Variation of Accent Prominence within the Phrase: Models and Spontaneous Speech Data

  • Jacques Terken
Chapter

Abstract

Various models have been proposed to account for judgments of the relative prominence of pitch accents in relation to F0 variation. Two topics are addressed in this paper. The first topic is how pitch accents need to be realized in order to obtain the appropriate prominence patterns. In order to answer this question, relevant data and models for prominence perception are summarized. It is tentatively concluded that the prominence associated with F0 peaks is judged relative to the local F0 range, as signalled by the pitch at utterance onset. No model for prominence perception proposed so far can account for the available data, and more insight is needed into the issue of pitch range estimation before real progress can be made. The second topic concerns the assumption of free gradient variability underlying models of prominence perception: it is assumed that the prominence associated with pitch accents may vary freely and in a gradient way from accent to accent within the phrase. Prominence ratings collected for fragments of spontaneous speech provide no evidence of a constraint prohibiting such variation. Some implications of these findings are considered.

Keywords

Spontaneous Speech Pitch Accent Prosodic Boundary Current Contour Prominence Variation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Cur80]
    K. L. Currie. An initial search for tonics. Language and Speech, 23:329–350, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. [Cur81]
    K. L. Currie. Further experiments in the search for tonics. Language and Speech, 24:1–28, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. [dBGR92]
    R. Van den Berg, C. Gussenhoven, and A. C. M. Rietveld. Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In G. J. Docherty and D. R. Ladd, editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, pp. 335–359. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [FH84]
    H. Fujisaki and K. Hirose. Analysis of voice fundamental frequency contours for declarative sentences of Japanese. J. Acoust. Soc. Japan (E), 5:233–242, 1984. Google Scholar
  5. [FT89]
    G. A. Ferguson and Y. Takane. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. Google Scholar
  6. [GR88]
    C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld. Fundamental frequency declination in Dutch: testing three hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics, 16:355–369, 1988. Google Scholar
  7. [Hir92]
    J. Hirschberg. Using discourse context to guide pitch accent decisions in synthetic speech. In G. Bailly, C. Benoît, and T. R. Sawallis, editors, Talking Machines: Theories, Models, and Designs, pp. 367–376. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, B. V., 1992. Google Scholar
  8. [HJ91]
    M. Home and C. Johanson. Lexical structure and accenting in English and Swedish restricted texts. Working Papers, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [HR94]
    D. J. Hermes and H. H. Rump. Perception of prominence in speech intonation induced by rising and falling pitch movements. J. Acoust Soc. Am., 96:83–92, 1994. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [HvG91]
    D. J. Hermes and J. C. van Gestel. The frequency scale of speech intonation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90:97–102, 1991. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Lad90]
    D. R. Ladd. Metrical representation of pitch register. In J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman, editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, pp. 35–57. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Google Scholar
  12. [Lad94]
    D. R. Ladd. Constraints on the gradient variablity of pitch range (or Pitch Level 4 Lives!). In P. A. Keating, editor, Phonological structure and phonetic form. Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, pp. 43–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Ler84]
    L. Leroy. The psychological reality of fundamental frequency declination. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 40, 1984. Google Scholar
  14. [LP84]
    M. Liberman and J. Pierrehumbert. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In M. Aronoff and R. Oehrle, editors, Language Sound Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984. Google Scholar
  15. [LVJ94]
    D. R. Ladd, J. Verhoeven, and K. Jacobs. Influence of adjacent pitch accents on each other’s perceived prominence, two contradictory effects. Journal of Phonetics, 22:87–99, 1994. Google Scholar
  16. [Pie79]
    J. Pierrehumbert. The perception of fundamental frequency declination. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 66:363–369, 1979.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [PS94]
    J. R. De Pijper and A. A. Sanderman. On the perceptual strength of prosodie boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. J. Acoust Soc. Am., 96:2037–2047, 1994. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [RG85]
    A. C. M. Rietveld and C. Gussenhoven. On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13:299–308, 1985. Google Scholar
  19. [RG93]
    A. C. M. Rietveld and C. Gussenhoven. Scaling prominence. Proceedings Dept. Language and Speech, 16/17:86–90, 1992/1993. Google Scholar
  20. [RRT94]
    B. H. Repp, H. H. Rump, and J. Terken. Relative perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks in the presence of declination. Technical Report, Instituut voor Perceptie Onder-zoek, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [Slu95a]
    A. C. M. Sluijter. Een perceptieve evaluatie van een model voor alinea-intonatie met synthetische spraak (a perceptual evaluation of a model for paragraph intonation with synthetic speech). Internal Report 801, Instituut voor Perceptie Onderzoek, 1995. Google Scholar
  22. [Ter84]
    J. M. B. Terken. The distribution of pitch accents in instructions as a function of discourse structure. Language & Speech, 27:269–289, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [Ter91]
    J. Terken. Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89:1768–1776, 1991.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Ter93]
    J. Terken. Baselines revisited: Reply to Ladd. Language and Speech 36:453–459, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. [Ter94]
    J. Terken. Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of accented syllables. II. Non-final accents. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 95:3662–3665, 1994.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [tH81]
    J. ‘t Hart. Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 69:811–821, 1981. ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [tHCC90]
    J. ‘t Hart, R. Collier, and A. Cohen. A Perceptual Study of Intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Terken

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations