Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-5qtdt Total loading time: 0.268 Render date: 2022-01-22T23:47:19.741Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2018

Abstract

This study is concerned with the identifiability of intonational phrase boundaries across familiar and unfamiliar languages. Four annotators segmented a corpus of more than three hours of spontaneous speech into intonational phrases. The corpus included narratives in their native German, but also in three languages of Indonesia unknown to them. The results show significant agreement across the whole corpus, as well as for each subcorpus. We discuss the interpretation of these results, including the hypothesis that it makes sense to distinguish between phonetic and phonological intonational phrases, and that the former are a universal characteristic of speech, allowing listeners to segment speech into intonational phrase-sized units even in unknown languages.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are very grateful to four anonymous reviewers for Phonology, the associate editor, Bob Ladd, and the editors for extensive, detailed and constructive comments, questions and suggestions, which have led to major revisions. We also thank the members of the Cologne Phonetics Colloquium for helpful discussion of the first draft of this paper. We owe a very big thanks to the many students and colleagues who participated in the transcription and segmentation of the recordings analysed here.

Authors' contributions: NPH: overall design of study and paper, main author of §1, §2, §6 and §7, final revision of all other sections; MS: contributor to interrater study (including recordings), main administrator of interrater study; JS: statistical analyses, draft of §4 and §5, contributor to interrater study; VU: draft of §3, contributor to interrater study (including recordings). All authors contributed to the consensus version.

Research for this paper was funded by grant 01UG1240A from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) to Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. We are also grateful for funding from the Volkswagen Foundation, which from 2002 to 2016 supported the compilation of the West Papuan corpora used here. See Appendix B for details.

The appendices are available as online supplementary materials at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039.

References

Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2015). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.4.09). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Breen, Mara, Dilley, Laura C., Kraemer, John & Gibson, Edward (2012). Inter-transcriber reliability for two systems of prosodic annotation: ToBI (Tones and Break Indices) and RaP (Rhythm and Pitch). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8. 277312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhmann, Jeska, Caspers, Johanneke, van Heuven, Vincent J., Hoekstra, Heleen, Martens, Jean-Pierre & Swerts, Marc (2002). Annotation of prominent words, prosodic boundaries and segmental lengthening by non-expert transcribers in the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In Rodríguez, Manuel González & Arauj, Carmen Paz Suarez (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). Paris: Evaluations and Language Resources Distribution Agency. 779–785.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) (1980). The pear stories: cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer, Mo, Yoonsook & Baek, Soondo (2010). The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitive Processes 25. 11411177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jennifer, Mo, Yoonsook & Hasegawa-Johnson, Mark (2010). Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1. 425452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Jennifer & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (2016). New methods for prosodic transcription: capturing variability as a source of information. Laboratory Phonology 7. 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilley, Laura C. & Brown, Meredith (2005). The RaP (Rhythm and Pitch) labeling system. Available (February 2018) at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f73/1dbcafb2b64da6eb15daa67718866bc74cc9.pdf.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Janet (2010). The prosody of speech: timing and rhythm. In Hardcastle, William J., Laver, John & Gibbon, Fiona E. (eds.) The handbook of phonetic sciences. 2nd edn. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 523602.Google Scholar
Fox, John (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 127. Available at http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Carlson, Katy & Clifton, Charles Jr. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 244249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frota, Sónia (2000). Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: phonological phrasing and intonation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goldman Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: experiments in spontaneous speech. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Benzmuller, Ralf (2005). German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Jun (2005). 55–83.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Johan ’t, Collier, René & Cohen, Antonie (1990). A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Lg 86. 663687.Google Scholar
Heeschen, Volker (1992). A dictionary of the Yale (Kosarek) language (with sketch of grammar and English index). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2010). Notes on Waima'a intonation. In Ewing, Michael & Klamer, Marian (eds.) East Nusantara: typological and areal analyses. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 4769.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2015). Does Gokana really have syllables? A postscript. Phonology 32. 303306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) (2005). Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) (2014). Prosodic typology II: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamholz, David C. (2014). Austronesians in Papua: diversification and change in South Halmahera-West New Guinea. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Katsika, Argyro, Krivokapić, Jelena, Mooshammer, Christine, Tiede, Mark & Goldstein, Louis (2014). The coordination of boundary tones and its interaction with prominence. JPh 44. 6282.Google ScholarPubMed
Krivokapić, Jelena (2007). The planning, production, and perception of prosodic structure. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Krivokapić, Jelena (2014). Gestural coordination at prosodic boundaries and its role for prosodic structure and speech planning processes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0397.Google ScholarPubMed
Krivokapić, Jelena & Byrd, Dani (2012). Prosodic boundary strength: an articulatory and perceptual study. JPh 40. 430442.Google ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33. 159174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langus, Alan, Marchetto, Erika, Bion, Ricardo Augusto Hoffmann & Nespor, Marina (2012). Can prosody be used to discover hierarchical structure in continuous speech? Journal of Memory and Language 66. 285306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert (2002). Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36. 141190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Weijun, Wang, Lin, Li, Xiaqing & Yang, Yufang (2008). Closure positive shifts evoked by different prosodic boundaries in Chinese sentences. In Wang, Rubin, Shen, Enhua & Gu, Fanji (eds.) Advances in cognitive neurodynamics: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Neurodynamics 2007. Dordrecht: Springer. 505–509.Google Scholar
Maskikit-Essed, Raechel & Gussenhoven, Carlos (2016). No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: the case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33. 353389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mo, Yoonsook, Cole, Jennifer & Lee, Eun-Kyung (2008). Naïve listeners’ prominence and boundary perception. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody. Campinas, Brazil. 735–738. Available (February 2018) at http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/sp2008/.Google Scholar
Pijper, Jan Roelof de & Sanderman, Angelien A. (1994). On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. JASA 96. 20372047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitrelli, John F., Beckman, Mary E. & Hirschberg, Julia (1994). Evaluation of prosodic transcription labeling reliability in the ToBI framework. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 94). Yokohama: Acoustical Society of Japan. 123–126.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Remijsen, Bert (2001). Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Remijsen, Bert & van Heuven, Vincent J. (2005). Stress, tone and discourse prominence in the Curaçao dialect of Papiamentu. Phonology 22. 205235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja (2017). An introduction to the Yali-German dictionary with a short grammatical sketch. In Zöllner, Siegfried, Zöllner, Ilse & Riesberg, Sonja (eds.) A Yali (Angguruk) – German dictionary. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics. 143. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1885/127381.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Kalbertodt, Janina, Baumann, Stefan & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2018). On the perception of prosodic prominences and boundaries in Papuan Malay. In Riesberg, Sonja, Shiohara, Asako & Utsumi, Atsuko (eds.) Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sanderman, Angelien A. (1996). Prosodic phrasing: production, perception, acceptability and comprehension. PhD dissertation, University of Eindhoven.Google Scholar
Sanderman, Angelien A. & Collier, René (1997). Prosodic phrasing and comprehension. Language and Speech 40. 391409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Turk, Alice (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25. 193247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Beckman, Mary E., Pitrelli, John, Ostendorf, Mari, Wightman, Colin, Price, Patti, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia (1992). ToBI: a standard for labeling English prosody. In Ohala, John J., Nearey, Terrance M., Derwing, Bruce L., Hodge, Megan M. & Wiebe, Grace E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 867870.Google Scholar
Soto, Victor, Cooper, Erica, Rosenberg, Andrew & Hirschberg, Julia (2013). Cross-language phrase boundary detection. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6639316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, Karsten, Alter, Kai & Friederici, Angela D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience 2. 191196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoel, Ruben B. (2007). The intonation of Manado Malay. In van Heuven, Vincent J. & van Zanten, Ellen (eds.) Prosody in Indonesian languages. Utrecht: LOT. 117150.Google Scholar
Streefkerk, Barbertje M. (2002). Prominence: acoustic and lexical/syntactic correlates. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, Hisao (2002). Prosodic hierarchy and prosodic boundary. Bunka-to Gengo 56. 8199.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael (2010). Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. NLLT 28. 183237.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael & Watson, Duane G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes 25. 905945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoon, Tae-Jin, Chavarría, Sandra, Cole, Jennifer & Hasegawa-Johnson, Mark (2004). Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. Interspeech 2004: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Jeju Island, Korea. 2729–2732. Available (February 2018) at http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2004/.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Himmelmann et al. supplementary material

Himmelmann et al. supplementary material 1

Download Himmelmann et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 115 KB
11
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *