Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T08:03:57.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic manifestations of the Effort Code in Catalan, Italian and Spanish contrastive focus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

Maria del Mar Vanrell ,
Antonio Stella ,
Barbara Gili Fivela  and
Pilar Prieto
Maria del Mar Vanrell
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, [email protected]
Antonio Stella
Affiliation:
Università del Salento – CRIL, Lecce, [email protected]
Barbara Gili Fivela
Affiliation:
Università del Salento – CRIL, Lecce, [email protected]
Pilar Prieto
Affiliation:
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats – Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the relevance of three prosodic parameters (alignment, duration and scaling) in the conveyance of contrastive focus in Catalan, Italian and Spanish. In particular, we seek to determine how the Effort Code is instantiated in the expression of contrastive focus in both production and perception. According to the Effort Code, putting more effort into speech production will lead to greater articulatory precision (de Jong 1995, Gussenhoven 2004) and this is related to the expression of focus in the sense that wider pitch excursions will be used to signal meanings that are relevant from an informational point of view. A dual production and perception experiment based on an identification task was conducted. Results for the production part show that contrastive focus accents have earlier peaks for all three languages but f0 peaks are systematically lower only in Italian. Syllables bearing the contrastive focus accents are also longer in the three languages. Regarding the results for the perception part, converging evidence is found not only for an active perceptual use of the three prosodic parameters present in production but also for language-specific preferences for particular prosodic parameters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , August 2013 , pp. 195 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avesani, Cinzia. 2003. La prosodia del focus contrastivo. Un accento particolare? In Marotta, Giovanna & Nocchi, Nadia (eds.), La coarticulazione. Atti delle XIII giornate di studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale (A.I.A.), 157–168. Pisa: Università di Pisa.Google Scholar
Avesani, Cinzia,Vayra, Mario & Zmarich, Claudio. 2007. On the articulatory bases of prominence in Italian. In Trouvain, & Barry, (eds.), 981–984.Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan,Becker, Johannes, Grice, Martine & Mücke, Doris. 2007. Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. In Trouvain, & Barry, (eds.), 1029–1032.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary,Díaz-Campos, Manuel, McGory, Julia Tevis & Morgan, Terrell A.. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.). 2002. Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2009. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 14 July 2010).Google Scholar
Chen, Aoju,Gussenhoven, Carlos & Rietveld, Toni. 2004. Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Language and Speech 47 (4), 311–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Mota, Carme. 1995. La representación gramatical de la información nueva en el discurso. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
de la Mota, Carme. 2005. Alignment, word boundaries and speech rate in Castilian Spanish. Presented at the Second Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia, PaPI 2005, Bellaterra, 20–21 June.Google Scholar
D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation: An overview and some questions. Probus 14, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eady, Stephen J.,Cooper, William E., Klouda, Gayle V., Müller, Pamela R. & Lotts, Dan W.. 1986. Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus: Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech 29 (3), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elordieta, Gorka. 2007. A constraint-based analysis of the intonational realization of focus in Northern Bizkaian Basque. In Riad, Thomas & Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds.), Tones and tunes, vol I: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody (Phonology and Phonetics), 199–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Estebas Vilaplana, Eva. 2009. The use and realization of accentual focus in Central Catalan with a comparison to English. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2001. Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus 13, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2002. Local intonational marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy L. & D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2005. Reconsidering a focal typology: Evidence from Spanish and Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics 17, 271–289.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2002. Tonal alignment in two Pisa Italian peak accents. In Bel, & Marlien, (eds.), 339–342.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2005. La percezione degli accenti: il ruolo dell'allineamento e dello ‘scaling’ dei bersagli tonali. In Cosi, Piero (ed.), Misura dei parametri. Atti del Convegno Nazionale AISV (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce), 313–326. Padova: EDK, Torriana (RN).Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2006. The coding of target alignment and scaling in pitch accent transcription. Italian Journal of Linguistics 18 (1), 189–221.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2008. Intonation in production and perception: The case of Pisa Italian. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Gili, Fivela Barbara,Avesani, Cinzia, Barone, Marco, Bocci, Giuliano, Crocco, Claudia, D'Imperio, Mariapaola, Giordano, Rosa, Marotta, Giovanna, Savino, Michelina & Sorianello, Patrizia. In press. Varieties of Italian and their intonational phonology. In Frota, Sonia & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Intonational variation in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [To be published 2013.]Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 1999. The intonational structure of Chickasaw. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.), 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS14), 1993–1996. San Francisco, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2000. The boundary tones are coming: On the non-peripheral realization of intonational boundary tones. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V, 132–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2002. Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Bel, & Marlin, (eds.), 47–57.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Büring, Daniel, Gordon, Matthew & Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83–100. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldner, Mattias. 2003. On the reliability of overall intensity and spectral emphasis as acoustic correlates of focal accents in Swedish. Journal of Phonetics 31 (1), 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2002. Intonation in Spanish and the other Ibero-Romance languages: Overview and status quaestionis. In Wiltshire, Caroline & Camps, Joaquim (eds.), Romance phonology and variation: The 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 101–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. El modelo métrico y autosegmental. In Prieto, Pilar (ed.), Teorías de la entonación, 155–184. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Jarman, Eric & Cruttenden, Alan. 1976. Belfast intonation and the myth of the fall. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 6, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Lee, Hyuck-Joon. 1998. Phonetic and phonological markers of contrastive focus in Korean. In Mannell, Robert H. & Robert-Ribes, Jordi (eds.), The 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 4, 1295–1298. Sydney: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia. 2004. Statistics. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/facilities/statistics/statistics.html (accessed 20 July 2010).Google Scholar
Koreman, Jacques,Andreeva, Bistra, Barry, William J., van Dommelen, Wim & Sikveland, Rein-Ove. 2009. Cross-language differences in the production of phrasal prominence in Norwegian and German. In Vainio, Martti, Aulanko, Reijo & Aaltonen, Olli (eds.), Nordic Prosody 10, Helsinki 2008, 139–150. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Emiel, Krahmer & Swerts, Marc. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34, 391–405.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank. 2008. The role of duration as a phonetic correlate of focus. In Barbosa, Plinio A., Madureria, Sandra & Reis, Carlos (eds.), Speech Prosody 2008, 591–594. Campinas: Editora RG/CNPq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kügler, Frank & Genzel, Susanne. 2012. On the prosodic expression of pragmatic prominence: The case of pitch register lowering in Akan. Language and Speech 55 (3), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, perception and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manolescu, Alis,Olson, Daniel & Llebaria, Marta Ortega. 2009. Cues to contrastive focus in Romanian. In Vigário, Marina, Frota, Sónia & Freitas, Maria João (eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Interactions and interrelations, 71–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nibert, Holly J. 2000. Phonetic and phonological evidence for intermediate phrasing in Spanish intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. Cross language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica 40, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, John J. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilitzation of F0 in voice. Phonetica 41, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1994. The frequency code underlines the sound symbolic use of voice of pitch. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna & Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar,D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Fivela, Barbara Gili. 2005. Pitch accent alignment in Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. In Warren, Paul (ed.), Variation in intonation, special issue of Language and Speech 48 (4), 359–396.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar,Vilaplana, Eva Estebas & del Mar Vanrell, Maria. 2010. The relevance of prosodic structure in tonal articulation Edge effects at the prosodic word level in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 38, 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar,van Santen, Jan & Hirschberg, Julia. 1995. Tonal alignment patterns in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 23, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psychology Software Tools Inc. 2009. E-Prime (version 1.2). http://www.pst-net.com/. [computer program]Google Scholar
Ru, Powen,Chi, Taishih & Shamma, Shihab. 2003. The synergy between speech production and perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 (1), 498–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, Klaus R. 2000. A cross-cultural investigation of emotion inferences from voice and speech: Implications for speech technology. In Yuan, B., Huang, T. & Tang, X. (eds.), The 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol. 2, 379–382. Beijing: China Military Friendship.Google Scholar
Simonet, Miquel. 2006. Word-boundary effects on pitch timing in Spanish. In Sagarra, Nuria & Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (eds.), The 9th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, 103–112. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Simonet, Miquel & Torreira, Francisco. 2005. Alignment, word boundaries and speech rate in Castilian Spanish. Presented at the Second Workshop on Spanish ToBI, Bellaterra, 22 June.Google Scholar
Smiljanic, Rajka. 2004. Lexical, pragmatic, and positional effects on prosody in two dialects of Croatian and Serbian: An accoustic study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stella, Antonio & Fivela, Barbara Gili. 2009. L'intonazione nell'italiano dell'area Leccese: prime osservazioni da un punto di vista auto segmentale-metrico. In Romito, Luciano, Galatà, Vincenzo & Lio, Rosita (eds.), La fonetica sperimentale: metodi e applicazioni. Atti del IV Convegno Nazionale AISV, 259–292. Torriana (CS): EDK Editore.Google Scholar
Tatham, Mark & Morton, Katherine. 2006. Speech production and perception. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trouvain, Jürgen & Barry, William J. (eds.). 2007. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS16). Saarbrücken: Dudweiler, Pirrot GmbH.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1991. The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. In No, Yongkyoon & Libucha, Mark (eds.), The Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 7, 295–306. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, Renée. 1984. Characteristics and recognizability of vocal expressions of emotion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanrell, Maria del Mar,Stella, Antonio, Fivela, Barbara Gili & Prieto, Pilar. 2011. Prosodic cues for the recognition of contrastive focus. In Fivela, Barbara Gili, Stella, Antonio, Garrapa, Luigina & Grimaldi, Mirko (eds.), Contesto comunicativo e variabilità nella produzione e percezione della lingua. Atti del VII Convegno Nazionale AISV, 224–235. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27, 55–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi,Chen, Szu-Wei & Wang, Bei. 2012. Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression (PFC): A typological divide within the same language family? The Linguistic Review 29, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar