West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

Prosodic prominence in speech perception : the influence of focus structure on the perception of durational… Steffman, Jeremy; Jun, Sun-Ah 2020-03-08

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Steffman_J_et_al_Prosodic_perception_WCCFL38_2020.pdf [ 2.66MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389901.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389901-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389901-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389901-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389901-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389901-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389901-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389901-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389901.ris

Full Text

Prosodic prominence in speech perception:the influence of focus structure on the perception of durational and spectral cuesJeremy Steffman and Sun-Ah Junjsteffman@ucla.edu jun@humnet.ucla.eduslides here: http://jsteffman.bol.ucla.edu/wccfl2020.pdfWCCFL 38, March 8th 2020Background2• The sound system of a language can be described in terms of…(1) Segmental structure: represented by features, etc. (2) Prosodic structure: organization of segments into syllables, words, phrases… Background• Listeners evidently extract both from the signal• Mapping to both types of phonological structure is traditionally assumed to be fairly independent13ə nu taʊn …σ σ σ ….H*PhP1e.g. Cutler et al. 1997Background• One logical possibility: extracting segment and prosody is independent because acoustic cues that specify each in a given language are non-overlapping• However, this is not the case  4Segmental cues, e.g.formant structure VOT  closure durationProsodic cues, e.g. pitchduration intensityvoice qualityX XBackground• A body of phonetic researche.g. 1-5 suggests…• “segmental” cues also encode various prosodic properties• “prosodic” cues also encode various segmental contrasts5VOTlonger in voiceless stops(laryngeal contrasts)longer in phrase initial positionlonger in prominent words 1Cho 2015 22016 3Fougeron 1999  4Keating 2006 5Keating et al. 2003  Background6• Listeners would accordingly benefit from reconciling a cue value with the prosodic context in which it occurs• i.e. compensating for prosodic structuring of the signal• Prosodic boundaries affect segmental categorization in this way1,2• e.g. longer VOT is required for a voiceless percept…• but even longer VOT is required when a sound is phrase-initial → accounting for prosodic changes in a cue value• What about prosodic prominence? 1Kim & Cho 2013 2Steffman 2019  Today’s talk• Today we present evidence that phrasal prominence mediates perception of segmental contrasts in American English, testing• a contrast that is cued by formants - vowel categories• a contrast that is cued by duration - coda stop voicing 7Today’s talk8 1 de Jong 2004 2Van Summers 1987 3Xu & Xu 2005  • We manipulate phrasal prominence as cued by the realization of focus in American English• the test case: post-focus compression1-3• Words that are focused are: • phonologically accented • expanded in pitch and duration• more sonorous in formant structure (more on this later) • Words that follow focused material within a phrase are: • phonologically de-accented• compressed in pitch and duration • less sonorous in formant structure Manipulating prominence9• Nuclear pitch accent (NPA) condition:    I’ll say [TARGET] now  H*             H*             L-L%• Post-focus condition: I’ll SAY [TARGET] now L+H*                          L-L%Manipulating prominence 10H*                                H*                            L-L%L + H*                                               L-L%[ aɪ l        s        eɪ TARGET     n            aʊ  ]  NPA Post-Focus Experiment 1: spectral cues11 1 de Jong 1995 2de Jong et al. 1993 3Van Summers 1987 4Mo et al. 2009 • Phrasal prominence on vowels is marked by phonetic sonority expansion1-4• increased amplitude of jaw movements• lowered and backed lingual articulations (in non-high vowels) • An acoustic consequence• lower tongue position → raised first formant (F1)• more backed tongue position → lowered second formant (F2)Experiment 1: method• 2AFC task: participants categorized a target as  “ebb” or “ab” • /ɛ/ - /æ/  varying only in the first and second formant - 10 step continuum• /ɛ/ (‘ebb’) has lower F1 & higher F2 than /æ/ (‘ab’) 1201000200030004000010002000300040000100020003000400001000200030004000/ɛ/ endpoint /æ/ endpointF1F2F2F113• The continuum varies along…• a segmental dimension: vowel height and backness in F1/F2 • a prosodic dimension: prominence,   phonetic sonority in F1/F2æƐExperiment 1: continuumFrequency Time ƐæF2F1Experiment 1: predictions14• Accordingly, in prominent contexts, higher F1 and lower F2 could be interpreted as an effect of prominence, not as cuing segmental contrast• If listeners compensate accordingly, they would categorize more sounds as /ɛ/ in prominent contexts ( = NPA condition) • i.e. attributing high F1 and low F2 to prominence, not segment• (results assess by mixed-eff logistic regression with maximal by subject random slopes) 150.000.250.500.751.001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10continuum step (1='ebb')prop. 'ebb' responseNPA (prominent) Post−focus0.000.250.500.751.001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10contiunuum step (1 = 'ebb')prop. 'ebb' responseExperiment 1: predictionsPrediction: increased “ebb” responses in the NPA condition• Visually: the NPA line is above/ right of the Post-focus line Schematic results0.000.250.500.751.001 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10continuum step (1='ebb')prop. 'ebb' responseNPA (prominent) Post−focusExperiment 1: results16• Model estimates plotted with CI• As predicted, a prominent (NPA) context shows increased /ɛ/ responses (β = 0.42  z = 3.26)n = 30Interim• Experiment 1: • novel evidence for the involvement of prominence in perception of segmental material• Experiment 2 goals: • replicate the pattern in Experiment 1 with a durational contrast• test possible involvement of domain-general effects relevant in the perception of duration17Experiment 2: method18 1 de Jong 2004 2Xu & Xu 2005 3Chen 1970 4Raphael 1972   • Recall: post-focus words are temporally compressed1,2• will listeners’ perception of duration be modulated accordingly? • The test case: vowel duration as a cue to coda stop voicing in American English3,4• vowels are longer before voiced coda stops (which are often devoiced)• this is a robust cue to voicing for listeners• We created a vowel duration continuum ranging from “coat” (60ms) to “code” (120ms) Experiment 2: durational cues• Predictions: in the Post-focus condition• overall shorter vowel durations required for a “code” percept, given prosodically driven adjustment of duration• compensation for compression would allow for mapping fewer target sounds to “coat” → decreased “coat” responses when Post-focusExtending Exp 1: we synthesized target pitch to vary across conditions: • higher in the NPA condition (marking prominence)• lowered in the Post-focus condition (de-accentuation)• Pitch patterns were otherwise the same as Exp. 11920target pitch pre-target durationNPA higher pitch (accented) shorter pre-target durationPost-focus lower pitch (deaccented) longer pre-target duration(accented “say”)Comparison shorter perceived target duration when Post-focusPrediction increased “coat” (short duration) responses when Post-focusExperiment 2: psychoacoustic effects• Perception of duration also influenced by… • Adjacent segment durations – perception of durational cue is relative1• Pitch on a segment – higher pitch perceived as longer2,31 e.g. Mitterer et al. 2016 2Steffman & Jun 2019 3Yu 2010Experiment 2: predictions21Psycho-acoustic predictionsIncreased “coat” responses in the Post-focus conditionProsodic predictions Decreased “coat” responses in the Post-focus condition• A third possibility: prosodic effects are limited by target vowel duration• post-focus vowels are short, typically < 100 ms1• previous work2,3 suggests prosodic context effects are limited by their mapping to typical context durations• i.e. longer durations are too long to be interpreted as de-accented1 e.g. Greenberg et al. 2003 2Steffman 2019 3Steffman & Jun 2019Experiment 2: results220.250.500.7560 70 80 90 100 110 120vowel durationprop. 'coat' responseNPA (prominent) Post−focus• Prominence*vowel duration interaction (β = 0.26  z = 8.13)• At shorter ends of the continuum: decreased “coat” responses in the Post-Focus condition• prosodic effect• At longer ends of the continuum: increased “coat” responses in the Post-Focus condition• psychoacoustic effectn = 41Summarizing Exp 2 23 1 Steffman 2019• This effect restricted to vowel durations which map onto those appropriate for a prosodic context• similar findings for prosodic boundary effects1• In cases where other effects compete (duration perception), prosodic effects are mediated by language-typical durational patterningSumming up 24• Two test cases show prosodic prominence mediates perception of segmental categories• Favors a perception/processing model in which both segmental and prosodic structures are extracted in parallel from the speech signal1-31Cho et al 2007 2Kim et al. 2018 3Mitterer et al. 2019Further directions25• Questions remain: • Are prominence effects categorical, or more gradient? • What makes something prominent to listeners?• e.g. localized correlates of phrasal prominence such as glottalizationFurther directions26• Crosslinguistic comparison: how do different prominence marking systems engender different perceptual outcomes?• In the spectral domain:• languages vary in the extent to which prominence impacts formant structure1• In the temporal domain: • some languages (e.g. Mandarin2) don’t exhibit post-focus compression • some languages (e.g. Taiwanese2, Kyungsang Korean3)  show post-focus expansion• Do perceptual adjustments mirror these patterns? 1e.g. Delattre 1969 2Xu et al 2012 3Jun et al. 2006Thank you!  27• Additional thanks are due to: • Adam Royer for recording speech materials • Yang Wang, Qingxia Guo, Danielle Bagnas and James Weller  for help with data collection• The UCLA Phonetics seminar for helpful feedbackContact us:  jsteffman@g.ucla.edu   jun@humnet.ucla.eduReferences28Chen, M. (1970). Vowel Length Variation as a Function of the Voicing of the Consonant Environment. Phonetica, 22(3), 129–159.Cho, T. (2015). Language Effects on Timing at the Segmental and Suprasegmental Levels. In M. A. Redford (Ed.), The Handbook ofSpeech Production (pp. 505–529). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Cho, T. (2016). Prosodic Boundary Strengthening in the Phonetics–Prosody Interface. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(3),120–141.Cho, T., McQueen, J. M., & Cox, E. A. (2007). Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initialstrengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 35(2), 210–243.Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literaturereview. Language and speech, 40(2), 141-201.de Jong, K. (2004). Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal ofPhonetics, 32(4), 493–516.de Jong, K., Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (1993). The Interplay Between Prosodic Structure and Coarticulation. Language andSpeech, 36(2–3), 197–212.de Jong, K. J. (1995). The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. TheJournal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(1), 491–504..29Delattre, P. (2009). An acoustic and articulatory study of vowel reduction in four languages. IRAL - International Review of AppliedLinguistics in Language Teaching, 7(4), 295–326.Fougeron, C. (1999). Prosodically conditioned articulatory variations: A review. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 1–80.Greenberg, S., Carvey, H., Hitchcock, L., & Chang, S. (2003). Temporal properties of spontaneous speech—A syllable-centricperspective. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3), 465–485.Jun, J., Kim, J., Lee, H., & Jun, S.-A. (2006). The prosodic structure and pitch accent of Northern Kyungsang Korean. Journal ofEast Asian Linguistics, 15(4), 289–317.Keating, P. (2006). Phonetic Encoding of Prosodic Structure. In J. Harrington & M. Tabain (Eds.), Speech production: Models,phonetic processes, and techniques (pp. 167–186). Macquarie Monographs in Cognitive Science, Psychology Press.Keating, P., Fougeron, C., Hsu, C., & Cho, T. (2003). Domain initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In J. Local, R.Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Phonetic Interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI. Cambridge University Press.Kim, S., & Cho, T. (2013). Prosodic boundary information modulates phonetic categorization. The Journal of the Acoustical Societyof America, 134(1), EL19–EL25.Kim, S., Mitterer, H., & Cho, T. (2018). A time course of prosodic modulation in phonological inferencing: The case of Korean post-obstruent tensing. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0202912.Mitterer, H., Cho, T., & Kim, S. (2016). How does prosody influence speech categorization? Journal of Phonetics, 54, 68–79.Mitterer, H., Kim, S., & Cho, T. (2019). The glottal stop between segmental and suprasegmental processing: The case of Maltese.Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 104034.30Mo, Y., Cole, J., & Hasegawa-Johnson, M. (2009). Prosodic effects on vowel production: Evidence from formant structure.INTERSPEECH, 2535–2538.Raphael, L. J. (1972). Preceding Vowel Duration as a Cue to the Perception of the Voicing Characteristic of Word-Final Consonantsin American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(4B), 1296–1303.Steffman, J. (2019). Phrase-final lengthening modulates listeners’ perception of vowel duration as a cue to coda stop voicing. TheJournal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(6), EL560–EL566.Steffman, J., & Jun, S.-A. (2019). Perceptual integration of pitch and duration: Prosodic and psychoacoustic influences in speechperception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 146(3), EL251–EL257.Umeda, N. (1975). Vowel duration in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58(2), 434–445.Van Summers, W. (1987). Effects of stress and final-consonant voicing on vowel production: Articulatory and acoustic analyses. TheJournal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82(3), 847–863.Xu, Y., Chen, S., & Wang, B. (2012). Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression: A typological divide within the samelanguage family? Tlir, 29(1), 131–147.Xu, Y., & Xu, C. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33(2), 159–197.Yu, A. (2010). Tonal effects on perceived vowel duration. In Cécile Fougeron, B. Kuehnert, M. Imperio, & N. Vallee (Eds.),Laboratory Phonology 10. Walter de Gruyter.Appendix31Duration effects in Exp 1?32• Note: The /ɛ/ - /æ/ contrast is also durational - /æ/ is longer1• how would this relate to psychoacoustic durational perception?• recall: longer pre-target duration in Post-focus condition1e.g. Umeda 1975 Psycho-acoustic predictionsshorter perceived target sound – increased /ɛ/ responses in the Post-focus conditionProsodic predictions compensation for sonority expansion - increased /ɛ/ responses in the NPA condition – found in Exp. 1Barplots Exp. 2330.00.20.40.6NPA (prominent) Post−focusprop.'coat' responses0.00.20.40.6NPA (prominent) Post−focusprop.'coat' responses60-90 ms prosodic effect100-120 mspsychoacoustic effectExp 1 model 34β SE z pIntercept 0.04 0.15 0.235 0.81continuum -2.55 0.25 -10.09 < 0.001prominence 0.42 0.13 3.26 < 0.01cont : prom -0.11 0.05 -2.19 < 0.05Exp 2 model 35β SE z pIntercept -0.32 0.06 -5.46 < 0.001continuum -0.73 0.08 -9.208 < 0.001prominence 0.03 0.09 0.34 0.72cont : prom 0.26 0.03 8.215 < 0.001Exp 2 interaction (emmeans) 36Step (ms) est. SE z-ratio p60 0.74 0.20 3.59 <0.0170 0.47 0.19 2.44 0.0180 0.20 0.19 1.1 0.2790 -0.06 0.18 -0.35 0.72100 -0.33 0.18 -1.78 0.07110 -0.59 0.19 -3.06 <0.01120 -0.86 0.21 -4.14 <0.001

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389901/manifest

Comment

Related Items