1 / 27

Tone interval theory

Tone interval theory. Laura Dilley, Ph.D. Speech Communication Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Departments of Psychology and Linguistics The Ohio State University Chicago Linguistics Society Annual Meeting April 9, 2005. Overview. What’s the problem?

olaf
Télécharger la présentation

Tone interval theory

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. Tone interval theory Laura Dilley, Ph.D. Speech Communication Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Departments of Psychology and Linguistics The Ohio State University Chicago Linguistics Society Annual Meeting April 9, 2005

  2. Overview • What’s the problem? • Failure of descriptive apparatus for some tonal systems • Why concepts from music theory can help resolve the problems • Introduction to tone interval theory

  3. Prior assumptions • Early autosegmental theory made several strong claims regarding tones • Tones, segments represented on different tiers • Tones are exactly like segments • The claim that tones are exactly like segments leads to a failure of descriptive adequacy for some tonal systems  x

  4. Exactly like segments? • Idea: Tones, segments are defined without reference to one another in series • No inherent relativity of tones to other tones • Relative heights of tones are not part of the phonology • But cf. Jakobson, Fant and Halle (1952) Relative height must be part of phonetics

  5. Strong phonetic view (Pierrehumbert 1980) • Extended autosegmental theory to English • Treated relative tone height as part of phonetic component of grammar • Phonological primitives based on H, L tones plus phonetic tone scaling rules • Insufficent constraints on relative tone height in phonetic rules lead to problems with descriptive adequacy, testability

  6. Defining descriptive adequacy • Q: What should a theory of the phonology and phonetics of tone and intonation do? • A: Define a clear and consistent relation between phonology and aspects of F0 shape. • A: Support descriptive linguistic intuitions • E.g., LHL should correspond to a rising-falling pattern

  7. H L L A phonology-phonetics test case • Q: If we assume that LHL corresponds to then what are the critical restrictions on H, L? • A: H must be higher than adjacent L, and L must be lower than adjacent H. • Permits a sequence of H, L tones to give rise to a predictable F0 shape • What would happen if these restrictions are not in place?

  8. Some dire consequences • If critical restrictions on adjacent H, L are not in place: • Cannot predict F0 shape from phonology (overgeneration) • Cannot describe an F0 contour in terms of a unique phonological specification (indeterminacy) • Cannot test a theory

  9. Phonetic rules (Pierrehumbert 1980) 1. In Hi (+T) (T+)Hj: f(Hj) = f(Hi) ·[p(H*j)/p(H*i)] 2. In H+L:f(L) = k·f(H), 0 < k < 1 3. In H (+T) L+: f(L) = n·f(H)· [p(H)/p(L)], 0 < n < k 4. In H(+T) L-: f(L-) = p0·f(H), 0 < p0 < k 5. In H+L Hi and H L+Hi:f(Hi) = k·f(Hi), 0 < k < 1 6. In H- T: f(T) = f(H-) + f(T) 7. f(L%) = 0 8. f(Li+1) = f(L*i)·[p(L*i)/p(Li+1)]

  10. Pierrehumbert (1980) Example: H* L+H*. Rewrite as: H1 L H2 f(T) = F0 level of tone T p(T) = tone scaling value of tone T (“prominence”) f(L) = n• f(H1)• [p(H1)/p(L)], for 0 < n < 1 [f(L)/f(H1)] = n• [p(H1)/p(L)] • Therefore, the F0 of L, f(L), is higher than the F0 of H1, f(H1) when [p(H1)/p(L)] > 1/n. • The F0 of L can also be higher than F0 of H2 (Dilley 2005) • No restrictions are in place to prevent this.

  11. h l L2 L2 H2 H1 H3 H1 H3 L1 L3 Pierrehumbert and Beckman (1988) • Example: H* L+H*. Rewrite as: H1 L H2 • Each tone is independently assigned a value for a parameter p (for prominence), where p determines F0 H1 L2 H3→p(H1) p(L2) p(H3) • Critical restrictions are not in place 1 p(H) 0 0 p(L) 1

  12. Summary and implications • Treating tones as exactly like segments relegated relative tone height to phonetics • Phonetic rules, mechanisms were proposed to control relative tone height • In no version of the phonetic theory do the rules specify sufficient constraints • This leads to a failure of descriptive adequacy and testability

  13. What to do? Q: Is the problem adequately addressed simply by adding constraints to phonetic rules? A: No. There is evidence that relative tone height is part of phonology, not the phonetics. The problems run deeper: phonological categories are not fully supported by data.

  14. Relative height is phonological Contrastive downstep: Igbo(Williamson 1972) ámá‘street’ ám!á‘distinguishing mark’ Contrastive upstep: Acatlán Mixtec(Pike and Wistrand 1974) ?íkúmídá ‘we (incl.) have’ ?íkúmíd^á ‘you (pl. fam.) have’ ! = downstep, ^ = upstep

  15. Music as inspiration • Claim: Music theoretic concepts provide a way of addressing problems in intonational and tonal phonology • Describing relative tone height as part of the phonological representation • Achieving descriptive adequacy, testability • Pitch range normalization • Typological differences among tonal systems • Others

  16. Frequency (Hz) 233277 311 370 415466554622 220 247 262 294 330349 392 440 494523 587 659 F# G# A# C# D# A# C# D# A B C D E F G A B C D E Notes C 262 F 349 C 523 B494 C 262 C 262 D 294 E 330 G392 G392 G392 Key of C Key of F A 440 0.95 0.89 1.0 1.33 1.12 0.95 0.89 1 1.33 1.12 • Musical scales and melodies are represented in terms of frequency ratios (Burns, 1999) One semitone = 122  1.05946 Frequency Ratios

  17. More on melodic representation • Nature of frequency ratios differs for distinct musical cultures • e.g., Number and size of scale steps • Layers of representation for musical melody (Handel 1989): • Up-down pattern: Whether successive notes are e.g., higher, lower than other notes • Interval: Distance between notes, cf. a specific frequency ratio • Scale: Relation between a note and a tonic referent note in a particular key ALL melodies SOMEmelodies SOME melodies

  18. Scales and frequency ratios • Scales correspond to a set of ratios defined with respect to a tonic (referent) note I II III IV V VI VII Ratio 1 1.12 1.26 1.33 1.50 1.68 1.89 Tonic C (Key) C D EF G A B 262 294 330349 392 440 494 F (Key) F G A BbC D E 349 392 440 466523 598 659

  19. Layers of representation C 523 B494 G392 G392 G392 A 440 3 8 Up-down pattern Interval Scale r > 1 r < 1 r > 1 r = 1 r < 1 1.12 1.0 0.89 1.33 0.95 V4 V4 V4 VI4 VII4 I5 • Each successive layer of representation encodes more information than the previous layer

  20. Tone interval theory • Tone intervals, I, are abstractions of frequency ratios • Tones, T, are timing markers that are coordinated with segments via metrical structure (cf.  onsets) • Tone intervals relate a tone to one of two kinds of referent: • Referent is another tone (up-down pattern, interval) 2) Referent is the tonic,  (cf. scale) T1T2→ I1,2 = T2/T1 Iμ,2 = T2/μ

  21. Tone interval theory, cont’d. • Every pair of adjacent tones in sequence is joined into a tone interval in ALL languages • Each tone interval is then assigned a relational feature (cf. up-down pattern) higherimplies thatT2 > T1 or I1,2> 1 lowerimplies thatT2 < T1 or I1,2< 1 same implies thatT2 = T1 or I1,2= 1 I1,2=1 I2,3>1 I3,4<1 I4,5>1 etc. • T1T2T3 … Tn → I1,2I2,3 … In-1,n(I1,2 =T2/T1)

  22. Tone interval theory, cont’d. • SOME languagesfurther restrict these ratio values (cf. Interval) I1,2=1I2,3=1.12I3,4=0.89I4,5=1.33 etc. • SOME languages define tones with respect to a tonic (cf. Scale) • Tones, tone intervals occupy different tiers and are coindexed (cf. tonal stability) • x x x x. • T1T2T3 … Tn • I1,2 I2,3 … In-1,n

  23. T2 T3 T1 L H L Advantages of this approach • Defining the phonology in this way: • Achieves descriptive adequacy and generates testable predictions • Proposes explicit connection with music • Builds on earlier work T1T2T3 I1,2 >1 I2,3<1  I2,3<1 I1,2 >1

  24. Summary and Conclusions • Autosegmental theory was based on the strong claim that tones are exactly like segments • Relative tone height was relegated to phonetics • Theories attempting to extend this approach intonation languages have led to problems • E.g., inability to generate testable predictions • Relative tone height is almost certainly part of phonology, not phonetics

  25. Summary, cont’d. • Musical melodies are represented in terms of: • Frequency ratios between notes in sequence and between a note and the tonic • Up-downpattern, interval, andscale • Tone interval theory • The representation is based on tone intervals (abstractions of frequency ratios) • Notion of up-down pattern permits a clear definition between phonology, phonetics • Builds on earlier work

  26. Thank you.    

More Related