1 / 23

Claudia Kuzla

Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. Prosody – a missing link between phonetic detail and phonemic categories?. Claudia Kuzla. Prosody – a missing link between phonetic detail and phonemic. Prosodic Allophones. Prosody influences phonetic detail:

lyle
Télécharger la présentation

Claudia Kuzla

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen Prosody – a missing link between phonetic detail and phonemic categories? Claudia Kuzla Prosody – a missing link between phonetic detail and phonemic

  2. Prosodic Allophones • Prosody influences phonetic detail: • In prosodically prominent positions, speech sounds are • articulated more strongly (e.g., Keating et al. 2003) • Prosodic Phonology: Phonological processes occur within prosodic domains, but not across prosodic boundaries (Nespor & Vogel 1986) Q : How are phonemic contrasts affected by prosodic conditioning of phonetic detail? NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  3. Prosodic Structure (Beckman & Pierrehumbert 1986) NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  4. Prosody & Phonetic Detail • Articulatory & Acoustic Studies: • “Domain-initial strengthening” •  Segments at the beginning of higher prosodic domains • are temporally and spatially expanded: • Longer closure durations • More linguo-palatal contact • Longer Voice Onset Time • Less coarticulation • Less assimilation NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  5. The ‘Fortition’ Account • Early articulatory data: Segments get ‘stronger’ at higher prosodic boundaries. • Sound change occurs first in prosodically weak positions. (Fougeron 1997) Q: Is a prosodically ‘weak’ [p] still different from a ‘strong’ [b] ? NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  6. The Feature Enhancement Account English: Longer VOT at higher boundaries for all plosives Dutch: Shorter VOT at higher boundaries for voiceless plosives; more prevoicing for voiced plosives • Enhancement of the features [+ spread glottis] (Engl.) vs. [-spread glottis] (Dutch)  Implementation of Prosodic Strengthening is language-specific (Cho & Jun 2000; Cho & McQueen 2005) NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  7. Exp 1: German Plosives • /b,p/ : Backen ‘bake’ –Packen ‘pack’ • /d,t/ : Dank ‘thanks’– Tank ‘tank’ • /g,k/: Garten ‘garden’ – Karten ‘cards’ • …in sentence contexts, with various prosodic realizations… NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  8. Speech Materials NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  9. Prosodic Boundary Categorization • Major Phrase: [+ Pause, + BoundaryTone] • Minor Phrase: [- Pause, + BoundaryTone] • Prosodic Word:[- Pause, - BoundaryTone] …supported by preboundary lengthening patterns: Major > Minor > Word NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  10. Acoustic Measurements • Closure duration [ms] • Voice Onset Time [ms] • Glottal Vibration in /b,d,g/ [% of closure] • Burst Intensity Maximum for /p,t,k/ [dB] NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  11. Results: Closure duration NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  12. Wd > Minor > Major /k/ > /t/ > /p/ Wd = Minor = Major /g/ > /d/ > /b/ Results: VOT NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  13. Results: Glottal vibration /b,d,g/ Major (3.5 %) < Minor (32.2%) < Word (60.0%)  Against Feature Enhancement NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  14. Results: Burst Intensity Max /p,t,k/ Effect of PCat for /t/ and /k/ : /t/: Major < Word /k/: Major < {Minor = Word} • Against predictions of both ‘Fortition’ and Feature Enhancement NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  15. Summary NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  16. Exp 2: Voice Assimilation of Fricatives Word-initial lenis fricatives /v,z/ may be devoiced if they follow /t/: /hAt vEld/ → [hAtvEld] ‘has forests’ /hAt zAnt/ → [hAtzAnt] ‘has sand’ /hAt fEld/→ [hAtfEld] ‘has fields’ */hAt sAnt/ NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  17. Predictions Contrast between /v, z/ and /f, s/ is not only cued by glottal vibration, but also by duration. Prosodic structure might influence exactly these two cues: - glottal vibration, due to effects on assimilation : more assimilatory devoicing across smaller boundaries - duration, due to initial strengthening: longer duration after larger boundaries NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  18. Speech Materials • /f,v,z/ in word-initial position: • [f]elder ‘fields’ , [v]älder ‘forests’ , [z]enken ‘hollows’ • Preceding context : • // in hatte ‘had’ (non-assimilation context), • /t/ in hat ‘has’ (assimilation context) • Similar sentence sets as in Experiment 1: • Anna hatte Felder und Wiesen gemalt. • …Anna gemalt hat. Felder und Wiesen… • Same prosodic categorization NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  19. Results: Fricative duration NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  20. Results: Glottal vibration (assimilation) NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  21. Summary Two important cues to the fortis-lenis distinction remain balanced across prosodic conditions: Phrase: longer duration -> more fortis /f/ less devoicing -> more lenis /v/ Word: shorter duration -> more lenis /v/ more devoicing -> more fortis /f/ NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  22. Conclusions Prosodic structure interacts with phonetic detail and phonemic categories in a complex way: • Neither general ‘Fortition’ nor ‘Feature Enhancement’ through the Prosodic Hierarchy; • Phonological contrasts are phonetically implemented in different ways for different prosodic positions. NVFW Seminar on Prosody

  23. Thank you… … and Mirjam Ernestus Taehong Cho NVFW Seminar on Prosody

More Related