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

The Prosody of the Czech Discourse Marker ‘Jasně': An Analysis of Forms and Functions

Volin J.a · Weingartová La, b · Niebuhr O.c

Author affiliations

aInstitute of Phonetics, Metropolitan University Prague, Prague, Czech Republic; bGoogle Inc. (via Adecco), London, UK; cDepartment of Design and Communication, Innovation Research Cluster Alsion, University of Southern Denmark, Sonderborg, Denmark

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2016;73:314-337

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: February 16, 2015
Accepted: August 07, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 24
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 6

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

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

Abstract

Words like yeah, okay and (al)right are fairly unspecific in their lexical semantics, and not least for this reason there is a general tendency for them to occur with highly varied and expressive prosodic patterns across languages. Here we examine in depth the prosodic forms that express eight pragmatic functions of the Czech discourse marker jasně, including resignation, reassurance, surprise, indifference or impatience. Using a collection of 172 tokens from a corpus of scripted dialogues by 30 native speakers, we performed acoustic analyses, applied classification algorithms and solicited judgments from native listeners in a perceptual experiment. There appeared to be multi-parametric differences between jasně realizations in terms of their F0, timing and intensity patterns, which gave rise to generally consistent form-function mappings. For example, resignation seems to be realized with a falling intonation contour, relatively slow tempo, long wordinitial consonant and a short word-final vowel. Although the most significant prosodic parameters used for clustering analysis involved segment durations, all pragmatic functions were expressed by patterns of multiple features.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Ambrazaitis G (2 006): Prosodic signalling of (un)expected information in South Swedish - an interactive manipulation experiment; in Hoffmann R, Mixdorff H (eds): Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, Band 40: Speech Prosody - 3rd International Conference. Dresden, TUD Press, pp 911-914.
  2. Ambrazaitis G (2009): Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Travaux de l'institut de Linguistique de Lund, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, vol 49.
  3. Armstrong LE, Ward IC (1926): A Handbook of English Intonation. Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons.
  4. Arvaniti A (2011): The representation of intonation; in van Oostendorp M, Ewen CJ, Hume EJ, Rice K (eds): The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell, pp 757-780.
  5. Bartošek J, Hanžl V (2011): Intonation based sentence modality classifier for Czech using Artificial Neural Network; in Travieso-González CM, Alonso-Hernández JB (eds): Advances in Nonlinear Speech Processing. Heidelberg, Springer, pp 162-169.
  6. Batliner A, Kompe R, Kießling A, Nöth E, Niemann H (1995): Can you tell apart spontaneous and read speech if you just look at prosody; in Rubio Ayuso A, López Soler J (eds): Speech Recognition and Coding. New Advances and Trends. Berlin/NewYork, Springer, pp 321-324.
  7. Beňuš Š, Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2007): Prosody of backchannels in American English. Proceedings of 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp 1065-1068.
  8. Boersma P, Weenink D (2014): Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program], version 5.3.35. http://www.praat.org/.
  9. Boysen L (2015): Die Produktion und Perzeption der Mikrorhythmen Deutscher Tonhöhenakzente. MA Thesis, Kiel University, Germany.
  10. Bruce G (1977): Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund, Gleerup.
  11. Buschmeier H, Malisz Z, Wlodarczak M, Kopp S, Wagner P (2011): ‘Are you sure you're paying attention?' - ‘Uh-huh'. Communicating understanding as a marker of attentiveness. Proceedings of Interspeech 2011. Florence, ISCA.
  12. Cabarrão V, Mata AI (2012): Prosodic and pragmatic properties of affirmative words in European Portuguese. Proceedings of the International Conference of Experimental Linguistics, Athens, Greece.
  13. Caspers J (2000): Melodic characteristics of backchannels in Dutch Map Task dialogues. Proceedings of ICSLP 2000, Beijing, China, vol 2, pp 611-614.
  14. Chen A (2005): Universal and Language-Specific Perception of Paralinguistic Intonational Meaning. Utrecht, LOT.
  15. Daneš F (1957): Intonace a věta ve spisovné češtině. Praha, Academia.
  16. Dankovičová J (2001): The Linguistic Basis of Articulation Rate Variation in Czech. Frankfurt am Main, Hector.
  17. Dellwo V, Leemann A, Kolly M-J (2015): The recognition of read and spontaneous speech in local vernacular: the case of Zurich German dialect. J Phon 48:13-28.
  18. Dilley LC, Pitt MA (2007): A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2340-2353.
  19. Duběda T (2011): Towards an Inventory of Pitch Accents for Read Czech, Slovo a Slovesnost 72/1, pp 3-12.
  20. Duběda T, Raab J (2008): Pitch accents, boundary tones and contours: automatic learning of Czech intonation; in Sojka P, Horák A, Kopeček I, Pala K (eds): Proceedings of Text, Speech and Dialogue. Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer, pp 293-302.
  21. Ehlich K (1986): Interjektionen (Linguistische Arbeiten, Band 111). Berlin, De Gruyter.
  22. Erickson D, Fujimura·(1996): On defining emphasis. Proceedings of 5th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Chicago, USA.
  23. Fant G, Kruckenberg A (1994): Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish. STL-QPSR 35:125-144.
  24. Frota S (2012): A focus intonational morpheme in European Portuguese: production and perception; in Elordieta G, Prieto P (eds): Prosody and Meaning. Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, pp 163-196.
  25. Grabe E (1998): Comparative Intonational Phonology: English and German. PhD Thesis, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  26. Gravano A, Beňuš Š, Chávez H, Hirschberg J, Wilcox L (2007): On the role of context and prosody in the interpretation of okay. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 800-807.
  27. Gravano A, Hirschberg J (2009): Turn-yielding cues in task-oriented dialogue. Proceedings of SIGDIAL 2009. London, ISCA, pp 253-261.
  28. Gravano A, Hirschberg J, Beňuš Š (2011): Affirmative cue words in task-oriented dialogue. Comput Linguist 38:1-39.
  29. Gruber J (2011): An Articulatory, Acoustic, and Auditory Study of Burmese Tone. PhD Thesis, Georgetown University, USA.
  30. Gussenhoven C (2002): Intonation and interpretation: phonetics and phonology. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Aix-en-Provence, France, pp 47-57.
  31. Gussenhoven C, Driessen W (2004): Explaining two correlations between vowel quality and tone: the duration connection; in Bel B, Marlien I (eds): Proceedings 2nd International Conference of Speech Prosody, Nara, Japan, pp 179-182.
  32. Ha KP (2010): Prosody of Vietnamese from an interactional perspective: ờ, ừ and vâng in backchannels and requests for information. J Southeast Asian Linguist Soc 3:56-76.
  33. Himmelmann NP (2006): Prosody in language documentation; in Gippert J, Himmelmann NP, Mosel U (eds): Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 163-181.
  34. Hirschberg J, Litman D (1993): Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Comput Linguist 19:501-530.
  35. Hobbs JR (1990): The pierrehumbert-hirschberg theory of intonational meaning made simple: comments on pierrehumbert and hirschberg; in Cohen PR, Morgan JL, Pollack ME (eds): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp 313-323.
  36. Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011): Analysis of acoustic-prosodic features related to paralinguistic information carried by interjections in dialogue speech. Proceedings 12th Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2011), Florence, Italy, pp 3133-3136.
  37. Ishi CT, Hatano H, Hagita N (2012): Extraction of paralinguistic information carried by mono-syllabic interjections in Japanese. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Shangai, China, pp 681-684.
  38. Jančák P (1957): Zvuková stránka českého pozdravu. Praha, Academia.
  39. Janota P (1967): An experiment concerning the perception of stress by Czech listeners. Acta Universitatis Carolinae - Philologica, Phonetica Pragensia I, pp 45-68.
  40. Janota P, Palková Z (1974): Auditory Evaluation of Stress under the Influence of Context. AUC Philologica 2/1974, Phonetica Pragensia 4:29-59.
  41. Jurafsky D, Shriberg E, Fox B, Curl T (1998): Lexical, prosodic, and syntactic cues for dialog acts. Proceedings of ACL/COLING, Montreal, Canada, pp 114-120.
  42. Kohler KJ (1990): Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation; in Kingston J, Beckman ME (eds): Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 115-138.
  43. Kohler KJ (1997): Modelling prosody in spontaneous speech; in Sagisaka Y, Campbell N, Higuchi N (eds): Computing Prosody, Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech. New York, Springer, pp 187-210.
  44. Kohler KJ (2005): Timing and communicative functions of pitch contours. Phonetica 62:88-105.
  45. Kohler KJ (2006): Paradigms of experimental prosodic analysis: from measurement to function; in Sudhoff S, Lenertová D, Meyer R, Pappert S, Augurzky P, Mleinek I, Richter N, Schließer J (eds): Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 123-152.
  46. Kohler KJ (2013): From communicative functions to prosodic forms. Phonetica 70:24-65.
  47. Kolář J, Romportl J, Psutka J (2003): The Czech Speech and Prosody Database Both for ASR and TTS Purposes. Proceedigns of Eurospeech, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1577-1580.
  48. Krahmer E, Swerts M (2005): How children and adults produce and perceive uncertainty in audiovisual speech. Lang Speech 48(pt 1):29-54.
  49. Laan G (1997): The contribution of intonation, segmental durations, and spectral features to the perception of a spontaneous and a read speaking style. Speech Commun 22:43-65.
  50. Lai C (2008): Prosodic cues for backchannels and short questions: really? Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil.
  51. Lai C (2009): Perceiving surprise on cue words: prosody and semantics interact on right and really. Proceedings of the 10th Interspeech Conference, Brighton, UK, pp 1-4.
  52. Lai C (2010): What do you mean, you're uncertain?: the interpretation of cue words and rising intonation in dialogue. Proceedings of the 11th Interspeech Conference, Makuhari, Japan, pp 1-4.
  53. Malisz Z, Karpiński M (2010): Multimodal aspects of positive and negative responses in polish task-Oriented dialogues. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, USA.
  54. Möbius B (2003): Gestalt psychology meets phonetics - an early experimental study of intrinsic F0 and intensity. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, IPA and UAB, vol III, pp 2677-2680.
  55. Mozziconacci SJ (1998): Speech Variability and Emotion: Production and Perception. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
  56. Michalsky J (2015): Frageintonation im Deutschen. Zur Intonatorischen Markierung von Interrogativität und Fragehaltigkeit. PhD Thesis, University of Oldenburg, Germany.
  57. Michaud A, Mazaudon M (2006): Pitch and voice quality characteristics of the lexical word-tones of tamang, as compared with level tones (naxi data) and pitch-plus-voice-quality tones (vietnamese data); in Hoffmann R, Mixdorff H (ed): Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation, Band 40: Speech Prosody - 3rd International Conference. Dresden, TUD Press, pp 823-826.
  58. Mixdorff H (2012): The application of the fujisaki model in quantitative prosody research; in Niebuhr·(ed): Prosodies: Context, Function, Communication. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 55-74.
  59. Niebuhr·(2007): Perzeption und Kognitive Verarbeitung der Sprechmelodie, Theoretische Grundlagen und Empirische Untersuchungen. Language, Context, and Cognition, vol VII. deGruyter, Berlin/New York.
  60. Niebuhr·(2010): On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica 67:170-198
  61. Niebuhr·(2011): Alignment and pitch-accent identification: implications from F0 peak and plateau contours. Arbeitsber Inst Phonet Digitale Sprachverarbeitung 38:77-95.
  62. Niebuhr·(2013): The acoustic complexity of intonation; in Asu EL, Lippus P (eds): Nordic Prosody XI. Frankfurt/New York, Peter Lang, pp 15-29.
  63. Niebuhr·(2015): Stepped intonation contours - a new field of complexity; in Skarnitzl R, Niebuhr·(eds): Tackling the Complexity in Speech. Prague, Charles University Press, pp 39-74.
  64. Niebuhr O, Michaud A (2015): Speech Data Acquisition - The Underestimated Challenge. Kieler Arbeiten in Linguistik & Phonetik (Kalipho) 3:1-42.
  65. Niebuhr O, Pfitzinger HP (2010): On pitch-accent identification - the role of syllable duration and intensity. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, Chicago, USA.
  66. Niebuhr O, Landgraf R, Pfitzinger HP, Schmidt G (2015): The Kiel corpora of ‘Speech & Emotion' - a summary. Proceedings of the 41st Tagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Akustik, Nuremberg, Germany, pp 1-4.
  67. O'Connor JD, Arnold GF (1961): Intonation of Colloquial English. London, Longman.
  68. Palková Z, Volín J (2003): The role of F0 contours in determining foot boundaries in Czech. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, IPA and UAB, vol II, pp 1783-1786.
  69. Petrone C, D'Imperio M (2011): From tones to tunes: effects of the F0 prenuclear region in the perception of Neapolitan statements and questions; in Frota S, Elordieta G, Prieto P (eds): Prosodic Categories: Production, Perception and Comprehension. Berlin, Springer, pp 207-230.
  70. Pierrehumbert J (1980): The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, MIT. Distributed 1988, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  71. Pierrehumbert JB, Steele SA (1989): Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46:181-196.
  72. 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.
  73. Podlipský VJ, Skarnitzl R, Volín J (2009): High front vowels in Czech: a contrast in quantity or quality? Proceedings of Interspeech, Brighton, UK, pp 132-135.
  74. Redi LC (2003): Categorical effects in production of pitch contours in English. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, pp 2921-2924.
  75. Rietveld T, Chen A (2006): How to obtain and process perceptual judgements of intonational meaning; in Sudhoff S, Lenertová D, Meyer R, Pappert S, Augurzky P, Mleinek I, Richter N, Schließer J (eds): Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, pp 283-319.
  76. Schegloff EA (1982): Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh' and other things that come between sentences; in Tannen D (ed): Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown, Georgetown University Press, pp 71-93.
  77. Schiffrin D (1987): Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  78. Schmidt JE (2001): Bausteine der intonation? Germanistische Linguistik 157-158:9-32.
  79. Sugiyama Y (2012): Production and Perception of Japanese Pitch Accent. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  80. ‘t Hart J, Collier R, Cohen A (1990): A Perceptual Study of Intonation. An Experimental-Phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  81. Tamburini F, Caini C (2005): An automatic system for detecting prosodic prominence in American English. Int J Speech Technol 8:33-44.
  82. Truong KP, Heylen D (2010): Disambiguating the functions of conversational sounds with prosody: the case of ‘yeah'. Proceedings of Interspeech, Makuhari, Japan, pp 2554-2557.
  83. van Zyl M, Hanekom JJ (2012): When ‘okay' is not okay: acoustic characteristics of single-word prosody conveying reluctance. J Acoust Soc Am 133:EL13-EL19.
  84. Volín J (2008a): Variabilita Neukončujících Melodií ve Světle Shlukové Analýzy. [Cluster Analysis of Variation in Continuation Melodies.] Phonetica Pragensia XI (AUC-Philologica 2007/2), pp 173-179.
  85. Volín J (2008b): Z Intonace Čtených Zpravodajství: Výška První Slabiky v Taktu. [Intonation of News Reading: The Pitch of the Stressed Syllable]. Čeština Doma a ve Světě 1-2/2008, pp 89-96.
  86. Volín J, Skarnitzl R (2007): Temporal downtrends in Czech read speech. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of ISCA (Interspeech 2007). Antwerpen, ISCA, pp 442-445.
  87. Volín J, Weingartová L (2012): Idiosyncrasies in local articulation rate trajectories in Czech. Proceedings of Perspectives on Rhythm and Timing. Glasgow, UG, p 67.
  88. Volín J, Weingartová L, Niebuhr·(2014): Between recognition and resignation - the prosodic forms and communicative functions of the Czech confirmation tag ‘jasně'; in Campbell N, Gibbon D, Hirst D (eds): Proceedings of Speech Prosody. Dublin, TCD, pp 115-119.
  89. Wagner P, Trouvain J, Zimmerer F (2015): In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. J Phon 48:1-12.
  90. Ward N (1998): Some exotic discourse markers of spoken dialog. Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, Montreal, Canada, pp 62-64.
  91. Ward N (2006): Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmat Cogn 14:129-182.
  92. Ward N, Tsukahara W (2000): Prosodic features which cue back-channel responses in English and Japanese. J Pragmat 32:1177-1207.
  93. Weingartová L (2015): Identifikace Mluvčího v Temporální Doméně řeči [Speaker Identification in the Temporal Domain of Speech]. PhD Thesis. Prague, Institute of Phonetics, Charles University in Prague.
  94. Wlodarczak M, Buschmeier H, Malisz Z, Kopp S, Wagner P (2012): Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Feedback Behaviors in Dialog, Interspeech 2012 Satellite Workshop. Stevenson, pp 93-96.
  95. Xu Y (2004): Understanding tone from the perspective of production and perception. Lang Linguist 5:757-797.
  96. Xu Y (2010): In defense of lab speech. J Phon 38:329-336.
  97. Yngve V (1970): On getting a word in edgewise. Chicago Linguist Soc 6:567-578.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: February 16, 2015
Accepted: August 07, 2016
Published online: February 23, 2017
Issue release date: February 2017

Number of Print Pages: 24
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 6

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.