Transcript Intonation in Northern Vietnamese
Marc Brunelle
University of Ottawa marc.brunelle@uottawa.ca
Institute of Phonetics, Cologne, June 7 2010
The Northern Vietnamese (NVN) tone system
360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 -10 90 Time (msec) 190 Tone s¡ c (B1) ngang (A1) ngã (C2) n¥ng (B2) huyŠn (A2) hÕi (C1) 290
The Southern Vietnamese (SVN) tone system
170 150 130 110 90 -10 80 Time (msec) 170 Tone s¡ c (B1) ngang (A1) n¥ng (B2) huyŠn (A2) hÕi-ngã (C) 260
Tonal coarticulation
The physical realization of a tone varies depending on its environment Neighboring tones Intonation Vowels and consonants Example: In Vietnamese, a mid-level tone starts higher after a rising tone than after a falling tone
Progressive coarticulation in tone huy
ề
n Female SVN Subject
320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 Tone on /Ü/ ngang s¡c huyŠn hÕi-ngã n¥ng Ü m a
Language-specific hypotheses
Coarticulation should be bidirectional as in other tone languages (Han and Kim 1974, Shen 1990, Gandour et al. 1994, Brunelle 2003) There should be more progressive than regressive coarticulation in NVN (Han and Kim 1974, Brunelle 2003) Similar results in Thai (Gandour et al. 1994) Contours should be relatively stable (Han and Kim 1974, Brunelle 2003)
Hypotheses based on models of coarticulation
If a phonetic dimension is crowded, it should vary less (evidence from V-V and nasal coarticulation) Supporting evidence (Manuel and Krakow 1984, Magen 1984, Cohn 1990, Choi 1995, Manuel 1999) Tone 1 Tone 1 (modal voice) Conflicting evidence (Clumeck 1976, Han 2007) Pitch targets are less important in NVN than in SVN, because voice quality plays a perceptual role role in NVN tones (Vũ 1981, 1982, Brunelle 2006) Because of the lesser role of voice quality in SVN, contours should be less variable
The recordings
5 NVN speakers (3 women, 2 men) 6 SVN speakers (3 women, 3 men) Read the syllable /ma/ with all tones after the vowel / ɨ / bearing all tones. Frame sentences are half-realistic as strange first names were coined for the experiment.
Meaningful: Để tôi nói chữ
mạ
xem ông đó có hiểu không.
Let me say the word ‘rice seedling’ to see if that man understands.
Borderline: Để tôi chào sư
Ma
xem ông ấy có nhớ tôi không.
Let me greet monk Ma to see if he remembers me.
36 (NVN) or 25 (SVN) frame sentences read 10 times each.
Results: direction of coarticulation
Impressionistically, there is more progressive than anticipatory coarticulation in all speakers
Female SVN speaker Anticipatory, in ngang
320
Progressive, in ngang
320 300 300 Tone on /a/ 280 260 240 ngang 280 260 240 s¡ c 220 200 huyŠn 220 200 hÕi-ngã 180 160 n¥ng 180 160 Ü m a Ü m a Tone on /Ü/ ngang s¡ c huyŠn hÕi-ngã n¥ng
Results: A tone in which voice quality is crucial
When voice quality is a central phonetic cue, pitch varies more (extreme example)
Anticipatory, in nặng Male NVN speaker Progressive, in nặng
140 140 Tone on /a/ 130 130 ngang 120 120 s¡ c 110 Tone on /Ü/ ngang s¡ c 110 huyŠn huyŠn 100 hÕi 100 hÕi 90 ngã 90 ngã 80 n¥ng 80 n¥ng 70 Ü m a Ü m a
Quantification of coarticulation
The vowels / ɨ / and /a/ and the intervening /m/ are measured at 5 equidistant points General linear model analysis for each dialect (modified from Gandour et al. 1994) Dependant variable ▪ F0 of 5 measurement points of each tone before all tones ( anticipatory coarticulation ) ▪ F0 of 5 measurement points of each tone after all tones ( progressive coarticulation ) Factors ▪ Speaker ▪ F0 at edge of adjacent vowel ▪ onset of V2 for anticipatory ▪ offset of V1 for progressive
Strength of coarticulation (in F values)
NVN SVN Anticipatory 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 ngang sắc huyền hỏi ngã nặng ngang sắc huyền hỏi-ngã nặng Progressive 350 300 ngang sắc huyền hỏi ngã nặng 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 350 300 ngang sắc huyền hỏi-ngã nặng 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5
Summary of results (language-specific hypotheses)
Stronger coarticulation in NVN than in SVN Bi-directional coarticulation, assimilatory in both directions Different from Thai (Gandour et al. 1994) Stronger progressive than anticipatory coarticulation in both dialects, but: Much more short-distance progressive than anticipatory coarticulation Slightly more long-distance anticipatory than progressive coarticulation ▪ Would the effect be stronger in real speech? (wordlist effect)
Discussion: the role of voice quality
Voice quality in NVN tones allows more variation in pitch without risk of confusion
Hence more coarticulation
The strength of coarticulation seems predictable from patterns of contrast (Manuel and Krakow 1984)
Discussion: Anticipatory vs. Progressive
X ?
Two types of coarticulation (Perkell and Chiang 1996) Long-distance anticipatory coarticulation is due to planning on the part of the speaker ▪ Start early but don’t blur tonal contrasts!
Short-distance progressive coarticulation is due to immediate physical constraints ▪ You can’t jump from 100 to 200 Hz in 5 milliseconds!
▪ Other types of phonetic dimensions and other languages favor anticipatory coarticulation.
Discussion: Why is there more progressive coarticulation?
Rises and drops in pitch are often delayed (Ohala 1978) Universal constraints… A foresighted speaker could plan ahead and anticipate… Tone onsets are less distinct than tone offsets, so blurring is less costly from a communicative point of view A language with more variation at tone onsets than tone offsets should exhibit stronger anticipatory coarticulation
Conclusion
Two types of assimilatory co-articulation in NVN and SVN Long-distance anticipatory co-articulation ▪ The speaker is anticipating the following tone Short-distance progressive co-articulation ▪ Physical constraints on pitch production; transitions cannot be too abrupt The functional load of pitch determines the extent of coarticulation NVN has pitch and voice quality: more co-articulation SVN has pitch only: less co-articulation The direction of coarticulation is determined by the tonal targets
Marc Brunelle marc.brunelle@uottawa.ca Hạ Kiều Phương kha@smail.uni-koeln.de
Martine Grice martine.grice@uni-koeln.de
Institute of Phonetics, Cologne June 7, 2010
An old question...
Communicative functions Markers (morphemes, particles, …) Sentence restructuring Intonation How do you realize intonation when lexical tone is already making use of f0?
A bit Eurocentric, yet very relevant typologically 19
Intonation in East Asian tone languages
Strategy 1: Boundary tones alternate with lexical tones All tones in the same tier X X %H X H L X X L H X X X H L H X X L H% 20
Intonation in East Asian tone languages
Strategy 2: Superposition of intonation over lexical tone Upward/Downward shift Expansion/Compression These effects could be either global or local %q-raise X X X X X H L X L H X H L H X L 21
Mandarin Both boundary tones and superposition (Peng et al. 2005, Shih 1988) Superposition only (Xu 1999, Yuan et al. 2002, Yuan 2004, 2006)
We need data on more languages
if we want to do serious typology
Superposition only (Fox et al. 2008) Thai Evidence for boundary tones, but overriden by lexical tones (Pittayawat 2007) 22
Final particles (common in East Asia) Grammatical functions ▪ Yes-no question Trang đ i làm không?
▪ Imperative Trang đ i làm đ i!
Pragmatic functions ▪ Confirmation Trang đ i làm đ ấ y.
▪ Suggestion Trang đ i làm nhá!
Paraphrasing and context As in any other language 23
Global f0 variation Globally lower/higher f0 (Đỗ et al. 1998; Nguyễn and Boulakia 1999) Local f0 variation Pitch range expansion in stressed syllables Higher pitch on focussed constituents (Đỗ et al. 1998) (Jannedy 2007, 2008) Higher pitch on sentence-final question markers (Nguyễn and Boulakia 1999; Vũ et al. 2006) ▪ Analysed as boundary tones (Hạ and Grice 2010) Intensity (Nguyễn and Boulakia 1999) Imperatives louder than declaratives Duration (Nguyễn and Boulakia 1999) Questions shorter than declaratives Non-instrumental observations on Northern and Southern Vietnamese (Trần 1967) (Thompson 1965) 24
Why one more study?
Previous studies looked at frame sentences … not controlled for segments, tones or syntactic structures (Đỗ et al. 1998) … controlled for tone and segments, but only partly for syntactic structure (Nguyễn and Boulakia 1999) … controlled for tones, but not for segments and syntactic structure (Vũ et al. 2006) Our study uses simpler sentences, but controls for tones, segments and syntactic structures.
25
Which intonational cues are predominant in Northern Vietnamese?
Pitch ▪ Global or local? Intensity Duration Is intonation realized through the addition of tones or through superposition (or both)?
How much inter-speaker variation do we find?
26
6 sentences, all 4-words long First 3 words: Always SVO with constant tone Không [xo ͡ŋm ] is always the last word (« only » or yes no question marker) The sentences can have 4 different meanings, depending on the intonation Ex: Ty ă n c ơ m không ▪ ▪ Declarative : Ty only eats rice.
Annoyed declarative: Ty only eats rice. (I just told you!) Declar.
Unmarked ▪ Yes-no question: Does Ty eat rice?
▪ Command question: Ty, will you eat your rice?!
Questions Emphasis 27
8 native speakers recorded in Hanoi 3 men, 5 women Speakers were requested to produce the sentences appropriately according to given contexts Not a trivial task!
Each sentence was recorded three times 6 tones X 4 communicative functions X 3 repetitions: 72 sentences 28
Sentences labelled and measured in Praat Each sentence divided into 4 syllables Each syllable measured at 5 equidistant points Data inspected for doubling, halving and irregular vocal fold vibrations 29
Statistical analysis: GLMs in PASW (SPSS 18) Conducted independently for each subject Dependant variables at each sampling point ▪ Duration ▪ f0 ▪ Intensity Independent variables ▪ Tone ▪ Communicative function ▪ Interaction 30
No clear difference between comm. functions f0 range expands from 1 st to 3 rd syll.
Likely due to coarticulation rather than intonation 31
No clear contrast between questions and declaratives Questions have a final rise Emphatic functions higher than their non emphatic counterparts Questions are high Emphasis No special emphasis 32
Global effect: Higher overall f0… …for questions than for declaratives: 5/8 speakers ▪ Frequency code (Ohala 1983) …for emphatic than for unmarked: 6/8 speakers ▪ Effort code (Gussenhoven 2004) Local effect on last syllable Clear rise at the end of the question marker « không »: 3/8 speakers ▪ Higher pitch at the end of « không » in questions: 1 more speaker (Total 4/8) Clear fall at the end of the declarative: 4/8 speakers 33
Higher intensity in emphatic functions Effort code again Consistent for 4/8 speakers Incr. contrast towards end of sentence No systematic divide between questions and declaratives 34
There are stat. sign. durational differences in all speakers… …but they are not consistent across speakers Significant differences are not always on the same syllables The differences do not always go in the same direction 35
Strategies for marking communicative functions are variable across Hanoi speakers Robust ▪ Higher overall pitch marks either questions or emphasis Common ▪ Final rise for questions/Final fall for declaratives ▪ Higher intensity (esp. sentence final) marks emphasis Inconsistent ▪ Duration seems speaker-specific 36
Which intonational cues are predominant in VN?
Pitch Optional intensity contrasts Is intonation realized through the addition of tones or through superposition (or both)?
Superposition is systematic Focal tones are common, but optional How much inter-speaker variation do we find?
A lot. Why?
37
Various intonational strategies available for communicative functions Nonetheless, intonation plays a more subtle role than in non-tonal languages Almost null for 2/8 speakers despite the exaggerated nature of the experimental task Intonation is not grammaticalized. Rather, universal tendencies emerge Frequency and effort codes 38
Where it all links up
Intonation in Southern Vietnamese f0 seems more important in tonal contrasts: could that affect intonation?
▪ Less leeway for f0 variation???
Fewer and less frequent final particles ▪ Intonation could be expected to be more important for marking communicative functions 39