Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
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.
verified
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
5 Beňuš Š, Šimko J (2014): Emergence of prosodic boundary: continuous effects of temporal affordance on intergestural timing. J Phon 44:110-129.10.1016/j.wocn.2013.12.005Search in Google Scholar
6 Beňuš Š, Šimko J (2012): Rhythm and Tempo in Slovak. Proceedings of the 6th Speech Prosody Conference.Search in Google Scholar
7 Boersma P, Weenink D (2015): PRAAT: Doing Phonetics by Computer. http://www.praat.org.Search in Google Scholar
8 Byrd D (2000): Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 57:3-16.10.1159/000028456Search in Google Scholar
9 Byrd D, Krivokapić J, Lee S (2006): How far, how long: on the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1589-1599.10.1121/1.2217135Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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 1717-1720.10.21437/Interspeech.2011-190Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
13 De Pijper J, Sandermann A (1994): On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. J Acoust Soc Am 96:2037-2047.10.1121/1.410145Search in Google Scholar
14 Feise RJ (2002): Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Med Res Methodol 2:8.10.1186/1471-2288-2-8Search in Google Scholar
15 Fougeron C, Keating P (1997): Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3728-3740.10.1121/1.418332Search in Google Scholar
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 52:35-45.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.002Search in Google Scholar
17 Garnier M, Henrich N, Dubois D (2010): Influence of sound immersion and communicative interaction on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53:588-608.10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0138)Search in Google Scholar
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 17-21.10.21437/Interspeech.2006-323Search in Google Scholar
19 Gelman A, Hill J, Yajima M (2012): Why we (usually): don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. J Res Educ Eff 5:189-211.10.1080/19345747.2011.618213Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
21 Harrington J (2010): Phonetic Analysis of Speech Corpora. Oxford, Willey-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
22 Heldner M, Megyesi B (2003): Exploring the prosody-syntax interface in conversations. Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS, pp 2501-2504.Search in Google Scholar
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 9:147-159.10.1007/BF01067468Search in Google Scholar
24 Hirschberg J (2005): Pragmatics and intonation; in Horn L, Ward G (eds): The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 515-537.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
27 Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008): Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346-363.10.1002/bimj.200810425Search in Google Scholar
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 2799-2802.10.21437/ICSLP.1998-472Search in Google Scholar
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 49:1368-1379.10.1044/1092-4388(2006/098)Search in Google Scholar
30 Jun S-A, Fougeron C (2002): Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus 14:147-172.Search in Google Scholar
31 Junqua J-C (1996): The influence of acoustics on speech production: a noise-induced stress phenomenon known as the Lombard reflex. Speech Commun 20:13-22.10.1016/S0167-6393(96)00041-6Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
34 Kim J, Davis C, Vignali G, Hill H (2005): A visual concomitant of the Lombard reflex. AVSP, pp 17-22.Search in Google Scholar
35 Kráľ A, Sabol J (1989): Fonetika a Fonológia [Phonetics and Phonology]. Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladateľstvo, Bratislava.Search in Google Scholar
36 Krivokapić J, Byrd D (2012): Prosodic boundary strength: an articulatory and perceptual study. J Phon 40:430-442.10.1016/j.wocn.2012.02.011Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
38 Lindblom B (1999): Emergent phonology. Proceedings of the 25th Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, University of California.10.3765/bls.v25i1.1184Search in Google Scholar
39 Lombard E (1911): Le Signe de l'Elevation de la Voix. Ann. Malad. l'Oreille Larynx 37:101-119.Search in Google Scholar
40 Löfqvist A, Gracco VL (1999): Interarticulator programming in VCV sequences: lip and tongue movements. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1864-1876.10.1121/1.426723Search in Google Scholar
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 51:1253-1262.10.1016/j.specom.2009.07.002Search in Google Scholar
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 128:2059-2070.10.1121/1.3478775Search in Google Scholar
43 Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013): A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixedeffects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133-142.10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.xSearch in Google Scholar
44 Nakai S, Kunnari S, Turk A, Suomi K, Ylitalo R (2009): Utterance-final lengthening and quantity in Northern Finnish. J Phon 37:29-45.10.1016/j.wocn.2008.08.002Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
46 Patel R, Shell KW (2008): The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 51:209-220.10.1044/1092-4388(2008/016)Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
49 Price P, Ostendorf M, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Fong C (1991): The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. J Acoust Soc Am 9:2956-2970.10.1121/1.401770Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
54 Schulman R (1989): Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am 85:295-312.10.1121/1.397737Search in Google Scholar
55 Scott D (1982): Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. J Acoust Soc Am 71:996-1007.10.1121/1.387581Search in Google Scholar
56 Šimko J, O'Dell M, Vainio M (2014): Emergent consonantal quantity contrast and context-dependence of gestural phasing. J Phon 44:130-151.10.1016/j.wocn.2013.11.006Search in Google Scholar
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 139:151-162.10.1121/1.4939495Search in Google Scholar
58 Swerts M (1997): Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different strength. J Acoust Soc Am 101:514-621.10.1121/1.418114Search in Google Scholar
59 Tabain M (2003): Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. J Acoust Soc Am 113:2834-2849.10.1121/1.1564013Search in Google Scholar
60 Tasko SM, McClean MD (2004): Variations in articulatory movement with changes in speech task. J Speech Lang Hear Res 47:85-100.10.1044/1092-4388(2004/008)Search in Google Scholar
61 Titze IR (1989): On the relation between subglottal pressure and fundamental frequency in phonation. J Acoust Soc Am 85:901-906.10.1121/1.397562Search in Google Scholar
62 Turk A, Shattuck-Hufnagel S (2007): Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. J Phon 35:445-472.10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001Search in Google Scholar
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 1-4.10.21437/Interspeech.2012-206Search in Google Scholar
64 Vaissière J (1983): Language-independent prosodic features; in Cutler A, Ladd DR (eds): Prosody: Models and Measurements. Berlin, Springer, pp 53-65.Search in Google Scholar
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.Search in Google Scholar
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 84:917-928.10.1121/1.396660Search in Google Scholar
67 Wagner M, Watson D (2010): Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Lang Cogn Process 25:905-945.10.1080/01690961003589492Search in Google Scholar
68 Welby P (2006): Intonational Differences in Lombard Speech: Looking beyond f0 Range. Proceedings of the 3rd Speech Prosody Conference, pp 763-766.Search in Google Scholar
69 Wellmann C, Holzgrefe J, Truckenbrodt H, Wartenburger I, Hohle B (2012): How each prosodic boundary cue matters: evidence from German infants. Front Psychol 3:580.10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00580Search in Google Scholar
70 White LS (2002): English Speech Timing: A Domain and Locus Approach. PhD Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Search in Google Scholar
71 Wightman C, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Ostendorf M, Price P (1992): Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. J Acoust Soc Am 92:1707-1717.10.1121/1.402450Search in Google Scholar
72 Zhao Y, Jurafsky D (2009): The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation. J Phon 37:231-247.10.1016/j.wocn.2009.03.002Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
