Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T20:19:30.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contour clustering: A field-data-driven approach for documenting and analysing prototypical f0 contours

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Constantijn Kaland Open the ORCID record for Constantijn Kaland [Opens in a new window]
Constantijn Kaland*
Affiliation:
Institute of Linguistics, University of Cologne, Germany ckaland@uni-koeln.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports an automatic data-driven analysis for describing prototypical intonation patterns, particularly suitable for initial stages of prosodic research and language description. The approach has several advantages over traditional ways to investigate intonation, such as the applicability to spontaneous speech, language- and domain-independency, and the potential of revealing meaningful functions of intonation. These features make the approach particularly useful for language documentation, where the description of prosody is often lacking. The core of this approach is a cluster analysis on a time-series of f0 measurements and consists of two scripts (Praat and R, available from https://constantijnkaland.github.io/contourclustering/). Graphical user interfaces can be used to perform the analyses on collected data ranging from spontaneous to highly controlled speech. There is limited need for manual annotation prior to analysis and speaker variability can be accounted for. After cluster analysis, Praat textgrids can be generated with the cluster number annotated for each individual contour. Although further confirmatory analysis is still required, the outcomes provide useful and unbiased directions for any investigation of prototypical f0 contours based on their acoustic form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , April 2023 , pp. 159 - 188
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Phonetic Association

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

Aghabozorgi, Saeed, Shirkhorshidi, Ali Seyed & Wah, Teh Ying. 2015. Time-series clustering: A decade review. Information Systems 53, 16–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Gayle, Ayers Elam. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling (version 3.0). https://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/research/phonetics/E_ToBI/ (accessed 10 March 2021).Google Scholar
Bird, Steven. 2014. Computational support for early elicitation and classification of tone. Language Technology Group, University of Melbourne. https://github.com/langtech/toney (accessed 29 June 2020).Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David, Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.56). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 7 November 2019).Google Scholar
Burnham, Denis & Caroline, Jones. 2002. Categorical perception of lexical tone by tonal and non-tonal language speakers. 9th International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Melbourne, Australian Speech Science & Technology Association Inc., 515–520.Google Scholar
Buxó-Lugo, Andrés & Chigusa, Kurumada. 2019. Encoding and decoding of meaning through structured variability in intonational speech prosody. PsyArXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9y7xj (last edited 16 July 2020; accessed 10 March 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldecott, Marion & Karsten, Koch. 2014. Using mixed media tools for eliciting discourse in Indigenous Languages. Language Documentation & Conservation 8, 209–240.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha & Antje, Schweitzer. 2012. Can intonation contours be lexicalised? Implications for discourse meanings. In Gorka, Elordieta & Pilar, Prieto (eds.), Prosody and meaning, 271–327. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collier, René. 1975. Perceptual and linguistic tolerance in intonation. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 13(1–4), 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, René. 1977. The perception of English intonation by Dutch and English listeners. IPO Annual Progress Report 12, 69–73.Google Scholar
Collier, René & Hart, Johan ’t. 1972. Perceptual experiments on Dutch intonation. In André Rigault & René Charbonneau (eds.), Proceedings of The Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS VII), Montreal, University of Montreal and McGill University, 880–884.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Leipzig Glossing Rules. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php (accessed 31 January 2020).Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1986. An introduction to English prosody. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demenko, Grażyna. & Wagner, Agnieszka. 2006. The stylization of intonation contours. In Rüdiger Hoffmann & Hansjörg Mixdorff (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, TU Dresden, paper 254.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka & Jose, Hualde. 2014. Intonation in Basque. In Jun (ed.), 405–463.Google Scholar
Goto, Hiromu. 1971. Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “L” and “R”. Neuropsychologia 9(3), 317–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grabowski, Emily & Laura, McPherson. 2019. DAPPr: A (semi-)automated tool for pitch annotation. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIX), Melbourne, 1704–1708.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Benzmüller, Ralf. 2005. German intonation in Autosegmental-Metrical Phonology. In Jun (ed.), 55–83.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan, Ritter, Simon & Röhr, Christine. 2019. Übungsmaterialien zur deutschen Intonation und GToBI. http://www.gtobi.uni-koeln.de/index.html (accessed 18 December 2019).Google Scholar
Gubian, Michele, Torreira, Francisco & Boves, Lou. 2015. Using Functional Data Analysis for investigating multidimensional dynamic phonetic contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 49, 16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, Pierre, Chang, Yueh-Chin & Best, Catherine. 2004. Identification and discrimination of Mandarin Chinese tones by Mandarin Chinese vs. French listeners. Journal of Phonetics 32(3), 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2019. Glottolog 4.2.1. Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://glottolog.org/ (accessed 11 July 2019).Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan. 2010. Phonetic analysis of speech corpora. Chichester & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. The challenges of segmenting spoken language. In Jost, Gippert, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Ulrike, Mosel (eds.), Trends in linguistics (Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]), 253–274. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Robert Ladd, D.. 2008. Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation 2(2), 244–274.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Andrew, Rosenberg. 2007. V-measure: A conditional entropy-based external cluster evaluation. In Jason, Eisner (ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Association for Computational Linguistics, 410–420.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 2005. Form and function in the representation of speech prosody. Speech Communication 46(3–4), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Na, Janssen, Berit, Hanssen, Judith, Gussenhoven, Carlos & Chen, Aoju. 2020. Automatic analysis of speech prosody in Dutch. In Helen, Meng, Bo, Xu & Thomas, Zheng (eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech 2020, Shanghai, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2014. How to study a tone language. Language Documentation & Conservation 8, 525–562.Google Scholar
James, Gareth, Witten, Daniela, Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Robert. 2013. An introduction to statistical learning, vol. 103. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Janet, Fletcher. 2014. Methodology of studying intonation: From data collection to data analysis. In Jun (ed.), 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. 2019. Acoustic correlates of word stress in Papuan Malay. Journal of Phonetics 74, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. 2020. Offline and online processing of acoustic cues to word stress in Papuan Malay. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(2), 731–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaland, Constantijn & Stefan, Baumann. 2020. Demarcating and highlighting in Papuan Malay phrase prosody. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(4), 2974–2988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaland, Constantijn & Van Heuven, Vincent J.. 2020. Papuan Malay word stress reduces lexical alternatives. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2020, 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2020. Time-series analysis of F0 in Papuan Malay contrastive focus. In Nobuaki, Minematsu, Mariko, Kondo, Takayuki, Arai & Ryoko, Hayashi (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2020, Tokyo, 230–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Kluge, Angela. 2019. Stress predictors in a Papuan Malay random forest. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero & Marija, Tabain (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhC XIX), Melbourne, 2871–2875.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Leonard & Rousseeuw, Peter J. (eds.). 1990. Finding groups in data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klabbers, Esther & van Santen, Jan P. H.. 2004. Clustering of foot-based pitch contours in expressive speech. In Black, Alan W. & Kevin, Lenzo (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th ISCA Speech Synthesis Workshop, Pittsburg, PA, 73–78.Google Scholar
Kluge, Angela. 2017. A grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b78.35 Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levow, Gina-Anne. 2006. Unsupervised and semi-supervised learning of tone and pitch accent. Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, New York City, 224–231.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, John J. & Jeri, Jaeger (eds.), Experimental phonology, 13–44. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lohfink, Georg, Katsika, Argyro & Arvaniti, Amalia. 2019. Variability and category overlap in the realization of intonation. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero & Marija, Tabain (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIX), Melbourne, 701–705.Google Scholar
Michaud, Alexis & Jacqueline, Vaissière. 2009. Perceptual transcription and acoustic data: The example of /i/ in Yongning Na (Tibeto-Burman). Chinese Journal of Phonetics 2, 10–17.Google Scholar
Nespor, Maria & Irene, Vogel. 2007. Prosodic phonology: With a new foreword. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niebuhr, Oliver & Nigel, Ward. 2018. Challenges in studying prosody and its pragmatic functions: Introduction to JIPA special issue. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 48(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odé, Cecilia. 1989. Russian intonation: A perceptual description (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 13). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Osman, Soleiman Norein. 2006. Phonology of the Zaghawa Language in Sudan. In Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Gilley, Leoma G. & Anne, Storch (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 347–361. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Ostendorf, Mari, Price, Patti & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1995. The Boston University Radio News Corpus [Technical Report No. ECS-95-001]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. https://doi.org/10.35111/z7xk-z229.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Intonational meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 6(4), 371–381.Google ScholarPubMed
R Core Team. 2019. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing (version 3.5.3). https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 11 July 2019).Google Scholar
R Studio Team. 2019. RStudio: Integrated Development for R (version 1.0.143). RStudio, Inc. https://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed 11 July 2019).Google Scholar
Reichel, Uwe. 2011. The CoPaSul intonation model. In Kröger, Bernd J. & Peter, Birkholz (eds.), Elektronische Sprachverarbeitung 2011, vol. 61, 341–348. Dresden: TUDpress.Google Scholar
Reichel, Uwe. 2012. Automatisation of intonation modelling and its linguistic anchoring. In Qiuwu Ma, Hongwei Ding & Daniel Hirst, Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012, Shanghai, 63–66.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2012–2014. Summits-PAGE Collection. https://archive.mpi.nl/islandora/object/lat:1839_00_0000_0000_001C_72B1_B?asOfDateTime=2018-03-02T11:00:00.000Z.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Kalbertodt, Janina, Baumann, Stefan & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2018. On the perception of prosodic prominences and boundaries in Papuan Malay. In Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds.), Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages, 389–414. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.1402559.Google Scholar
Roettger, Timo, Winter, Bodo & Baayen, Harald. 2019. Emergent data analysis in phonetic sciences: Towards pluralism and reproducibility. Journal of Phonetics 73, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, Johan, Collier, René & Cohen, Antonie. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ToDI Collective. 2019. ToDI second edition: Transcription of Dutch intonation (second edition, release 2.3). http://todi.let.kun.nl/ToDI/home.htm (accessed 18 December 2019).Google Scholar
Tourneux, Henry. 1992. Inventaires phonologiques et formation du pluriel en zaghawa (Tchad). Afrika Und Übersee 75(2), 267–277.Google Scholar
Tran, Dat & Michael, Wagner. 2002. Fuzzy C-means clustering-based speaker verification. In Pal, Nikhil R. & Michio, Sugeno (eds.), Advances in soft computing: AFSS 2002, vol. 2275, 318–324. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Duane, Tanenhaus, Michael & Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+H* . Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 32(7), 1232–1244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, Andrew Miller. 2001. Towards a generative phonology and morphology of the dialects of Beria. MA thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kaland supplementary material

Kaland supplementary material 1
Download Kaland supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 96.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kaland supplementary material

Kaland supplementary material 2

Download Kaland supplementary material(File)
File 680.1 KB