Speech Rhythm the Language- Specific Integration of Pitch and Duration
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Speech Rhythm The language- specific integration of pitch and duration Ruth E. Cumming Downing College This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy i This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. 79,130 words Summary Experimental phonetic research on speech rhythm seems to have reached an impasse. Recently, this research field has tended to investigate produced (rather than perceived) rhythm, focussing on timing, i.e. duration as an acoustic cue, and has not considered that rhythm perception might be influenced by native language. Yet evidence from other areas of phonetics, and other disciplines, suggests that an investigation of rhythm is needed which (i) focuses on listeners’ perception, (ii) acknowledges the role of several acoustic cues, and (iii) explores whether the relative significance of these cues differs between languages. This thesis, the originality of which derives from its adoption of these three perspectives combined, indicates new directions for progress. A series of perceptual experiments investigated the interaction of duration and f0 as perceptual cues to prosody in languages with different prosodic structures – Swiss German, Swiss French, and French (i.e. from France). The first experiment demonstrated that a dynamic f0 increases perceived syllable duration in contextually isolated pairs of monosyllables, for all three language groups. The second experiment found that dynamic f0 and increased duration interact as cues to rhythmic groups in series of monosyllabic digits and letters; the two cues were significantly more effective than one when heard simultaneously, but significantly less effective than one when heard in conflicting positions around the rhythmic-group boundary location, and native language influenced whether f0 or duration was the more effective cue. These two experiments laid the basis for the third, which directly addressed rhythm. Listeners were asked to judge the rhythmicality of sentences with systematic duration and f0 manipulations; the results provide evidence that duration and f0 are interdependent cues in rhythm perception, and that the weighting of each cue varies in different languages. A fourth experiment applied the perceptual results to production data, to develop a rhythm metric which captures the multi-dimensional and language-specific nature of perceived rhythm in speech production. These findings have the important implication that if future phonetic research on rhythm follows these new perspectives, it may circumvent the impasse and advance our knowledge and model of speech rhythm. ii Table of contents Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………... 1 1.1 What is rhythm?…………………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 Review of speech-rhythm research………………………………………………... 2 1.2.1 Pre-1900………………………………………………………………... 3 1.2.2 1900-1939………………………………………………………………. 3 1.2.2.1 Psychology………………………………………………………... 3 1.2.2.2 Phonetics………………………………………………………….. 4 1.2.2.3 Summary (1900-1939)……………………………………………... 4 1.2.3 1940s-1970s…………………………………………………………….. 5 1.2.3.1 Rhythm typology…………………………………………………... 5 1.2.3.2 Isochrony investigation……………………………………………. 6 1.2.3.3 Non-isochrony-based research…………………………………….. 8 1.2.3.4 Summary (1940s-1970s)…………………………………………… 8 1.2.4 1980s-1990s…………………………………………………………….. 9 1.2.4.1 Stress-timing/syllable-timing rejected……………………………… 9 1.2.4.2 Alternative rhythm typologies: categorical or continuous………….. 9 1.2.4.3 Perceptual isochrony and P-centres………………………………... 11 1.2.4.4 Phonological models………………………………………………. 12 1.2.4.5 Infant studies……………………………………………………… 13 1.2.4.6 Summary (1980s-1990s)…………………………………………… 14 1.2.5 Twenty-first century……………………………………………………. 14 1.2.5.1 Widespread use of rhythm metrics………………………………… 14 1.2.5.2 Other phonetic research………………………………………….... 18 1.2.5.3 Other disciplines…………………………………………………... 19 1.2.5.4 Summary (twenty-first century)……………………………………. 21 1.2.6 Current state of experimental phonetic research on rhythm…………….. 21 1.2.6.1 Empirical investigation of perception……………………………… 23 1.2.6.2 Measurement of acoustic cues other than duration……………….... 23 1.2.6.3 Investigation of native-language influence…………………………. 24 1.3 Aims and research questions……………………………………………………… 27 1.4 Outline of thesis…………………………………………………………………... 28 Chapter 2 The languages investigated: Swiss German; Swiss French; French……. 29 2.1 Why Switzerland?…………………………………………………………………. 29 2.2 Social context……………………………………………………………………... 30 2.2.1 Swiss German…………………………………………………………... 31 2.2.2 (Swiss) French………………………………………………………….. 32 2.2.3 Summary (social context)……………………………………………….. 34 2.3 Prosody…………………………………………………………………………… 34 2.3.1 Swiss German…………………………………………………………... 35 2.3.1.1 Rhythm……………………………………………………………. 35 2.3.1.2 Prominence………………………………………………………... 36 2.3.1.2.1 Phonology………………………………………………….. 36 iii 2.3.1.2.2 Phonetic correlates………………………………………… 36 2.3.1.3 Intonation…………………………………………………………. 37 2.3.1.4 Cross-dialectal variation…………………………………………… 39 2.3.2 French………………………………………………………………….. 40 2.3.2.1 Rhythm……………………………………………………………. 40 2.3.2.2 Prominence………………………………………………………... 41 2.3.2.2.1 Phonology…………………………………………………. 41 2.3.2.2.2 Phonetic correlates………………………………………… 42 2.3.2.2.3 Controversy over French prominence……………………... 43 2.3.2.3 Intonation…………………………………………………………. 45 2.3.2.4 Swiss French………………………………………………………. 47 2.3.3 Summary (prosody)……………………………………………………... 49 Chapter 3 The influence of dynamic f0 on the perception of duration……………... 51 3.1 Summary………………………………………………………………………….. 51 3.2 Previous research…………………………………………………………………. 51 3.3 Extending previous research……………………………………………………… 52 3.3.1 Listeners’ native language……………………………………………….. 52 3.3.2 Experiment design (previous studies)…………………………………... 53 3.3.2.1 Listeners’ task……………………………………………………... 53 3.3.2.2 Linguistic versus non-linguistic stimuli…………………………….. 54 3.3.2.3 Dynamic f0 in stimuli: direction, excursion, timing……………….... 55 3.3.2.4 Duration of stimuli……………………………………………….... 56 3.4 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………... 56 3.4.1 Swiss German…………………………………………………………... 56 3.4.2 (Swiss) French………………………………………………………….. 57 3.4.3 Alternatives……………………………………………………………... 57 3.5 Method…………………………………………………………………………… 57 3.5.1 Subjects………………………………………………………………… 58 3.5.2 Stimuli………………………………………………………………….. 58 3.5.3 Trials…………………………………………………………………… 60 3.5.4 Procedure………………………………………………………………. 61 3.5.5 Analysis………………………………………………………………… 62 3.6 Results……………………………………………………………………………. 62 3.6.1 Level stimuli: fillers and controls………………………………………... 62 3.6.2 Dynamic stimuli……………………………………………………….... 64 3.6.3 Further analysis…………………………………………………………. 65 3.6.3.1 Direction of f0 movement………………………………………… 67 3.6.3.2 Timing of f0 movement…………………………………………… 69 3.6.3.3 Duration of stimuli……………………………………………….... 71 3.6.3.4 Order of stimuli…………………………………………………… 72 3.6.3.5 f0 height………………………………………………………….... 74 3.7 Discussion……………………………………………………………………….... 76 3.7.1 Individual languages…………………………………………………….. 77 3.7.2 Human language………………………………………………………... 78 iv 3.7.3 Nature of stimuli………………………………………………………... 79 3.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………... 81 Chapter 4 The interdependence of f0 and duration in rhythmic-group perception 83 4.1 Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 83 4.2 Prosodic groups…………………………………………………………………... 83 4.3 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………... 85 4.4 Subjects…………………………………………………………………………… 86 4.5 Method…………………………………………………………………………… 89 4.5.1 Recordings…………………………………………………………….... 89 4.5.2 Stimulus preparation……………………………………………………. 92 4.5.2.1 Token selection……………………………………………………. 93 4.5.2.2 ‘Base’ syllables……………………………………………………... 94 4.5.2.3 Duration/f0 manipulations……………………………………….... 94 4.5.2.4 Concatenation of syllables…………………………………………. 96 4.5.3 Procedure………………………………………………………………. 97 4.5.4 Analysis………………………………………………………………… 98 4.6 Results……………………………………………………………………………. 100 4.6.1 Control stimuli………………………………………………………….. 100 4.6.2 Initial analysis: all variables……………………………………………... 102 4.6.3 Digit/letter pattern……………………………………………………... 104 4.6.4 Main analysis: cue(s); native language(s)………………………………… 106 4.6.4.1 Monolinguals……………………………………………………… 107 4.6.4.2 Bilinguals…………………………………………………………... 108 4.6.4.3 ‘Conflicting’ stimuli………………………………………………... 110 4.7 Discussion………………………………………………………………………... 111 4.7.1 Interdependence of duration and f0…………………………………….. 111 4.7.2 Native language………………………………………………………… 113 4.7.3 Other findings………………………………………………………….. 114 4.8 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………... 115 Chapter 5 The interdependence of f0 and duration as cues to the perceived rhythmicality of sentences………………………………………………… 117 5.1 Summary………………………………………………………………………….. 117 5.2 Previous research…………………………………………………………………. 117 5.2.1 How to test rhythm perception…………………………………………. 117 5.2.2 Evidence for interdependence of duration and f0………………………. 120 5.3 Pilot experiment…………………………………………………………………... 121 5.4 Main experiment: stimulus design………………………………………………… 122 5.4.1 Structure of sentences…………………………………………………... 122 5.4.2 Duration and f0 values chosen for manipulations………………………. 125 5.4.2.1 AXB discrimination pre-test……………………………………….. 126 5.4.3 Preparation of stimuli…………………………………………………... 127 5.5 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………... 130 5.6 Main experiment (A): preliminary test…………………………………………….. 133 v 5.6.1 Procedure………………………………………………………………. 133 5.6.2 Preliminary test: results…………………………………………………. 134 5.7 Main experiment