An Ethological Perspective on Common Cross-Language Utilization of F₀ of Voice

Abstract

The author suggests that the following seemingly disparate phenomena have an underlying relationship: (a) cross-language similarities in the intonation contours for statements versus questions, (b) cross-cultural similarities in the vocal expression via intonation of attitude and affect, (c) cross-language patterns in the use of tone, vowels, and consonants in ‘sound symbolic’ vocabulary, (d) cross-species use of F₀ in threatening or non threatening vocalizations, (e) cross-cultural and cross-species use of certain facial expressions (involving distinct mouth shape), and (f) the existence of sexual dimorphism in the vocal anatomy of humans (and certain non humans). He argues that all arise due to an innately specified ‘frequency code’, which associates high acoustic frequency with the primary meaning of ‘small vocalizer’ and thus such secondary meanings as ‘subordinate, submissive, non threatening, desirous of the receiver’s goodwill, etc’ and associates with low acoustic frequency the primary meaning of ‘large vocalizer’ and such secondary meanings as ‘dominant, aggressive, threatening, etc’

Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages

“…The use of high pitch in questions has been explained ethologically by Ohala (1984), as a phonologized remnant of animal behavior. When asking a question, the speaker should be polite or subservient to the addressee.…”

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

“…Existing research, typically using actors to simulate expressions, has reported that smiles and expressions of happiness are linked to a general raise in pitch (Juslin & Laukka, 2003;Frick, 1985;Ohala, 1984). However, it has also been demonstrated that pitch is not necessary for smile discrimination as listeners can still identify smiles in whispered speech (Tartter & Braun, 1994).…”

Phrase-final rises as a prosodic feature in wh-questions in Swedish human–machine dialogue

“…Gussenhoven describes three codes or biological metaphors: a frequency code, an effort code and a production code. The frequency code, originally proposed by Ohala (1983Ohala ( , 1984, implies that a raised F0 is a marker of submissiveness or non-assertiveness and hence question intonation. The effort code implies that articulation effort is increased to highlight important focal information producing a higher F0.…”