Niebuhr's ExAPP plenary

Analysis of Spoken Language Analysis of Spoken Language
Dept. of General Linguistics, ISFAS, University Kiel Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel Dept. of General Linguistics, ISFAS, University Kiel Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

Reduction Phenomena: Introduction
• Speech Reduction: Hindrance for communication? (= less easy to de-
Hindrance or Gain code and/or less well comprehensible )
in Speech Communication? • A rapidly growing body of evidence suggests that the answer is “No!”,
at least not necessarily.
•  Reduction processes like assimilation and elision need not be
complete.
• For example, /s/-to-[] and /d/-to-[g] assimilations or final devoicing often result
in intermediate forms. Assimilated /s/ can approximate []; devoiced segments
lack vocal-fold vibration but can still show the duration and intensity patterns of
voiced segments etc.

• Even if reduction processes appear to be complete at the segmental
Oliver Niebuhr level, residuals of the affected features/segments can persist in the
Experimental Approaches to Perception and Production of Language Variation, form of suprasegmental sound patterns  “articulatory prosodies” that
ExApp 2013, University of Copenhagen maintain the “phonetic essence” of the reduced features/segments
21.03.2013
20.03.2013 Oliver Niebuhr 1 20.03.2013 Oliver Niebuhr 2


Introduction Introduction
• Lip rounding and lexical stress (Niebuhr & John, in prep.) • Palatality (Niebuhr & Kohler 2011)

“eigentlich“ []
neun [] neuen [ . ]
(really/actually)
(nine) (new)
/n/ of stressed syll. /n/ of unstressed syll.
palatality [] []
not likely to show very likely to show
place assimilation place assimilation

“Eigentlich eine rote”
[n] [m]
(a red one, really)
“Das betrifft nur die anderen neu(e)n Bundesländer”
(This concerns only the other nine/new federal states)



Introduction Introduction
• Duration (Niebuhr, Graupe & Dilley 2012) •  Assuming that speech reduction processes are no hindrance
• “denn” (then mod. particle, emphatic) [dn]  [dn]  [n] for speech communication, can they even be a gain for speech
communication
• “einen” (a, art.) []  [:]  []  []  [n]
…amounts to the question, whether the
orig. prod. driving force of reduction is just saving
articulatory energy
[n] + 25% [n] + 75%
= + “einen” = + “denn einen”
•  Or is variation in the degree of reduction (every else being
“Wer kennt denn einen Nebendarsteller mit Namen ?” equal) involved in conveying communicative functions?

(Who then knows a supporting actor by name ?) 3 Ex:
(Who knows supporting actors by name ?) Discourse organization
Intonation
Speaker attitudes

1


Reduction and Discourse Organization Reduction and Discourse Organization
• Voiceless plosives /ptk/ in (phrase-)final position in English can be fully • Question: What about German?
realized, incl. postaspiration, or they can be realized as reduced forms • Research subject: word-final <-en> syllables (//)  one of the
without postapiration or even just as glottalization. most frequent word-final syllables in German; known to show a high
•  Distribution of reduced and unreduced forms is supposed to be a degree of phonetic variation, e.g.,
matter of “free variation“ • with or without []
•  No! The distribution is not random but systematic and functional! • in the latter case, [n] can be subject of assimilation of place of articulation [,]

• Local, Kelly & Wells (1986)  „Phonetic detail and turn transition“ • Starting point: „Kiel Corpus of Spontaneous Speech“
• Analysis of a dialogue corpus of Tyneside English: • Spontaneous dialogues in an appointment-making scenario, > 4h of speech
• unreduced, postaspirated plosives occur turn-finally • Standard Northern German of more than 50 male and female speakers
• reduced, unaspirated/glottalized allophones occur turn-medially
• only 1-3% counterexamples among the 206 analyzed tokens • Annotation-based analysis
• further examples and details in a recent paper of Local & Walker (JIPA 2012) • 11.329 <-en> syllables in phrase-internal and hence also turn-medial position
• 4.090 <-en> syllables in phrase-final but still turn-medial position
• Docherty, Milroy et al. (1997) found a similar pattern for SSBE, even • 1.604 <-en> syllables in phrase-final and turn-final position
though with a slightly higher number of exceptions (about 9%).


• Findings: • Our findings are qualitatively identical to those of Local & Kelly (1986)
• The more finally <-en> occurred, the less reduced it was produced. and Docherty et al. (1997) for English (though less clear)
• Phrase- and turn-internal: [] virtually always absent, 80% of [n] assimilated to
[,] •  Question: Do listeners also interpret the degree of reduction of
• Phrase-final but turn-internal: some [] realized and 70% of [n] assimilated to word-final <-en> as a turn-holding / turn-yielding signal?
[,]
•  Phrase- and turn-final > 10% [] und only 25% of [n] assimilated to [,]
•  Tested in a perception experiment



• 16 Questions with a final verbal infinitive ending on <-en>… • „Ich hab Anjas Freund letztens Hand in Hand mit einer anderen durch
• Sound segments before <-en>: die Stadt laufen sehen. Meinst Du, ich soll Ihr das sagen (?) – oder soll
• 8 x bilabial consonants  /m/ or /b/ ich mich da lieber raus halten?“
• 8 x velar consonants  /ŋ/ oder /g/ • (I saw Anja‘s boyfriend yesterday wandering hand in hand through the
• preceding (stressed) vowels balanced with regard to vowel quantity and streets with another girl. Do you think I should tell her? – or should I
openness ([i] or [a]) rather butt out?)
• “graben” (dig), “stimmen” (elect), “verschieben” (shift), “singen” (sing), “liegen”
(lie), “lieben” (love), “fangen” (catch), “fragen” (question) • A pretest with questionnaires and the contextualized target questions
(no altern. quest.) in written form was conducted to make sure that the
semantics of the questions did not bias the expectation whether or not
• Questions were contextualized by 1-2 preceding statements
an alternative question will follow (= turn-medial or turn-final)

• All questions can basically be supplemented by an alternative • Then: the sequences of context+target question+alternative question
question starting with “- Or …“ were produced twice (= 32 productions)
• 1 x with <-en> in its full/canonical form []
• 1 x in a reduced form with // elision and place assimilation of /n/  [m,]

2


• Additional PSOLA manipulation of the F0 rise at the end of each
question:
• 1 x clearly concave rise
• 1 x clearly convex rise
• Dombrowski & Niebuhr (2005) showed that concave rises occur (more
often) turn-finally, whereas convex rises occur (always exclusively) turn-
internal.

•  Results in 64 Stimuli.
•  Plus another 64 Stimuli, created by cutting off the alternative concave
question.

„Kann das stimmen?“
(Can this be correct?)



• Stimuli were presented to 20 participants (students of empirical
linguistics, Kiel), 14 females, 6 males, 20-30 years old.

• Task: Respond to the stimuli as soon as possible, when you think
that the speaker‘s turn is over. Responses given later than 2 sec. after
the end of the turn (indicated by a bleep) counted as failure. Likewise,
responding too early, i.e. within the speaker‘s turn (in overlap with an
alternative question) also counted as failure.

•  Reaction time was used as depending variable
convex

• In order to create time/response pressure  competition: The
participant with the smallest number of failures and the fastest mean
„Kann das stimmen?“
(Can this be correct?)
response time won a prize (50 € Amazon voucher)



• Participants sat at separate PCs with a headset.
• The entire experimental sessions were recorded.
• Every participant responded to 64 Stimuli (alternative question yes/no
was a random variable), presented in individually randomized orders.

• The time intervals from the end of the target question to the first
response signal of the participant (incl. smacking noises due to opening
of lips) were measured…
• …and statistically analyzed in a three-way repeated-measures ANOVA


3


• Results: • Results:
Mit Elision und Assimilation Ohne Elision und Assimilation Mit Elision und Assimilation Ohne Elision und Assimilation

Konvex_Velar Konvex_Velar

Konvex_Labial Konvex_Labial

Konkav_Velar Konkav_Velar

Konkav_Labial Konkav_Labial

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Durchschn. Reaktionszeit bis Antwort (ms) Durchschn. Reaktionszeit bis Antwort (ms)

• Concave rises are interpreted as turn-yielding signals / convex rises as turn-
• Responses came significantly faster after questions ending in unreduced []. holding signals, in accord with Dombrowski & Niebuhr (2005).
• Responses came significantly faster after questions ending in a concave F0 rise. • A lower degree of phrase-final reduction is interpreted as turn-yielding
signal, in line with the production patterns in the Kiel Corpus and other corpora.
• Responses came significantly faster after questions in which the <-en> syllable
was preceded by a labial consonant or in which the /n/ was assimilated to [m]. • Why do labial consonants reduce the response time? (Artifact due to frequency
of words or sounds?)


• Experiment 2 • Experiment 2
• = Repetition of Experiment 1 with three modifications • = Repetition of Experiment 1 with three modifications

• (1) <-en> syllables always without []  Difference in the degree of • We found that these is findings are consistent with our own measurements in the
reduction was only represented by presence/absence of place Kiel Corpus (random sample of 2x50 turn-internal/-final phrases). Turn-internal vs.
turn-final intensity levels differed by 2-4 dB.
assimilation in the final nasal /n/  more (too?) subtle difference.
• (2) Convex-concave F0 difference was replaced by intensity •  Intensity manipulations were performed with Adobe Audition and started with
difference at the end of the target question (all target questions the onset of the verb at the end of the target questions.
ended in a concave rise). • Can the degree of acoustic-energy reduction at the end of a phrase also
• Raux (2008), Clemens & Dieckhaus (2009), Gravano & Hirschberg (2009), be a cue to turn-yielding / turn-holding ?
Friedberg (2011) all found for corpora of spontaneous dialogues that phrase-final
intensity decreases are stronger turn-finally than turn-medially.
• (3) The third modification concerned the use of a different group of 20
• Gravano & Hirschberg (2009:256): „This suggests that speakers tend to lower
their voices when approaching turn boundaries, whereas they reach turn-internal native speakers of Northern Standard German.
pauses with a higher intensity“.
• Clemens & Dieckhaus (2009:109): „One could assume a signal function“.


• Results of Experiment 2: • Results of Experiment 2:

• Like in Exp1: Responses came significanty faster when the final <-en> syllable was •  Like the degree of reduction at the segmental level, the degree of reduction at
less strongly reduced (= no place assimilation for /n/). the intensity level does not vary randomly at the end of a phrase. The degree of
• Responses also came significantly faster when the target questions ended in a lower intensity reduction is stronger at the end of phrases in turn-final position, and this is
intensity level. interpreted accordingly by listeners, i.e. softer ending = turn yielding
• Like in Exp1: Responses came significantly faster in bilabial contexts in which the •  Turn-yielding / -holding signals go beyond the well-known triad of strong F0
question-final /n/ was preceded by /b,m/ or assimilated to [m]. rises/falls, final lengthening, and deviations from modal voicing (typically towards
glottalization).

4


Reduction and Intonation Reduction and Intonation
• Starting point: „Segmental Intonation“  „the spectral properties of
• Acoustic analyses based on the KIESEL corpus
sound segments vary […] in such a way that the pitch impressions they • Kieler Sammlung Expressiver Lesesprache (Kiel Collection of Expressive Read Speech)
cause can support the signalling of intonational forms and functions“.
• For example, at the end of a phrase-final rise or fall: • 2x2 sentence mode and emphasis conditions
• „Buch“
Neutral Statement Emphatic Statement Neutral Question Emphatic Question
• „Tisch“ SN SE QN QE

• Aperiodic pitch impressions triggered by [s] are intrinsically higher than The same 12 sentences with simple SVO structure  O= target word pairs of
those of [w]  it is basically possible to vary the aperiodic pitch Function word + Noun (in singular; with nuclear pitch accent)
impression of a /s/ sequence by the degree of /s/-to-[] place
assimilation. Sentences = 6x2 different sibilant sequence conditions across word boundaries, e.g.,

“aus Schweden” [Us ved], from Sweden /s/ assimilation condition
• Question: provided that „segmental intonation“ also exists
utterance-medially, does the degree of /s/-to-[] place “als Sänger” [ts z], as a singer
assimilation vary according to the F0 context? “bis Sachsen” [bs zks], to Saxony
“als Spender” [ts pd], as a donor /sz/ non-assimilation condition



• Sentences of 8 female speakers were analyzed • Sentences of 8 female speakers were analyzed

• Crucial point: • Key questions:
• the /s/ and /sz/ sequences occurred in very different pitch contexts • (1) Does sibilant pitch vary in parallel to these intonation/pitch contexts?
• high pitch (H*) in statements  low pitch (L*) in questions • If so, the sibilant pitches of /s/ and /sz/ will decrease in the following order
• Under emphasis: SE > SN > QN >QE
• pitch level increases
further SN  SE • (2) In the cases of /s/:
• pitch level decreases Is regressive /s/-to-[w]
further QN  QE (i.e. light-to-dark noise)
assimilation involved in
this sibilant-pitch
variation?
question question



• Measurements • Results: Intonation, Pitch accent
• Spectral centre-of-gravity (CoG) values, 1 mean CoG and 1 CoG range • H* F0 peaks higher than L* F0 valleys
(max-min CoG) for each sibilant sequence. • Emphasis increased H* peaks and lowered L* valleys
• mean CoG = level of sibilant pitch • No significant effect of type of sibilant sequence on F0, but…
• CoG range = change of sibilant pitch • Results: Mean CoGs
• clearly higher in H* than in L* H*
• Durations of the sequence sequences.
contexts H*
• F0 values of the H* peaks and L* valleys. • higher for entirely alveolar /sz/
than for /s/ sequences
• significant interactions show…
• emphasis increases mean CoGs
in statements, but decreases mean
L*
CoGs in questions: SE>SN>QN>QE
• pitch context effects stronger for L*
/s/ than for /sz/ sequences

5


/s/ assimilation condition SN vs QN SE vs QE • Sibilant-sequence durations
• Sibilant sequences became longer under emphasis
/sz/ non-assimilation condition SN vs QN • Sibilant sequences were shorter in questions than in statements
• Most importantly, the /s/ sequences were not shorter than the /sz/ sequences.
• Results: Mean CoGs • CoG ranges
• clearly higher in H* than in L* H* • became successively smaller across H*
contexts H* SE > SN > QN > QE H*
• higher for entirely alveolar /sz/
than for /s/ sequences •  CoG variation must be due to
• significant interactions show… variation in the degree of
• emphasis increases mean CoGs /s/-to-[] assimilation in the
L* L*
in statements, but decreases mean
/s/ sequences ( just /s/ elision)
CoGs in questions: SE>SN>QN>QE
• pitch context effects stronger for
L* L*
/s/ than for /sz/ sequences


Reduction and Intonation Reduction and Speaker Attitudes
• The spectral characteristics of the /s/ and /sz/ sequences varied • “How are you doing?” = Interest, starting a conversation 
systematically and in parallel with the F0 contexts provided by the H* [dU] = routine greeting in passing by: don’t bother me, please.
and L* pitch accents. • “What is the matter?”= Interest, concern/worry  [s] = I
 “Segmental Intonation” also exists utterance-medially. have to ask but I don’t really care about your problems
• or Hawkins (2003): „I don‘t know“ (= cooperativeness, interest) vs.
[] (= whatever / I don’t mind)

• As for the /s/ sequences, it seems that speech reduction – in the form
of the degree of assimilation of place of articulation – functions as a •  It is possible that the variation in the degree of speech reduction –
means to create and vary “Segmental Intonation”. in a constant communicative situation/context – is used by speakers to
(Why “Segmental Intonation” exists, and how it interacts with F0 in express
the perception of utterance tunes are still open questions!) • …their readiness to interact with the dialogue partner.
• …association/dissociation with the content of their utterances.

• Would be consistent with the idea behind the „Effort Code“
(Gussenhoven 2002).



Reduction and Speaker Attitudes Reduction and Speaker Attitudes
• It is a key feature of irony that speakers mean the opposite of what • The 2 x 200 = 400 utterances were arranged in a randomized order
they say  they must dissociate themselves from the wording of their and presented to 12 German listeners (in 4 blocks of 100 stimuli) in a
utterances. perception experiment based on PRAAT_MFC
•  Question: Is the degree of reduction higher in ironic than in • Task of listeners: judge whether nor not the utterance is meant to be
non-ironic utterances? ironic.

•  Investigated experimentally in the BA thesis of Denise Trede
(2011): „Ist Ironie nur Prosodie?“ (Is irony just prosody?) •  Only those stimuli that were judged in at least 75% of the cases in
accord with the speaker‘s intention were used for the subsequent
• Material: acoustic analysis.
• 20 utterances that can equally occur with and without irony. •  After balancing the sample sizes, a total of 142 utterances – 71
• „Das ist ja mal interessant“, „Sie kann so gut kochen“, „Das läuft ja super“, … ironic and 71 non-ironic ones, remained.
• Realized by 10 Standard Northern German speakers first without and then with
irony (in differently randomized orders).
• The speakers were allowed to repeat each sentence until they were satisfied
with the result.

6


Reduction and Speaker Attitudes Reduction and Speaker Attitudes
• The acoustic analysis included firstly F0, duration, and intensity • The analysis of speech reduction was carried out by ear.
• Significant findings: ironic utterances • a close phonetic transcription was made for each utterance.
• …were longer (produced at lower rate), • these transcription were compared word by word with the canonical forms of
the words.  Differences from the canonical forms were counted and summed
• …had lower and less variable F0 contours
per sentence.
• …had lower and less variable intensity
patterns • Result: The number of reductions was overall significantly higher in
•  Overall consistent with previous ironic than in non-ironic utterances
studies like that of Byrant (2010) • …despite the lower speaking
rate of ironic utterances!

• However, the effect of irony on
the degree of reduction was also
sentence-specific.



Reduction and Speaker Attitudes Summary
• The findings of Denise Trede (2011) suggest • Traditional view of reduction (cf. H&H theory, Lindblom 1990)
• …that irony is not just prosody but also involves a higher degree of •  This view lacks the functional role of reduction processes in speech
reduction (everything else being equal) communication
• …that the correlation between speaking rate and degree of reduction is no • For example: discourse organization, intonation, speaker attitudes
automatism.
• Probable further functions: creating rhythmic patterns, cue to prominence and
stress, indicator of syntactic cohesion, signalling pitch accent categories, etc.
• and they also provide supporting evidence for the assumption that the
degree of reduction is involved in conveying speaker attitudes
• …e.g., towards an interaction with the dialogue partner or the content of the
in the respective „sufficient dis-
utterance.
Permanent strive

communicative criminability“ for
situation/context the active listener



Summary Thank you for your attention!
• The view of reduction must be revised to include functional variation.
• The degree of reduction is not just determined/limited by the needs of Special thanks to my collaborators in Kiel
the listener but also by the intentions of the speaker
Evelin Graupe

Speaker Listener Karin Görs

Benno Peters
Communicative Function

7

Niebuhr's ExAPP plenary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

More from exapp2013

More from exapp2013 (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Niebuhr's ExAPP plenary