(al) contour, 73, 132-136, Linguistic information, 123-126, 180, 189-194,271, 355-358, 147,333-337,343,439,552, 401-414,434-436,477-487, 566-568 492,531 Linguistic knowledge, 77, 317, 548-550 Intonational boundary, 484, 490 Linguistic structure, 5, 109-110, Intonational domain, 436, 477-492 118-119,142,328,433-437, Intonational phonology, 477 553,567-568,577 Intonational phrase, 189-192, 433-434, Lip model, 235-257 478,492,569-571 Local focusing, 145-146, 152 Intonational phrasing module, 492, Long-term memory, 548, 553 566-572 Low rise, 469 Intonational prominence, 139, 149-153, Low valley, 468, 473 572 Lpc analysis, 4,33-34,57-58, 188, 194 Intrinsic duration, 118,389-390 Inventory structure, 263-274 Inverse filtering, 4-5, 30,44 MBRtalk,86 Ipex, 569-572 MITalk, 74-77,107,186,203,398,541, Ipox,91-108 557,587 Isochrony, 116,365-366 Mandarin, 329-332, 383-398, 567-571, Italian, 123-137, 305-308, 514, 532, 588 569,588 Markov model, 306, 313-317, 452 Medial peak, 461-467 Memory load, 549-551 Jaw model, 248, 253-257 Memory-based reasoning, 86 Metrical foot, 97, 102-105, III Metrical grid, 478 K-nearest neighbors, 85 Metrical parsing, 113 Klatt model, 23-24 Metrical structure, 92, 100, 105 Klatt synthesizer, 91, 99, 106,216-221, Metrical-prosodic structure, 104, 108 427 Microprosody, 355, 462-465 Mixed inventory, 261-263,268-275 Modified rhyme test, 521, 542-543 LRE,519-523 Modular architecture for TTS, 563-568 Labial constriction, 217 Mora, 331-333, 338-343 Language comprehension, 154,541, Morpa-cum-Morphon, 77, 87 548-554 Morpho-syntactic analyzer, 123, 125, Language generation, 581 132-134 Language processing, 555-557 Morphologic(al) analysis, 74, 87, Laryngeal muscles, 403, 408 123-133,137,569 Late peak, 461-467 Morphological decomposition, 529-537 Lemmatization,566 Morphosyntactic structure, 92, 104,478 Letter-to-sound rule, 531-533, 543, 572 Motor command, 229-232, 369 Lexical ambiguity, 157, 170 Motor control, 221-222, 227-232 Lexical stress, 123-124, 130-131, Multilingual, 138,275,513,520-526, 137,459-460,465-466,472, 563-565,572,587 532-533,538 Multiple pronunciation, 158,316 Linguistic constraint, 404, 411, 545 Muscle fiber, 223-226 Index 595 Muscle tissue, 223-225 Phonological phrase, 433, 478 Muscular activation level, 225-227 Phonological structure, 9, 22-25, 97-99,106-112,117-119,205, 437,478 N-gram tagger, 157, 158, 170 Phonological word, 136,478 NetSpraak, 87 Phrasal stress, 10-12, 23 NetTalk, 86-87 Phrase boundary, 124,338,406-411, NewTIS, 563-572 444-455,460,467-473 Ngrams, 159-160, 167, 172 Phrase command, 333-343, 405-412, Non-interactive model, 27, 29 420-423 Non-linear fitting, 32 Phrase component, 336-342,403-408, Non-terminal peak, 92, 112,433, 460 419-423 Nonnative speaker, 544 Phrase contour, 403-411 Nuclear accent, 11, 190,201 Phrase-level prosodic structure, 92, 105 Pitch accent, 139-142, 152-154, 189-195,203,217,420,436, Open phase, 28-32 478-482,487,492,566,572 Open quotient, 5, 28, 34-36, 215, Pitch contour, 11, 62, 123, 327-329, 566-570 347-362,480,569,583-584 Open/closed vowels, 274 Pitch movement, 347-362, 411, 436, 583 Pitch peak, 408, 459-461, 466-467 Pair comparison
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Pitch Reset in Perception at Discourse Boundaries
    ICPhS XVII Regular Session Hong Kong, 17-21 August 2011 THE ROLE OF PITCH RESET IN PERCEPTION AT DISCOURSE BOUNDARIES Hsin-Yi Lin & Janice Fon Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan University, Taiwan [email protected]; [email protected] ABSTRACT pitch contours tend to be the same or on the same declining track [4, 5]. Such a melodic continuity The present study is targeted to investigate how can be broken by pitch reset for speakers to mark pitch reset as a boundary correlate functions in shift of topic or segmentation in discourse. The indicating structural information in discourse for second aspect is its ability to reflect hierarchical listeners. Two experiments were conducted: one status of a boundary. Many studies have indicated was a boundary detection test, and the other was a that the amount of pitch reset is bigger across boundary hierarchy rating test. Results of both discourse segments than within [6, 8, 11], experiments indicated that listeners indeed rely on suggesting that as boundaries become bigger, the the presence and the strength of pitch reset in amount of pitch reset is larger too, making it a nice decoding hierarchical segmentation in discourse. indicator in reflecting boundary hierarchy. Keywords: pitch reset, boundary correlate, As established in the above studies, speakers discourse boundary, discourse hierarchy, prosody use pitch reset, among other cues, to encode segmentation and hierarchical structure in 1. INTRODUCTION discourse. Therefore, the present study aims itself In human communication, discourse structure on investigating whether listeners also use this cue plays an important role in providing speakers with to decode discourse structure in speech.
    [Show full text]
  • The Phonology of Tone and Intonation
    This page intentionally left blank The Phonology of Tone and Intonation Tone and Intonation are two types of pitch variation, which are used by speak- ers of many languages in order to give shape to utterances. More specifically, tone encodes morphemes, and intonation gives utterances a further discoursal meaning that is independent of the meanings of the words themselves. In this comprehensive survey, Carlos Gussenhoven provides an up-to-date overview of research into tone and intonation, discussing why speakers vary their pitch, what pitch variations mean, and how they are integrated into our grammars. He also explains why intonation in part appears to be universally understood, while at other times it is language-specific and can lead to misunderstandings. The first eight chapters concern general topics: phonetic aspects of pitch mod- ulation; typological notions (stress, accent, tone, and intonation); the distinction between phonetic implementation and phonological representation; the paralin- guistic meaning of pitch variation; the phonology and phonetics of downtrends; developments from the Pierrehumbert–Beckman model; and tone and intona- tion in Optimality Theory. In chapters 9–15, the book’s central arguments are illustrated with comprehensive phonological descriptions – partly in OT – of the tonal and intonational systems of six languages, including Japanese, French, and English. Accompanying sound files can be found on the author’s web site: http://www.let.kun.nl/pti Carlos Gussenhoven is Professor and Chair of General and Experimental Phonology at the University of Nijmegen. He has previously published On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents (1994), English Pronunciation for Student Teachers (co-authored with A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perception and Production of Stress and Intonation by Children with Cochlear Implants
    THE PERCEPTION AND PRODUCTION OF STRESS AND INTONATION BY CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS ROSEMARY O’HALPIN University College London Department of Phonetics & Linguistics A dissertation submitted to the University of London for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010 ii ABSTRACT Users of current cochlear implants have limited access to pitch information and hence to intonation in speech. This seems likely to have an important impact on prosodic perception. This thesis examines the perception and production of the prosody of stress in children with cochlear implants. The interdependence of perceptual cues to stress (pitch, timing and loudness) in English is well documented and each of these is considered in analyses of both perception and production. The subject group comprised 17 implanted (CI) children aged 5;7 to 16;11 and using ACE or SPEAK processing strategies. The aims are to establish (i) the extent to which stress and intonation are conveyed to CI children in synthesised bisyllables (BAba vs. baBA) involving controlled changes in F 0, duration and amplitude (Experiment I), and in natural speech involving compound vs. phrase stress and focus (Experiment II). (ii) when pitch cues are missing or are inaudible to the listeners, do other cues such as loudness or timing contribute to the perception of stress and intonation? (iii) whether CI subjects make appropriate use of F 0, duration and amplitude to convey linguistic focus in speech production (Experiment III). Results of Experiment I showed that seven of the subjects were unable to reliably hear pitch differences of 0.84 octaves. Most of the remaining subjects required a large (approx 0.5 octave) difference to reliably hear a pitch change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Pitch Range in Focus Marking
    The role of pitch range in focus marking Edward Flemming MIT Prosodic marking of focus It appears that a wide variety of prosodic resources are employed to mark material as focused: • Pitch accent placement. – Accenting, post-focal deaccenting (e.g. English) • Phrase boundary placement. – Boundary precedes/follows focus (e.g. Chichewa), post-focal dephrasing (e.g. Japanese, Korean) • Pitch range. – Expansion of pitch range on focus, narrowing of post-focal pitch range (e.g. Mandarin). • Duration. Prosodic marking of focus • Languages typically use more than one of these strategies in marking focus. • But there are apparently basic divisions between languages: – Pitch accent is central to focus marking in English, but many languages lack intonational pitch accents (e.g. Mandarin, Japanese). – Phrasing is reported to play a central role in focus marking in Japanese and Korean, but English does not systematically use phrasing for this purpose. Prosodic marking of focus Proposal: • Pitch range is fundamental to focus-marking in typologically diverse languages including Mandarin, Japanese and English. – Expanded pitch range on focus, compressed pitch range after focus. • Post-focal pitch range compression motivates/creates the appearance of post-focal deaccenting and dephrasing. • These pitch range manipulations serve to increase the relative prominence of Focus compared to non-focal material. Focus • Focus - “the informative part of an utterance”. • ‘the information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker not to be shared by him and the hearer’ (Jackendoff 1972). • Diagnosed by: – Question-Answer congruence • (Who saw Bill?) [Mary]F saw Bill. – Correction • (Ted saw Bill.) No, [Mary]F saw Bill. – Association with a focus-sensitive particle • Only [Mary]F saw Bill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Acquisition of Mandarin Prosody by American Learners of Chinese As a Foreign Language
    The Acquisition of Mandarin Prosody by American Learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chunsheng Yang, B.A., M.A. Graduate Program in East Asian Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Marjorie K.M. Chan, Advisor Dr. Mary E. Beckman Dr. Cynthia Clopper Dr. Mineharu Nakayama Copyright by Chunsheng Yang 2011 ABSTRACT In the acquisition of second language (L2) or foreign language (FL) pronunciation, learners not only learn how to pronounce consonants and vowels (tones as well, in the case of tone languages, such as Mandarin Chinese), they also learn how to produce the vowel reduction, vowel-consonant co-articulation, and prosody. Central to this dissertation is prosody, which refers to the way that an utterance is broken up into smaller units, and the acoustic patterns of each unit at different levels, in terms of fundamental frequency (F0), duration and amplitude. In L2 pronunciation, prosody is as important as -- if not more important than -- consonants and vowels. This dissertation examines the acquisition of Mandarin prosody by American learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL). Specifically, it examines four aspects of Mandarin prosody: (1) prosodic phrasing (i.e., breaking up of utterances into smaller units); (2) surface F0 and duration patterns of prosodic phrasing in a group of sentence productions elicited from L1 and L2 speakers of Mandarin Chinese; (3) patterns of tones errors in L2 Mandarin productions; and (4) the relationship between tone errors and prosodic phrasing in L2 Mandarin.
    [Show full text]
  • Northwestern University the Acquisition of English Focus
    Northwestern University The Acquisition of English Focus Marking by Non-Native Speakers A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Field of Linguistics By Rachel Elizabeth Baker EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 2010 1 © Copyright by Rachel Elizabeth Baker 2010 All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT The Acquisition of English Focus Marking by Non-Native Speakers Rachel Elizabeth Baker Second language learners experience difficulties mastering the various linguistic systems of their new language (L2), which may differ from the systems of their native language (L1). Correctly producing and understanding focus marking in a new language may be particularly challenging because it can require knowledge of several of these systems, including phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. This study examines Mandarin and Korean speakers’ acquisition of English prosodic focus marking. In this study, 20 native English speakers, 20 native Mandarin speakers, and 20 native Korean speakers participated in four experiments: 1) a production experiment, in which they were recorded reading the answers to questions, 2) a perception experiment, in which they were asked to determine which word in a recording was the last prominent word, 3) an understanding experiment, in which they were asked whether the answers in recorded question-answer pairs had context-appropriate prosody, and 4) a pitch accent placement experiment, in which they were asked which word they would make prominent in a particular context. Finally, a new group of native English speakers listened to utterances produced in the production experiment, and determined whether the prosody of each utterance was appropriate for its context.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Intonation and Prosody in Bininj Gun-Wok: an Autosegmental-Metrical Analysis
    Aspects of intonation and prosody in Bininj Gun-wok: an autosegmental-metrical analysis Judith Bishop Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics The University of Melbourne August 2002 Abstract This dissertation presents a qualitative and quantitative analysis of aspects of the intonation and prosody of an Australian polysynthetic language, Bininj Gun-wok (BGW; also referred to as Mayali). The theoretical framework is autosegmental-metrical phonology, as adapted to the description of intonation by Pierrehumbert (1980), Bruce (1977) and others. The analysis focuses principally on two dialects, Kuninjku and Manyallaluk Mayali (MM), with some reference to the Kunwinjku, Kune, Gun-Djeihmi and Kundedjnjenghmi dialects. One of the principal motivations for analysing intonation and prosody in BGW is to provide input to the developing field of intonational-prosodic typology, from the perspective of a language which is typologically interesting on at least two counts: its position in the Australian language family, and its polysynthetic character. This dissertation provides numerous auditory as well as visual records relating to the contents of the analysis. The provision of auditory records is an innovation intended to improve the accountability of the phonetic analysis and to facilitate typological comparison. The content of the chapters is as follows. In Chapter 1, I review the literature on intonation and prosody in polysynthetic languages (§1.2) and in Australian languages (§1.3), and highlight findings relating to possible parameters in intonational-prosodic typology (§1.3). I outline the grammatical and segmental phonological structures of BGW (§1.4) and describe the autosegmental-metrical theoretical framework (§1.5).
    [Show full text]
  • The Phonetics and Phonology of Intonational Phrasing in Romance*
    THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY OF INTONATIONAL PHRASING IN ROMANCE* SÓNIA FROTA*, MARIAPAOLA D’IMPERIO+, GORKA ELORDIETA!, PILAR PRIETO∧ and MARINA VIGÁRIO∨ *Universidade de Lisboa, +Laboratoire Parole et Language – CNRS, !Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, ∧ICREA & Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, ∨Universidade do Minho This paper examines the phonetics and phonology of intonational boundaries in five Romance languages/varieties. A typology of the boundary cues used is given, as well as their relative frequency. The phonology of the tonal boundary gesture is described by means of the inventory of nuclear accents used plus their possible combinations with the two dominant end contours: continuation rise (H) and sustained pitch (!H). A detailed inspection of the phonetics of the H boundary tone, which is the main cue observed across languages, is provided: namely, the impact on H scaling of nuclear accent choice, phrase length and first peak height is assessed. Overall, it is shown that the variation found consistently groups languages in two sets: the Catalan-Spanish group and the Italian- European Portuguese group. 1. Introduction Intonational phrasing in Romance has been the topic of recent research conducted within the Romance languages intonational phrasing project (Elordieta et al. 2003; Elordieta, Frota & Vigário 2005; D’Imperio et al. 2005; Prieto 2005, 2007; Frota & Vigário forthcoming). The main goals of this project are to establish the patterns of placement of intonational boundaries, to determine the influence of syntactic and prosodic factors on boundary placement, and to describe the phonetics and phonology of intonational boundaries. To attain these goals intonational phrasing has been studied on a corpus of laboratory speech which was designed to be comparable across languages – the Romance Languages Database (RLD).
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Review of Hindi Prosody
    A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HINDI PROSODY Somnath Roy Centre for Linguistics Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi-110067 Abstract: Prosody describes both form and function of a sentence using the suprasegmental features of speech. Prosody phenomena are explored in the domain of higher phonological constituents such as word, phonological phrase and intonational phrase. The study of prosody at the word level is called word prosody and above word level is called sentence prosody. Word Prosody describes stress pattern by comparing the prosodic features of its constituent syllables. Sentence Prosody involves the study on phrasing pattern and intonatonal pattern of a language. The aim of this study is to summarize the existing works on Hindi prosody carried out in different domain of language and speech processing. The review is presented in a systematic fashion so that it could be a useful resource for one who wants to build on the existing works. INTRODUCTION Prosody is an important aspect of spoken language. A slight modulation in prosody may lead to change in the meaning of an utterance. Prosody is studied at various levels in different branches of science and engineering. In linguistics, the leading branches which contribute to the knowledge of prosody are Phonetics, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics and Psycholinguistics. In Cognitive Science, neurophysiological correlates such as the spectro-temporal feature of cortical oscillation in theta, beta, gamma, and delta band are examined as a cue of prosody. Finally, engineers use these features for developing an automatic module for categorization of prosodic events. Modern standard Hindi is an Indo-Aryan language spoken mainly in northern part of India, and also an official language of Fiji.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosodic Focus Within and Across Languages
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2015 Prosodic Focus Within and Across Languages Yong-cheol Lee University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Discourse and Text Linguistics Commons, and the Phonetics and Phonology Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Yong-cheol, "Prosodic Focus Within and Across Languages" (2015). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1534. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1534 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1534 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Prosodic Focus Within and Across Languages Abstract The fact that "purely" prosodic marking of focus may be weaker in some languages than in others, and that it varies in certain circumstances even within a single language, has not been commonly recognized. Therefore, this dissertation investigated whether and how purely prosodic marking of focus varies within and across languages. We conducted production and perception experiments using a paradigm of 10-digit phone-number strings in which the same material and discourse contexts were used in different languages. The results demonstrated that prosodic marking of focus varied across languages. Speakers of American English, Mandarin Chinese, and Standard French clearly modulated duration, pitch, and intensity to indicate the position of corrective focus. Listeners of these languages recognized the focus position with high accuracy. Conversely, speakers of Seoul Korean, South Kyungsang Korean, Tokyo Japanese, and Suzhou Wu produced a weak and ambiguous modulation by focus, resulting in a poor identification performance. This dissertation also revealed that prosodic marking of focus varied even within a single language.
    [Show full text]
  • On Prosody and Reported Speech TOWARDS an EXPLORATORY METHODOLOGY Leonardo Contreras Roa LLACAN UMR 8135 December 12, 2020 a Bit of Theory
    On prosody and reported speech TOWARDS AN EXPLORATORY METHODOLOGY Leonardo Contreras Roa LLACAN UMR 8135 December 12, 2020 A bit of theory Speakers “do not always explicitly introduce different ‘voices’ with reporting verbs or quotative constructions. Instead, figures are often ‘brought on stage’ for the first time merely by being animated, without, for instance, a prefatory he said or she said. […] The figure’s ‘voice’ must be reconstructibly different from the current speaker’s own ‘voice’”. (Couper-Kuhlen, 1997, p. 13) → Prosodic and paralinguistic features A bit of theory “Prosodic and paralinguistic effects are in fact deictic to a certain extent: they involve speaking within a given range of relative loudness, pitch and tempo […] and with a given voice quality.” (p. 14) A bit of theory • Prosodically, reported speech can be more or less integrated into the quotative frame. This helps establishing a distance from the narrator’s own voice. • The degree of prosodic integration depends on several features (Genetti, 2011): • Positioning of prosodic and syntactic boundaries • Patterns of terminal contours • Changes in: Separate • Loudness intonational unit • Pitch range (IU) • Register • Timing Objectives • Determining if reported speech is prosodically detached from the quotative frame in storytelling in [LANGUAGE ]. If it is, • Identifying in which cases. • Describing how (acoustically/phonetically). Acoustic correlates of perceptive variables Perceptive Acoustic 1. Pitch variations → F0 (Hz, st) 2. Pause duration → Time (s) 3. Speech rate → Syllables or phonemes/s (including pauses) 4. Loudness variations → Intensity (dB) 1. Pitch variations Reported (direct) speech in English and other European languages: • Higher pitch range than indirect speech (ΔF0, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intonation of Lebanese and Egyptian Arabic
    This is a repository copy of The intonation of Lebanese and Egyptian Arabic. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81052/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Chahal, Dana and Hellmuth, Sam orcid.org/0000-0002-0062-904X (2014) The intonation of Lebanese and Egyptian Arabic. In: Jun, Sun Ah, (ed.) Prosodic Typology Volume II. Oxford University Press , GBR , pp. 365-404. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567300.003.0013 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 The intonation of Lebanese and Egyptian Arabic Dana Chahal & Sam Hellmuth X.1 Introduction In this chapter, we describe aspects of the prosody of two Arabic dialects which have been studied within the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) framework, namely (Tripoli) Lebanese Arabic and (Cairene) Egyptian Arabic. We do not claim to provide a model for Arabic intonation in general, nor a model of Arabic dialectal intonational variation, since research in this field is still largely unexplored1.
    [Show full text]