• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY OF FOCUS MARKING

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Aktie "THE PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY OF FOCUS MARKING"

Copied!
1
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

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

CONCLUSION

Nuclear 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

0 40 80

-4 -2 0 2 4

0 40 80

-4 -2 0 2 4

0 40 80

broad narrow contrastive

Normalised Onglide

Fr eq ue nc 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

0 500 1500

-4 -2 0 2 4

-2 .0 -0 .5 1.0

En erg y F re qu en cy

-4 -2 0 2 4

0 500 1500

-4 -2 0 2 4

-2 .0 -0 .5 1.0

En erg y F re qu en cy

-4 -2 0 2 4

0 500 1500

Fr eq ue nc 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

Potential Energy

Modes of rising distributions

k = 0 k = 1

k = -0.5

0.8 1.2

broad narrow contrastive

0.8 1.2

broad narrow contrastive

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

-2-101

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 of Phonetics, 44, 47-61. [4] Iskarous, K. (2017). The relation between the continuous and the discrete: A note on the first principles of speech dynamics. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 8-20. [5] Gafos, A. I. and Benus, S. (2006). Dynamics of phonological cognition. Cognitive Science, 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 from second language speech. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Southern California. [8] Goldstein, L., D. Byrd & E. Saltzman. (2006). The role of the vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. In M. Arbib (ed.). Action to language via the mirror 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

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

3.3 The Question of Ergativity 8 It does not seem proper to me to speak of, for example, the Tangut VAS as an ergative or split ergative system, as it is clearly not

Give an example for head marking and one for dependent marking from a language of your choice.. Explain which grammatical relation is marked in

The effects of the extrametricity are shown in the comparison between (9) and (6): the OVS order with a final accent allows for a local interpretation of the nuclear accent (answer

beginning of release instant during plosive end of plosive. beginning

Although the majority of answers (54%) displayed correct focus accent placement, con- trary to our expectations, this score was not significantly higher than that of the normal

From these pitch tracks one can see that sentence-initial/medial FOF (i.e., nuclear elements) (i, ii) as well as prenuclear SOF/Non-Focus (iii, v) preserve accents of the target

Even though children at the beginning of the babbling stage and therefore about 5 months old are able to produce perceivable different stress patterns, no restrictions either of

T] there is a short pause after [the focus marker] w ɛ ̀...” But if the focussed element “is linked to the subject position of the verb... 36th CALL, Leiden 28-30