While both human and linguistic factors affect fundamental frequency (F₀) in spoken language, capturing the influence of multiple effects and their interactions presents special challenges, especially when there are strict time constraints on the data-gathering process. A lack of speaker literacy can further impede the collection of identical utterances across multiple speakers. This study employs linear mixed effects analysis to elucidate how various effects and their interactions contribute to the production of F₀ in Luobuzhai, a tonal dialect of the Qiang language. In addition to the effects of speaker sex and tone, F₀ in this language is affected by previous and following tones, sentence type, vowel, position in the phrase, and by numerous combinations of these effects. Under less than ideal data collecting conditions, a single experiment was able to yield an extensive model of F₀ output in an endangered language of the Himalayas.

L1 English and two varieties of L1 Mandarin English speech data were extracted from the Taiwan AESOP corpus (Asian English Speech cOrpus Project) for the purpose of investigating differences in the realization of English narrow focus by L1 speakers of North American English, Taiwan Mandarin and Beijing Mandarin. Results show the combined effect of two patterns of L2 focus production: general underdifferentiation of on-focus and post-focus contrasts, which was exhibited by both L2 speaker groups, and transfer of L1-specific prosodic features, which can be argued to represent the source of difference between the two L2 groups. Overall, on-focus/post-focus contrasts in mean F0, amplitude and pitch range were realized most robustly by L1 English speakers. L1 Taiwan Mandarin speakers produced a smaller increase in mean F0 and amplitude for on-focus constituents and much smaller decrease in mean F0 and amplitude on post-focus constituents than L1 English speakers did, whereas Beijing Mandarin speakers produced no increase in mean F0 in on-focus constituents, and the smallest decrease in mean F0 on post-focus constituents, but a 35% higher post-focus compression of intensity than Taiwan Mandarin speakers did. Notably, both L2 speaker groups failed to produce post-focus compression of pitch range, which has been shown to be a highly salient cue to the presence of focus in English.

No abstract