Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Stability and Variability in Slovak Prosodic Boundaries

Benuš Š.a, b · Šimko J.c

Author affiliations

aConstantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, and bInstitute of Informatics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia; cUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2016;73:163-193

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: March 03, 2015
Accepted: April 15, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 31
Number of Figures: 8
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO

Abstract

Background/Aim: Encoding intended meanings in the type and strength of prosodic boundaries and strategies for communicating these meanings in ambient noise use similar prosodic cues. We analyze how increasing the level of ambient noise affects the realization of Slovak prosodic boundaries. Methods: Five native speakers of Slovak read sentences, manipulating the boundary type (weak, rise, fall) and the location of pre-boundary pitch accent. Ambient noise of several levels was administered via headphones. Acoustic and articulatory data (electromagnetometry) were collected. Results: Under normal condition, boundary strength is signaled with longer pre-boundary rhymes, more frequent pauses, greater crossboundary f0 resets and jaw displacement. The strength of falls is realized in crossboundary features (pauses, f0 reset), and rises in pre-boundary features (rhyme duration, f0 range). Pitch-accented rhymes are strengthened in all features, but f0 range. In noise, the increase in boundary strength is weak, and falls strengthen more than rises. F0 targets for falls and rises are adjusted in addition to noiseinduced global f0 scaling and lengthening. Conclusion: Hyper-articulation of prosodic boundaries in ambient noise is not robust and uniform; rather, durational, f0 and jaw displacement features co-create complex prosodic patterns in a complementary and synergetic manner based on affordances in normal speech.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Beckma n ME, Edwards J (1992): Intonational categories and the articulatory control of duration; in Tohkura Y, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Sagisaka Y (eds): Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure. Ohmsha, Tokyo, pp 359-375.
  2. Beckman ME, Hirschberg J, Shattuck-Hufnagel S (2004): The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework; in Jun S-A (ed): Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 9-54.
  3. Beňuš Š, Mády K (2010): Effects of lexical stress and speech rate on the quantity and quality of Slovak vowels. Proceedings of the 5th Speech Prosody Conference.
  4. Beňuš Š, Reichel UD, Mády K (2014): Modeling accentual phrase intonation in Slovak and Hungarian; in Veselovská L, Janebová M (eds): Complex Visibles Out There. Olomouc, Palacký University, pp 677-690.
  5. Beňuš Š, Šimko J (2014): Emergence of prosodic boundary: continuous effects of temporal affordance on intergestural timing. J Phon 44:110-129.
  6. Beňuš Š, Šimko J (2012): Rhythm and Tempo in Slovak. Proceedings of the 6th Speech Prosody Conference.
  7. Boersma P, Weenink D (2015): PRAAT: Doing Phonetics by Computer. http://www.praat.org.
  8. Byrd D (2000): Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 57:3-16.
  9. Byrd D, Krivokapić J, Lee S (2006): How far, how long: on the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1589-1599.
  10. Cho T (2006): Manifestation of prosodic structure in articulation: evidence from lip movement kinematics in English; in Goldstein L, Whalen DH, Best CT (eds): Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of Phonological Competence. New York, Walter De Gruyter, pp 519-548.
  11. Darjaa S, Cerňak M, Trnka M, Rusko M, Sabo R (2011): Effective triphone mapping for acoustic modeling in speech recognition. Proceedings of the Interspeech, pp 1717-1720.
  12. Davis C, Kim J, Grauwinkel K, Mixdorff H (2006): Lombard speech: auditory (a), visual (v), and av effects. Proceedings of the 3rd Speech Prosody Conference, pp 248-252.
  13. De Pijper J, Sandermann A (1994): On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2037-2047.
  14. Feise RJ (2002): Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2:8.
  15. Fougeron C, Keating P (1997): Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3728-3740.
  16. Fuchs S, Petrone C, Rochet-Capellan A, Reichel UD, Koenig LL (2015): Assessing respiratory contributions to f0 declination in German across varying speech tasks and respiratory demands. J Phon 52:35-45.
  17. Garnier M, Henrich N, Dubois D (2010): Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53:588-608.
  18. Garnier M, Bailly L, Dohen M, Welby P, Loevenbruck H (2006): An acoustic and articulatory study of Lombard speech: global effects on the utterance. Proceedings of the Interspeech, pp 17-21.
  19. Gelman A, Hill J, Yajima M (2012): Why we (usually): don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. J Res Educ Eff 5:189-211.
  20. Geumann A (2001): Invariance and variability in articulation and acoustics of natural perturbed speech. Ph.D. thesis, Inst. für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation der Universität München.
  21. Harrington J (2010): Phonetic Analysis of Speech Corpora. Oxford, Willey-Blackwell.
  22. Heldner M, Megyesi B (2003): Exploring the prosody-syntax interface in conversations. Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS, pp 2501-2504.
  23. Henderson AI, Nelms S (1980): Relative salience of intonation fall and pause as cues to the perceptual segmentation of speech in an unfamiliar language. J Psycholinguist Res 9:147-159.
  24. Hirschberg J (2005): Pragmatics and intonation; in Horn L, Ward G (eds): The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 515-537.
  25. Hirst D (2007): A Praat plugin for Momel and INTSINT with improved algorithms for modelling and coding intonation. Proceedings of the 16th ICPhS, pp 1233-1236.
  26. Hoole P, Zierdt A (2010): Five-dimensional articulography; in Maasen B, van Lieshout PHHM (eds): Speech Motor Control. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 331-349.
  27. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008): Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346-363.
  28. House D, Hermes DJ, Beaugendre F (1998): Perception of tonal rises and falls for accentuation and phrasing in Swedish. Proceedings of the ICSLP, pp 2799-2802.
  29. Huber JE, Chandrasekaran B (2006): Effects of increasing sound pressure level on lip and jaw movement parameters and consistency in young adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:1368-1379.
  30. Jun S-A, Fougeron C (2002): Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14:147-172.
  31. Junqua J-C (1996): The influence of acoustics on speech production: a noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex. Speech Commun 20:13-22.
  32. Kachkovskaia T (2014): Phrase-final lengthening in Russian: pre-boundary or pre-pausal? in Ronzhin A, Potapova R, Delic V (eds.): Speech and Computer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 8773. Berlin, Springer, pp 353-359.
  33. Keating P, Fougeron C, Cho T, Hsu C (2006): Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages; in Local J, Ogden R, Temple R (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 143-161.
  34. Kim J, Davis C, Vignali G, Hill H (2005): A visual concomitant of the Lombard reflex. AVSP, pp 17-22.
  35. Kráľ A, Sabol J (1989): Fonetika a Fonológia [Phonetics and Phonology]. Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladateľstvo, Bratislava.
  36. Krivokapić J, Byrd D (2012): Prosodic boundary strength: an articulatory and perceptual study. J Phon 40:430-442.
  37. Liberman M, Pierrehumbert J (1984): Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length; in Aronoff M, Oehrle R (eds): Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 157-233.
  38. Lindblom B (1999): Emergent phonology. Proceedings of the 25th Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, University of California.
  39. Lombard E (1911): Le Signe de l'Elevation de la Voix. Ann. Malad. l'Oreille Larynx 37:101-119.
  40. Löfqvist A, Gracco VL (1999): Interarticulator programming in VCV sequences: lip and tongue movements. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1864-1876.
  41. Lu Y-Ch, Cooke M (2009): The contribution of changes in f0 and spectral tilt to increased intelligibility of speech produced in noise. Speech Commun 51:1253-1262.
  42. Lu Y-Ch, Cooke M (2010): Spectral and temporal changes to speech produced in the presence of energetic and informational maskers. J Acoust Soc Am 128:2059-2070.
  43. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013): A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixedeffects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133-142.
  44. Nakai S, Kunnari S, Turk A, Suomi K, Ylitalo R (2009): Utterance-final lengthening and quantity in Northern Finnish. J Phon 37:29-45.
  45. Nooteboom S (1997): The prosody of speech: Melody and rhythm; in Hardcastle W, Laver J (eds): The Handbook of Phonetic Science. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 640-673.
  46. Patel R, Shell KW (2008): The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51:209-220.
  47. Pierrehumbert J, Hirschberg J (1990): The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse; in Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 271-311.
  48. Pierrehumbert J, Talkin D (1992): Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop; in Docherty G, Ladd DR (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology 2. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 90-117.
  49. Price P, Ostendorf M, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Fong C (1991): The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. J Acoust Soc Am 9:2956-2970.
  50. Reichel UD, Mády K (2013): Parameterisation of f0 register and discontinuity to predict prosodic boundary strength in Hungarian spontaneous speech; in Wagner P (ed): Elektronische Sprachverarbeitung. Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, 65. Dresden, TUD Press, pp 223-230.
  51. Rivers C, Rastatter MP (1985): The effects of multitalker and masker noise on fundamental frequency variability during spontaneous speech for children and adults. J Aud Res 25:37-45.
  52. Rusko M, Sabo R, Dzúr M (2007): Sk-ToBI scheme for phonological prosody annotation in Slovak; in Matoušek V, Mautner P (eds): TSD 2007. LNCS (LNAI), Volume 4629. Heidelberg, Springer, pp 334-341.
  53. Shriberg E, Ladd DR, Terken J, Stolcke A (1996): Modeling pitch range variation within and across speakers: predicting f0 targets when ‘speaking up'. Proceedings of the ICSLP, pp 1-4.
  54. Schulman R (1989): Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am 85:295-312.
  55. Scott D (1982): Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. J Acoust Soc Am 71:996-1007.
  56. Šimko J, O'Dell M, Vainio M (2014): Emergent consonantal quantity contrast and context-dependence of gestural phasing. J Phon 44:130-151.
  57. Šimko J, Vainio M, Beňuš Š (2016): Hyperarticulation in Lombard speech: global coordination of the jaw, lips and the tongue. J Acoust Soc Am 139:151-162.
  58. Swerts M (1997): Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. J Acoust Soc Am 101:514-621.
  59. Tabain M (2003): Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. J Acoust Soc Am 113:2834-2849.
  60. Tasko SM, McClean MD (2004): Variations in articulatory movement with changes in speech task. J Speech Lang Hear Res 47:85-100.
  61. Titze IR (1989): On the relation between subglottal pressure and fundamental frequency in phonation. J Acoust Soc Am 85:901-906.
  62. Turk A, Shattuck-Hufnagel S (2007): Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. J Phon 35:445-472.
  63. Vainio M, Aalto D, Suni A, Arnhold A, Raitio T, Seijo H, Jarvikivi J, Alku P (2012): Effect of noise type and level on focus related fundamental frequency changes. Proceedings of the Interspeech, pp 1-4.
  64. Vaissière J (1983): Language-independent prosodic features; in Cutler A, Ladd DR (eds): Prosody: Models and Measurements. Berlin, Springer, pp 53-65.
  65. Van Heuven VJ, Haan JH (2002): Temporal distribution of interrogativity markers in Dutch: a perceptual study; in Gussenhoven C, Warner N (eds): Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp 61-86.
  66. Van Summers W, Pisoni DB, Bernacki RH, Pedlow RI, Stokes MA (1988): Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 84:917-928.
  67. Wagner M, Watson D (2010): Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Lang Cogn Process 25:905-945.
  68. Welby P (2006): Intonational Differences in Lombard Speech: Looking beyond f0 Range. Proceedings of the 3rd Speech Prosody Conference, pp 763-766.
  69. Wellmann C, Holzgrefe J, Truckenbrodt H, Wartenburger I, Hohle B (2012): How each prosodic boundary cue matters: evidence from German infants. Front Psychol 3:580.
  70. White LS (2002): English Speech Timing: A Domain and Locus Approach. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
  71. Wightman C, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Ostendorf M, Price P (1992): Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. J Acoust Soc Am 92:1707-1717.
  72. Zhao Y, Jurafsky D (2009): The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation. J Phon 37:231-247.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: March 03, 2015
Accepted: April 15, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 31
Number of Figures: 8
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.