1. An investigation of cross-language differences in pitch range for speakers of English and German Ineke Mennen*, Felix Schaeffler#, & Gerard Docherty^ *ESRC Centre for Bilingualism, Bangor University, UK; #Speech Science Research Centre, Queen Margaret University, UK; ^School of Education, Communication & Language Sciences, Newcastle University, UK. imennen@bangor.ac.uk; fschaeffler@qmuc.ac.uk; g.j.docherty@ncl.ac.uk There has been very little focus on pitch range as a source of cross- language differences Yet, there is some evidence that when groups of speakers of different languages are compared there can be a significant difference in aspects of pitch range - notwithstanding some degree of overlap Two languages where this may well be the case are Southern Standard British English (SSBE) and Northern Standard German (NSG). Anecdotal evidence suggests that people perceive differences between the two languages, with SSBE sounding higher and having more variation Background Pitch range is notoriously difficult to quantify, and many different measures have been reported Pitch range can vary along two dimensions, level and span (cf. [1]): Level = the typical pitch height (register) of a speaker’s voice Span = the range of frequencies covered by a speaker Commonly used measures are long-term distributional (LTD), such as mean or median f0 for level, and maximum minus minimum F0, 90% range, 80% range, or 4 standard deviations around the mean for span Patterson [1] suggests that there are some problems with LTD measures (e.g. pitch tracking errors, non-normal distribution of F0, less perceptual validity) Alternative to LTD measures are ‘linguistic’ measures, linked to specific linguistically- defined landmarks in the F0 contour ([1], based on [2, 3]) Production Study LTD Measures Level (Figure 1): Similar values for mean and median across languages Maximum higher for SSBE (but ns) 95%, 90% and 75% quantiles were significantly higher in SSBE Lower quantiles (25%, 10%, 5%) were not significant. Span (examples in Figure 2): Generally wider span for SSBE (all measured spans except max – min were significant in Hz and ST, max – min was only significant in ST) Acknowledgments This study was funded by the UK Economic & Social Research Council (RES-000-22- 1858). We thank Frank Kügler and his colleagues for the collection of the German data. How to measure pitch range? Perception Study Material and participants: First sentence of a short story read by 60 (30 per language) female speakers, between 20 and 40 years of age As this material contained too few instances of linguistic tones, these were also derived from a larger part of the story (5 sentences), for a subset of 50 speakers Procedure: LTD measures were derived from raw F0 time series, corrected for tracking errors: Level: mean, median, maximum, minimum, quantile (95%, 90%, 75%, 25%, 10%, 5%) Span: 100% span (max-min), 90% span, 80% span, 50% span, standard deviation (SD), 4 SD around the mean Linguistic measures were derived from linguistically relevant F0 landmarks: Level: H*i, Hi, H*, H, L*, L, I, FL Span: H*i-FL, H*i-L, H*-FL, H*-L All span measures were measured in Hz and semitones (ST), except SD (only Hz) Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical testing, due to indications for non-normal distribution of some variables Production Perception Material, participants and procedure: On-going study, aiming at a number of 60 participants (30 per language) Currently analysed: 23 German participants Participants listen to a delexicalized version of the sentence from the production study (60 stimuli) The sentences were taken from the story readings from the production study Participants decided whether the stimulus was of English or German origin (binary forced choice), and how confident they were about their judgement (5 pt scale) Spearman’s rho was used for individual correlations, due to non-normal distribution of some variables Analysed Variable: PEJ Tool: Praat Original pitch contour was approximated by resynthesized contour, based on pitch targets, changes in slope and interpolation between targets Pitch targets were local maxima and minima of the contour Changes in slope were also marked where necessary, but not included in present analysis Local maxima and minima were labelled H* and L*, if aligned with prominent syllable, and H and L otherwise Initial and final targets were labelled separately. Final lows as FL, and the first peak of a phrase was separately marked as H*i or Hi Stimuli were resynthesised with the ’humming function’ of Praat This maintains the pitch contour and the voiced/voiceless distinction, but removes all lexical information In order to maintain intensity relationships of the original utterances, the intensity contour of the resynthesised stimuli was multiplied with the original contour of the utterance Production Method and Participants Measure typeVariableRho PEJ Sig level p < N LTD level95% quantile0.6690.00160 90% quantile0.6440.00160 75% quantile0.5840.00160 Maximum0.5610.00160 Mean0.5290.00160 LTD span4 SD around mean0.5480.00160 SD0.5480.00160 90% range0.5320.00160 80% range0.4690.00160 Range (max – min)0.4550.00160 Linguistic levelFirst peak0.6580.00160 L0.203n.s.56 FL0.187n.s.50 Linguistic spanFirst peak – FL (Hz)0.6060.00150 First peak – L (Hz)0.5190.00156 First peak – FL (ST)0.4680.00150 STfirst_peakLdiff0.4080.00256 PEJ Percentage of English Judgments per stimulus: How often was a certain stimulus judged as being English? There are two primary dimensions to our investigation: 1.To evaluate which measures are best suited to capture any cross-language differences in pitch range 2.To use a range of these measures to attempt to identify the nature of the cross-language differences in performance which underpin the differences that people perceive Aims A range of acoustic variables show high correlations with PEJ (see Table 1 opposite) Span measures do not exceed the correlations for level measures Linguistic measures do not exceed the correlations for LTD measures Results There is clear evidence for pitch range differences between SSBE and NSG. The linguistic measures indicate that this difference is mainly a consequence of higher H*i in SSBE The more frequent use of H* accents in SSBE might also contribute to the impression of a wider pitch range in SSBE (despite the fact that non-initial H* are lower in SSBE) Measures taken from the lower end of the F0 distribution (minimum, lower quantiles, FL) do not differ greatly across the languages The perception study indicates that people are generally sensitive to the aspects of pitch range which differ across the languages, and that variables that are significant in production also play a role in perception in the context of this task Overall, there is no indication that linguistic measures are more perceptually valid than LTD measures (contra [1]). Further work is under way to investigate the extent to which the perceived pitch range difference between SSBE and NSG is a consequence of across-the- board higher amounts of pitch variation in SSBE, or is linked to only a few and rather local events in the F0 contour Perception Discussion & Conclusion Linguistic Measures Level (larger data-set, Figure 3): Significantly higher values in SSBE for H*i and phrase-initial tones (I). Final lows (FL) were virtually equal across languages. Interestingly, non-initial H* are higher for NSG. Span (larger data-set) Significantly wider for SSBE in the case of H*i – FL and H*i – L, and significantly wider for NSG in the case of H*-FL and H*-L Overall, SSBE and NSG show quite different distributions of tonal categories (see Figure 4) This distributional difference had consequences for the linguistic measures in the first sentence: -only two categories (FL and L) showed sufficient numbers for cross-language comparison. Neither was significantly different across languages -In order to compare initial peaks, H*i and Hi had to be combined into a single category (P1). P1 was significantly higher for SSBE -Span measures could only be calculated for P1-FL and P1-L. Both differences were significantly wider in SSBE (when measured in Hz and ST) References [1] Patterson, D., 2000. A linguistic approach to pitch range modelling. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh. [2] Ladd, D.R.; Terken, J., 1995; Modelling intra- and inter- speaker pitch range variation. Proceedings of ICPhS. Stockholm, 386-389. [3] Shriberg, E.; Ladd, D.R.; Terken, J.; Stolcke, A., 1996. Modeling pitch range variation within and across speakers: predicting f0 targets when ”speaking up”. In Proceedings ICSLP, 1–4, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4