Pitch range variation in english tonal contrasts: Continuous or categorical?

Phonetica

Volumn 67, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 63-81

  Dilley, Laura C ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; IMITATION; MALE; PHONETICS; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH;

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; MALE; PHONETICS; PITCH PERCEPTION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956758245     PISSN: 00318388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000319379     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Arvaniti, A.; Ladd, D.R.; Mennen, I.: Stability of tonal alignment: the case of Greek prenuclear accents. J. Phonet. 26: 3-25 (1998).
2. Arvaniti, A.; Ladd, D.R.; Mennen, I.: Tonal association and tonal alignment: Evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Lang. Speech 49: 421-450 (2006).
3. Bartels, C.; Kingston, J.: Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus; in Bosch, van der Sandt, Focus and natural language processing. Proc. J. Semantics Conf. on Focus. IBM Working Papers, TR-80.94-006 (1994).
4. Beckman, M.; Ayers Elam, G.: Guidelines for ToBI labeling, version 3 (Ohio State University, 1997).
5. Beckman, M.; Pierrehumbert, J.: Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonol. Yb. 3: 255-309 (1986).
6. Boersma, P.; Weenink, D.: Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Software and manual available online at http://www.praat.org 2002.
7. Borras-Comes, J.; Vanrell, M.d.M.; Prieto, P.: The role of pitch range in establishing intonational contrasts in Catalan. Proc. Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago 2010.
8. Braun, B.; Kochanski, G.; Grabe, E.; Rosner, B.: Evidence for attractors in English intonation. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 119: 4006-4015 (2006).
9. Breen, M.; Dilley, L.C.; Gibson, E.; Bolivar, M.: Advances in prosodic annotation: a test of inter-coder reliability for the RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) and ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) transcription systems. 19th Annu. CUNY Conf. on Human Sentence Processing, New York 2006.
10. Bruce, G.: Swedish word accents in sentence perspective (Gleerups, Lund 1977).
11. Burnham, D.; Kitamura, C.: What's new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science 296: 1435 (2002).
12. Calhoun, S.: Phonetic dimensions of intonational categories: the case of L+H* and H*. Proc. Speech Prosody 2004, Nara 2004.
13. Calhoun, S.: Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: a probabilistic relationship (Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh, 2006).
14. Clopper, C.; Pisoni, D.B.: Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization of American English regional dialects. J. Phonet. 32: 111-140 (2004).
15. Cooper, W.E.; Eady, S.J.; Mueller, P.R.: Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 77: 2142-2156 (1985).
16. Crespo-Sendra, V.; Vanrell, M.d.M.; Prieto, P.: Information-seeking questions and incredulity questions: gradient or categorical contrast? Proc. Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago 2010.
17. Crystal, D.: Prosodic systems and intonation in English (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1969).
18. Cummins, F.; Doherty, C.P.; Dilley, L.C.: Phrase-final pitch discrimination in English. Proc. Speech Prosody, Dresden 2006.
19. D'Imperio, M.: The role of perception in defining tonal targets and their alignment (The Ohio State University, 2000).
20. Dilley, L.C.: The phonetics and phonology of tonal systems (MIT, Cambridge 2005).
21. Dilley, L.C.: Pitch range variation in English tonal contrasts: continuous or categorical? Proc. Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., Saarbrücken 2007.
22. Dilley, L.C.; Breen, M.; Bolivar, M.; Kraemer, J.; Gibson, E.: A comparison of inter-transcriber reliability for two systems of prosodic annotation: RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) and ToBI (Tones and Break Indices). Proc. Interspeech 2006, Pittsburgh 2006.
23. Dilley, L.C.; Brown, M.: The RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) Labeling System, version 1.0. Available at http://tedlab.mit. edu/tedlab-website/Links.html 2005.
24. Dilley, L.C.; Brown, M.: Effects of pitch range variation on F0 extrema in an imitation task. J. Phonet. 35: 523-551 (2007).
25. Dilley, L.C.; Ladd, D.R.; Schepman, A.: Alignment of L and H in bitonal pitch accents: testing two hypotheses. J. Phonet. 33: 115-119 (2005).
26. Féry C.; Kügler F.: Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. J. Phonet. 36: 680-703 (2008).
27. Flanagan, J.L.; Saslow, M.: Pitch discrimination for synthetic vowels. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 30: 435-442 (1958).
28. Fry, D.B.; Abramson, A.S.; Eimas, P.; Liberman, A.M.: The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Lang. Speech 5: 171-189 (1962).
29. Genzel, S.; Kügler, F.: The prosodic expression of contrast in Hindi. Proc. Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago 2010.
30. Gili Fivela, B.: Intonation in production and perception: the case of Pisa Italian (Edizioni dell'Orso, Alessandria 2008).
31. Grabe, E.; Gussenhoven, C.; Haan, J.; Marsi, E.; Post, B.: Preaccentual pitch and speaker attitude in Dutch. Lang. Speech 41: 63-85 (1998).
32. Grice, M.: Leading tones and downstep in English. Phonology 12: 183-233 (1995).
33. Gussenhoven, C.: Discreteness and gradience in intonational contrasts. Lang. Speech 42: 283-305 (1999).
34. Gussenhoven, C.: The phonology of tone and intonation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004).
35. Gussenhoven, C.; Rietveld, T.: The behavior of H* and L* under variations in pitch range in Dutch rising contours. Lang. Speech 43: 183-203 (2000).
36. Hadding-Koch, K.; Studdert-Kennedy, M.: An experimental study of some intonation contours. Phonetica 11: 175-185 (1964).
37. Hagiwara, R.: Dialect variation and formant frequency: the American English vowels revisited. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 102: 655-658 (1997).
38. Halliday, M.A.K.: Intonation and grammar in British English (Mouton, Paris 1967).
39. Hirschberg, J.; Ward, G.: The influence of pitch range, duration, amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-rise intonation contour in English. J. Phonet. 20: 241-251 (1992).
40. House, D.: Tonal perception in speech (Lund University Press, Lund 1990).
41. Kohler, K.J.: Categorical pitch perception; in Viks, Proc. 11th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., Tallinn 1987, pp. 331-333 (1987).
42. Kuhl, P.: Human adults and human infants show a 'perceptual magnet effect' for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception Psychophysics 50: 93-107 (1991).
43. Kuhl, P.K.; Andruski, J.E.; Chistovich, I.A.; Chistovich, L.A.; Kozhevnikova, E.V.; Ryskina, V.L.; Stolyarova, E.I.;Sundberg, U.; Lacerda, F.: Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277: 684-686 (1997).
44. Ladd, D.R.: Peak features and overall slope; in Cutler, Ladd, Prosody: models and measurements (New York 1983).
45. Ladd, D.R.: Metrical representation of pitch register; in Kingston, Beckman, Papers in Laboratory Phonology. I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, pp. 35-57 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990).
46. Ladd D.R.: In defense of a metrical theory of intonational downstep; in van der Hulst, Snider, The phonology of tone: the representation of tonal register, pp. 109-132 (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin 1993).
47. Ladd, D.R.: Intonational phonology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008).
48. Ladd, D.R.; Faulkner, D.; Faulkner, H.; Schepman, A.: Constant 'segmental anchoring' of F0 movements under changes in speech rate. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 106: 1543-1554 (1999).
49. Ladd, D.R.; Mennen, I.; Schepman, A.: Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 107: 2685-2696 (2000).
50. Ladd, D.R.; Morton, R.: The perception of intonational emphasis: continuous or categorical? J. Phonet. 25: 313-342 (1997).
51. Ladd, D.R.; Schepman, A.: 'Sagging transitions' between high accent peaks in English: experimental evidence. J. Phonet. 31: 81-112 (2003).
52. Liberman, A.M.; Harris, K.S.; Hoffman, H.S.; Griffith, B.C.: The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. J. exp. Psychol. 54: 358-368 (1957).
53. Liberman, M.: The intonation system of English (MIT, Cambridge 1975).
54. Liberman, M.; Pierrehumbert J.: Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length; in Aronoff, Oerhle, Language sound structure, pp. 157-233 (MIT Press, Cambridge 1984).
55. Lisker, L.; Abramson, A.S.: The voicing dimension: some experiments in comparative phonetics. Proc. 6th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., 1967 (Academia Publishing House of Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague 1970).
56. Liu, F.; Xu, Y.: Parallel encoding of focus and interrogative meaning in Mandarin intonation. Phonetica 62: 70-87 (2005).
57. Nash R.; Mulac A.: The intonation of verifiability; in Waugh, van Schooneveld, The melody of language, pp. 219-242 (University Park Press, Baltimore 1980).
58. Niebuhr, O.: Perceptual study of timing variables in F0 peaks. Proc. 15th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., Barcelona 2003, pp. 1225-1228.
59. Niebuhr, O.: Perzeption und kognitive Verarbeitung der Sprechmelodie: theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Untersuchungen (de Gruyter, Berlin 2007a).
60. Niebuhr, O.: The signalling of German rising-falling intonation categories: the interplay of synchronization, shape, and height. Phonetica 64: 174-193 (2007b).
61. Niebuhr, O.; Kohler, K.J.: Perception and cognitive processing of tonal alignment in German. Proc. Int. Symp. Tonal
62. Aspects of Lang.: Emphasis on Tone Lang., Beijing 2004, pp. 155-158.
63. O'Connor, R.J.; Arnold, G.F.: Intonation of colloquial English (Longman, Bristol 1973).
64. Pierrehumbert, J.: The phonology and phonetics of English intonation (MIT, Cambridge 1980).
65. Pierrehumbert, J.; Beckman, M.: Japanese tone structure (MIT Press, Cambridge 1988).
66. Pierrehumbert, J.; Steele, S.A.: Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46: 181-196 (1989).
67. Pike, K.L.: The intonation of American English (University of Michigan Publications, Ann Arbor 1945).
68. Purcell, E.: Pitch peak location and the perception of Serbo-Croatian word tone. J. Phonet. 4: 265-270 (1976).
69. Redi, L.C.: Categorical effects in production of pitch contours in English. Proc. 15th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., Barcelona 2003, pp. 1647-1650.
70. Remijsen, B.; van Heuven, V.J.: Gradient and categorical pitch dimensions in Dutch: diagnostic tests. Proc. 14th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., San Francisco 1999, pp. 1865-1868.
71. Repp, B.H.: Categorical perception: issues, methods, findings; in Lass, Speech and language, advances in basic research and practice, pp. 243-335 (Academic Press, Orlando 1984).
72. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.; Dilley, L.C.; Veilleux, N.; Brugos, A.; Speer, R.: F0 peaks and valleys aligned with nonprominent syllables can influence perceived prominence in adjacent syllables. Proc. Speech Prosody, Nara, 2004.
73. Silverman, K.; Beckman, M.; Pierrehumbert, J.; Ostendorf, M.; Wightman, C.W.S.; Price, P.; Hirschberg, J.: ToBI: a standard scheme for labeling prosody. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Spoken Lang. Processing, Banff 1992, pp. 867-879.
74. Silverman, K.; Pierrehumbert, J.: The timing of prenuclear high accents in English; in Kingston, Beckman, Papers in Laboratory Phonology. I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, pp. 71-106 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990).
75. Stevens, K.N.; Liberman, A.M.; Studdert-Kennedy, M.; Ohman, S.: Cross-language study of vowel perception. Lang. Speech 12: 1-23 (1969).
76. Studdert-Kennedy, M.; Hadding-Koch, K.: Auditory and linguistic processes in the perception of intonation contours. Lang. Speech 16: 293-313 (1973).
77. Hart, J.; Collier, R.; Cohen, A.: A perceptual study of intonation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990).
78. Vanrell Bosch, M.d.M.: A scaling contrast in Majorcan Catalan interrogatives. Proc. Speech Prosody, Dresden 2006.
79. Vanrell, M.d.M.; Mascaro, I.; Torres-Tamarit, F.; Prieto, P.: When intonation plays the main character: informationvs. confirmation-seeking questions in Majorcan Catalan. Proc. Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago 2010.
80. Viechnicki, P.: Composition and granularity of vowel production targets (University of Chicago, 2002).
81. Vinegrad, M.D.: A direct magnitude scaling method to investigate categorical versus continuous modes of speech perception. Lang. Speech 15: 114-121 (1972).
82. Ward, G.; Hirschberg, J.: Implicating uncertainty: the pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language 61: 747-776 (1985).
83. Watson, D.G.; Tanenhaus, M.K.; Gunlogson, C.A.: Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognit. Sci. 32: 1232-1244 (2008).
84. Weber, A.; Braun B.; Crocker, M.W.: Finding referents in time: eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Lang. Speech 49: 367-392 (2006).
85. Xu, Y.: Consistency of tone-syllable alignment across different syllable structures and speaking rates. Phonetica 55: 179-203 (1998).
86. Xu, Y.: Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. J. Phonet. 27: 55-105 (1999).
87. Xu, Y.: Fundamental frequency peak delay in Mandarin. Phonetica 58: 26-52 (2001).
88. Xu, Y.: Speech melody as articulatorily implemented communicative functions. Speech Commun. 46: 220-251 (2005).
89. Xu, Y.; Wang, Q.E.: Pitch targets and their realization: evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Speech Commun. 33: 319-337 (2001).
90. Xu, Y.; Xu, C.: Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. J. Phonet. 33: 159-197 (2005).