1 The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German questions and statements Caterina Petrone* & Oliver Niebuhr** *Zentrum für Allgemeine.

1

The role of the prenuclear F0 The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German region in the perception of German

questions and statementsquestions and statements

Caterina Petrone* & Oliver Niebuhr***Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin** Laboratoire Parole et Langage, Aix-en-Provence

2

What´s a tune?What´s a tune?• Sequence of static tones (cf. AM model,

Pierrehumbert,1980) or contour elements (KIM, Kohler, 1991)

- No structural (only semantic) restrictions for combinations of pitch accents + edge components

- For pitch accents: nuclear = prenuclearIntroduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion

Summary & Conclusion

• Compositionality -> Intonational meaning given by the independent contribution of individual tones (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990, inter alia)

H* L- L%+ + = Statement

L* H- H%+ + = Yes/No question

Tunes Sentence mode

‘Nucleus’ (nuclear accent + terminal edgecomponents) essential in conveying meaning

Prenuclear region?

BUT:

English

3

Q/S in NeapolitanQ/S in Neapolitan

Tr. “The mom wants to see the frog ”

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


La mam vuo le ve de re la ra na?ma

Lamam vuole ve de re la ra nama

• Intonation only mean to distinguish Yes/No Q vs.S:Intonation only mean to distinguish Yes/No Q vs.S: -- Late vs. Early nuclear rise Late vs. Early nuclear rise (D’Imperio, 2000)(D’Imperio, 2000)

- Convex vs. Concave prenuclear fall - Convex vs. Concave prenuclear fall (Petrone, 2008)(Petrone, 2008)L L

H H

time

F 0

AM

(LH)*

(LH)* L+H*

L*+H

Q

S

L-L%

L-L%

+ steep+ convex

+ shallow+ concave

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

short medium long

Fragments Length

Qu

esti

on

s s

co

re (

%)

Question baseStatement base

Pren/Rise Pren/Fall Nucl/Rise

Tune composition

ResultsResults

• Q/S effect already in the prenuclear accent region• Score decreases for statement-base when a

steep region is heard

**

*

• Score increases for question-base stimuli only when the nuclear accent is present

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


50%

pre AP nucl

HØ

5

Q/S in GermanQ/S in German• Marked by syntactic (subject-verb inversion),

lexical (e.g., wh-words) and/or intonational means (final F0 rise/fall)

H* (L)H* L- L%

H* (L)H* H-H%

Statement

Yes/No question

:

:

Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung(“Katherina searches for a flat”)

Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung?(“Does Katherina search for a flat”)

Sucht Katherina ‘ne Wonhung?(“Does Katherina search for a flat”)

AND:

H* (L)H* L- L%

• Questions with final fall: Dialogue partner is supposed to give a short answer according to the speaker’s expectation (cf. Stock 1996; Kohler 2004; Peters 2005).

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


6

Q/S in GermanQ/S in German• Peters (2005):

Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H* L- L%

(“Are you from Heidelberg”)

= Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), pleaseIntroduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


7




= Give me just a short answer (Yes/No), please

Sind sie Heidelbergerin H* (L)H* H-H%


= Answer Yes/No + Tell me a bit more about you!

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


8








• Kohler (2004):

Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H* L- L%

(“Would that suit you”)

= Say ‘yes’, please

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


9








• Kohler (2004):

Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H* L- L%


= Say ‘yes’, please

Würde Ihnen das passen H* (L)H* H-H%


= The final choice is up to you!

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


10

Q/S in GermanQ/S in German• Also questions with declarative syntax are possible:

Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung

H* (L)H* H- H%

(“Katherina searches for a flat”)

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


11

Q/S in GermanQ/S in German• Also questions with declarative syntax are possible:

• In such cases the intonation is crucial, i.e. It MUST be raising. Isacenko & Schädlich (1970): “If an utterance contains no other syntactic or lexical cue to identify it as a question […] then only the last […] rising tone-switch provides the necessary information to allow the hearer to identify it as a question" (p.32) (Cf. also Huddleston (1994) for English and Haeseryn et al. (1997) for Dutch)

=> known as ‘intonation question’ or ‘queclarativ’ (Sadock 1974)

Katherina sucht ‘ne Wonhung

H* (L)H* H- H%

(“Katherina searches for a flat”)

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


12

Q/S in GermanQ/S in German

BUT:

• Characteristic function of such questions: request for confirmation

(a) with regard to the assumed functional differences between final rises/falls in German questions

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Q1: Is the final rise actually mandatory in German ‘intonation questions’, i.e. does it mean

‘question’ ?

(b) …and in view of the domain and the cues for ‘question’ in Neapolitan Italian

Q2: What role plays the prenuclear region?

Our study started from observations in naturalutterances

13

Q/S in GermanQ/S in GermanStatement

Yes/no Question

Ka the ri na sucht ‘ne Woh nung

Ka the ri na sucht ‘ne Woh nung?

H* L-L%H*

L+H* H-H%H*

+ steep+ convex

+ shallow+ concave

14

Q/S in GermanQ/S in GermanStatement

Yes/no Question

Intonation

Question?

Ka the ri na sucht ‘ne Woh nung



H* L-L%H*

L+H* H-H%H*

L*+H L-L%H*

+ steep+ convex

+ shallow+ concave

+ shallow+ concave

15

Experiment IExperiment I

• Similarly to Neapolitans, German listeners are able to identify Q/S sentences, i.e. asserting and questioning speech acts, well before hearing the ‘nucleus’• Differences in the prenuclear rise/fall cue questionhood independent of the presence of a terminal rise and interrogative syntax

+ early rise-fall alignment

+ convex fall

« Assertion »+ late rise-fall

alignment+ concave fall

« Questionhood »

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


16

Q

CorpusCorpus

• 5 intonation Bases: Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


(1)(2)(3)

H* H+L* L-%H* H* L-%H* L*+H L-%

+ early rise-fall alignment+ convex fall

+ late rise-fall alignment+ concave fall

- (1)-(3): nuclear pitch-accent difference with final fall. Known to signal meaning differences within statements, i.e. ‘settled’, ‘open’, ‘astonished’ (Niebuhr 2007; Grice & Baumann 2000; Kohler 1987)

- (4): tune with final rise. Known to signal questions. The contour preceding the terminal mouvement is constant for

(3) & (4) => clear Q/S difference - (3)+(5): difference in prenuclear region (H* alignment and

shape/alignment of subsequent fall) => yields Q/S difference ? - (4)+(5): difference in final fall vs. final rise with constant

preceding tune => yields Q/S difference ?

S

(4)

(5) H* L*+H L-%

H* L*+H H-%

• Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung

17

CorpusCorpus

• 5 intonation Bases:

• 3 tune fragments: short

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion



(1)(2)(3)

H* H+L* L-%H* H* L-%H* L*+H L-%


+ late rise-fall alignment+ concave fallQ

S

(4)

(5) H* L*+H L-%

H* L*+H H-%


18

CorpusCorpus• Natural Utterances: Katherina sucht ‘ne Wohnung


• 3 tune fragments: medium

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion



(1)(2)(3)

(4)

(5)

H* H+L* L-%H* H* L-%H* L*+H L-%

H* L*+H L-%



H* L*+H H-%

S

Q

19

CorpusCorpus


• 3 tune fragments: long

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion



(1)(2)(3)

(4)

(5)

H* H+L* L-%H* H* L-%H* L*+H L-%

H* L*+H L-%



H* L*+H H-%

S

Q


20

MethodsMethods• Semantic differential task:

- Three 7-point scales aiming at the Q-S difference:

(1) astonished - not astonished; (2) questioning - not questioning; (3) uncertain - certain

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


3210-1-2-3uncertain certain

The speaker sounds…

21




• Procedure- One randomized block containing short and

medium tune fragments- Long sentences at the end of the session - 11 German subjects X 9 repetitions (1782 obs.)

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


22




• Procedure- One randomized block containing short and

medium tune fragments- Long sentences at the end of the session - 11 German subjects X 9 repetitions (1782 obs.)

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


• Statistical analysis: Linear mixed model- Fixed: Scales; Tune fragments- Random: Subjects- p < .05

23

ResultsResultsH* H+L* L-% H* H* L-%

H* L*+H L-%

* * * n.s. n.s.

(1) (2)

(3)

n.s.

* * *

• Judged as “assertive” already in the prenuclear region

• Assertiveness increases as the terminal fall is heard with H+L* (1), but NOT with H* (2)

• In (3), the L*+H accent conveys more astonishment

In line with Niebuhr (2007), stimuliwith early pren. rise/fall+convex fall:

24

ResultsResults

Stimuli with late prenuclear rise + concave fall :

• Judged as “questioning” already in the prenuclear region, i.e. independent of the presence the terminal rise

• Overall significant difference in responses between (1)-(2)-(3) vs. (4)-(5) base types for both short and long stimuli

• Adding the “nucleus” increases “questioning” in long stimuli

• Effects stronger in intonation base H-H% (4) than in L-L% (5)

H* L*+H H-% H* L*+H L-%(4) (5)

* * * * * *

25

DiscussionDiscussion

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


The intonational signalling of pragmatic functions of sentences in German is not bound to the “nucleus” and the subsequent final F0 pattern:

1. Questioning vs. assertive sentences are well discriminable when only the prenuclear accent region is left in the stimulus

This cannot depend on the phonological specification of the prenuclear accent -(H)* for the 5 intonation types- though phonetic factors such as speech rate or intensity might have affected listeners’ judgements

26


Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


The intonational signalling of pragmatic functions of sentences in German is not bound to the “nucleus” and the subsequent final F0 pattern:

1. Questioning vs. assertive sentences are well discriminable when only the prenuclear accent region is left in the stimulus

This cannot depend on the phonological specification of the prenuclear accent -(H)* for the 5 intonation types- though phonetic factors such as speech rate or intensity might have affected listeners’ judgements

2. Contrast in listeners’ judgement for stimuli (1)-(2)-(3)vs. (4)-(5) already in the “short” condition This might be due to the differences in the alignment of the prenuclear rise and/or the shape of the fall between the two intonation groups

27

DiscussionDiscussion3. Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Stimuli with patterns (5), ie. containing a terminal fall but preceded by a late rise-fall/concave fall, shifted the judgements towards more “astonished”, “uncertain” and “questioning”

28

DiscussionDiscussion3. Terminal falling intonations can signal a question, even when not marked syntactically

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Stimuli with patterns (5), ie. containing a terminal fall but preceded by a late rise-fall/concave fall, shifted the judgements towards more “astonished”, “uncertain” and “questioning”

4. The perception of intonation modality is improved when the nucleus is also available, especially in ‘questioning’ stimuli (4)-(5)

This suggests that prosodic cues in the prenuclear region are less stronger for Q than for S modality, so that listeners have to rely more on the nuclear pattern when perceiving Q (see also Petrone & D’Imperio, 2008 for Neapolitan)

29

Experiment IIExperiment IIGerman listeners capitalize on differences in the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of Q/S utterances

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


30


+Q-Q

time

f0

Rise timing?

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


31


+Q-Q

time

f0

+Q-Q

time

f0

Rise timing? Fall timing?

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


32


+Q-Q

time

f0

+Q-Q

time

f0


Fall slope?

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


time

f0

+Q -Q

33


+Q-Q

time

f0

+Q-Q

time

f0

time

f0

-Q

+Q


Fall slope? Fall shape?

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


time

f0

+Q -Q

34

CorpusCorpus• 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished

statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%)• F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged

into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli.• F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall

slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex)

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


time

Early peak Late peak80 ms

35

CorpusCorpus

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


time

Early peak Late peak

T1 T2 T3 T450 ms

• 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%)

• F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli.

• F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex)

36

CorpusCorpus

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


time

Early peak Late peak

T1 T2 T3 T4

50 Hz

• 2 base types: Resyntheses based on astonished statement & intonation question (H * L*+H L-%)

• F0 (nuclear): F0 peaks of the 2 base types merged into a constant, intermediate pattern for all stimuli.

• F0 (prenuclear): 2 rise alignments (early/late) X 4 fall slopes (or fall alignments) X 3 fall shapes (linear/concave/convex)

(see D’Imperio & Cangemi, PAPI 2009)

37

MethodsMethods• Procedure

- Indirect identification test: “Does it match?”Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Test sentence

Context

“Katherina wants to become a painter”

“Really? That’s a risky step”

YES = astonished statement

NO = intonational question

- 11 German listeners x 5 repetitions (2460 obs.)

38

MethodsMethods

• Statistical analysis: Generalized Mixed Model- Fixed: rise and fall alignment, slope, shape, base

type- Random: Subjects- p < .05

• Procedure- Indirect identification test: “Does it match?”

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Test sentence

Context

“Katherina wants to become a painter”

“Really? That’s a risky step”

YES = astonished statement

NO = intonational question

- 11 German listeners x 5 repetitions (2460 obs.)

39

Results: Timing & SlopeResults: Timing & Slope

• Perception of ‘astonished statement’ decreases around the chance level as the end of the fall is shifted later

0.5

• This effect is stronger for earlier peak alignment at T3 & T4

• Effects of the slope indistinguishable from those of the timing• Small Base Type effect

* *

40

Results: ShapeResults: Shape

EarlyEarly Late Late

• Strong interaction shape by fall alignment in early peak: the perception of ‘astonished statement’ goes much below the chance level for concave shape stimuli at late fall alignments

0.5

• Small shape effects in late peak: Why?

* ** *

41


Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


German listeners exploit the F0 prenuclear region forQ/S perception, even in absence of a clear informationfrom the ‘nucleus’:

1. Alignment and dynamic cues distributed in the prenuclear F0 region seems to be at work when perceiving the Q/S contrast in GermanThe early fall alignment is a robust cue for ‘astonished statements’ perception. The late fall alignment is more ambiguous, and additional differences in the shape of the fall become crucial for ‘question’ perception.

Late + concave fall

Early fall S

Q

=

=

42


Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


2. The fall alignment/shape manipulation affected listeners’ judgment only when the prenuclear rise is earlyThis can be due to our manipulation: the shift from the early to the late alignment could have been too “far”. The shape difference is more salient when the rise is earlier

43

DiscussionDiscussion2. The fall alignment/shape manipulation affected

listeners’ judgment only when the prenuclear rise is earlyThis can be due to our manipulation: the shift from the early to the late alignment could have been too “far”. The shape difference is more salient when the rise is earlier

3. The base stimulus produce a small but significant

effect. This means that cues other than F0 (voice quality, speech rate, etc.) might have been exploited by listeners

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


44

ConclusionConclusion• Results from (Neapolitan and) German indicate

that the prenuclear F0 region is relevant in conveying pragmatic functions, and thus it should be taken into account by theories of intonational meaning

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


45



• The influence of the prenuclear F0 region is accounted for by the interaction of multiple F0 dimensions (alignment, shape), thus suggesting that dynamic properties might help in interpreting linguistic information

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


46



• The influence of the prenuclear F0 region is accounted for by the interaction of multiple F0 dimensions (alignment, shape), thus suggesting that dynamic properties might help in interpreting linguistic information

• Our results suggest that intonation meaning is defined by the contour as a whole : the interrelation between tones in a tune cannot be captured by a strict compositional approach

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


47

Grazie/Danke!

48

CorpusCorpus• 2 Base Types: Resynthesized stimuli from an

astonished statement & an intonational question (H * L*+H L-%)Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


Ka the ri na will ‘ne Ma le rin werden?

Ka the ri na will ‘ne Ma le rin werden

49

What´s a tune?What´s a tune?Tunes of utterances can be decomposed into sequenc-es of static tones (cf. AM model, Pierrehumbert,1980)or contour elements (KIM, Kohler 1991)

• No structural (only semantic) restrictions for com-binations of pitch accents + edge components

• For pitch accents: nuclear = prenuclearIntroduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


(Pierrehumbert, 1980)

For example: AM approach (Pierrehumbert 1980)

50

Meaning compositionalityMeaning compositionality

• Intonational meaning given by the independent contribution of individual tones

H* L- L%+ + = Statement

L* H- H%+ + = Yes/No question

English

H* =

L- =

Tunes Sentence mode

(Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990)

The accented item is instantiated in the openexpression to be added to Hearer’s mutual belief

The interpretation of the current ip does notdepend on that of subsequent ips

• « Nucleus » (nuclear accent + terminal edge components) is essential for conveying meaning

Prenuclear region?

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


51

Tones-F0 mappingTones-F0 mapping• In their phonetic manifestation tonal targets are

characterized by temporal alignment and F0 scaling

ShapeSlope Duration

L

H

L

H

L

H

L

H

L

H

L

H

• F0 between targets defined by interpolation rules

ATime

F0

M r

H

L

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


52

(LH*)

L

H*

La mam vuole ve de re la Dinama

(LH*)

L*

H

La mam vuolevede re la Dina?ma

Speaker OM

Tunes in Neapolitan ItalianTunes in Neapolitan Italian• Intonation contrast:Intonation contrast: AP-tone…AP-tone…

Tr. “The mom wants to see (the) Dina”

• Same phrasing & tonal composition but Same phrasing & tonal composition but different slope!!

Introduction

Experiment I

Discussion

Experiment II

Discussion


S

Q

1 The role of the prenuclear F0 region in the perception of German questions and statements Caterina Petrone* & Oliver Niebuhr** *Zentrum für Allgemeine.

Documents

discussion experiment

ll h h time f0

sind sie heidelbergerin

final f0 risefall h

pre ap nucl h slide

frog introduction experiment

short answer yesno

aixenprovence slide