Methods for defining categories in intonational phonology: A check on Italian data Barbara Gili Fivela Università del Salento – Lecce, Italy CRIL – Centro

Methods for defining categories in intonational phonology:A check on Italian data

Barbara Gili FivelaBarbara Gili Fivela

Università del Salento – Lecce, ItalyUniversità del Salento – Lecce, Italy

CRIL – Centro di Ricerche Interdisciplinare sul LinguaggioCRIL – Centro di Ricerche Interdisciplinare sul Linguaggio

[email protected]@ateneo.unile.it

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona - May the 14th 2007

Overview

Introduction Linguistics and paralinguistics

Intonation, meaning and categories Methods for defining categories in intonation

Italian data: production and perception Production, perception, and perception-production:

Different constraints in production and perception? Categorical perception in intonation

Prosody and intonation

Prosody is due to variation in: fundamental frequency (F0)-pitch duration-length intensity-loudness

speech tempo / speech rate rhythm

Intonation [Ladd, 1996] suprasegmental: F0, intensity, duration conveying meaning to phrases/utterances organized in terms of categorically distinct entities and relations

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Linguistics and paralinguistics

Linguistics: the scientific study of language [Crystal, ’91]

Paralinguistics: independent from the linguistic message…although it is ‘coordinated in time with the linguistic channel’ and influences the interpretation of the utterance [Ladd, 1996: 34] Interaction (solidarity, aggression)

speaker’s attitude Emotions (fear, surprise)

“intonation clearly ‘feels’ paralinguistic” [Ladd, 1996: 38] same features used for paralinguistic change

(e.g.,voice quality) over long stretches of speech (e.g. loudness) affective and interpersonal meaning (e.g. doubt, irony)

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Linguistics and paralinguistics in phonology/phonetics

Linguistics: categorical distinction Paralinguistics: gradual changes

Segmental level: /i/ vs. /u/ ex.it. mito vs. muto; sp. si vs. su /i/ vs. /i/ produced while smiling

Suprasegmental level Truth value of the utterance ex. In Saint Petersburg, OFFICERS always escort ballerinas

[Rooth, 1985] Sentence modality

ex. it. vai vs. vai?ex. cat. volen una nena vs. ¿volen una nena?

…..produced for conveying surprise

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Intonational meaning British tradition

functional units, such as head, nucleus, tail [Palmer, 1922] intonation “involves the occurrence of pitch patterns, each of

which is used with a set of relatively constant meaning, either on single words or on groups of words” [Cruttenden, 1986:9]

IPO approach pitch movements, defined through perceptual equivalence,

combined according to a grammar of intonation in configurations and contours [‘t Hart and Collier, 1990]

intonation features have no intrinsic meaning, its semantics may be related to syntax, in cases of ambiguity resolution [id.]

Autosegmental theories sequences of L and H tone targets, belonging to pitch accents

and edge tones [Bruce, 1977; Pierrehumbert, 1980] pitch accents and edge tones convey both linguistic and

paralinguistic meaning [Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg ,’90; Kohler,’91; Ladd,’96; Gussenhoven,’04]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Intonation conveys linguistic and paralinguistic meaning

The meaning of intonation is considered as a way to shed light on its form [Ladd,1996: 98]

linguistic entities paralinguistic cues imply modification of the

way phonological categories are realized

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Intonation conveys linguistic and paralinguistic meaning - II

Tune-based analysis and tone-based analysis Meaning conveyed by the whole contour

[Liberman and Sag, 1974]

Meaning derived from contour’s components [Pierrehumbert and Hirschberg, 1990]

Changes in the form of intonation Implying a change in category Gradual, for signalling paralinguistic changes Due to phonetic implementation

Problems with paralinguistic variation High-fall vs. low-fall treated as contrasting in some

analysis and as paralinguistic variants in others [O’Connor and Arnold, 1973 vs. Crystal, 1969]

Gradient form-meaning relations may be grammaticalized as discrete [Gussenhoven, 2002]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Biological codes

Frequency code [Ohala, 1983; Gussenhoven, 2002] Differences due to phonatory system

low = dominant-self confidence-assertive mode Grammaticalization: statement vs. questions

Effort code [Gussenhoven, 2002] Differences due to effort in production

High =important-surprise-emphasis-focus Grammaticalization: focus

Production code [Gussenhoven, 2002] Differences due to energy dissipation

Lowering = end of constituent – finality

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Which information are expressed by categorical elements?

Accentuation, focus, phrase signals for indicating sentence modality, function and meaning statement, yn-question [D’Imperio and House, 1997] yn- and wh-question, check, focus, continuation

[Cruttenden, 1986, Pierrehumbert and Beckman, 1986, Casper, 1998] check, query and accessibility [Grice and Savino, 2003]

introducing, committing to presence, and selecting from background [Gussenhoven, 1984]

new, salient, linked to mutual believes, to be interpreted with the following [Pierrehumbert, Hirschberg,’90]

finality-knowing, openess-realizing [Kohler, 1987; 1991]

direct, indirect speech acts [Liberman and Sag, 1974; 1975] topic and comment [Cresti, 2000]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

…and by gradient variations?

Emotions, attitude… Perception of paralinguistic form-function relation is

influenced by subject’s background [Chen, 2005] Degrees of meaning related to the linguistic unit

Openess-realizing and unexpectedness-opposing [Kohler, 1991; 2006]

Neutral statement and contraddiction [Ladd and Morton, 1997] two different meanings, categorically perceived

Variations in: pitch range, i.e. scaling of targets on the frequency scale alignment, i.e. synchronization with segmental chain

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Where do categories usually come from? Production

categories defined on the basis of speech recordings: read and (semi)spontaneous speech

Perception categories defined on the basis of perception

experiments: IPO approach

Production and perception Patterns observed in production Perception of different categories checked by means of

perception experiments

Semantic contrast is no longer sufficient to ‘proof’ a structural difference [Kohler, 1991; Ladd and Morton, 1997; Gussenhoven, 2006]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

In intonation contrast: both discrete and gradient

categorical = discrete linguistic = categorical

Production and perception mismatch Production data suggest syllable onset as reference

point for alignment [Caspers and van Heuven, 1992; van Santen and Möbius, 2000]

Ladd [1999] ‘segmental anchoring’ hypothesis, but see data discussed in the literature [Prieto and Torreira, in print; Loevenbruck and Welby, in print; Gili Fivela, 2004]

Perception data point to vowel onset as crucial for tone comparison [House, 1990:113]

Perceptual and acoustic tonal targets [D’Imperio, 2000]

‘Intonational’ and ‘categorical’

linguistic = discrete

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Problems with methods for testing (categorical) perception? ‘Even in situations where subjects can make sharp

distinctions between classes, they are still able to discriminate within a class’ [Ladd and Morton, 1997]

“The ideal experiment […] observes the subject’s behaviour in a situation as close to natural conversation as possible” [Kochanski, 2006]

‘Perception’ and ‘categorical’

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

‘Linguistic’ and ‘categorical’ Kohler [2006] observes that according to some theories

of intonational meaning: Linguistically relevant elements are discrete and

categorical Categories of intonation have to be distinguished from

paralinguistic modifications Only categories are linguist’s concern

Analyses of communicative functions and meanings few meanings in the linguistic domain (accentuation,

focus, phrasing, sentence modality) intonation is mainly concerned with paralanguage

(expressive and attitudinal;interactive; speaker evaluation of events - finality, openess; style)

-> “Categorical perception in the classical sense is therefore a special case and not essential for pitch categorization” (see also Newport [1982])

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Methods for defining categoriesProduction

Speech recordings, both monologues and dialogues read speech, proposing specific functions (semi)spontaneous speech obtained by means of

various tasks

• e.g., map-task, card games Analysis of F0 tracks, in relation to segmental events Invariant tonal events, independent of phonetic

modifications

“The ideal general methodology would then be some kind of cyclicity between test material and spontaneous speech using feedback from preceding studies” [Bruce and Touati, 1990].

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Methods for defining categoriesPerception - I

Perceptual equivalence [‘t Hart and Collier, 1990]Structural discreteness tested by means of speakerintuition of perceptual equality, i.e. ‘passable imitations’ of each other ‘passable imitation’ [Odé, 2005; Gussenhoven, 2006]

Categorical perception [Repp, 1984; Gussenhoven, 1999]

Identification task continuum between two phonological categories stimuli are assigned to either category abrupt shift

Discrimination task pairs of stimuli to be judged ‘same’ or ‘different’ expected grater distinction across perceptual boundary

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Categorical perception

CAT I

%

CAT IIContinuum of stimuli

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Methods for defining categoriesPerception - II

Perceptual magnet effect [Kuhl, 1991; Schneider et al., 2006] each category has a prototype lower discrimination sensitivity for its neighbours

Identification task Goodness rating

• rating as for very bad/very good exemplar • individuation of the prototype

Discrimination task • prototype and (not necessarily adjacent) neighbour

Semantic difference and scaling [Gussenhoven, 1999] Gradient and categorical judgments on the presence of a

meaning or its opposite (Grabe [1997] for discussion) Judgement on the extent to which a meaning is conveyed -

especially for paralinguistic On rating scales, see Chen [2005]; Rietveld and Chen [2006]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Methods for defining categoriesPerception - III

Imitation [Pierrehumbert and Steele, 1989; Gussenhoven, 1999]

continuum between two patterns subjects are asked to imitate each stimulus, paying

attention to the intonation pattern in case they produce the whole continuum, the

difference is gradient; in case of binomial distribution it is categorical

‘correcting’ not acceptable patterns [Gussenhoven, 2006] imitation of their own imitation [Brown et al., 2006;

Kochanski, 2006]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Check on Italian data Pisa Italian

Production Read speech

out of the blue within context utterances

(Semi)spontaneous Map-Task

Perception Perceptual equivalence

Passable imitation Categorical perception Perceptual magnet effect Semantic difference and scaling Imitation

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Production

Inventory of Pisa Italian tonal events [Gili Fivela, 2004]

Functions wh-question: query-wh yn-question: query-yn, checks and align statements: instruct focalization

Structurally distinct units three types of nuclear pitch accents: H*, H*+L, H+L* edge tones: L-L%, H-L%, L-H%, H-H%

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Examples

e dove dev(o) andare ?

H* H+L* L-L%

hai detto leggimelo ?

H+L* H-L%

and where should I go ?

did you say read it to me?

wh-question

yn-question / check

Examples

Allora ripartiamo riparti dalla partenza

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

statement

then let’s start again you begin from the start

statement – narrow focus

[L+]H*+L L-L%

it will be a centimetersarà<aa> un centimetro

Production: categories and meaning Meaning of pitch accents difficult to delimit

pitch accents are be shared by different functions more than one pitch accent type may be exploited

for a specific function depending on pragmatic variation

general meaning, coherently with literature

Analysis of contrasting characteristics lead to the choice of transparent, either abstract or detailed, labels emphasizing the structurally distinctive

characteristics differentiating shared and dissimilar structural

properties low target point as starting point of a rise to H*

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

ExamplesMangia il melone (…)

statementbroad focusutterance final

s/he eats the mellon …Time (s)

0 1.22032-0.2469

0.1761

0

Time (s)0 1.22032

0

350

Time (s)0 1.52363

-0.1578

0.1326

0

Time (s)0 1.52363

0

350

Time (s)0 0.819728

-0.4992

0.3092

0

Time (s)0 0.819728

0

350

H+L* L-L%

[L+]H*+L L-L%

[L+]H* L-

statementcontrastive focusutterance final

statementbroad focus utterance initial /(narrow focus)

Pitch accents under investigation[Gili Fivela, 2002]

La pronuncia di lavaglielo non (la) ricordo mai The pronunciation of lavaglielo I never remember (it)

B

C

[L+]H*+L L-

[L+]H* L-

PerceptionPitch accents under investigation

Measurements of F0, latencies between targets and segmental points showed that the accents differ as for target alignment [L+] H* [L+] H*+L

ms

target scaling

Hz

syllable duration

ms

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Acoustic manipulation

Difference of mean values

Number of steps for gradually getting from one pattern to the other one: 8 alignment steps: 15 ms 2 scaling steps: 13Hz(L) - 17Hz(H) - 6 Hz(L) 5 repetitions

PRAAT – PSOLA resynthesis Perceval (Aix-en-Provence) for perception test

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Perception of peak accents

Identification test, manipulating the alignment and scaling characteristics of stimuli – 10 subjects

‘No. Ho detto velava velocemente’ I said velava quickly

Alignment

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

Med

ia p

unte

ggio

per

C

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PR2

PR1

PR0

Align steps

• Is it a peremptory and

conclusive correction?

• Stimuli are ambiguous as

for pitch height

• Pitch height has a significant

influence on perception

Scaling

[Gili Fivela, 2005]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Summing up: peak accents

In identifying two peak accents, “S-shaped” plots in relation to alignment

but there was always an ambiguous pitch height value Extremes are categorically perceived

Pitch height has an influence on ‘when’ a different pattern is perceived

Discrimination task would be needed best with no ambiguous cues

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Peak accents: attention to cues

In the identification test subjects appear to rely on different cues

Align PitchRange

-,2

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1

1,2

Mea

n of

ans

wer

s in

favo

ur o

f con

tras

tive

inte

rpre

tatio

n

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PR2

PR1

PR0

Ar

-,2

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1

1,2

Mea

n of

ans

wer

s in

favo

ur o

f con

tras

tive

inte

rpre

tatio

n

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PR2

PR1

PR0

Fa

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Imitation task Imitation of same stimuli

(same steps of manipulation) contrastive base, 3 subj

Stimulus –

say number - beep –

target imitation Measurements of (L)HL target

height and latencies: vowel onset-to-H

-,01

,02

,04

,06

,09

,12

,14

,17

,19

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r 'd

v1H

'

al0 al1 al2 al3 al4 al5 al6 al7 al8

c-pr2

c-pr1

c-pr0

-,01

,02

,04

,06

,09

,12

,14

,17

,19

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r 'd

v1H

'


c-pr2

c-pr1

c-pr0

ILL

IL

-,12

-,07

-,02

,03

,08

,13

,18

,23

,28

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r 'd

v1H

'


c-pr2

c-pr1

c-pr0

NI

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion




0 1.22032-0.2469

0.1761

0

Time (s)0 1.22032

0

350

Time (s)0 1.52363

-0.1578

0.1326

0

Time (s)0 1.52363

0

350

Time (s)0 0.819728

-0.4992

0.3092

0

Time (s)0 0.819728

0

350

H+L* L-L%

[L+]H*+L L-L%

[L+]H* L-



PerceptionPitch accents under investigation-II Absence/presence of a (close) low target preceding a

rise to peak Measurements of F0, latencies between targets and

segmental points showed that the accents differ as for target alignment H+L* [L+] H*+L

ms

target scaling

Hz

syllable duration

ms

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Acoustic manipulation

Difference of mean values

Number of steps for gradually getting from the broad focus pattern to the contrastive one: 5 alignment steps: 22 ms 4 scaling steps: 15 Hz (+ 1 step 7.5 Hz) 3 repetitions PRAAT (PSOLA) Perceval

Test on perceptual relevance of L+ target [Gili F., 2006]• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

-,1

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

Contr

astiv

e focus: m

ean o

f positi

ve a

nsw

ers

0 al1 al2 al3 al4 al5

H8

H6

H4

H2

0

Steps of align manipulation

Perception of falling accents

Identification test, manipulating the alignment and scaling characteristics, from a broad stimulus – 10 subj

‘Mangia il melone’ s/he eats the mellon

Alignment

• Does it correct a

preceeding utterance?

• Stimuli are ambiguous as

for pitch height

• Pitch height has a small

influence on perception

Scaling

[Gili Fivela, 2006]

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Falling accents: attention to cues

In the identification test subjects appear to rely on different cues

Align PitchRange

-,1

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

1,1

Con

tras

tive

focu

s: m

ean

of p

ositi

ve a

nsw

ers


H8

H6

H4

H2

0

-,1

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

1,1

Con

tras

tive

focu

s: m

ean

of p

ositi

ve a

nsw

ers


H8

H6

H4

H2

0

FV MA

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

-,1

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

Con

tras

tive

Foc

us: M

ean

of p

ositi

ve a

nsw

ers


C-noL-H9

C-noL-H8

C-noL-H6

C-noL-H4

C-noL-H2

C-0

0

Is there a base effect ? Identification test, manipulating the alignment and

scaling characteristics, from a contrastive stimulus

12 subjects

Scaling Alignment

• No S-shaped plot• Stronger influence of pitch height • Extremes are categorically perceived

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Summary and comments In identifying two falling accents,

No S-shaped plots in relation to alignment but there was always an ambiguous pitch height value not even categorically perceived (broad base)

Pitch height alone has an influence, at least when a contrastive base is considered

other correlates? Syllable duration?

Possible reasons for these results: Ambiguity in function or meaning?

Same phonological categories not gradient variation in production coherent, at least partly, with Gussenhoven’s hypothesis

Not appropriated task more articulated context: question-answer sequence? sentence modality: question (check) vs statement?

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1

1,2

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r an

swer

YE

S


H9

H8

H6

H4

H2

C

0

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r M

edie

YE

S


C-H9

C-H8

C-H6

C-H4

C-H2

C-0

0

What about a different task ?‘Question-answer’

Broad focus base Contrastive focus base

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Identification test, from both broad and contrastive base – 11/12 subjects

Sequence of question-answer Broad context: broad focus answer expected

Cosa succede what’s up? Is the answer adeguated to the question?

Same results !

What about a different task ?‘Is it a question?’

Identification test, from broad base - 13 subjects Utterance in isolation

Need to set up a quite complex context based on mutual believes

Could you interpret it as a check of information? Would you give a yes/no answer?

Subjects were actually giving answers that were exactly the opposit of expected ones !

Too difficult task

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

0

,1

,2

,3

,4

,5

,6

,7

,8

,9

1

1,1

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r A

nsw

ers

YE

S


H9

H8

H6

H4

H2

C

0

-,1

-,08

-,05

-,03

0

,03

,05

,08

,1

,13

,15

Dis

tance o

f peak fro

m s

ylla

ble

onset (m

s)


C-H9

C-H8

C-H6

C-H4

C-H2

C-0

0

-,04

-,02

0

,02

,04

,06

,08

,1

,12

,14

,16

Dis

tanc

e of

pea

k fr

om s

ylla

ble

onse

t (m

s)


C-H9

C-H8

C-H6

C-H4

C-H2

C-0

0

-,08

-,05

-,03

0

,02

,05

,08

,1

,13

,15

,17

Dis

tanc

e of

pea

k fr

om s

ylla

ble

onse

t (m

s)


C-H9

C-H8

C-H6

C-H4

C-H2

C-0

0

Imitation task Imitation of same stimuli

(same steps of manipulation) contrastive base – 3 subj

Stimulus - beep -

imitation – say a number -

target imitation Measurements of (L)HL target height

and latencies: syllable onset-to-H

ILNI

ILL• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Discrimination: falling accents Pairs: AB and AA

B with either higher or later peak [Ladd and Morton, 1997] From both broad and contrastive base

Same or different? 9 subjects

No discrimination ! Reaction times give no information

-,2

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r M

ean

NO

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

discrimination scores

1400

1450

1500

1550

1600

1650

1700

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r R

eact

Tim

e

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

reaction times

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

-,2

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r M

ean

NO

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r R

eact

Tim

e

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

IL

-,2

0

,2

,4

,6

,8

1C

ell M

ean

for

Mea

n N

O

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

discrimination scores

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

Cel

l Mea

n fo

r R

eact

Tim

e

C0-

C0

Cal

1-C

0

Cal

2-C

al1

Cal

3-C

al2

Cal

4-C

al3

Cal

5-C

al4

reaction times

ILNI

NI IL

Summary

Production data quite straightforwardly showed the existence of (patterns) pitch accents related to functions/meanings

Perception data seem to be far more problematic: Reason may be that they have being

investigated teasing alignment and scaling apart In any case, the H* vs H*+L contrast appears

to be perceptually more different that the H*+L H+L* contrast

Probably only one phonological distinction

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Summary

Two peak accents: [L+]H* vs [L+]H*+L “S-shaped” identification results

but not all speakers appear to pay attention to the same cues

Extremes are correctly identified 2 out of three speakers appears to perform the

imitation taskThey both imitate the continuum by creating

two different classes as for the peak distance to vowel onset

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Summary Two falling accents: [L+]H*+L vs H+L*

No S-shaped identification results and not all speakers appear to pay attention to the

same cues Extremes are correctly identified 2 out of three speakers appears to perform the task

One speaker creates two different classes as for the peak alignment

One speaker creates a continuum of alignment differences

Raction times, in general, give no information, but looking at the ‘discriminator’ speaker: Trend in the

direction of categorical peak and coherent information for reaction time

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

Improvements

Methods could be improved Gussenhoven proposal of ‘passable imitation’ Perceptual Magnet Effect rather than traditional

CP, in particular for the discrimination task

Experiments to be runned without teasing apart correlates

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion




0 1.22032-0.2469

0.1761

0

Time (s)0 1.22032

0

350

Time (s)0 1.52363

-0.1578

0.1326

0

Time (s)0 1.52363

0

350

Time (s)0 0.819728

-0.4992

0.3092

0

Time (s)0 0.819728

0

350

H+L* L-L%

[L+]H*+L L-L%

[L+]H* L-



Discussion Problem due to the form of intonation

especially in the second sets of experiments, pitch accents were formally really different

Proportional change of all the features needed The resynthesis of continua is reasonable to apply for

similar patterns Problem due to meaning/function of intonation

general meanings functions expressed by the same pitch accent

Both production and perception should be taken into consideration in deciding whether there is a contrast Production could be more robust than perception

need of producing redundant features perception within the context of strictly linguistic

message

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

…and discussion Phonological perception should say something on

the properties of phonic chain However intonation has also being described in

terms of morphemes

Morphemes have meanings may select different meaning of a base

(message?) among their meanings, one may be selected

depending on the base (message?) Intonational units have a meaning/function even

though they are not categorically perceived ?

• Introduction

• Meaning and

Categories

• Methods

• Check on

Italian

• Production

• Perception

• Discussion

If a language does not show a contrast that is adapt for perceptual testing,

does it really mean that the language does not exploit a/that phonological contrast?

….in Pisa as well……

In Saint Petersburg, OFFICERS always escort ballerinas orIn Saint Petersburg, officers always escort BALLERINAS

THANK YOU!

Documents

Methods for defining categories in intonational phonology: A check on Italian data Barbara Gili Fivela Università del Salento – Lecce, Italy CRIL – Centro