A cross-linguistic study on perception of A cross-linguistic study on perception of

length contrast in Finnish and Japaneselength contrast in Finnish and JapaneseJanuary 7, 2010January 7, 2010

8484thth Annual Meeting of Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting of Linguistic Society of America

Kenji YoshidaKenji Yoshida Kenneth de JongKenneth de JongDepartment of LinguisticsDepartment of Linguistics

Indiana University, BloomingtonIndiana University, Bloomington

Pia-Maria PPia-Maria PääiviiviööDepartment of Slavic Languages and LiteratureDepartment of Slavic Languages and Literature

University of Toronto University of Toronto 1

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements• Financial SupportFinancial Support

– International Scholarship Award, Finlandia FoundationInternational Scholarship Award, Finlandia Foundation

• The experiment in HelsinkiThe experiment in Helsinki– Reijo Aulanko & Marjut Mäenpää at Department of Reijo Aulanko & Marjut Mäenpää at Department of

Speech Sciences, University of HelsinkiSpeech Sciences, University of Helsinki

– Seppo KittilSeppo Kittilää at Department of Linguistics, University of at Department of Linguistics, University of HelsinkiHelsinki

• The experiment in JapanThe experiment in Japan– Donna Erickson, Takuya Oomae at Showa University of Donna Erickson, Takuya Oomae at Showa University of

MusicMusic

– Yosuke Igarashi at University of HiroshimaYosuke Igarashi at University of Hiroshima2

Research InterestsResearch Interests

• Prosodic typologyProsodic typology: Can languages with quantity distinction : Can languages with quantity distinction be different in quantity categorization? be different in quantity categorization?

• Contextual effectContextual effect in speech perception: How does language- in speech perception: How does language- specific knowledge about speech sound affect quantity specific knowledge about speech sound affect quantity categorization? categorization?

Examine speech perception of two "quantity languages" with Examine speech perception of two "quantity languages" with different language-specific knowledge (Finnish & Japanese) different language-specific knowledge (Finnish & Japanese)

3

Finnish and Japanese seem to be similar in Finnish and Japanese seem to be similar in quantity contrast quantity contrast (Ham, 2001: 213)(Ham, 2001: 213)

language ratio language ratio

Swedish 1 : 1.24 Sinhara 1 : 1.76

Norwegian 1 : 1.32 Lavantine 1 : 1.92

Burmese 1 : 1.43 Japanese 1 : 2.14

Icelandic 1 : 1.53 Hungarian 1 : 2.16

Madurese 1 : 1.55 Finnish 1 : 2.25

Bavarian 1 : 1.72 Bengali 1 : 2.30

Italian 1 : 1.85 Turkish 1 : 2.95

syllable-timed mora-timed

4

Geminate / Single

Finnish and Japanese are differentFinnish and Japanese are different• Word prosodyWord prosody

– Finnish: Finnish: Fixed Stress on the initial syllableFixed Stress on the initial syllable– Japanese:Japanese: Lexical pitch accent associated to any mora in a wordLexical pitch accent associated to any mora in a word

• Temporal organizationTemporal organization– Finnish: Finnish: Tendency toward equal total duration of disyllabic feet Tendency toward equal total duration of disyllabic feet (Suomi, 2005: 297)(Suomi, 2005: 297)– Japanese:Japanese: Tendency for the words with the same number of moras Tendency for the words with the same number of moras

to to have about the same overall durationhave about the same overall duration(Port, et. al., 1987: 1581)(Port, et. al., 1987: 1581)

• Acoustic cues for quantity other than durationAcoustic cues for quantity other than duration– Finnish:Finnish: F0 fall as a cue for “long” vowel (JF0 fall as a cue for “long” vowel (Jäärvikivi et. al., 2007)rvikivi et. al., 2007)– Both:Both: Robust "covariants" for geminatesRobust "covariants" for geminates

(Idemaru & Guion, 2008, Doty et. al., 2007) (Idemaru & Guion, 2008, Doty et. al., 2007) 5

Contextual variation in vowel duration in Contextual variation in vowel duration in Finnish and JapaneseFinnish and Japanese

• Finnish : Vowel duration conditioned by the Finnish : Vowel duration conditioned by the word-initial syllable word-initial syllable structure structure (Suomi, 2005, etc.) (Suomi, 2005, etc.) Word-initial syllable is CV Word-initial syllable is CV Longer V2 = Longer V2 = half-long vowelhalf-long vowel

• Japanese : Vowel duration is conditioned by the Japanese : Vowel duration is conditioned by the quantity of the quantity of the following consonantfollowing consonant (Ofuka, et. al., 2005) (Ofuka, et. al., 2005)""anti-compensatoryanti-compensatory" with following consonants" with following consonants

… … (C)(C)VV.CV.CV… … (C)(C)VVC.CVC.CV

0 100 200 300 400

katse

kate

kanta

kana

Word types

Duration (ms.)

C1

V1

Coda

C2

V2

6

half-long vowel

= Longer vowel in 2nd σ (relative to CVC__ or CVV__ )

Before single: Shorter

Before geminate: Longer

Two hypotheses: The effect of language-Two hypotheses: The effect of language-specific phonetic knowledgespecific phonetic knowledge

Contextual variation of vowel duration (half-long in FIN / anti-Contextual variation of vowel duration (half-long in FIN / anti-compensation in JPN) …compensation in JPN) …

• Is cancelled out Is cancelled out (perceptually compensated) (perceptually compensated) " "CancellationCancellation""– A strong version of "Acoustic invariance" (e.g., Hirata & Whiton, 2005; A strong version of "Acoustic invariance" (e.g., Hirata & Whiton, 2005;

"the duration of one part of an utterance will have a consistent "the duration of one part of an utterance will have a consistent relationship with the duration of another part of the same utterance, relationship with the duration of another part of the same utterance, leading to a constant ratio")leading to a constant ratio")

• Takes effect Takes effect (shifts categorical boundary) (shifts categorical boundary) " "Contextual effectContextual effect" " – E.g., Listener’s experience of durational covariance shifts the criterion E.g., Listener’s experience of durational covariance shifts the criterion

of length categorization (Kingston, et. al., 2009)of length categorization (Kingston, et. al., 2009)

– Anti-compensatory vowel duration shifts single/geminate boundary in Anti-compensatory vowel duration shifts single/geminate boundary in Japanese (Ofuka, et. al., 2005)Japanese (Ofuka, et. al., 2005)

StimulusSet

(N=84)

Experiment: 2AFC (non)word identificationExperiment: 2AFC (non)word identification (minimal pairs by (minimal pairs by pp ~ ~ pppp))

Finnish speaker

Japanese speaker

AcousticStimuli

AcousticStimuli

Finnishlisteners (N=22)

Japaneselisteners (N=17)

(non)wordidentification

(non)wordidentification

insert silent insert silent intervalsintervals(7 steps)(7 steps)

insert silent insert silent intervalsintervals(7 steps)(7 steps)

6 nonsense words (3 minimal pairs: p~pp)

'mata''mata'

'mata''mata'

9 responses each

2 talkers 2 talkers × 6 words × 7 steps × 6 words × 7 steps ＝ ＝ 84 stimulus types × 9 responses / participant84 stimulus types × 9 responses / participant

Design of the acoustic stimuliDesign of the acoustic stimuli• Three minimal pairs (nonsense for both languages)Three minimal pairs (nonsense for both languages)

(1) Effect of (1) Effect of preceding vowelpreceding vowel ( (ma-ma- vs. vs. man- man- for Finnish,for Finnish, p- vs. pp- p- vs. pp- for Japanese)for Japanese)

– Cancellation Cancellation No shiftNo shift of category boundary for the L1 stimuli of category boundary for the L1 stimuli

– Contextual effect Contextual effect Shift Shift of category boundary for the L1 stimuliof category boundary for the L1 stimuli

(L2? Contextual effect expected only for Finnish listening to Japanese, but in (L2? Contextual effect expected only for Finnish listening to Japanese, but in the opposite direction to Japanese because of anti-compensation in Japanese)the opposite direction to Japanese because of anti-compensation in Japanese)

(2) Effect of (2) Effect of location within a wordlocation within a word ( (ma-ma- vs. vs. mana-mana-))

– Cancellation / Contextual effect: The same expectation as for Cancellation / Contextual effect: The same expectation as for ma-ma- for for mana-mana- case case No location effect is expectedNo location effect is expected (relevant only for Finnish) (relevant only for Finnish) 9

word-initial syllable CVC

target p ~pp on 3rd syllable 4th syllable 3rd syllable JPN: preceding vowel

single ( p ) ma.ta. p a.na ma.na.ta. p a.na man.ta. p a.na short (67 ms.)

geminate ( pp ) ma.ta p.p a.na ma.na.ta p.p a.na man.ta p.p a.na long (99 ms.)

FIN: preceding vowel half-long (66ms) half-long (67ms) short (46ms)

CV

• Logistic regression was Logistic regression was performed for each speaker, performed for each speaker, each of the 6 original words each of the 6 original words ((matapanamatapana, , matappanamatappana…)…)% of pp identification% of pp identification

= =

xx = stimulus number (1~7) = stimulus number (1~7)

aa = Slope of the identification = Slope of the identification functionfunction

bb = 50% threshold ( = 50% threshold (pp pppp))

Data Analysis: Slope and 50% thresholdData Analysis: Slope and 50% threshold

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker ma_p

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 4.64

slope: 2.21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker man_p

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 4.57

slope: 1.04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker mana_p

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 4.2

slope: 1.42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker ma_pp

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 4.5

slope: 1.55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker man_pp

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 3.24

slope: 2.02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

FIN01 : J-talker mana_pp

stimulus number

proportion of -pp- response

threshold: 2.48

slope: 1.1

)](exp[1

1

bxa −−+

10

Examples: Fin01, J-talker

short Duration of silent interval long

Prop

orti

on o

f ge

min

ate

resp

onse

Results 1.1: Finnish stimuli vs. Japanese stimuliResults 1.1: Finnish stimuli vs. Japanese stimuli(Finnish listeners)(Finnish listeners)

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Talker's effect by initial syllable types

standardized slope (Japanese talker)

standardized slope (Finnish talker)

ma-man-mana-

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Talker's effect by initial syllable types

standardized threshold (Japanese talker)

standardized threshold (Finnish talker)

ma-man-mana-

11

Sharper slope for FIN stimuli

man- [t(43) = 6.14, p<.0001]

mana- [t(43) = 3.74, p<.001]

No significant difference [ps >.013] (α = .0125)

Japanese stimuli Japanese stimuli

Finn

ish

stim

uli

Finn

ish

stim

uli

Slope Threshold

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Talker's effect by initial syllable types

standardized slope (Japanese talker)

standardized slope (Finnish talker)

ma-man-mana-

Results 1.2: Finnish stimuli vs. Japanese stimuli Results 1.2: Finnish stimuli vs. Japanese stimuli (Japanese listeners)(Japanese listeners)

12

No significant difference

[ps>.033]

Later threshold for JPN stimuli[ma-: t(33)= –6.65, p>.0001 ][man-: t(33)= –2.70, p>.0107][mana-: t(33)= –3.97, p>.001]

Slope

Finn

ish

stim

uli

Japanese stimuli80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Talker's effect by initial syllable types

standardized threshold (Japanese talker)

standardized threshold (Finnish talker)

ma-man-mana-

Threshold

Japanese stimuliFi

nnis

h st

imul

i

Results 2.1: Results 2.1: pppp-original vs. -original vs. pp-original-original(Finnish listeners)(Finnish listeners)

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Original effect by talker

standardized slope (original=/p/)

standardized slope (original=/pp/)

JPNFIN

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Original effect by talker

standardized threshold (original=/p/)

standardized threshold (original=/pp/)

JPNFIN

13

Slope: No significant effect[ps<.122]

Earlier threshold for the stimuli created from pp-originalFIN [t(65) = –5.06, p<.0001]JPN [t(65)= –3.84, p<.0001]

Slope Threshold

pp o

rigi

nal

pp o

rigi

nal

p original p original

Results 2.2: Results 2.2: pppp-original vs. -original vs. pp-original-original(Japanese listeners)(Japanese listeners)

14

No significant effect[ps>.280]

Earlier threshold for the stimuli created from pp-originalFIN [t(65) = –6.82, p<.0001]JPN [t(65)= –8.26, p<.0001]

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Original effect by talker

standardized threshold (original=/p/)

standardized threshold (original=/pp/)

JPNFIN

Threshold

p originalpp

ori

gina

l0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Original effect by talker

standardized slope (original=/p/)

standardized slope (original=/pp/)

JPNFIN

Slope

p original

pp o

rigi

nal

Results 3.1: Results 3.1: ma- ma- (CV) vs. (CV) vs. man- man- (CVC)(CVC) (Finnish listeners)(Finnish listeners)

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Structure effect by talker

standardized slope (/ma-/)

standardized slope (/man-/)

FINJPN

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Structure effect by talker

standardized threshold (/ma-/)

standardized threshold (/man-/)

FINJPN

15

Sharper slope for ma- for the Japanese stimuliFIN: [t(43) = 1.16, p=.253]JPN: [t(43) = –3.25, p=.002]

Later threshold for ma- for the Finnish stimuliFIN: [t(43) = –3.90, p<.0001]JPN: [t(43) = –0.91, p=.370]

Slope Threshold

man

-

man

-ma- ma-

Results 3.2: Results 3.2: ma-ma- (CV) vs. (CV) vs. man-man- (CVC) (CVC)(Japanese listeners)(Japanese listeners)

16

No significant effect[ps>.099]

No significant effect[ps>.075]

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Structure effect by talker

standardized threshold (/ma-/)

standardized threshold (/man-/)

FINJPN

Threshold

ma-m

an-

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Structure effect by talker

standardized slope (/ma-/)

standardized slope (/man-/)

FINJPN

Slope

ma-

man

-

Results 4.1: Results 4.1: ma-ma- (CV on 3rd (CV on 3rd σσ)) vs. vs. mana- mana- (CV on 4th (CV on 4th σσ) )

(Finnish listeners)(Finnish listeners)

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Location effect by talker

standardized slope (/ma-/)

standardized slope (/mana-/)

FINJPN

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Location effect by talker

standardized threshold (/ma-/)

standardized threshold (/mana-/)

FINJPN

17

Later threshold for ma- for the Finnish stimuliFIN: [t(43) = –3.40, p<.01]JPN: [t(43) = –2.08, p=.044]

Slope: No significant effect

Slope Threshold

man

a-

man

a-ma-ma-

Results 4.1: Results 4.1: ma-ma- (CV on 3rd (CV on 3rd σσ)) vs. vs. mana- mana- (CV on 4th (CV on 4th σσ) )

(Japanese listeners)(Japanese listeners)

18

No significant effect[ps>.072]

No significant effect[ps>.346]

80 100 120 140 160

80

100

120

140

160

Threshold : Location effect by talker

standardized threshold (/ma-/)

standardized threshold (/mana-/)

FINJPN

Threshold

ma-m

ana-

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Slope : Location effect by talker

standardized slope (/ma-/)

standardized slope (/mana-/)

FINJPN

Slope

man

a-

ma-

Summary of the effects (Finnish listeners)Summary of the effects (Finnish listeners)

Slope 50% Threshold

FIN vs. JPN stimuli FIN > JPN (man & mana) n.s.

p- vs. pp- original n.s. pp-original earlier

ma- vs. man- ma- > man- for J-stimuli ma- > man- for F-stimuli

ma- vs. mana- n.s. ma- > mana- for F-stimuli

[Slope] (1) Easier to categorize FIN stimuli (2) Easier to categorize JPN stimuli in ma- condition compared to

man- condition[Threshold]

(3) The acoustic cues in the original signal are useful (even for JPN stimuli, no observable effect of anti-

compensation)(4) Start hearing geminate later when - (a) the first syllable is CV and - (b) the target syllable is in the 3rd syllable

(Restricted) Contextual effect 19

Summary of the effects (Japanese listeners)Summary of the effects (Japanese listeners)

Slope 50% Threshold

FIN vs. JPN stimuli n.s. JPN < FIN

p- vs. pp- original n.s. pp-original earlier

ma- vs. man- n.s. n.s.

ma- vs. mana- n.s. n.s.

[Slope] No significant effect[Threshold]

(1) Start hearing geminate earlier for Finnish talker (2) The acoustic cues in the original signal are useful

(even for FIN stimuli) Replicate the contextual effect (Ofuka, et. al., 2005)

20

The pattern of threshold shift when Finnish listening to The pattern of threshold shift when Finnish listening to Finnish stimuli (Restricted contextual effect)Finnish stimuli (Restricted contextual effect)

SyllableSyllable σσ11 σσ22

m a n t am a n t a p a p a n a n a

m a t am a t a p a p a n a n a

m a n am a n a t a t a p a p a n a n a

21

p p

pp

pp

longer (half-long)longer (half-long)

has to be longer has to be longer to be identified as to be identified as pppp

• Despite of the longer preceding vowel, threshold shifted later only for ma- case.

The threshold shift may not be explained directly by the "listener’s istener’s experience of durational covariance"experience of durational covariance" of the preceding vowel (Kingston, et. al., 2009), nor by the pattern of secondary stress (Karvonen, 2005)

A possible reason of threshold shiftsA possible reason of threshold shiftsRelevance of moraic structure of wordsRelevance of moraic structure of words

MoraMora μμ1 1 μμ2 2 μμ3 3 μμ4 4 μμ55

m a n m a n t a p a n a t a p a n a

m a t a p a n am a t a p a n a

m a n a t a p a n am a n a t a p a n a

• The target 'p(~pp)' is at the third mora only for ma- case• The initial two morae has been argued to be the segmental domain of

durational realization of stress and F0 realization of accent (Suomi, 2005: 304).

• Consonants should acoustically be longer to be perceived as geminate at the initial position of the second bi-moraic unit?– An example of domain-initial strengthening (Cho & Keating, 2001) 22

(from Suomi, et. al, 2003: 128)

Conclusions 1: Prosodic typologyConclusions 1: Prosodic typology

1.1. Length perceptions by Finnish and Japanese listeners are Length perceptions by Finnish and Japanese listeners are quite differentquite different

2.2. The only common effect for Finnish and Japanese listeners is The only common effect for Finnish and Japanese listeners is the original source effect (threshold: the original source effect (threshold: pppp-original-original < < pp-original) -original)

Despite different prosodic types of the Finnish and Japanese, Despite different prosodic types of the Finnish and Japanese, some acoustic covariates of single/geminate distinction are sharedsome acoustic covariates of single/geminate distinction are shared

3.3. Finnish stimuli are more likely to be heard as "geminates" by Finnish stimuli are more likely to be heard as "geminates" by Japanese (than Japanese stimuli)Japanese (than Japanese stimuli) Language-specificity in acoustic covariates of single/geminate Language-specificity in acoustic covariates of single/geminate contrast (Doty et. al., 2007: 2740) contrast (Doty et. al., 2007: 2740)

23

Conclusions 2: Contextual effectConclusions 2: Contextual effect

4.4. The effect of contextual variation in vowel duration is not The effect of contextual variation in vowel duration is not totally offset (cancelled out) by language-specific phonetic totally offset (cancelled out) by language-specific phonetic knowledge knowledge Contextual effect for both FIN and JPNContextual effect for both FIN and JPN

5.5. The effect of non-local context at more abstract level (word The effect of non-local context at more abstract level (word morphological structure) can override that of local, acoustic morphological structure) can override that of local, acoustic contextual effect contextual effect Relevance of moraic structure (FIN)Relevance of moraic structure (FIN)

6.6. When the contextual effect is taken into consideration, the When the contextual effect is taken into consideration, the difference among quantity languages may be further difference among quantity languages may be further elucidated, and eventually the range of possibility in elucidated, and eventually the range of possibility in quantity contrast in speech may be more illuminatedquantity contrast in speech may be more illuminated

24

The end

THANK YOU

25

References 1Aoyama, K. (2001). "A psycholinguistic perspective on Finnish and Japanese

prosody." Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2009). "Praat: doing phonetics by computer.

(Version 5.1.08)." Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.praat.org/ Cho, T. & Keating, P. (2001). "Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-

initial strengthening in Korean," Journal of phonetics 29, 155-190.Doty, S. C., Idemaru, K. & Guion, S. (2007). "Singleton and geminate stop in

Finnish – acoustic correlates," Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 2737-2740.

Forster, K. & Forster, J. (2003). "DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy," Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35 (1), 116-124.

Ham, W. H. (2001). "Phonetic and phonological aspects of geminate timing." New York: Routledge

Hirata, Y. and Whiton, J. (2005). "Effects of speaking rate on the single/geminate stop distinction in Japanese," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3), 1647-1660. 26

References 2Idemaru, K. & Guion, S. (2008). "Acoustic covariants of length contrast in

Japanese stops," Journal of International Phonetic Association, 38-2, 167-186.

Järvikivi, J., Aalto, D., Aulanko, R. & Vainio, M. (2007). "Perception of vowel length: tonality cues categorization even in a quantity language," Proceedings of 16th ICPhS, Saarbrücken. pp. 693-696.

Karvonen, D. (2005). "Word Prosody in Finnish," Doctoral dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.

Kingston, J., Kawahara, S., Chambless, D., Mash, D. & Brenner-Alsop, E. (2009). "Contextual effects on the perception of duration," Journal of Phonetics, 37, 297-320

Lehtonen, J. (1970). "Aspects of Quantity in Standard Finnish," Jyväskyllä : Jyväskyllä University Press.

Port, R., Dalby, J. & O'Dell, M. (1987). "Evidence for mora timing in Japanese. Journal of the acoustical society of America, 81(5), 1574-1585.

R Development Core Team (2009). "R: A language and environment for statistical computing," R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org. 27

References 3Ofuka, E., Mori, Y. & Kiritani, S. (2005). "Perception of Japanese gemimate

stop: the effect of the duration of the preceeding / following vowels," Journal of the phonetic society of Japan 9-2, 59-65. (in Japanese)

Suomi, K. (2005). "Temporal conspiracies for a tonal end: Segmental durations and accentual f0 movement in a quantity language," Journal of Phonetics, 33, 291-309.

Suomi, K., Toivonen, J. & Ylitalo, R. (2003). "Durational and tonal correlates of accent in Finnish," Journal of phonetics, 31, 113-138.

28

Some difference has been found between Finnish Some difference has been found between Finnish and Japanese in productionand Japanese in production (Aoyama, 2001) (Aoyama, 2001)

10 20 30 40 50 60

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Distribution of nasal duration (Aoyama, 2001; Fig.11)

proportion of nasal duration (%)

probability density

FIN /n/ FIN /nn/

JPN /n/ JPN /nn/

29

• /hana/ vs. /hanna/ spoken in isolation/hana/ vs. /hanna/ spoken in isolation

• Examine proportion of nasal against Examine proportion of nasal against the total word duration (excluding the the total word duration (excluding the initial /h/)initial /h/)

"the distinction between single and "the distinction between single and geminate nasals appears to be geminate nasals appears to be acoustically clearer in Finnish than in acoustically clearer in Finnish than in Japanese" (p.42).Japanese" (p.42).

But, this may be due to the effect of But, this may be due to the effect of anti-compensatory variation of vowel anti-compensatory variation of vowel duration (slide #6)duration (slide #6)

• Finnish listened to the stimuli Finnish listened to the stimuli created from Finnish word (created from Finnish word (hannahanna),),Japanese listened to Japanese word Japanese listened to Japanese word ((hannahanna))

• "Finnish speakers have a narrower "Finnish speakers have a narrower bandwidth of categorical boundary" bandwidth of categorical boundary" (Aoyama, 2001: 63) (Aoyama, 2001: 63)

– Slope: Slope: FIN = 1.55FIN = 1.55JPN = 1.39JPN = 1.39

– Threshold: FIN = 105.7 (ms.)Threshold: FIN = 105.7 (ms.) JPN = 106.8 JPN = 106.8

No clear difference has been found between No clear difference has been found between Finnish and Japanese in perceptionFinnish and Japanese in perception (Aoyama, (Aoyama,

2001)2001)

Aoyama 2001, Experiment 3 & 4 (adjusted)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

50 100 150

Acoustic duration of nasal (ms.)

Proportion of long nasal response

FIN

JPN

30

`

Bandwidth = the region of ambiguous responses

(20 – 80 % “long”)

Examples of the acoustic stimuli Examples of the acoustic stimuli (insertion of silence intervals)(insertion of silence intervals)

31

matapana original (FIN)

matappana original (FIN)

Stimulus 'f_matapana_s2.wav'

Stimulus 'f_matapana_s6.wav'

p = 75 msec.

pp = 148 msec.

Variation in vowel duration in the acoustic stimuli

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Vowel preceding target: FIN_orig

word initial segments

Duration (ms.)

ma- man- mana-

/p//pp/

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Vowel following target: FIN_orig

word initial segments

Duration (ms.)

ma- man- mana-

/p//pp/

32

Vowel before p~pp Vowel after p~pp

half-long

longer vowel before pp

longer vowel after p

Finnish

Japanese

ParticipantsParticipants

• Speakers (provide acoustic stimuli)Speakers (provide acoustic stimuli)– Finnish (female, 28, Imatra)Finnish (female, 28, Imatra)

– Japanese (female, 32, Kawasaki)Japanese (female, 32, Kawasaki)

• Listeners (provide identification judgments)Listeners (provide identification judgments)– 22 Native Speakers of Finnish22 Native Speakers of Finnish

• Age: 20 ~ 58, Median = 31.2Age: 20 ~ 58, Median = 31.2

– 17 Native Speakers of Japanese17 Native Speakers of Japanese

• Age: 19 ~30, Median = 21.0Age: 19 ~30, Median = 21.0

33

Data Analysis: Correction of the Data Analysis: Correction of the

parametersparameters• The range of silence intervals of the acoustic stimuliThe range of silence intervals of the acoustic stimuli

– Vary between the min. and max. of the original words (mean of 6 Vary between the min. and max. of the original words (mean of 6 tokens)tokens)

– Different for talkers / minimal pairsDifferent for talkers / minimal pairs

((matapanamatapana~~matappanamatappana: JPN 69.1~140.9, FIN 75.3~148.1): JPN 69.1~140.9, FIN 75.3~148.1)

• Slopes and thresholds are corrected for the raw durationSlopes and thresholds are corrected for the raw duration

• Extremely large or small threshold values were truncated (as Extremely large or small threshold values were truncated (as they are not reliable estimates, but exert a strong influence on they are not reliable estimates, but exert a strong influence on statistical tests)statistical tests): negative values: negative values 50 msec. 50 msec. more than 200 more than 200 200 msec. 200 msec.

34