View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY OF FOCUS MARKING
Simon Ritter & Doris Mücke IfL Phonetik, University of Cologne
BACKGROUND
RESEARCH QUESTION
DYNAMICS
An Integrated Perspective
Choice of category~ phonological
Physical realisation~ phonetic
Gradience [1]
Previous work on nuclear pitch accents in German focus marking: Phonological + phonetic gradience seem to go in the same direction [2, 3].
Dynamic systems help to understand categories as attractors [4].
Everything in a dynamic system is continuous, but there are special stable states the system moves to.
Control parameter k can be scaled to change the attractor landscape.
Dynamic systems have been used to model phonetic and phonological variation
[e.g. 5, 6, 7, 8].Can an attractor-based account
model the phonological + phonetic gradience found in German focus
intonation?
DATA
SIMULATION
CONCLUSIONNuclear pitch accents of our focus data can be modelled in a dynamic
framework.Both phonological and phonetic
variation is accounted for in a unified system.
27 native German speakers produce focus structures in a game-like task.
Sentence structure held constant, e.g. “Er hat den Hammer auf die Wohse gelegt”.
3 focus types: broad, narrow, contrastive
Measure:Tonal Onglide
falling /negative
falling
Results
-4 -2 0 2 4
040
80
-4 -2 0 2 4
040
80
-4 -2 0 2 4
040
80
broad narrow contrastive
Normalised Onglide
Freq
uenc
y
Code based on [9], implemented in R & C++.Find best k by calculating overlap with real data.
𝑉 𝑥 = 1.4𝑥' − 𝒌𝑥* − 2𝑥,
𝑉 𝑥 = 𝑥' − 𝒌𝑥* − 𝑥,
V(x)
V(x)
rising
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1.0
0.0
1.0
V(x)
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1.0
0.0
1.0
x
-2 -1 0 1 2
-1.0
0.0
1.0
-4 -2 0 2 4
-2.0
-0.5
1.0
-4 -2 0 2 4
0500
1500
-4 -2 0 2 4
-2.0
-0.5
1.0
Energy
Frequency
-4 -2 0 2 4
0500
1500
-4 -2 0 2 4
-2.0
-0.5
1.0
Energy
Frequency
-4 -2 0 2 4
0500
1500
Freq
uenc
y
Simulated Onglide
k = 0.075 k = 0.625 k = 1.0
rising /positive
Speaker-normalised
16th Conference of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, June 22 2018
Phonetic gradience: Scaling of rising onglides
Real data
Simulation
Er hat die Zange auf die Bahwe gelegt.
Er hat die Bürste auf die Mahne gelegt.
broad narrow contrastive
Rising attractors
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2012
Onglide
Pot
entia
l Ene
rgy Modes of rising distributions
k = 0 k = 1k = -0.5
0.8
1.2
broad narrow contrastive
0.8
1.2
broad narrow contrastive0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
-2-1
01
broad narrow contrastive
Describe phonological + phonetic gradience in unified system?
REFERENCES [1] Ladd, D. R. (2014). Simultaneous structure in phonology. Oxford University Press. [2] Grice, M., S. Ritter, H.Niemann & T. Roettger (2017). Integrating the discreteness and continuity of intonational categories. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 90–107.[3] Mücke, D. & M. Grice (2014). The effect of focus marking on supralaryngeal articulation – Is it mediated by accentuation? Journal ofPhonetics, 44, 47-61. [4] Iskarous, K. (2017). The relation between the continuous and the discrete: A note on the first principles ofspeech dynamics. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 8-20. [5] Gafos, A. I. and Benus, S. (2006). Dynamics of phonological cognition. CognitiveScience, 30, 905-943. [6] Tuller, B., P. Case, D. Mingzhou & J. A. S. Kelso. (1994). The nonlinear dynamics of speech categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(1), 3-16. [7] Nava, Emily. (2010). Connecting phrasal and rhythmic events. Evidence fromsecond language speech. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Southern California. [8] Goldstein, L., D. Byrd & E. Saltzman. (2006). Therole of the vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. In M. Arbib (ed.). Action to language via themirror neuron system, 215-249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [9] Gafos, A. I. (2006). Dynamics in grammar. In Goldstein, L.,D. Whalen & C. Best. Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence (eds.), 51-79. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attractors
Recommended