The dynamics of intonation: Categorical and continuous variation in an attractor-based model

Abstract

The framework of dynamical systems offers powerful tools to understand the relation between stability and variability in human cognition in general and in speech in particular. In the current paper, we propose a dynamical systems approach to the description of German nuclear pitch accents in focus marking to account for both the categorical as well as the continuous variation found in intonational data. We report on results from 27 native speakers and employ an attractor landscape to represent pitch accent types in terms of f0 measures in a continuous dimension. We demonstrate how the same system can account for both the categorical variation (relative stability of one prosodic category) as well as the continuous variation (detailed modifications within one prosodic category). The model is able to capture the qualitative aspects of focus marking such as falling vs. rising pitch accent types as well as the quantitative aspects such as less rising vs. more rising accents in one system by means of scaling a single parameter. Furthermore, speaker group specific strategies are analysed and modelled as differences in the scaling of this parameter. Thus, the model contributes to the ongoing debate about the relation between phonetics and phonology and the importance of variation in language and speech.

Modeling Dimensions of Prosodic Prominence

“…In addition, the model proposed in the current work takes into account the patterns of all speakers pooled together. In Roessig et al (2019), we take a closer look at the intonation patterns of different speaker groups. We demonstrate that it is possible to conceptualize the different speaker-specific patterns as different uses, or scaling strategies, of the same system.…”

“…Figure 1B provides a schematic depiction of the tonal onglide measure. Tonal onglide characterizes the portion of the f0 movement toward the main tonal target of the pitch accent (Ritter and Grice, 2015;Roessig et al, 2019). In terms of an autosegmental-metrical analysis, like GToBI (Grice et al, 2005), L+H * , and H * pitch accent types are described by a rising movement and result in positive onglide values.…”

“…But the focus types are also realized with different accent typesfor example, there is a considerable number of rising accents in the broad focus productions of some speakers. Crucially, Grice et al (2017) and Roessig et al (2019) demonstrated that variation in the phonetic parameters (peak alignment, target height, tonal onglide) within each pitch accent category is used to signal focus types as well. Moreover, this variation within category boundaries seems to mimic the variation across category boundaries: Some speakers, for example, use the shallower H * accent in narrow focus primarily and the more rising L+H * accent in contrastive focus.…”

Categorical perception of lexical tone contrasts and gradient perception of the statement–question intonation contrast in Zhumadian Mandarin

“…meaning, a claim for a morpheme with affective meaning has been made for a polar boundary tone in Dutch, which expresses positive affective meanings if its value is opposite to the upcoming tone of a pitch accent (Grabe, Gussenhoven, Haan, Marsi, & Post, 1998;Gussenhoven, 2004, p. 88) (see Table 1). Both gradient and discrete inputs to the speech signal are captured in the way Roessig, Mücke, and Grice (2019) model variation across as well as within intonational categories in German. In their dynamical system, stable states ('attractors') reflect phonological categories, such that within-category and between-category variation may affect attractor strengths as well as shifts in their definitions, which have been shown to vary as a function of semantics, giving different 'prototypes ' (Gili Fivela, 2013).…”

Individual differences in Mandarin focus production

“…Research into individual speaker differences in speech production is of great significance for our understanding of the way speakers signal linguistic contrasts (Smith & Hawkins 2012). However, little is known about how individual speakers vary in using prosodic cues to mark information structure (Ouyang & Kaiser 2015).…”