Individual differences in the production of prosodic boundaries in American English

Kim, Jiseung

doi:10.1121/1.5102039

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings not only support the existence of variation in the use of phonetic cues to mark focus, they also indicate that some strategies are communicatively more successful than the others. Finally, the variable use of phonetic cues has also been reported in British and American English (Kim 2019;Ouyang and Kaiser 2015;Peppé et al 2000) as well as in German (Baumann et al 2006;Cangemi et al 2015). The presence of individual variation reported in these languages shows that this phenomenon is not specific to Urdu or Hindi.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…This is further supported by the differences found in the perception of prosodic phrasing structure in the online survey. The existence of speaker related variation in the use and manipulation of phonetic cues has also been reported in Hindi (Kügler 2020), Tamil (Keane 2014), German (Baumann et al 2006;Cangemi et al 2015;Schuppler and Ludusan 2020), American English (Kim 2019;Ouyang and Kaiser 2015), British English (Peppé et al 2000), Russian (Luchkina and Cole 2019), as well as New Zealand English and Samoan (Calhoun et al 2019). These are typologically different languages with distinct intonation systems.…”

Section: Variation In Prosodic Phrasingmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Speaker based variation at the segmental level is a well documented phenomenon (Ernestus 2012). While it is known that intonation is far from uniform (Kim 2019;Peppé et al 2000), individual variation in the production and perception of intonational categories needs to be investigated in more detail. Baumann et al (2006); Cangemi et al (2015); Schuppler and Ludusan (2020) are some of the works providing a glimpse into speaker related variation in German prosody.…”

Section: Individual Variation In Using Prosodic Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Word Order, Intonation, and Prosodic Phrasing: Individual Differences in the Production and Identification of Narrow and Wide Focus in Urdu

Jabeen

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates speaker based variation in the use of word order and intonation to mark narrow and wide focus in Urdu. The identification of focus type and position, as well as the prosodic phrasing of declarative sentences produced in the target focus conditions, is also discussed. The results of a semi-spontaneous production experiment indicated no preference for a linear position, as the focused nouns were mostly placed in situ (89%). The analysis of phonetic cues showed significant inter- and intraspeaker variation in participants’ use of longer noun duration, higher F0 peak, and wider F0 range in the narrowly focused nouns, as compared with their counterparts produced in wide focus. In the identification survey conducted online, the consistent use of phonetic cues in speech production was found to influence the correct identification of narrow focus and the position of focused nouns. Another online survey, concerning the prosodic phrasing of sentences produced in narrow and wide focus, showed participants’ slight preference for a recursive Intonational Phrase boundary on the left edge of the narrowly focused nouns. The results of both the surveys show that Urdu speakers vary in their identification of focus as well as their choice of prosodic phrasing in the target contexts. This research highlights the role of individual variation in the use of word order and phonetic cues to mark narrow and wide focus in Urdu. It also illustrates that the identification of focus type and phrasing is far from uniform. These findings have implications for the analysis of intonation in general, as this study testifies that the production and identification of intonation and prosodic phrasing are not invariable and speakers and listeners differ in their use of available linguistic means (word order vs. intonational categories), the selection, as well as the manipulation of phonetic cues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Variation In Prosodic Phrasingmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Individual Variation In Using Prosodic Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Word Order, Intonation, and Prosodic Phrasing: Individual Differences in the Production and Identification of Narrow and Wide Focus in Urdu

Jabeen

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Ouyang and Kaiser (2015) observed that American English-speaking individuals differed in how strongly they encode informativity (i.e., focus type, contextual probability, and word frequency) via the F0 contour, in that some speakers made larger differences in terms of F0 excursion between the levels of these three variables. Kim (2019) found considerable individual differences in prosodic cues to phrase boundaries in American English speakers. While all speakers produced pauses at IP boundaries, they differed in pause durations.…”

Section: Speaker-specific Variability (The Individual Perspective)mentioning

confidence: 90%

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects of information status on prosodic prominence – evidence from an interactive web-based production experiment in German

Lorenzen,

Roessig,

Baumann

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate how information status is encoded paradigmatically and syntagmatically via prosodic prominence in German. In addition, we consider individual variability in the production of prominence. To answer our research questions, we collected controlled yet ecologically valid speech by applying an innovative recording paradigm. Participants were asked to perform an interactive reading task in collaboration with an interlocutor remotely via video calls. Results indicate that information status is encoded paradigmatically via the F0 contour, while syntagmatic effects are subtle and depend on the acoustic parameter used. Individual speakers differ primarily in their strength of encoding and secondarily in the type of parameters employed. While the paradigmatic effects we observe are in line with previous findings, our syntagmatic findings support two contradictory ideas, a balancing effect and a radiating effect. Along with the findings at the individual level, this study thus allows for new insights regarding the redundant and relational nature of prosodic prominence.

show abstract

“…The authors suggest an individual-specific network of phonological knowledge that leads to speaker- and listener-specific differences in the identification of prosodic contrasts. When it comes to online processing of prosody, Kim (2019) observed differences in prosodic cue usage for the perception of disambiguating boundaries over the course of listeners’ fixations to the target picture in a visual world paradigm: some listeners looked to the correct target earlier than others, depending on the available prosodic cues, which varied between conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Early Disambiguation of Prosodic Grouping

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosodic cues help to disambiguate incoming information in spoken language perception. In structurally ambiguous coordinate utterances, such as three-name sequences, the intended grouping is marked by three prosodic cues: F0-range, final lengthening, and pause. To indicate that the first two names are grouped together, speakers typically weaken the durational and tonal cues on the first name whereas they are strengthened on the second name, compared with a structure without internal grouping. The current study uses a gating paradigm to test whether listeners can decide about the internal grouping of a coordinate structure by already exploiting prosodic information on the first name. One hundred ninety-two stimuli were cut into seven parts (gates) and presented to naive participants ( n = 45) successively (gate by gate) with increasing length of the utterance and amount of prosodic information. In a two-alternative forced-choice decision task, accuracy was above chance level after the second name. However, more than half of the participants could already reliably detect grouping patterns after the first name. These interindividual differences point toward the existence of different subgroups with diverging prosodic parsing strategies. Furthermore, listeners were sensitive to speaker-specific prosodic patterns. Depending on speaker-specific characteristics and individual parsing capacities, it seems possible—at least for a subgroup of listeners—to make predictions about the underlying grouping structure of coordinated name sequences based on early prosodic cues.

show abstract

Individual differences in the production of prosodic boundaries in American English

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Word Order, Intonation, and Prosodic Phrasing: Individual Differences in the Production and Identification of Narrow and Wide Focus in Urdu

Word Order, Intonation, and Prosodic Phrasing: Individual Differences in the Production and Identification of Narrow and Wide Focus in Urdu

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects of information status on prosodic prominence – evidence from an interactive web-based production experiment in German

Individual Differences in Early Disambiguation of Prosodic Grouping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About