Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

AnApproachtoCrosslanguageComparisonof
Intonation
Chapter2

1Introduction
This chapter discusses theoretical and practical considerations constraining the
contrastive analysis of English and German intonation presented in the following
chapters. The practical considerations involve questions of analytic technique. The
theoreticalconsiderationsleadtotheproposalofanautosegmentalmetricalsystemfor
directcomparisonofGermanandEnglishwhichdiffersinoneormoreaspectsfromall
ofthepreviouslysuggestedlanguagespecificautosegmentalmetricalsystems.Sucha
systemwasrequiredbecausenoAMstudiesareavailablewhichhaveanalysedEnglish
andGermanindirectlycomparablevariantsoftheframework.Acrosslinguisticstudy,
however,requireslanguagestobecomparedin,asfaraspossible,thesamesystem.

2Theoreticalconsiderations
Ideally,anintonationalsystemforcrosslinguisticcomparisonwouldcombineprevious
insights about basic similarities between the languages with the smallest number of
assumptionsaboutlanguagespecificcharacteristics.Also,itwouldbeflexibleenoughto
capturesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweencontourswithinandacrosslanguages.
To obtain such a tool, researchers have two options. Either they choose a
previously developed languagespecific account that matches best the ideal system
described above, or they develop a relatively simple compromise system which
combinesinsightsfromanumberofstudies.Inthepresentstudy,thesecondoptionwas
preferred.Crosslinguisticstudiesarebasedontheassumptionthatlinguisticsystems
maydifferacrosslanguages.Thissuggeststhatatransferoflinguisticcategoriesfrom
onelanguagetoanotherislikelytohinderratherthanhelpthediscoveryoflanguage
specificcharacteristics.

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

For English, the simplest and most flexible system was judged to be that
proposedbyGussenhoven(1984).Gussenhovenpositsthreebasicpitchaccents(rather
thanPierrehumbertsseven),alimitedsetofmodifications,andonelevelofintonational
phrasing.FryssystemforGermanhasborrowedsomefeaturessuchastonelinking
fromGussenhovenandwillthereforebethestartingpointforGerman.
Thefollowingsubsectionontheoreticalconsiderationswillbeginbydefiningthe
useof terms such as stress,accent and intonation phrase. Then, the question of the
accentualcutwillbediscussed;inprinciple,anaccentmaybedefinedrelativetothe
pitchmovementthatimmediatelyprecedestheaccentedsyllable,orwithrespecttowhat
followsit(andthisishowaccentualcutisdefinedhere).PreviousstudiesofEnglish
andGermanhavenotalwaysagreedonwheretheaccentualcutshouldbemade.This
willbefollowedbyadiscussionofintonationalphrasing.AsoutlinedinChapter1,some
studiesofEnglishandGermanintonationpositonelevelofintonationalphrasing,but
othersposittwo.Thenthequestionofintonationalphraseboundaryspecificationswill
bediscussed.Finally,anoutlineofthebasicAMsystemproposedforcrosslinguistic
analysiswillbegiven.Adiscussionofpracticalconsiderationsinvolvingquestionsof
analytictechniquewillconcludethechapter.

2.1Stress,accentandintonationphrases
Intheareaofstressandaccent,terminologicalconfusionabounds.Especiallystressis
notoriouslydifficult todefine,andthedefinitionresearcherssubscribetodepends to
someextentonwhichaspectofstresstheyinvestigate.Thefollowingcommentswillbe
brief,andareintendedtodefinetheterminologyusedinthepresentstudy.Formore
detail,see,forinstance,CutlerandLadd(1983).
Researchersinvestigatingthemetricalpropertiesofspeechmaydefinestressasa
linguisticsystemwhichallocatesdifferentdegreesofprominencetodifferentsyllables.
TheEnglishword elocution,forinstance,maybedescribedashavingthreedifferent
degrees of stress. The strongest beat falls onto the third syllable cu, the second
strongestonthefirstsyllableel,andthesecondandlastsyllablearenotstressed.The
constraints governing the degrees of stress, the distribution of stress and its exact
realisation differ from language to language. We may find that in British English,
elocutionhasthreedegreesofstress,butinSingaporeEnglish,twolevelsatmostappear
tobediscernible(Low,forthcoming).Moreover,inBritishEnglish,stressisrelatively
variable,butinCzech,forinstance,stressisfixed;wordsarenearlyalwaysstressedon
the final syllable. Variations in stress assignment result in different languages being
characterisedbydifferentspeechrhythms.TherhythmofBritishEnglishisdetermined
to a large extent by strong beats falling on the stressed syllables of words, and

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

continuous speechcanbesegmented intorhythmic feetwhichbeginwithastressed

syllable and continue up to the next stressed syllable (see Abercrombie, 1967 for
rhythmic feet, and CouperKuhlen, 1983 for a study of English speech rhythm). In
French,ontheotherhand,stressbeatsregularlyoccuronthelastsyllableofaprosodic
constituentwhichisoftenlargerthanasingleword.Crosslinguisticdifferencesofthis
typehaveledresearcherstosuggestadifferencebetweenstresstimedlanguagessuch
as British or American English and syllabletimed languages such as French.
Experimental evidence supporting this distinction, however, is scarce. Also, there is
evidenceshowingthataclassificationoflanguagesintostresstimedandsyllabletimed
overgeneralises.Forinstance,LowandGrabe(1995)showedthattherhythmofBritish
English differs substantially from that of Singapore English. In Singapore English,
successive vowel duration are more nearly equal than in British English, giving the
impressionofsyllabletiming.
Researchers investigating the intonational properties of speech also use the
conceptofstress,butintheirwork,thetermisusedsomewhatdifferently.Following
Bolingers (1958) theory of pitch accent in English, they distinguish between three
phenomena;(word)stress,(pitch)accentandintonation(CutlerandLadd,1983:141).
Wordstressisdefinedasanabstractpropertyofawordinthelexicon(e.g.weknowthat
thesecondsyllableoftheword around ispotentiallythemoreprominentone);accent
referstopitchmovementatstressedsyllablesinactualutterances(inIsaidaROUNDvs.
aroundtheCORner),andintonationreferstothecombinationofpitchaccentandother
sentencelevelpitchfeaturessuchaspitchdirectionatboundariesandtherelativeheight
ofaccentpeaks.
Auditorily,asyllablemaybedefinedasaccentedwhenitis(a)stressedand(b)
pitch prominent (Nolan, 1984). Pitch prominence is achieved if one or more of the
followingholds:
(a)
(b)
(c)

thesyllableisspokenonaperceptiblymovingpitch
thesyllablemanifestsapitchjump
thesyllablemarksachangeinthedirectionofpitchmovement(e.g.fromlevelto
rising).

Acoustically,wordstressinvolvesanumberofparameters.Astressedsyllablewillhave
moreextremeformantvalues,greaterduration,asteeperclosingphraseoftheglottal
waveform with results in greater amplitude and more highfrequency energy in the
spectrum (see e.g. Laver, 1994). Accent, on the other hand, is cued primarily by
fundamental frequency movement. Early experiments by Fry (1958) showed that
fundamentalfrequencyisthestrongestcuetoaccentinEnglish,followedbyduration

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

andamplitude.However,laterworkbyBeckman(1986)suggeststhatameasureoftotal
amplitude (reflecting a combination of amplitude and duration measures) is a good
correlateoftheaccentedsyllable.Finally,theoverallrhythmicandaccentualpatternof
anutterancemayalsocueaccentonaparticularword(GrabeandWarren,1995).
Thepotential prominence distinctions towhichtheacoustic manifestations of
stress,accentand,additionally,syllableweight mayleadtoinspeecharesummarisedin
Figure1below,whichissimilartoonefoundinBolingers(1964)(seealsoLiberman
andPrince,1977,Bolinger,1986,andBeckmanandEdwards,1994).Atthelowestlevel
ofcontrast(fullvs.reducedsyllable),aprominencedistinctionismadeprimarilyby
vowelquality1,atthesecondlevelbystress,andatthehighestlevelbyaccent.Also,the
schemashowsthatprominencedistinctionsmadebystressoraccentaresyntagmatic
phenomena;asyllableisaccentedonlyincomparisontoasyllablethatisnot,anda
stressedsyllableisstressedonlybecausethereareothersyllablesthatareunstressed.
Inthepresentstudy,accent willbedefinedauditorilyassuggestedbyNolan
(1984).Stressistakentobeanabstractpropertyofparticularsyllableswhichspecifies,
amongstotherthings,howintonationcanbealignedwithatext,namely,inEnglishand
German, pitch accents are aligned with stressed syllables. Auditory and acoustic
contrastsbetweenstressedandunstressedsyllablesareofinterestonlyinasfarasthey
relatetoanalysisoftonalstructure.
Accented
syllable

(Anystressedsyllablecan
beaccented,whichonesare
dependsontheintentofthe
speaker)

Unaccentedsyllable

Stressedsyllable

(Alllongsyllablescanbe
stressed.Onlyone,asa
rule,actuallyisthisisan
arbitrarytraitofthe
language)

Unstressedsyllable

Unreducedsyllable

(Longsyllablescontainfull
vowels;shortsyllables
containreducedones.)

Reducedsyllable

SeeFear,CutlerandButterfield,1995foranexperimentalinvestigationofthe
strongweak syllable distinction in English. The authors show that in production,
unstressedunreducedvowelsdiffersignificantlybothfromstressed,fullvowelsandfrom
reducedvowels.Nevertheless,listenersmakeabinarycategoricaldistinctionbetween
strongandweaksyllablesonthebasisofvowelquality,i.e.asyllablewithafullvowelis
classedasstrongandonewithareducedvowelasweak.
4

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

Figure1

Prosodicprominencehierarchy.AdaptedfromBolinger(1964)2.

Inoneguiseoranother,theintonationphrase(IP)isaconstructcommontomoststudies
ofintonation(e.g.TragerandSmiths(1951)phonemicclause,OConnorandArnolds
(1973) tone group, Crystals (1969) tone unit, Pierrehumberts (1980) intonation
phrase,andLadds(1986)majorphrase).Ladd(1986:311)pointsoutthatwhilethere
are differences of detail among these constructs, they share a number of properties.
Firstly,theyassumethatIPsarethelargestphonologicalchunkintowhichutterancesare
divided,andthattheboundariesofthischunkmaybephoneticallyspecified.Secondly,
an IP is assumed to have a specifiable intonational structure, including at least one
accent.Finally,IPsaretakentomatchup,insomepoorlyunderstoodway,withelements
ofsyntacticordiscourselevelstructure(forproblemswiththisstandarddefinitionof
theintonationphrase,seeLadd,1986).
Cruttenden (1986:36)points outthatmostanalysts assumethat thephonetic
correlates of boundaries between intonation phrases can be determined much more
straightforwardly than is really possible. No single auditory or acoustic correlate is
available,andcharacteristicstendtoinvolvedifferentcombinationsoffeaturesfroma
bundle of acoustic and perceptual boundary signals. Boundary features include
discontinuities in pitch between sections of utterance (frequently between major
syntacticconstituents,andinreadspeechoftenobservablewhenthereispunctuation),
pauses, phrasefinal lengthening and a slowingdown of speaking rate. Also,
discontinuitiesinpitchintheabsenceofstressedsyllablescanbeinterpretedasevidence
ofboundarytones,andpatternrepetitioncanprovideevidenceofphrasing;often,one
findsthatthepatternsoflargerchunksofutterancesarerepeated,forinstanceinlistsor
coordinationstructures,andsuchrepetitionsmaybetakentoindicatethepresenceof
intonationphraseboundaries.Withinexperiencedreadersandinspontaneousspeech,
however,onecannotexpecttobeabletoidentifyallintonationphraseboundarieswitha
similardegreeofcertainty.Inpractice,Cruttendenpointsout,severalphoneticcuesor
noneatallmaybeavailable.Theassignmentofintonationphraseboundariesistherefore
boundtobesomewhatcircular.Weestablishthosecasesinwhichboundarylocationis
relatively clear, and note the internal intonational structure occurring in such cases.
Theseinternalcriteriathenhelpustomakedecisionsincaseswheretheexternalcriteria
arelessclearcut.Indifficult cases,wemayevenresorttogrammaticalorsemantic
criteria.Thus,CruttendenarguesthatIPboundariescannotalwaysbedeterminedwith
any degree of certainty, especially in spontaneous speech. Accordingly, this first
autosegmentalmetricalcomparisonofEnglishandGermanisbasedonread,ratherthan
2

NotethatBolinger(1964)referstotheunreduced/reducedsyllabledistinction
asalong/shortsyllabledistinction.Thismaybeconfusing,aslongandshortmay
betakentorefertoaphonologicaldistinctioninvowellengthasinbatvs.bardrather
thantoadistinctioninrelativesyllableprominenceasinbatonvs.butter.
5

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

spontaneousspeech(seesection2.1inChapter3foradescriptionofthematerials).In
read speech, the identification of intonation phrase boundaries tends to be easier to
determinethaninspontaneousspeech,becausereaderswillbeguidedbypunctuation
providedinthewrittentext.
2.2Thequestionoftheaccentualcut
Drawing up a basic autosegmentalmetrical system for crosslinguistic comparison
requiressometheoreticallymotivatedchoicesabouttheinternalstructureoneassumes
pitchaccentstohave.Oneneedstodecideonthe'accentualcut',thatis,thesectionof
speechaccompanyingthestressedsyllablethatonetakestoreflecttherealisationofan
intonationalcategory.Here,inprinciple,allmodelsofintonationhavethreechoices,and
inpreviousstudiesofGermanandEnglishtwooftheavailableoptionsareemployed 3.
Thefirstgroupofauthorsassumesthataccentsareleftheaded,andinthatcase,the
relevant section of contour begins at an accented syllable and continues up to the
followingaccentedsyllable(e.g.Gussenhoven,1984andLadd,1986forEnglishand
Uhmann,1991andFry,1993forGerman).Inmodelswhichassumethatpitchaccents
areleftheaded,thefirstelementofabitonalpitchaccentismarkedwithastarand
followedbyanunstarredtrailingtone.House(1995)pointsoutthatleftheadedaccents
aretraditionalintheBritishschoolofintonationanalysis(e.g.OConnorandArnold,
1973,Crystal,1969,Cruttenden,1986).ThechoiceofleftheadedaccentsinEnglishand
Germanisnotunrelatedtotherhythmicstructureoftheselanguages;inbothlanguages,
rhythmicfeetareleftheaded(e.g.Selkirk,1982)
Asecondgroupofauthorshasoptedforamixedheadedapproach,whichallows
bothrightandleftheadedaccents (e.g.Pierrehumbert, 1980,EToBI,GToBI).Here,
accentshavetrailingorleadingtones,andthisproposalcontrastssharplywiththeview
takenontheaccentualcutintheBritishschool.IntheBritishschool,apitchaccentmay
beassociatedwiththeheadofastressfoot(Abercrombie,1964)butinamixedheaded
system,anaccentwithaleadingtonecrossesafootboundary.Grice(1995a,b)offersan
accountwhichoffersapossiblereconciliationofthesepositions.Gricesuggestsamore
complexinternalstructureforthepitchaccentthanothermixedheadedapproachesdo.
Thestructuresheproposesforthepitchaccentsresemblesthatoftheprosodicwordin
NesporandVogel(1986),andisillustratedinFigure2.InGricespitchaccent,leading
tones,whichmaycrossafootboundary,appearundertheweaksupertonenode.The
3

Thethirdoption,whichisnotdiscussedinthetext,istoproposethatallaccents
arerightheaded.Inthatcase,therelevantsectionofcontourisassumedtoprecedeand
includethestressedsyllable,butasfarasIknow,noexclusivelyrightheadedapproach
hasbeensuggestedwithinanautosegmentalanalysisofintonationforanylanguageso
far.
6

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

strongsupertonenodedominatestonescorrespondingtothenucleartoneintheBritish
Tradition,andGussenhovens(1984)andLadds(1986)pitchaccents.

Prosodicword

weakfoot

strongfoot

weakstrongweak

Pitchaccent

weaksupertonenodestrongsupertonenode
|
tone

strongtoneweaktone

(leadingtone)(starredtone)
Figure2

(trailingtone)

ThestructureofthepitchaccentinGrice(1995a,b).

Note,however,that despite the apparently potentially tritonal structurepitch accents

haveinFigure2,theaccentswhichthisstructuregeneratesmustbeeitherrightorleft
headed; tritonal accents are not permitted. Therefore, to avoid tritonal accents, a
constraintisrequired,stipulatingthatforEnglish,eitherthepitchaccentnodeorthe
strongsupertonenodebranches.
AsimilaraccountissuggestedinHouse(1995).Housesuggestsapitchaccent
structureessentiallyidenticaltoGrice's,butunlikeGrice,whopositsonlymonotonaland
bitonalaccent,Housealsoallowsfortritonalaccents.However,Housedoesnotstate
howthegenerationofrightheadedaccentsispreventedinherpitchaccentstructure,and
again,constraintsareneeded.Theissuemayberesolvedbyassumingthattheminimal
structureofanaccentisnotmonotonal,asHouseassumes,butleftheadedandbitonal 4,
asshowninFigure3below.Takentogether,theminimalpitchaccentstructureinFigure
3andthemaximalstructureinFigure2ensurethatthenotionofleftheadedness is
preserved,thatleadingtonesdifferfromtrailingtones,andonlyleftheadedaccentsare
generated.AsHousestates,apotentiallytritonalpitchaccentstructureofthetypeshe
suggests allows us to capture useful generalisations and natural classcharacteristics
amongst related contours. This is more difficult in a mixedheaded approach where
accentsmustbeleftorrightheaded.

4AllnuclearaccentsareassumedtobeunderlyinglybitonalinGussenhovens(1984)

analysisofEnglishandFrys(1993)analysisofGerman.
7

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

Pitchaccent
strong supertone node

strongweak
T*

Figure3

Minimalstructureofthepitchaccentassumedinthisstudy.

As pointed out above, the autosegmental models of German drawn up by Uhmann

(1991) and Fry (1993) present a leftheaded account of pitch accents, as do
Gussenhoven's analyses of English (1984) and Dutch (1988, 1992). The similarities
betweenEnglish,GermanandDutchrhythmicandtonalstructure(inallthreelanguages,
stressfeetareleftheaded)suggestthatGermanpitchaccentsareindeedlikelytobebest
portrayedasleftheaded,withapitchaccentstructuresimilartoGrices(1995a,b)and
Houses(1995)accountingforleadingtones.Thiswastheviewadoptedhere.

2.3Intonationalphrasestructure
InChapter1,itwaspointedoutthatthemodelsofintonationalphrasingproposedin
Ladd and Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986) involve reasonably similar twolevel
intonationalphrasestructuresforEnglishbutdifferinwhyweshouldneedmorethan
onelevelofphrasing.Ladd'saccountismotivatedbythedistributionofprosodiccuesto
phrasinginhisview,asentencewithtwonuclearaccentswithoutanaudibleprosodic
breakinbetweenisbestrepresentedastwominorintonationalphrasesembeddedinone
major phrase. The problem with this view is that in spontaneous speech, major
intonational phrases are not necessarily delimited by audible prosodic breaks either.
BeckmanandPierrehumbertpointoutthatIPsshouldbeabletohavemorethanone
phraseaccent(ineffect:morethanonenuclearaccent),andthatthereappearstobe
greater cohesion between intermediate phrases than between intonational phrases.
However,BeckmanandPierrehumbertdonotaddressthequestionofwhythereisa
senseofgreater cohesion betweenintermediate phrases,andpresent as twoseparate
issuesthematterofgreatercohesionandthefactthatintermediatephrasesappearto
capturesimilaritiesintonalstructure.

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

The discrepancies in motivation between Ladds and Beckman and

Pierrehumbertsaccountsmaysuggestthattheauthorsaredescribingdifferenttwolevel
phrase structures, but this seems unlikely. Both models offer intuitively convincing
reasonsforproposinganadditionallevelofphrasing,theirreasoningisnotincompatible
andtheirdifferencesarenotfundamental.Therefore,iftheirmodelsdescribethesame
phonological construct, then why the discrepancies in motivation and defining
characteristics?Andwhyaretherenocompellingreasonsforchoosingonemodelover
theother?
Inthepresentstudy,itissuggestedthatthisisbecausethetwomodelsaddress
different subsections of the same question, and this is why neither model accounts
comprehensivelyforthedistinctionswhichapparentlycharacteriseintonationphrasesin
English.EarlierworkonintonationwithintheBritishschool,specificallythatofTrim
(1959,1988)andCrystal(1969)appearstosuggestapotentiallymoresuccessfulwayof
dealing with the evidence. Some of Trims and Crystals comments suggest that the
reasonsLaddandBeckman&Pierrehumbertputforwardforproposingminortoneunits
areinfactpartofthesamephenomenon:ToneUnitDependency.
In1969,Crystalpointedoutthatresearchersrarelyacknowledgethattoneunits
do not exist in isolation, but happen in sequence in connected speech. Because
researcherstendtoignorethis,thereisawidegapbetweenwhatweknowaboutthe
intonationofisolatedphrasesandwhatweknowabouttheprosodyofconnectedspeech.
Thesourceofthisproblem,Crystalsays,isafundamentallyfalseassumptionaboutthe
natureofconnectedspeech,namelythatintonationispurelyadditive,thatonecanjoin
upindependentlyacquiredtoneunitsandinthiswaycreatenormalutterances.Crystal's
pointisillustratedbysomeoftheattemptsthathavebeenmadetoincorporateprosody
intospeechsynthesisonesourceofunnaturalnessstemsfromthefactthatconnected
speechisfrequentlymadeupfromindividualtoneunitswithdefaultintonationcontours
(Prevost and Steedman 1994). In fact, it has long been clear that accent patterns in
successivetoneunitsrelatetooneanother(e.g.thegiven/newdistinction,Nooteboom
andKruyt,1987).WorkofscholarssuchasPalmer(1922)whodistinguishedbetween
coordinating and subordinating sequences of tone units and Schubiger (1953) who
notedthatincomplexsentences,thechoiceofaccentpatternsinsuccessivetonegroups
is not free, motivated Trim (1959) and later Crystal (1969) to suggest structural
dependencyrelationsbetweensuccessivetoneunits.Thesedependenciessolveanumber
ofproblemsinintonationalanalysis.Crystalnotedtonalcollocationbetweentoneunits,
i.e.therepetitionofthesamenuclearpitchaccent.Thisledhimtosuggestthetheoryof
tonalsubordination,astructuralrelationshipbetweensuccessivetoneswhichaccounts
forstrongerorweakercohesionbetweenthem(firstmentionedinCrystalandQuirk,
1964). The theory of tonal subordination relates to Beckman and Pierrehumbert's

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

comments about subjectively felt greater cohesion between minor phrases. Trim's
system, onthe other hand,explains thebehaviour ofintonational tags (e.g.reported
speechtags,orvocativetags)byallowingforanucleartoneunits,definedasstrongly
dependent(cliticised)ontheimmediatelyprecedingtoneunit.
FromTrim'sarticleandCrystal'sworkwecanderivethreekindsofdependency
whichstructuretoneunitsintotwolevelsofintonationalphrasing.Wefindthestrongest
levelofdependencybetweenanucleartagsandtheprecedingtoneunit,wherethepitch
movementofthetagdependsonthatoftheprecedingnuclearaccent;onemightcallthis
anasymmetricdependency.Atalowerlevelofdependency,wefindtonalcollocation,
whereapitchaccentpatternisrepeated.Thisrelationshipissymmetric,asitinvolves
twotoneunitsofthesametype,i.e.withthesame(nuclear)accent.Thethirdstructural
relationshipcharacterisesindependenttoneunits;thereisnodependency.

ToneUnitDependencyHierarchy

increasingdependency

Figure4

Typeofdependency

Toneunitsinvolved

Asymmetric
Symmetric
None

Nuclearandanuclear
Nuclear,tonallycollocated
Independent

ToneunitdependencyhierarchyinEnglish.

Inthepresentstudy,itissuggestedthatthetoneunitdependencyhierarchyinFigure4
explainsLaddsandBeckmanandPierrehumbertsintuitionsaboutintonationalphrasing
inEnglish.Symmetricdependencyaccountsforapparentmismatchesbetweenrhythmic
andtonalstructure.Itexplainswhywefeelthatatraditionalintonationphrasehastwo
subcomponentsifithastwonuclearaccentsthisisbecauseitdoes,infact,consistof
twounitsofphrasing,butthedependencybetweentheunitshasintegratedthemintoone
largerunit.Thisiswhywefeelthatthereissomesortofcohesionbetweenintermediate
phraseswithinanintonationphrase.Asymmetricdependencyexplainswhyintonational
tagsarelicensedtohavearhythmicbreakoneitherside.Thisisbecausethestrongtonal
dependencykeepstheprosodicphonologicalstructureintact,despitetherhythmicbreak.
Assuming a tone unit dependency hierarchy means that there is no need to
proposethatEnglishhasmorethanonekindofintonationalphrase.Inprinciple,the
intermediatephrasefallsoutfromCrystal'stheoryoftonalsubordination;intermediate
Phrases are successive tone units characterised by symmetric structural dependency.

10

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

Different degrees of structural dependency result in perceived distinctions between

intonationaltags,intermediatephrases/tonegroups,andindependentphrases.
Evidence for the intermediate phrase in German is scarce. Uhmann (1991)
assumes only one level of intonational phrasing, and Frys (1993) proposal is not
workedoutindetail.GToBIassumestwolevelsofphrasing,butagain,detailedauditory
andacousticevidenceforthisproposalisnotyetavailable.Thetoneunitdependency
hierarchy whichappears toexplain anumberoffacts about intonational phrasingin
English combined with the lack of evidence for the intermediate phrase in German
suggestthatanAMsystemassumingonelevelofphrasingismorelikelytobesuitable
forafirstAMcomparisonofthetwolanguagesthanoneassumingtwolevels.Thisisthe
approachtakeninthefollowingchapters.
2.4Intonationphraseboundaryspecifications
Theapproachthepresentstudytakestowardsintonationphraseboundaryspecifications
willbediscussednext.Generally,AMsystemsfollowingtheBeckmanPierrehumbert
approachassumethateachintonationphrasemustconsistminimallyofapitchaccent,a
phraseaccentandafinalboundarytone(whetherinitialboundarytonesareobligatory,is
notalwaysequallyclearlystated).Anumberofotherauthors,however,havesuggested,
moreorlessexplicitly,thatlowboundariesmaynotneedtobetonallyspecified.Bing
(1979: 126) and Ladd (1983a: 745), for instance, analyse vocative chants and other
stylisedcontoursasnothavingafinalboundarytone,andLaddexplicitlydoubtsthat
everyaudibleprosodicboundarymustbeassociatedwithatone(1983a:729).Lindsey
(1985:53)discardsthelowboundarytoneforEnglishaltogether.Wheneverthereisno
evidenceofahighboundarytone,hetakeslowpitchtobethedefaultcaseinstandard
BritishandAmericanandarguesthatlowpitchisinsertedphoneticallyratherthanby
phonologicalrule.CabreraAbreu,1994doesnotspecifylowboundariesinheranalysis
ofEnglisheither(note,however,thatCabreraAbreuarguesthatweneednotspecifylow
ingeneral).InheranalysisofGerman,Fry(1993)motivatesthelackofalowboundary
tonedelimitingherintonationphrasewiththeabsenceofdownwardtonalmovement,
andpointstowardsanissuerelevanttothediscussionofwhetherallintonationphrase
boundariesmusthaveatone:tonalstructureisbynomeanstheonlyacousticcorrelateof
phrasing.Grnnum(1992)hascommentedonthelackofconvincingevidenceforthe
existenceofaphonologicalcategoryL%instandardBritishEnglish,andaphonological
analysiswithoutL%appearstobesupportedbyanumberofstudieswhichhaveshown
thatphrasefinallowboundarytonescantakeonsomespeakerspecificdefaultvalue
(e.g.LibermanandPierrehumbert,1984).ThismaybetakentosuggestthatL%maynot
beanindependentlychosenphonologicalcategory.Iflowboundariesreflectadefault

11

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

ratherthananindependentlychosenphonologicalcategory,thenthespecificationL%
would have a somewhat different status from all other tones in the phonological
inventory.Allothertonesarecommonlyassumedtorepresentactivechoicesonbehalf
ofthespeaker.
Gussenhovens (1984) phonological analysis of Southern British English, on
whichthesystemproposedhereisbased,doesnotmakeuseofalowboundarytone.In
laterwork,however,Gussenhovenandcolleagues(Gussenhoven,1991,vandenBerget
al.1992),addtoGussenhovenssystemafurtherintonationaldomainabovethelevelof
theIP,thescalingdomain(SD),whichisequivalenttotheutterance,andthisdomain
maybedelimitedbyalowboundarytone.InasystemoperatingwiththeIPandtheSD,
then,anIPwhichisSDfinalmaybedelimitedbyahighoralowboundarytone,butan
IPwhichisSDinternalcanonlybespecifiedwithahighboundarytone5.
Theviewproposedinthepresentstudyisthatboundarytonesmaybelanguage
anddialectspecific.Consider,forinstance,therealisationofIPboundariesindifferent
varietiesofEnglish.Pierrehumbert(1980)hasshownthatlowIPboundaries(H*LL%)
donotexhibitcleardownwardmovementofF0atthephraseboundary.Thefundamental
frequency trace from an utterance produced by a Northern Irish English speaker in
Figure5,however,doesexhibitdownwardF0movementatthephraseboundary(Nolan
andGrabe,1997)6.

ThesystemproposedinthisstudyfollowsGussenhovenasfarastheIP;the
investigationofacousticandauditorycuestointonationalphrasingaboveIPlevellies
outsidethescopeofthisstudy.
6Figure5isbasedondatafromancorpusanalysisofNorthernIrishEnglishcarriedout
byLowry(1997).
12

Hz

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

13

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

Figure5

AdaptedfromNolanandGrabe(1997).

ThedarkgreysectioninFigure5indicatesthelocationoftheaccentedsyllable,andthe
lightgreysectionthepitchmovementatthephraseboundarywhichtakesplaceinthe
absenceofastressedsyllable.Accountingforthistypeofpitchpatterninasystemsuch
as Pierrehumberts, which posits obligatory high and low boundary tones is not
straightforward. The obvious transcription L*+H H L% is not available, because
PierrehumbertsupstepruleraisesthefinalLtotheleveloftheprecedingH.Onemight,
ofcourse,posittheabsenceofanupstepruleforNorthernIrishEnglish,butthenthe
transcriptionwould(a)nolongermodelthecrosslinguisticdifferenceand(b)nolonger
beabletocapturethepatternL*+HH%withupstep,shouldsuchapatternexistin
NorthernIrishEnglish(seealsoLadd,1996:145forasimilarpointconcerningGlasgow
English).
Ifweassume,however,thatIPboundariesarenotobligatorilyassociatedwitha
boundarytone,theapparentdilemmacanbesolvedrelativelyeasily.Onemaypositthat
NorthernIrishEnglishhasaboundarytoneL%butthevarietyofAmericanEnglish
whichPierrehumbertanalyseddoesnot.
2.5BasicAMsystemproposed
This section summarises the AM system used for crosslinguistic comparison in the
followingchapters.Itsbasiccharacteristicsarethefollowing:
(1)Allaccentsarerepresentedasleftheaded.
(2)Onlyonelevelofintonationalphrasingisindicated(theintonationphrase).
(3)Phraseaccentsarenotassumedtobeneeded.
(4)Intonationphraseboundariescanbelefttonallyunspecified.
(5)Thesystemhastwolevelsofphonologicalrepresentation,inadditiontoonelevelof
phoneticimplementation.
Thebasicpitchaccentinventorycontainstwobitonalpitchaccents,whichcorrespondto
fallingandrisingnucleartonesintheBritishTradition.Thesearethetoneswhichall
previousstudiesofEnglishandGermanintonationhavepositedforthetwolanguages,
and they will be represented as H*+L and L*+H. The inventory of boundary
specificationsandphonologicaladjustmentruleswhichmediatebetweenunderlyingand
surface levels of phonological representation will emerge from the corpus analyses
presentedinChapters3and4.

14

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

This section will conclude with some brief comments on the intonational
terminologyusedinthefollowingsectionsinthisstudy.AsGrice(1995a)pointsout,
withintheBritishschool,someinconsistencymaybeobservedregardingtheuseofthe
termnucleus.Thetermhasbeenappliedtoeitherthelastsalientpitchmovementinan
IP(i.e.startingonastressedsyllableandcontinuinguptotheendoftheIP)ortothe
syllablerenderedaccentedbythatparticularpitchmovement.Thisambiguitywillbe
avoidedherebyreferringtotheaccentedsyllableasthenuclearsyllableandtothe
completepitchmovementstartingonitandcontinuinguptotheIPboundaryasthe
nucleartone.WhatexactlythetermnucleusreferstointheAMapproachappearsto
besomewhatunclearalso.Itmayrefer(a)tothelaststarredelementinaphrase,(b)the
lastpitchaccentinthephrase,whetherbitonalormonotonalor(c)tothelastpitchaccent
plusfollowingboundarytone.Here,thetermswillbeusedasfollows.Thelaststarred
elementintheintonationphraseisassociatedwiththenuclearsyllable.Nucleartone
referstothelastpitchaccentinthephraseplusfollowingboundaryspecifications.The
termnuclearaccent,however,willbeusedalso,andthiswillrefertothelastpitch
accent in the phrase without boundary specifications. Thus, for instance, L*+H H%
transcribesthenucleartone,L*+HthenuclearpitchaccentandL*isassociatedwiththe
nuclearsyllable.TheBritishsystemdoesnotrecogniseadivisionintopitchaccentsand
boundary tones, and thus, here, only the terms nuclear syllable and nuclear tone
correspondtoAMtonalconstituents.However,forthepurposesofthis study,some
terminologicalparallelismappearsdesirable.Therefore,theAMuseofthetermnuclear
accentdefinedherewillbetakentocorrespondtothelastsimplexaccentintheIPin
thesenseoftheBritishTradition,thatis,forinstance,thefallinafallrise(forsimplex
vs.complexnuclear,cf.e.g.Cruttenden,1986:58).However,thisisnotthewaythis
termisusedintheBritishschool.
However,despitetheobviousdifferencesbetweentheBritishmodelandtheAM
approach,therearealsopointsofconvergence.Roach(1994),forinstance,discussesto
whatextenttheintonationalcategoriesoftheBritishschoolmaybeexpressedinToBI,
anAMprosodiclabellingsystem(Silverman etal.1992,BeckmanandAyers,1994).
Specifically, it appears that the auditory phonetic percepts which the British school
describesasafallandariseandtheAMsystemasahighpitchlevelonastressed
syllablefollowedbyalowpitchlevelandalowpitchlevelonastressedsyllable
followedbyahighpitchlevelrefertothesameintonationalcategory,thatis,fallingor
risingpitcheitheronorimmediatelyfollowingastressedsyllable.Consideringtherange
ofpossibletranscriptionsAMsystemsseemtoofferforawhatmaybereferredtosimply
asafallorarise,andconsideringthatonemay,attimes,wishtorefertotheauditory
percept of an intonational category without committing oneself to a specific AM
representation,itseemsreasonabletoassumethatauditorylabelssuchasfallorrise

15

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

maybeusedalongsideAMtranscriptions.Thisistheapproachfollowedinthisstudy.
However,whenthetermsfallandriseareused,theaimistorefertheoryneutrallyto
theauditoryperceptsofthepitcheventsdiscussedratherthantoinvokethetheoretical
frameworkproposedintheBritishmodel.

3Practicalconsiderations
3.1Analytictechniques
Crystal(1969:7)discussesthedifferentsensesinwhichthetermanalysishasbeen
usedinlinguisticresearch.Forinstance,analysismayrefertoauditoryanalysis,to
articulatoryanalysis,instrumentalanalysis,statisticalanalysis,structuraldescriptionor
phonologicalanalysis.,andattimes,thiscanbeconfusing.Crystaldefineshisuseof
analysisastheexplicationofthenonsegmentalcontrastsperceived[inhisdata]as
meaningfulbypostulatingasetofprosodicsystemswithinwhichtheymaybedefined
and interrelated. The specific method used to arrive at the end product of such an
analysis (e.g. auditory, instrumental etc.) is referred to as an analytic technique.
Althoughthepresentstudyiscarriedoutwithinaphonologicalframeworkdifferentfrom
thatusedbyCrystal(1969),theessenceofhisviewofanalysisisadoptedhere.The
purposeofthepresentanalysiswastoestablishasetofintonationalcategorieswhich
may be classified as capable of conveying differences in meaning. The analytic
techniquesadoptedwillbediscussedinthefollowingsections.
3.2F0asanarrowphonetictranscription?
Beckman(1995)suggeststhatonemayanalyseanintonationalsystembyusingtheF0
contour as a narrow phonetic transcription, combined with careful listening and
drawing of stylised contours (which, presumably, combine acoustic information and
auditory impressions). She advocates the use of a transcription system such as, for
instance,ToBIonlywhentheanalystknowswhatthephonologicallydifferentcategories
inthelanguageinquestionare.Ifoneisnotcompletelysure,thenoneshouldnotbegin

16

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

byusingasymbolicnarrowphonetictranscriptionbutratherdotherealworkfirstby
carefully observing the F0 trace and establishing the categories. As no previous
intonationalinvestigationofthespecificvarietyofNorthernStandardGermananalysed
wasavailable,andasitwasunclearwhethertheintonationalcategoriesestablishedfor
othervarietiesofGermanweredirectlytransferable,Beckmanscommentsweretakenas
apedagogicalguidelineandcarefullisteningwassupplementedwithanexaminationof
F0.TheviewofF0asanarrowphonetictranscriptionofintonation,however,wasnot
adopted.Thereasonsforthiswerethefollowing.Firstly,itisdifficulttoacceptthatF0
mayfunctionasa'narrowphonetictranscription'becauseF0representsmorethanan
acousticcorrelateofintonationalcategories.Italsocontainsevidenceofotheraspectsof
phonetic structure, for instance of microprosodic variations caused by voiceless
obstruents.ThismeansthatresearchersusingF0asaguidelinecannotuseallofthe
informationavailable,butratherneedtouseitselectively.F0issubjecttomicroprosodic
variationswhichreflectsegmentalratherthanprosodicstructure.Thus,researchersneed
toknowabouttheinteractionofF0andsegmentalstructureandinsomewayfilterout
thelatter.AlthoughF0representsanacousticcorrelateofpitch,itdoesnotrepresent
pitchexactly.Anarrowphonetictranscription,ontheotherhand,claimstoberather
more exact. Moreover, it implies discrete phonetic categories, but F0 as such is
continuouslyvariable.Secondly,F0representslessthana'narrowphonetictranscription'
ofintonationwould.Asiswellknown,theacousticcorrelatesofaccentinvolvemore
than pitch, which has F0 as its acoustic correlate; length (duration) and intensity
(amplitude)arerelevantalso,evenifpitchisoftenthemostsalientcorrelateofaccent.
This means that the F0 track reflects only part of the acoustic information that an
auditoryanalysisuses.
Insummary,anapproachtointonationanalysiswhichconcentratesonF0appears
tobetooinclusiveofirrelevantdetailandtooexclusiveofacousticcorrelatesotherthan
F0which contribute tothe auditory impressionofintonation. As Crystal (1969:14)
points out,theanalyst needs tofindamiddleway;acompromise betweenapurely
acousticandapurelyauditorymethod.Accordingly,thecorpusanalysispresentedinthe
next two chapters was based on auditory analysis combined with supplementary
referencetoF0.Differencesinlengthandintensitywhichformanintrinsicpartofthe
overallauditoryimpressionofanaccentpattern,andtheiracousticcorrelatesduration
and amplitude, however, will not be addressed. This restriction is motivated by the
nature of the speech data analysed; corpus data are less well suited to establishing
relative differences in duration and amplitude and better suited to establishing
interactionsbetweenF0andsegmentalstructure.Also,arguably,F0isafruitfulacoustic
phenomenontoconcentrateon,asithasbeenshowntobethemostsalientcorrelateof

17

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

accent(Fry,1958)7.AswillbedescribedinChapter3,theauditoryanalysiswascarried
outbysystematiccomparisonsofintonationpatternsproducedbydifferentspeakersin
identical contexts andbythesamespeakers indifferent contexts, andthecategories
establishedintheauditoryanalysisclaimtohavephonologicalstatus.F0,ontheother
hand,wasassumedtobenomorethanacontinuouslyvariablyacousticrecordofthe
mainperceptualaspectofintonation;thatispitchwasnotassumedtohavephonetic
statusassuch.

3.3Auditorytechnique
Intheprevioussection,theuseofF0asanarrowphonetictranscriptionofintonation
wasrejected,andtheuseofacombinedauditory/acoustictechniquewasadvocated.
Thetermauditory,however,requiressomefurtherdiscussionanddefinition.Crystal
(1969:14)pointsoutthatthetermauditoryisnotparticularlyclear;itmaymeaneither
auditory sensation or auditory interpretation. In what follows, this issue will be
discussedwithreferencetotwoconceptsdiscussedintHart,CollierandCohen(1990);
theseareperceptual equalityandperceptual equivalence. Bothareinvolvedinan
auditoryanalysisofintonation.Perceptualequality,whichrelatestosensationrefersto
arguably involuntary listening processes. Perceptual equivalence relates to
interpretation,thatis,tolinguisticdecisionsmadebytheanalystonthebasisofpitch
changes assumed to be the product of voluntary actions on the part of a speaker.
Perceptualequalitywillbediscussedfirst.
InperceptionexperimentscarriedoutbytHart,CollierandCohen(1990),naive
listeners judged a resynthesised utterance with a closecopy stylisation of F0 to be
perceptuallyequaltothesameresynthesisedutteranceswhereF0remainedunchanged.
Theauthorsarguethatthisissobecauseclosecopystylisationremovesmicroprosodic
fluctuationsfromF0whicharenotproducedvoluntarilybythespeakersandtherefore
notpartofthemessagecommunicated.Thechangesinintonationalstructurewhichthe
speakerproducesintentionally,ontheotherhand,arekeptintact.AlthoughIdonotwant
toarguethatclosecopystylisationiswhathappensinaresearchersmindwhenheor
she analyses an intonation contour (for instance, as the authors point out, at times,
differencesinintrinsicpitchCANbeheard),thefactthatclosecopystylisationswere
7NotethatthisisaninterpretationofFrysresults.Fryinvestigatedcuestothelocation

oflexicalstress,andfoundF0movementtobethemostsalientcue.
18

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

showntobeperceptuallyequaltothosewithoriginalF0contoursallowsustorelatethe
concept of perceptual equality to auditory analyses of intonation. Listening to an
intonationcontourinvolvesinsomewayaninvoluntaryfilteringoutofmicroprosodic
detailinF08.InCrystals(1969)terms,thesenseofauditoryrelevanttoperceptual
equalityinvolvesauditorysensationratherthaninterpretation.
ThesecondconceptintroducedintHart,CollierandCohen(1990)isperceptual
equivalence. This concept is relevant to the perception of voluntary changes in
intonational structure made bya speaker, and the interpretation ofthese changes. A
listenercarryingoutanauditoryanalysisneedstodecidewhethertwocontoursareofthe
sametypeornot.tHart,CollierandCohendefineperceptualequivalenceasfollows:if
foraspeechutterancetwodifferentcoursesofF0aresimilartosuchanextentthatoneis
judgedasasuccessfulimitationoftheother,wesaythatthereisperceptualequivalence
betweenthetwo.Relevanttoauditoryanalysisisthenotionofsuccessfulimitation
(and a successful imitation of an intonation contour is something that not only
phoneticiansbutmostnaivenativespeakerscanproduceandjudge).Theassumptionis
thatifacontourrepresentsasuccessfulimitationofanothercontour,butisproducedon
differentlexicalmaterial,thenitisreasonabletoassumethatthetwocontoursareofthe
sametype.Inthepresentstudy,beingofthesametypemeansthatthecontoursare
assumedtohavethesamephonologicalstructure.However,toavoidmisunderstanding
and to show that in this study the angle from which the concept of perceptual
equivalenceislookedatissomewhatdifferentfromthatintHart,CollierandCohen
(1990),perceptualequivalenceisreplacedbyauditoryphoneticequivalence.
Athirdconceptwhichmaybeaddedatthispointisthatofauditoryrelatedness.
Thisconceptrelatestothequestionofphonologicaldistancebetweencontourswhichare
modelledascategoricallydifferent,andishardertodefinethanauditoryequalityand
equivalence. Analysts feel that there are differing degrees of phonological distance
betweencontours,groupingtogethercontourswhichare(a)structurallysimilarand(b)
donotobviouslydifferinmeaning.Thesearetheminimumrequirementsofauditory
relatedness.Auditoryrelatednessistodowiththeideathattherearenaturalclassesof
intonationcontours.tHart,CollierandCohens(1990:50),forinstance,refertosuch
naturalclassesofcontoursasmelodicfamiliesandHouse(1995)talksaboutfamilies
ofcontours.
The notion of grouping intonation patterns has been a concept in the British
schoolofintonationanalysisforsomeconsiderabletime.Forinstance,wefinditin
8Theperceptionofdurationandamplitudeinvolveothermentalprocesses,whichare

alsorelevanttotheauditoryimpressionofintonation,butasF0istheacousticcorrelate
ofintonationthisstudyconcentrateson,theseprocessesarenotconsideredanyfurther
here.
19

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

OConnorandArnolds(1973)tonegroups9.Theauthorsstatethat,inprinciple,ifone
combined all the parts of tunes which they recognise in their analysis of colloquial
English,onewouldfindthatthetotalnumberofpossiblepitchpatternsinEnglishis105.
However,thisisnotrealisticbecausesomemeaningdifferencesbetweenpatternsareso
slightthattheywouldbedifficulttodefineinanyveryhelpfulway.Thentheauthors
defineasmembersofatonegroupallthosetunesthatshareoneormorepitchfeatures
andconveythesameattitudeonthepartofthespeaker.Thisapproachwouldappearto
besimilartothatofGussenhoven.

4Speechdata:AdirectlycomparablecorpusofGermanandEnglishreadspeech
4.1Introduction
InChapter1,thefindingsofpreviouscrosslinguisticstudiesofEnglishandGerman
intonation were outlined. The discussion of the literature showed that, at times,
researchershavedisagreedstronglyabouthowsimilarordifferentEnglishandGerman
intonation might be. Three reasons for this disagreement were suggested. Firstly,
researchers compared the languages in analytic frameworks which were not directly
comparable or had been drawn upon the basis ofone language andhad then been
transferredtotheotherwithoutprioranalysisofthatsecondlanguageasasysteminits
ownright.Secondly,somecomparisons failedtodistinguishclearly enoughbetween
phoneticandphonologicallevels ofanalysis anddidnotconsiderthatthelanguages
mightbesimilaratonelevelbutdifferentatanother.Finally,researchersdidnotworkon
directlycomparablesamplesofspeech,andsomemighthavecomparedquitedifferent
speakingstyles.
This study compares English and German in the autosegmentalmetrical
framework, which distinguishes explicitly between different levels of intonational
representation.Asthetwolanguageshavenotyetbeendescribedinthesamevariantof
theautosegmentalmetricalframework,anabasicsystemforcomparisonwasdrawnup
forcomparisonintheprecedingsectionsofthepresentchapter.Theremainingissue,that

9Within the British school, tone group is more commonly used to refer

intonationphrase.
20

to the

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

is,thequestionofwhatsamplescanbefruitfullycompared,isdiscussedinthefollowing
sections.
ThecorpusofEnglishandGermanspeechdatacomparedinthisstudycontained
readspeech.Forafirstcomparisonoftheintonationalstructuresoftwolanguages,read
speech is useful because it allows a relatively constrained elicitation of intonation
patterns;thespeakersprosodicoptionsarelimitedbysyntacticstructureandguidedby
punctuation,andspeakingrateisslowerandusuallylessvariablethaninspontaneous
speech.Moreover,intonationphraseboundariesmaybedeterminedwithsomedegreeof
certainty.
The aim in setting up the corpus was to obtain directly comparable,
orthographicallytranscribedandintonationallylabelledGermanandEnglishspeechdata
with timealigned fundamental frequency traces. The analysis was carried out using
waves(tm), an Entropic Research Laboratory product, in conjunction with the
transcriberscriptwhichispartofEnglishToBI(Silvermanetal.,1992;Beckmanand
Ayers, 1994). The script displays a speech wave and a timealigned fundamental
frequency trace plus a number of empty labelling templates where intonational
transcriptionsaswellasotherinformationmaybeentered.Timealignedspectrograms
which are needed to establish exact alignment of fundamental frequency trace and
segmental structure can be generated using waves(tm). The original ToBI labels,
however,werenotused,andthetonelabelsinthetranscriberscriptwerereplacedby
labelsreflectingthebasicAMsystemdevelopedasastartingpointforcrosslinguistic
comparison.
4.2Materials
When speech data for intonation analysis is elicited, constraints on subjects
interpretationsofexperimentalmaterialsaredesirable.Crossspeakerandcrosslanguage
comparisonsarefacilitatedwhenthenumberofdifferentpatternsproducedbydifferent
speakersinidenticalcontextsislimited(theunderlyingassumptionbeingthatspeakers
choices of specific intonation patterns are contextdependent). The materials used to
elicitthecorporacollectedforthisstudywerebasedonGrimmsfairytaleLittleRed
RidingHood,whichisequallywellknowninGreatBritainandGermany,andamore
recent,Englishversionofthesamestory(Langely,1992).Usingawellknownstory
ensuredthatsubjectswouldinterpretthematerialssimilarly.Also,fairytalestendtobe
produced in a fairly standardised speaking style, which is very suited to intonation
analysis.Becausetheyarereadtochildren,theyareproducedatamoderatespeed,and,
justasinchilddirectedspeech,pitchexcursionsarerelativelylarge.Thismakesiteasier
toanalysethespeechauditorilyandtoinvestigatethealignmentofF0withsegmental

21

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

material.Also,fairytalescoverawiderangeofemotionalstatesandarethereforelikely
toelicitawiderrangeofintonationpatternsthanmaterialsconsisting,forinstance,of
isolatedsentences.Lastly,someofthetraditionalrepetitionswhichoccurinGrimms
fairytales(e.g.here:Allthebettertohearyouwith![..]Allthebettertoseeyouwith!
Allthebetterto eat youwith!)areusefulbecauseonecanexaminetheperceptualand
acoustic aspects of equivalent intonation pattern aligned with different stretches of
segmentalmaterial.
TheEnglishandGermanversionsofthefairytalewererewrittentomaximise
theirsuitabilityforthepurposeofthisstudy(seeAppendixA).Firstly,thecontentofthe
storiesandthestorylinewerekeptassimilaraspossible.Secondly,somehighfrequency
words with a low proportion of sonorants were replaced by words with a higher
proportionofsonorantssothatF0traceswouldbelessinterrupted(forinstance,the
words Rotkppchen and Little RedRiding Hoodwhich contain arelatively large
proportionofnonsonorantsegmentswerereplacedbyAnna,which,inthisparticular
version of the fairy tale, was supposed to be Little Red Riding Hoods real name).
Thirdly,thesyntacticstructureofthestorieswerekeptassimilarasthelanguageswould
allow,andawidevarietyofsyntacticconstructionsanddiscoursefeatureswereincluded
(e.g.syntactictags,appositions,coordinationstructures,reportedspeech,directspeech,
vocatives,appositions)10.Theaimwastoelicitaswideavarietyofintonationalstructures
as possible within a relatively short, coherent story. The stories are given in full in
AppendixA.
4.3Elicitation
FiveGermanandfiveEnglishsubjectsproducedthematerials.TheGermanrecordings
were made in a quiet room at a secondary school in Braunschweig; the English
recordingsinasoundproofboothatCambridgeUniversity.Thedatawasrecordedon
DAT tape on a Sony TCDD3 DAT recorder with a Sony Electret Condenser
microphone737.
4.4Subjects
TheGermanrecordingsweremadeattheRealschuleMaschstraeinBraunschweigin
northernGermany.Fivefemalespeakersagedbetween16and18wererecorded.Allhad
been borninBraunschweig,and sohad their parents; theywereattending the same
school(aRealschule,atypeofsecondaryschool),andhadlivedinBraunschweigall
10BothversionsweresubsequentlycheckedinformallybynativespeakersofEnglishand

GermanwhojudgedthemtobenativeEnglishandGermantexts.
22

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

their lives. Thus, one can reasonably assume that they spoke the same variety of
Northern Standard German (Hochdeutsch) andused the same intonational systems.
Eachrecordingsessionwasstartedbyaskingthesubjectstotelltheexperimentersome
basicfactsaboutthemselvesandtheirfamilybackground.Thepurposeofthiswaspartly
toputsubjectsattheireaseandtofamiliarisethemwithbeingrecorded(noneofthem
had been recorded before), and partly to gather information about their language
backgroundandthatoftheirparents.
FortheBritishsubjects,asimilardegreeofhomogeneitywashardertoachieve.
Received Pronunciation (RP, Wells, 1982), the variety of English comparable to
Hochdeutsch;islargelyfoundinsouthernEngland11,butmobilityinBritainappearsto
behigherthaninGermanyandclassdistinctionsaswellasmulticulturalinfluencesare
moreclearlyfelt.Also,thereisastrongersenseofsocialclassthaninGermany.Thefive
female speakers taking part in the English recordings were undergraduates and
postgraduates of Cambridge University, and aged between 19 and 24. They saw
themselves as speaking RP, and this judgement was confirmed by an English
phonetician;theywereborninthesouthofEngland,andassumingtherewassucha
thingasclassratedthemselvesasmiddleoruppermiddleclass.Allofthemhadmoved
todifferentpartsofsouthernEnglandatsomestageintheirlives.Again,therecordings
were initiated by collecting information about the speakers and their language
background.
Thedatawasdigitisedat16KHzonaHPA4032Ainwaves(tm)5.0.2under
UNIX.Thesizeofthecorporaisasfollows:
German

English

Speaker

Duration(min)

Speaker

Duration(min)

JH

4.5

KP

3.8

JN

4.5

KS

4.4

MM

4.7

JS

5.9

NF

4.5

AT

4.8

SV
Total

4.6

LC
Total

5.0

Table1

22.8

23.9

DurationofGermanandEnglishcorpora.

11RPalsofunctionsasaprestigenormintheBritishIsles,andiswidelyspokeninother

partsofthecountry.TherelevanceofHochdeutschasaprestigenormislessclearlyfelt
inGermany(thisiscertainlytrueintheNorth).
23

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

Table1suggeststhatalltheGermansubjectsreadatapproximatelythesamerate(no
lengthypausesoccurred).FortheEnglishsubjects,KPappearstohavereadsomewhat
fasterthantheothersandJSappearstobeslower.However,closerinspectionofthedata
showsthatthesedifferenceswerenotactuallycausedbydifferencesinthesespeakers
articulation rate but rather bythe durations of pauses; JS left long, dramatic pauses
especiallywithindialogueswhereasKPproceededthroughthetextmorebriskly.
4.5Labelling
ThedatawerelabelledorthographicallyusingtheToBItranscriberscript.Onthetone
tier,theauditoryimpressionsofintonationalpatternswerelabelledusingthefollowing
inventory:

(1)

Pitchaccents

Boundaryspecifications

Diacritics

H*+L
L*+H

H%
L%
0%

>
!

%H
%L
0%

ApitchaccentwastranscribedasH*+LorL*+Hwhenthetrailingtonefollowingthe
accentedsyllableappearedinthepostaccentualsyllable.Ifthetrailingtoneappearedto
berealisedlaterthanthepostaccentualsyllable,adiacritic>wasaddedandtheaccent
wasmarkedasH*+>LorL*+>H,withthe>indicatingdisplacementofthetrailing
tonetotheright.Downstepwasindicatedbya!symbolprecedingthedownstepped
tone.Onelevelofintonationalphrasingwasindicated.InitialandfinalIPboundaries
were labelled as H% when they exhibited upward pitch movement at the phrase
boundaryintheabsenceofastressedsyllableandasL%whentherewasdownward
pitchmovement.Boundarieswhosetonalspecificationdidnotdifferfromthatofthe
immediatelyprecedingtrailingtoneweremarkedas0%.Notethat0%isnotassumed
toreflectaphonologicalcategorybutisaplaceholderindicatingtheendofanintonation
phrasewhichdoesnotappeartobeassociatedwithatone.Thelabel0%wasusedrather
than,forinstance,theboundaryinventoryofferedinGermanToBI,theassumptionhere
beingthatthelabellingshouldreflect,ascloselyaspossible,actualobservationsofpitch
andF0.GToBIlabelswouldnothavereflectedanabsenceofpitchmovementatIP
boundariesasstraightforwardlyasthelabellingadoptedhere.
Thebreakindexlabellingtemplatewasusedtomarkthevocalicsectionswithin
thestressedsyllableofaccentedwords.Thiswastoallowwithinandcrosslanguage

24

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

comparisons of fundamental frequency alignment on stressed syllables. The

miscellaneoustierwasusedfornotesandcommentsonintonationalphrasestructure.
4.6Presentationofevidence
Pitchpatternsmaybeillustratedvisuallyinseveralways.IntheBritishtradition,for
instance, some authors have illustrated their observations with socalled tadpole
diagrams(e.g.OConnorandArnold,1973).Tadpolediagramsdepictdifferentlevelsof
prominence with smaller and larger dots and pitch movement by means of tails
followingthedots.Figure6belowshowsanexampleofanintonationphrasewiththree
risingprenuclearaccentsfollowedbyanuclearfall.

Whyonearthdidyouwanttodothat?

Figure6

Tadpolediagram.AdaptedfromOConnorandArnold(1973:38).

However,consideringthatsomereadersmightfinditdifficulttoassesstowhatextenta
tadpolediagramcanbetakenasrepresentativeofanynativespeakersperceptionof
intonationratherthanjustthatoftheauthors,andconsideringthatrelativelyobjective
acousticevidenceintheformofF0wasavailable(evenifF0isclearlynotequivalentto
the perception of intonational structure), it was decided to illustrate the contrasts
establishedinthisstudyprimarilywithF0,andtoarrangeF0tracestoreflectthewayin
which the auditory analysis was carried out. Additionally, auditory evidence will be
approximatedviastylisedcontourswhicharesimilartotadpolediagramsbutprovide
some more information such as the association of an auditory pattern with syllable
structure.
Many studies providing acoustic evidence of intonation illustrate the patterns
theydiscusswithF0.However,itisnotalwayspossibletoderivefromsuchfigures
detailed information aboutthe relationship between the trace andthe associated text
becausenoinformationisgivenaboutthealignmentofthetracewiththeassociated
segmentalmaterial.Inthisstudy,anattemptwasmadetomaketheacousticdatamore
accessiblebymarkingineachtracesubsections oftheaccentedsyllable (inthefirst

25

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

instance,thisinvolvedsolelythevocalicportion,excludingonsetandcoda 12,butlater,
the complete syllable rhyme was marked13).Secondly, inthe auditory analysis, each
patternproducedinaspecificcontextwascontrastedwithotherpatternsintwoways,
andthesecomparisonsarereflectedintheF0diagrams.Ontheonehand,aspecific
pattern was compared withpatterns produced byotherspeakers inexactly the same
context. This provided paradigmatic, crossspeaker information about the
representativestatusofacontour,andtherelevantF0tracesgaveinformationaboutthe
alignmentofthiscontourwithsegmentalstructure(astherewerefivespeakers,andthere
werealwaysfiveinstancesofaspecificpattern).Then,thepatternwascomparedwith
apparently similar patterns produced by the same speaker in different contexts. This
syntagmatic comparison gave an impression of auditorily equivalent contours on
differentwords.Figure7belowillustratesthestructureoftheF0displayswhichwillbe
showninthefollowingsection.TheacousticcomparisonsshownschematicallyinFigure
7reflecttheauditorycomparisonswhichwerecarriedout.
Figure 7 shows that in the displays illustrating the contrasts, F0 patterns are
plottedonthesamescalevertically(Hz).Onthehorizontalscale(time),thedurationof
utterancesisnormalised,thatis,forallspeakers,thesameutteranceisplottedasifithad
thesameduration(e.g.fiverenditionsofthenameAnnaarealignedwitheachotherby
rescalingtheF0tracesfromspeakers2,3,4and5tothedurationofthetracefrom
speaker1).Thismeansthatthefundamentalfrequencypatternsofutterancesproduced
bydifferentspeakersareoptimallycomparable.

12Inasmallnumberofcases,wheresegmentationwashardtojustifyonacoustic

grounds,precedingorfollowingliquidsornasalswereincluded;relevantcasesare
indicatedinthetext.
13Thesyllablerhymeratherthanthevocalicsectionwasmarkedaftertherhymehad
beenestablishedastherelevantsubsectionofthesyllableforthealignmentofH*+L.
26

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

withinspeakercomparisons
Frequency

Speaker1
acrossspeakercomparisons

Speaker2
Speaker3
Speaker4
Speaker5
WolfAnnaWaldetc.

Time

comparisonsofapparentlysimilar
patternsondifferentsegmentalmaterial

Figure7

F0displayofparadigmaticandsyntagmaticcontrastsintheanalysis.

Thedisplaysweremadeasfollows.First,speechwaveandtimealignedfundamental
frequency traces were displayed using waves(tm) in conjunction with the ToBI
transcriber script (Beckman and Ayers, 1994). Then, sonorant portions of accented
syllables were determined by inspection of the speech wave and timealigned
spectrogramsandlabelled. Subsequently,F0tracesforrelevantsectionsofutterances
weresavedassegmentsandredisplayedinwaves(tm),usingthesamewindowsizefor
eachsectionfromeachspeakertoallowcomparisonsacrossspeakers(notethatthese
comparisonswerenottimealigned).Themarkersdelimitingthesonorantsectionsof
accentedsyllablesweredisplayedbyattachingtherelevantlabelfiletothefundamental
frequencywindow.Thetracefilewasthensavedasa.tiffileusingprogramsxwdand
xv under UNIX and exported to a Macintosh Quadra 800. There, the file was
redisplayed,F0wasretracedinAldusFreehand3.1andthesonorantsectionsofthe
accentedsyllables wereshadedin.Retracingthefilespermittedamoreflexibledata
presentation,andsaveddiskspace.AppendixCgivesonecomparisonoforiginaltraces
andretracingswhichshowsthatthematchbetweenoriginalsandretracingsisveryclose.
Theapproachtoanalysispresentedinthischapterhasthefollowingadvantages.
Attheauditorylevel,systematiccomparisonsofcontoursproducedbydifferentspeakers
in identical contexts help to establish those characteristics of a contour which are
relevanttoitsidentity.Also,informationaboutpotentialspeakerspecificpreferences
maybegathered.Comparingcontourssuspectedtobeequivalentproducedbythesame

27

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

speakerondifferentlexicalmaterialhelpstodistinguishcontourswhicharegenuinely
different fromthose whosedifferences result fromsystematic butpurely mechanical
effectsofsegmentalstructure.
Secondly,theapproachallowsacomparisonofthechoices differentspeakers
make in identical contexts. In identical contexts, we may find evidence for natural
classes of contours, which may then be contrasted with classes characterising other
contexts.Evidencemaybecollectedaboutauditorycharacteristicssharedbyfamiliesof
contours,thatis,relatedcontoursappearinginidenticalcontextswhichdonotappearto
differ substantially in meaning but which appear to becategorically distinct in their
realisations(auditorilyaswellasinF0).
In the acoustic domain, the marked subsections of accented syllables allow
comparisons ofthealignmentofF0traces andsegmental material withinandacross
speakersandwithinandacrosslanguages.Marking,inthefirstinstance,thevowelrather
thantherhymeoftheaccentedsyllableorthecompletesyllablemakesitpossibleto
collectdetailedinformationaboutsegmentalreferencepointsofF0alignment.Atleast
theoretically,itispossiblethatF0movementsaresensitive,forinstance,totheonset
rhymedistinction.Additionally,informationisgivenabouttheextenttowhichF0traces
illustrating one and the same phonological category may vary within and between
speakers,forinstance,asafunctionofthestructureand/ordurationoftheassociated
segmentalmaterial.ThisissueisrelevantinalanguagesuchasGermanwhichappearsto
truncate accents on syllables containing a small proportion of sonorant segments
(Grnnum,1989).
5Summary
Thepresentchapterhasdiscussedtheoreticalandpracticalconsiderationspriortothe
crosslinguistic comparison of English and German. First of all, the terminological
confusionsurroundingthetermsstress,accentandintonationphrasewasdiscussedand
the use of these terms in the present study was defined. Next, the question of the
accentualcutwasdiscussed;someanalystshavesuggestedthattheaccentinventoryof
Englishisbestaccountedforasexclusivelyleftheaded(e.g.Gussenhoven,1984),but
othershavepositedamixedheadedinventory(e.g.Pierrehumbert,1980).Insection2.2
ofthepresentchapter,itwasarguedthataleftheadedinventoryoffersthemostobvious
starting point for the comparison of two languages in which rhythmic feet are left
headed.Section2.3consideredintonationalphrasestructure;ananalystneedstodecide
onhowmanylevelsofintonationalphrasingheorsheassumesEnglishandGerman
have.Intheliterature,oneandtwolevelstructureshavebeensuggested.Insection2.3
ofthepresentchapter,anaccountofintonationalphrasingwassuggestedwhichassumes

28

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

onlyonetypeofphrase,theintonationphrase,butassumesanumberofdependency
relationshipsbetweenintonationphrases.Thesedependenciesaresuggestedtoaccount
more successfully for the phenomena which have led other authors to propose a
distinctionbetweentheintonationphraseandtheintermediatephrase.Intonationphrase
boundaryspecificationswerediscussednext.Pierrehumbert(1980)assumesthatevery
intermediatephraseboundaryandeveryintonationphraseboundarymustbespecified
withatone.Asadirectresult,someofherboundarytranscriptionsarerelativelyindirect;
they do not reflect the phonetic realisation of intonation phrase boundaries very
straightforwardly.Inthisstudy,intonationphraseboundariescan,butdonothavetobe
specifiedwithatone.Inprinciple,anintonationphrasemaybedelimitedbyarhythmic
discontinuitysuchasapausealone;atoneisspecifiedonlyifthereistonalmovementat
theboundary(intheabsenceofastressedsyllable).
A discussion of analytic technique followed; specifically, in the analysis of
intonation,shouldonerelyprimarilyonacousticanalysis,oronauditoryanalysis,or
shouldcarryoutacombinationofboth?Theshortcomingsofanapproachrelyinglargely
onfundamentalfrequencywerediscussed,andacombinationofauditoryandacoustic
analysiswasadvocated.
Thefinalsectionsofthepresentchapterfocusedonthetypeofspeechdatasuited
toacrosslinguisticcomparisonofintonationwithinaframeworknotpreviouslyapplied.
Adirectlycomparablecorpusofreadspeechdatawasarguedtobeafelicitousstarting
point. The corpus materials designed for the purposes of the present study were
discussed,andtheelicitationmethod,thechoiceofsubjects,theprosodiclabellingofthe
dataandthepresentationoftheevidenceweredescribed.
ThefollowingchapterwillpresentevidencefromNorthernStandardGerman.In
Chapter4,theGermandatawillbecomparedwithdatafromSouthernStandardBritish
English.

29

Crosslanguagecomparisonofintonation

30