Linguistic Phonetics in the UCLA Phonetics Lab Pat Keating Sound to Sense / June 11, 2004

I. Language description Archives of recordings Korean Intonation Phonation

3 Intonation ToBI: Tones and Break Indices Intonation in 14 languages: Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing (Sun-Ah Jun, ed.) Phonology and phonetics of intonation/ ToBI models of Korean (Seoul, Chonnam, Kyungsang), French, Greek, Argentinian Spanish, Farsi

4 Phonation Contrastive phonation types (voice qualities) in languages: Modal, breathy, creaky e.g. Zapotec languages of Oaxaca, Mexico

a Zapotec language (San Lucas Quiavini) ‘gets bitter’ ‘gets ripe’ ‘lets go of’ modal breathy creaky ‘rdaa’ ‘rah’ ‘rdààà’ (M. Epstein)

Modal: ‘can’ lat Breathy: ‘place’ la̤t Creaky: ‘field’ la̰ts Esposito (2003): Santa Ana del Valle Zapotec H1-F3

Effect of f0 on phonation: Contrast is minimal with high f0 (C. Esposito)

II. Prosody (Intonation description) Prosody and voice quality Phrasing and articulation

Prosody the organization of speech into a hierarchy of units or domains = grouping function some units are more prominent than others = prominence-marking function

10 Prosody and voice quality Epstein (2002, 2003): Voice quality variation in English as a function of position and accent 2 kinds of voice quality variation: Modal vs. non-modal (breathy, creaky) Variation within modal (laxer, tenser)

English phrase-final non-modal phonation Low boundary tones (but not low f0 in general) have more non- modal phonation (M. Epstein)

English prominence and non-modal phonation Unaccented words have more non-modal phonation (M. Epstein)

13 Phrasing and articulation Prosody (grouping, prominence) affects segmental articulatory properties How each segment’s phonological properties are realized phonetically depends in part on the segment’s position in prosodic structure

Prosodic strengthening Some prosodic positions are stronger than others, and segments there are stronger –Articulatory strengthening: more extreme articulations –Stronger positions: derived from a prosodic hierarchy –Domain initial is a strong position

(partial) prosodic hierarchy across languages

Electropalatography studies Compare peak linguopalatal contact of segments across prosodic positions, e.g. different initial positions Several languages –English (Fougeron & Keating 1997) –Korean (Cho & Keating 2001; Kim 2001) –French (Fougeron 1998, 2001) –Taiwanese (Keating, Cho, Fougeron, Hsu 2003)

Pseudo-palate for EPG (Kay Elemetrics) front

Sample frame showing contact: Korean word-initial /n/ Circles are electrodes; filled ones are contacted front 42% contacted

Sample contacts: French /n/ …Tata / Nadia… …Tata Nadia… (C. Fougeron)

4 Korean consonants in 4 initial positions /t*/ /t h / /t/ /n/

Korean fricatives in 3 positions (Kim 2001,2003) mid region contactchannel region contact IPiAPi Wi

Bigger picture:Prosody and production planning Each phonetic segment - with its features - is a terminal node in a prosodic tree So each segment has a position in the tree relative to the domains and prominences Pronunciation of each feature depends in part on this prosodic position

Features in a prosodic tree IP wp ip egi Wd Wd Wd that new ei σ σ σ σ ð pro pa gan da… [+continuant] p p [-continuant] [-voice] accent stress

III. Coarticulation Initial strengthening Lexicon

25 Coarticulation and initial strengthening Cho (2002, 2004): Coarticulation: interaction effects between neighboring segments, generally due to articulatory overlap How does prosodic strengthening affect overlap and thus coarticulation? Does a “strong” segment “resist” coarticulation?

# V1V1 V2V2 b [a] [i] [a] [i] IP ip Wd Vowel-to-vowel coarticulation across different boundaries And each vowel pitch-accented or not (T. Cho)

L1 L2 Jaw T3 T2 T1 X-axis Y-axis EMA: Carstens Articulograph Receivers on articulators (T. Cho)

Wd ip IP Y (%) Tongue Height X (%) Tongue Backness [i#a] [a#a] Less effect of V1 /i/ on V2 /a/ across a larger boundary /a/ pulled towards /i/ (T. Cho)

29 Coarticulation and the lexicon Brown [Scarborough] (2001, 2004): Are words from dense lexical neighborhoods, with many lexical competitors, produced with more or less coarticulation than other words?

Lexical competitors High Relative Frequency High-R Low Relative Frequency Low-R easy to accesshard to access (R. Scarborough)

Production of nasal coarticulation Compared “hard” and “easy” CVN and NVC words on nasal coarticulation during the vowel using the Chen (1996) measure A1-P0 “easy”“hard” spongebun drumfend blondegum Sample CVN words

CVN result more nasal less nasal “hard” words“easy” words Answer: more coarticulation for “hard” words (R. Scarborough)

IV. Production and Perception Optical prosody Heritage language ability

34 Optical prosody: phrasal stress-accent Extents, durations, and velocities of movements of lips, chin, head, and eyebrows are all potentially visible to perceivers Production-perception comparison: Which of the optical correlates of stress account for visual intelligibility?

Production of phrasal stress “So TOMMY gave Timmy a song from Debby.” “So Tommy gave TIMMY a song from Debby.” “So Tommy gave Timmy a song from DEBBY.” “So Tommy gave Timmy a song from Debby.”

eyebrow markerhead marker chin marker Facepoint markers locations and 11 measurements lip markers Left eyebrow displacement Head displacement Interlip maximum distance Interlip opening displacement Interlip closing displacement Lower lip opening peak velocity Lower lip closing peak velocity Chin opening displacement Chin opening peak velocity Chin closing displacement Chin closing peak velocity

Correlates of phrasal stress from all 11 measures, e.g. Chin and eyebrow measures are most consistent across speakers Chin Closing Peak Velocity accented unaccented

Perception of phrasal stress 72 sentences from this corpus, video presentation (no sound) 16 hearing perceivers (not screened for lipreading ability) Task: See written sentence, click on the name perceived as stressed, or on “NoStress”

Visual perception above chance By talker By perceiver Line shows significantly above chance performance

Production-perception comparison: Correlational analysis Chin opening measures (opening displacement, peak opening velocity) account for most variance in perception Not chin closing, lips, or head or eyebrow movements, even though these cues are available

41 Heritage Language ability Jun & Au with students, e.g. Oh et al. (2003) compared 4 groups of adults: Lifelong native Korean speakers Childhood-only speakers (stopped by 7) Childhood-and-later overhearers Control group (novices)

Adult production of Korean VOT Childhood-only speakers as good as native speakers Childhood hearers show no advantage (nor on overall accent rating, not shown) (Oh et al.)

Adult perception of Korean VOT Childhood-only speakers as good as native speakers Childhood hearers also as good as native speakers (Oh et al.)

Conclusion: UCLA Phonetics Lab Language description Prosody Coarticulation Production and perception And much more!