An experimental evaluation of two
nuclear-tone taxonomies*
C. GUSSENHOVEN and A. C. M. RIETVELD
Abstract
Semantic-difference scores, as obtained in two auditory experiments in
which native speakers of English were asked to estimate the semantic
contrast in paired nuclear tones, were correlated with two sets of theoretical
differences, as predicted by two recent theories of the structure of English
intonation, Pierrehumbert (1980) and Gussenhoven (1983a). The latter
theory proved to be a better predictor of both sets of experimental scores.
Not all component elements in the theories turned out to correlate significantly with the experimental scores. In the former theory, only the element
represented by the phrase accent appeared to account for some of the
variation, while in the latter the main predictors were pitch range and tone
modifications.
1. Introduction
Even if we restrict ourselves to single-accent contours, as possible on
such structures as HelLO or TELL me please, the number of different
intonation patterns of English is quite large. A number of analyses for
these nuclear intonation contours are available. In some analyses, they
are seen as indivisible units. In spite of their holistic approach, such
analyses often group certain nuclear contours as variants of each other.
The taxonomies may be primarily based on functional criteria, like Halliday (1967) and Brazil (1985), or, like Bolinger (1958, 1987) and Crystal
(1969), be primarily informed by formal criteria. Partly as a result of
these different emphases, the proposed taxonomies tend to be fairly
divergent. The advent of autosegmental phonology, in which intonation
contours are seen as strings of level tone segments (H for 'high', L for
low'; Leben 1976; Goldsmith 1976; Liberman 1975), has not led to more
agreement in this area. Pierrehumbert (1980) and Beckman and
Linguistics 29 (1991), 423-449
0024-3949/91/0029-0423 $2.00
© Walter de Gruyter
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
424
C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
Pierrehumbert (1986) give an account formulated entirely in terms of the
tone segments H and L. Gussenhoven (1983a) is likewise based on tone
segments but incorporates elements reminiscent of the older analyses.
Again, the agreement between these two theories is low, and they therefore
make rather different predictions about the degree of relatedness between
one nuclear contour and the next.
The main reason for this continued lack of agreement is probably that
it is not very clear what should count as evidence. Internal evidence will
have to be based on either form or meaning, but in the case of intonation
it is difficult to make a convincing case on the basis of either aspect.
Phonological rules, which would be the prime source of evidence for the
formal representation of nuclear contours, are controversial, because
their postulation will be motivated in terms of the theory in which they
are incorporated. In the analysis of Pierrehumbert, there are phonetic
implementation rules that refer to tone segments (see below), but because
of the partially abstract nature of the input to these rules, it is not clear
that these rules capture natural classes. And because no phonological
rules that delete, insert, or change tone segments are assumed at all by
Pierrehumbert and Beckman, any such rules postulated in other theories
could be argued to be superfluous. Semantic criteria are also problematic,
because the great variability in communicative effect that the same intonation contour can have in different contexts makes it difficult to assign
meaning to contours at all (Gunter 1972; Liberman 1975: 142). In short,
collecting internal evidence to decide between different intonational theories is not easy.
The situation for external evidence is hardly less precarious. One could
try and tap native-speaker intuitions by means of a contour-sorting task
(Collier 1975) or a similar experimental procedure. The problem with this
approach is that it is not clear why native speakers should be able to give
meaningful judgments about the categorial status of intonation contours
(see Pierrehumbert 1980: 60; Collier 1989). That is, even though subjects
perform the task, it is not clear that their decisions directly reflect the
linguistic structure of the objects concerned. This objection also applies
to a comparative-judgment task, in which raters are asked to estimate
the degree to which two contours differ, either in meaning or in form. A
task of this kind was used in Gussenhoven (1983b) with synthetic stimuli.
Although the subject is no longer asked to give a categorial judgment on
the sameness or difference of two contours and can express a graded
judgment, we still do not really know what knowledge is being addressed.
The kind of judgments we are interested in should ideally be based on
some context-independent internal structure of the nuclear-tone inventory, rather than on the incidental lexical and situational context in which
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 425
the nuclear tone is used. But can we be sure that contextless utterances
are judged in this way? Might not the use of contextless intonation
patterns degenerate into a comparison of linguistically uninterpreted
surface forms? This would obviously be undesirable, since, as is well
known, surface similarity need not, and indeed often does not, correspond
with structural similarity.
Although we will attempt to obviate this problem in our experiment,
we do not think that it can be resolved. Ultimately, theories of English
intonation must be evaluated on the basis of larger collections of observations about the semantic properties of English utterances than are now
available. At this point, however, we feel it is useful to confront theories
with native-speaker judgments. Paradoxically, the very inaccessibility of
the structure of intonational paradigms is precisely what makes it interesting to do an experiment. No one would tackle the problem of the structure
of the English verbal phrase with the help of an experiment, because it
is reasonably clear what its morphological structure is. A differential
judgment task with forms like has been painting, mil paint, was painted,
etc., would probably give good results (that is, results that would reflect
the standard analysis in terms of main verb, voice, mood, and aspect),
regardless of whether the semantic difference or the phonological difference was used as the response variable. At the very least, the results of
such a test with intonation contours should provide us with a somewhat
more secure basis for particular analyses.
In this article, we report on an attempt to test the predictions made
by the two autosegmental theories mentioned above by means of an
experiment. These theories were Pierrehumbert (1980) and Beckman and
Pierrehumbert (1986) on the one hand, and Gussenhoven (1983a) on the
other. We first conducted a comparative-judgment experiment, in which
artificially produced contours on resynthesized speech were compared
and rated for semantic difference. As we observed above, a potential
danger here is that raters simply compare uninterpreted surface similarities. In order to have some idea of the extent to which this is the case,
we also conducted a pencil-and-paper experiment with (non-English)
subjects, who rated stylized visual representations of these contours for
difference in shape. The idea here is, of course, that the structure of the
English intonation contours is defined not only by the surface differences
between one pitch pattern and the next, but also by more abstract
relations holding among the different contours, that is, that morphological shape may in part be arbitrary, or noniconic. By conducting both
experiments, we will be able to separate the contribution of the surface
differences, as established on the basis of the visual task, from the results
of our auditory test. Next, it would also be of interest to know the extent
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
426 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
to which decontextualized synthetic contours elicit judgments different
from natural, contextualized stimuli. Therefore, we ran a third experiment
in which the same contours appeared in naturally spoken answers to
naturally spoken sentences.
In section 2, we present the details of the two theories and translate
the predictions they make about the relatedness of the nuclear contours
into numerical terms. In section 3, we describe the experiments and
discuss the results.
2. The theories
2.1. Pierrehumbert (1980); Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986)
In Pierrehumbert (1980) and Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986), henceforth theory P, intonation contours are described as phonetic implementations of sequences of tone segments. The only tone segments assumed in
this analysis are H and L. A complete string of tone segments for a oneaccent contour is three or four segments long. They are built up as
follows. For each accented syllable, a pitch accent is chosen. A pitch
accent consists of either one or two tone segments. For two-tone pitch
accents, either order of H and L occurs, while in addition either segment
may be designated as associating with the accented syllable (that is, have
the 'star'). There are thus six pitch accents: H*, L*, H* + L, H + L*,
L* + H, and L + H*. When the accented syllable occurs finally in an
intonational phrase, the pitch accent is followed by two further tone
segments. The first is called the phrase accent, which is either H — or L (where the hyphen is used as a diacritic for 'phrase accent'), and the
second the boundary tone, which is either H% or L% (where % is a
diacritic for 'boundary tone').1 The realization of the ( 6 x 2 x 2 = ) 24
contours does not always follow a straightforward course from high pitch
(H) to low pitch (L). The following phonetic implementation rules are
applied:
1. A H after a two-tone pitch accent is lowered to mid. This effect is
due to a rule called 'downstep'. For example, in H* + L H —H%, the
H— would in fact have lower pitch than H*.
2. A L% after a H— is 'stepped up', that is, has the same pitch as the
immediately preceding H — . Concomitantly, a H% after a H— is always
higher than the preceding H — . For example, the realization of H*
H — L% is a high-level contour, since all three tone segments are in effect
'high'. After a two-segment pitch accent, a sustained mid-level pitch
occurs, which is the result of downstep and upstep operating together.
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 427
3. The L of H * -h L is not interpreted phonetically (Pierrehumbert 1980:
86ff).
A perceptual experiment involving comparisons among 24 contours
would be a fairly unmanageable task. Reduction of the inventory can
easily be effected by leaving out all two-tone pitch accents which have
the 'star' on the second tone segment. These contours really involve
preaccentual pitch configurations, which in other theories are dealt with
separately from the nuclear-tone contours proper (Lindsey 1985: 59).
This leaves us with 16 contours. In Figure 1 we give diagrammatic representations of these 16 contours. The relative prominence of the contour
is an orthogonal variable: Hs are scaled higher and Ls (but no L%) lower
as the prominence increases. The contours in Figure 1 are all assumed to
have the same prominence, or 'range'.
Pierrehumbert's theory makes clear predictions about the structure of
the English inventory of nuclear-tone contours. The differences between
one contour and the next is expressed by the number of different terms
in each of the three tonal paradigms 'pitch accent', 'phrase accent', and
'boundary tone'. We could assume that a different first tone segment of
the pitch accent (that is, H* instead of L*) counts as a difference of 1; a
different second tone segment (that is, L* + H instead of L* or H* + L)
could also count as 1. As a result, L* and L* + H, for instance, are
characterized as more akin (difference of 1) than H* and L* + H (difference of 2). If we assign 1 to the phrase accent (H— vs. L —) as well as
to the boundary tone, the maximum difference between any two nuclear
L-L%
L-H%
H-L%
H-H%
HVL
L*+H
Figure 1.
Diagrammatic representation of 16 nuclear tones in Pierrehumbert's theory
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
428
C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
contours becomes 4 (for example, H* + L L-L% and L* H-H%) and
the minimum difference 1 (for example, H* + L H-L% and H* + L
H —H%). Not all the cells of the matrix in Figure 1 are represented in
our experiment. Two nuclear-tone contours, H* + L L-L% and H* + L
L —H%, must be excluded from our investigation, because the difference
between them and the tones with single-segment pitch accents (H* L — L%
and H* L-H%) only surfaces (a) if they are mapped onto multiword
texts (Pierrehumbert 1980: 51), or (b) in nonfinal position, where the twosegment but not the one-segment pitch accent triggers downstep
(Pierrehumbert 1980: 86). Moreover, we excluded L* L-L%, which is
a low, falling tone (Pierrehumbert 1980: 198) and would appear to require
a high syllable before the accented syllable. In view of the default low
pitch which preceded the other contours, we decided not to include L*
L —L% in the experiment. Of the 13 remaining tones, two — H* + L
H-L% and L* + H H-L% — have two different, though related,
interpretations (Pierrehumbert 1980: 46), comparable to the different
interpretations of Liberman's (1975: 104) 'warning/calling contour': a
chanted and an ordinary (unchanted) interpretation. In either case, the
two interpretations correspond to different nuclear tones in the rival
theory. We therefore had to add two tones and ended up with 15 in all.
Figure 2 gives a matrix for the 105 differences among the 15 tones
calculated in the manner described above. The 'chanted' interpretations
of H* + L H-L% and L* + H H-L% are marked 'c'. Of course, their
numerical characterization does not differ from the corresponding nonchanted interpretation. This data set is referred to as THEORYP.
2.2.
Gussenhoven (1983a)
Gussenhoven (1983a), henceforth theory G, assumes that there are basic
tone words, consisting of two or three tone segments, and a number of
'modifications' which produce variants of the basic tone words. Three
tone words are assumed: ÖL, £,H, and HLH, in which the first tone
segment is 'starred', that is, designated as associating with the accented
syllable. The modifications are seen as affixes, whose phonological content
is not necessarily expressed in terms of tone segments but may be an
instruction of some sort. Specifically, the following modifications are
postulated:
1. DELAY. The modification entails the association of the first
(starred) tone segment to the right of the accented syllable, with concomitant rightward displacement of following tone segments.
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 429
HLL
e
HLH
1
0
HHL
1
2
θ
HHH
2
1
1
e
HLH L
2
3
1
2
θ
HLHLc
2
3
1
2
θ
θ
HLH H
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
LLH
2
1
3
2
4
4
3
e
LHL
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
β
LHH
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
θ
LHLL
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
3
e
LHLH
3
2
4
3
4
4
3
1
3
2
1
0
LHHL
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
β
LHHLc
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
θ
θ
LHHH
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
HLL
HLH
HHL
HHH
H LHL
LLH
LHL
LHH
LHLL
LHLH
LHHL
Figure 2.
HLHLc H LHH
β
LHHLc LHHH
Theoretical distances between 15 tones according to theory Ρ
2. HALF-COMPLETION. The trajectory described by the tone word
is constrained so as not to cross the mid level.
3. STYLIZATION. Sustained level pitches are created, with concomitant lengthening. L becomes the falling chanted contour of other
descriptions: two downstepping middish-level pitches; LH shares the
first plateau of stylized ftL and is followed by a low plateau with a rise
at the end; £,H yields a single mid-level pitch. The notion 'stylization' as
an intonational morpheme meaning 'routine' was introduced by Ladd
(1978), as were the characterizations of stylized L and stylized £,H given
here.
The modifications are semantically characterized by their position on
a single semantic continuum running from 'very significant' to 'very
routine'. On this scale, the order of the modifications is DELAY,
UNMODIFIED, HALF-COMPLETION, and STYLIZATION.
In Figure 3, we give diagrammatic representations of the 12 nucleartone contours described by this theory. It, too, makes clear predictions
about the degree to which different nuclear-tone contours are akin. Tone
words are categorially different. The modifications have a graded effect
on differences between contours. Thus, the difference between a stylized
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
430 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
DELAYED
UNMODIFIED
HALF-COMPLETED
STYLIZED
HL
HLH
LH
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of 12 nuclear tones in theory G
version of some tone word and a delayed version is greater than that
between a stylized version and an unmodified one, which in turn is greater
than that between a stylized version and a half-completed one.
Range is assumed as a continuous variable. If the range increases,
everything above the low baseline is raised proportionately, much as if
the space between high and low were an elastic band, attached to a fixed
low baseline and a variable high reference line.
2.3.
Interpreting the contours of theory P in terms of theory G
Below, we interpret each of the 16 contours of theory P in terms of theory
G.
H* L — L%. This is the unmodified realization of HL.
H* L — H%. This is the unmodified realization of HLH.
H* H—L%. This is a high-level tone, a stylized LH in theory G. The
pitch height of H* H-L% is that of H*; but a stylized ί,Η would have
middish pitch if equivalent in range to L. The tone therefore corresponds to a wide-range, stylized ί,Η.
Η* Η— H%. This tone has the same high level as the previous tone but
has a rise at the end. While it clearly corresponds to some type of ί,Η,
theory G cannot accommodate it (see House 1985): though end-points
will vary with range, all (nonstylized) i,H's start from the base line. We
will assume that there is a separate variable 'upper register', by which all
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 431
pitch movements are carried out in the upper half of the speaker's register,
that is, above a mid-level pitch. Since the tone's trajectory is situated
entirely at and above the pitch for H*. we will in addition assume wide
range. The tone therefore corresponds to a wide-range £,H, realized in
the upper register.
H* + LL-L%. Equivalent to H* L-L%.
H* + LL-H%. Equivalent to H* L - H%.
H* + L H—L%. This tone falls from high to a mid-level pitch. The
tone sequence can be interpreted in two ways (Pierrehumbert 1980: 46).
In one interpretation it is the 'calling contour' or 'chanted pattern', that
is, HL with STYLIZATION in theory G. Since the first plateau of stylized
ÖL would have lower pitch than H in theory G, in this interpretation
H* + L H-L% corresponds to a wide-range, stylized ÄL. In the 'nonchanted' interpretation, the tone corresponds to a HL with HALFCOMPLETION.
H* + LH-H%. This is a HLH with HALF-COMPLETION.
L* L — L%. Not included. It corresponds to a low-range ÖL preceded
by a high 'prehead'.
L* L — H%. This is a narrow-range LH in theory G. Since the rising
movement comes at the very end, DELAY is assumed.
L* H-L%. This tone rises sharply and then trails off at a level pitch.
In theory G, this corresponds to , with HALF-COMPLETION. Since
L* H- L% reaches the pitch height of H*, wide range must be assumed.
L*H-H%. This is an unmodified fjH. Since the pitch rises to above
the level of H*, wide range must be assumed.
L* + H L-L%. This tone corresponds to ÖL with DELAY.
L* + H L - H%. This tone corresponds to ÖLH with DELAY.
L* + H H-L%. This tone corresponds to ÖL with DELAY, that is,
the peak is reached in the syllable after the accented one. From the peak,
the tone falls to middish pitch, so that we have — again — two interpretations: either HALF-COMPLETION or STYLIZATION ('chanted
pattern').
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
432
C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
L* + H H-H%. This tone corresponds to nLH with DELAY and
HALF-COMPLETION.
Table 1 summarizes these correspondences. In order to translate the
linguistic differences in terms of theory G catalogued above into numerical
differences, we assigned the following values to the various parameters:
Difference
Difference
Difference
Difference
between tone words: 1
between two adjacent modifications: 1
of range: 1
of register: 1.
To take the difference between H* L-L% and H* H-L% as an
example: H* L-L% is an unmodified ÖL, while H* H-L% is a
stylized, wide-range £,H. Therefore, the difference is 1 (for the difference
between ÖL and LH), plus (2 1 =)2 (UNMODIFIED and STYLIZATION are two modifications apart), plus 1 for the range difference, or
4. Tones with two modifications (for example, nL with DELAY and
HALF-COMPLETION) presented a problem. The sum of the differences with each of the tone's modifications and that, or those, of the
tone with which it is compared would seem to be disproportionately
large. It was decided to take the mean of the two smallest differences.
Thus, a DELAYED HALF-COMPLETED tone differs from a
DELAYED STYLIZED tone by DELAY-DELAY = 0, plus HALFCOMPLETION-STYLIZATION=1, divided by 2, equals 0.5. In this
way we established the numerical differences among all 15 tones, which
set is referred to as THEORYG. It is given in Figure 4.
As will be clear, there are rather large discrepancies between the two
matrices. Pearson's correlation coefficient between THEORY? and
THEORYG (that is, between Figure 2 and Figure 4) is 0.38, which means
that one theory accounts for 14% of the variance predicted by the other.
3.
The experiments
Three experiments were run in which subjects rated pairs of stimuli for
perceived difference. One of these involved visually presented stimuli,
henceforth VIS, and two involved auditorily presented stimuli. The first
of the auditory experiments used contextless utterances with artificial
pitch contours, henceforth referred to as SYN, and the second used
contextualized, naturally spoken stimuli, henceforth referred to as NAT.
We will describe these experiments in the order VIS, SYN, and NAT.
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
α
&
•3
S?
i
I
„a
ON
£
ffi
*
JH ^
Q
1
\
3
« '
X
»X Q ^
1
1
JC
s:
•S
g
5
2
j
?
j
l
X
1
>M
OC
^ ^
|
E .53 £ ί ,
a
K
1
o
-C
1
2\
*
o
J CJ
•K
21
E
ffi
ι
ξ
J
J Γ^ D
> ^
H-3 >TH
J W K
*E Q < ι ι
0
S
JC
α
1
oN
\
N·«
X
«έί
^
O
1
•r
CJ
MH J*J
^
4> ^*
Ό O«
D<
-^
52
l
^""
T*
K •^
ιΊ
J
_} ω
»ffi O
i i
ft,
Ο
\
&
•S
*
>,
l
»^.
X H
t>
^2
?
1
s,
o
4
α
s:
1
1
^
s \\
ii
H to
X
|
Sc
\
*
»—3 W
*E Q
i i
ffi
|
K
»X
\ \
X
*
1
*C ·
o
\ \
g
1 SS
11 i!
H <i
OH K
?
.3
1
2
8 2^
ΚΧ
*»J
ι
ffi ^
W
*3 Q
^
ο ι
0
K
sj
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
434 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
HLL
e
HLH
1
β
HHL
4
4
e
HHH
3
3
3
β
HLHL
1
2
3
4
e
HLHLc
2
3
2
5
1
HLHH
2
1
3
4
1
2
β
LLH
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
θ
θ
LHL
3
3
1
2
2
3
2
4
e
LHH
2
2
2
1
3
4
3
3
1
e
LHLL
t
2
5
4
2
3
3
2
4
3
e
LHLH
2
1
5
4
3
4
2
2
4
3
1
e
LHHL
1
2
4
4
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
LHHH
2
1
4
4
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
HLL
HLH
HHL
HHH
HLHL
LLH
LHL
LHH
LHLL
LHLH
LHHL
Figure 4.
3.1.
HLHLc HLHH
θ
1.5
e
LHHLc LHHH
Theoretical distances between 15 tones according to theory G
Procedure and materials
VIS. The 15 contours to be used in the experiment were traced in xs
using a text-formating program. These graphic representations, reproduced in reduced size in Figure 5, were paired such that each diagram
appeared as frequently in first as in second position. Each of these 105
pairs of diagrams was printed on a separate page in a randomized order,
and 16 scoring booklets were prepared. These were given to 16 subjects
recruited from the student population of Nijmegen. They were instructed
to rate the similarity of the two figures in each pair, using a scale of 1 to
10, which is a customary grading scale used in Dutch education. Onehalf of the subjects were asked to work through the booklet back to
front. Subjects were not aware that the line figures represented pitch
contours.
SYN. A female speaker of standard American English, aged 28,
recorded the utterances It's their honeymoon and It's a lullaby on tape,
using a rising intonation in order to avoid falling-off amplitude and
creaky voice. The utterances were digitized at a sampling rate of 10 kHz
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies
435
•S
ι
_j
«
I
ϊ
•f
«
I
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmegen
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
436 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
and LPC-analyzed with the help of the LVS package (frame length:
10 ms, analysis window: 25 ms, 10 parameters, preemphasis: 0.90) (Vögten
1985).
Each utterance was then artificially provided with the 15 contours to
be used in the experiment. In an attempt to remain as close as possible
to the characterization of the contours in Figure 2, the following steps
were taken:
1. Five pitch heights were established to represent the values 'extra
high' (the value for nondownstepped H% after H —), 'high' (the value
for H*), 'mid' (the value for downstepped H -), 'low' (the value for L*)
and 'final low' (to which the pitch falls after final falling contours). By
trial and error, we found that, respectively, 370, 280, 220, 150, and 125 Hz
produced satisfactory results.
2. Five timing points were used as reference points for movements to
start from or to go to. In addition to the beginning and the end of the
utterance, three nonmarginal timing points were established. One of these
lay approximately three-quarters of the distance into the accented vowel,
which we took to be the alignment point for *. The third reference point
lay 75 ms to the right of *, which we took to be the leftmost alignment
point for the phrase accent, while a fourth lay 150 ms before the end of
the utterance, which we took to be the rightmost alignment point of the
phrase accent (that is, from which final rising movements were made to
start). The first part of each contour was an interpolation between 'mid'
and 'low' at *, interrupted 100 ms before * in the case of H*. Figure 6
gives the resultant contours for It's a lullaby.2 After resynthesis, the 15
stimuli were paired in the same way as in VIS. These pairs were recorded
on magnetic tape in random order. A series of ten trial pairs preceded
the test pairs. A second test tape was prepared on which the first 50 test
pairs occurred after the second 55 test pairs. The interval between tones
in a pair was 1 s., that between pairs 4.5 s. The tapes were presented in
a language laboratory to 18 native speakers of American English,
recruited from the student population of the University of California at
Berkeley. Nine of them listened to one test tape and nine to the other.
They were instructed to indicate on a 7-point scale how great they believed
the semantic difference was between the first and the second intonation
pattern in each pair. They received a small fee for their services.
NAT. The same female speaker who recorded the two utterances used
in test SYN recorded each of six sentences 15 times, using the 15 intonation patterns of Figure 2. These were the following:
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies
437
3
,α
1
o
Cx,
φ
« 8 8 8 2
I
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
438 C. Gussenhoven and A.C.M. Rietveld
a LULLaby
in ARKansas
it's their HONeymoon
oh GRANdad
come IN please
would you like COFFee
Our speaker was given recordings of the 15 synthetic tones as used in
SYN and had ample time to train herself to produce the patterns. During
the recordings, the realization of H* H —H% appeared to give her
problems. In particular, the tone did not seem distinct from L* + H
H-H%, both of them apparently starting at mid, rather than clearly
either high or low pitch, respectively. On the basis of informal judgments,
the best tokens of each tone were chosen and digitized.
The first three of the above six sentences were provided with contextualizing questions, to produce stimuli consisting of question-and-answer
sequences (henceforth 'dyads'). The other three were taken as discourseinitiating utterances. The contextualizing sentences were recorded by a
male speaker of American English. These contexts are given below.
For A lullaby.
What would you like me to SING for you?
What's another word for 'CRADlesong'?
What did they play NEXT?
WHAT were they singing there?
For In Arkansas:
WHERE did the satellite come down?
WHERE will the next meeting be held?
Where's Brookfield CAMP again?
He lives WHERE?
For It's their honeymoon:
Why are they aWAY this week?
They seem very FOND of each other
They don't mix with the other guests at ALL
Any special REASon they can't be here?
Each of the (14 χ 15/2 = ) 105 cells of the matrix given by all pairs of
pitch accents was subsequently assigned to a sentence, and if it was part
of a dyad, to a context. The distribution was such that, as far as was
possible, each tone combined equally frequently with each sentence, and
each contextualized sentence combined equally frequently with each of
its contexts. Moreover, each tone occurred as frequently in first as in
second position. A test tape was prepared in which stimulus pairs occurred
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 439
in random order. A second test tape was prepared in which this order
was reversed, while in addition each cell was assigned to a different
sentence. In the test, the contours were thus used in natural situations,
and, because of the even distribution of sentences and contexts over pairs
of nuclear tones, the variable 'context' was controlled for. It is pointed
out, however, that because of the quasi-random pairing of nuclear tones
with the dyads, not all dyads were equally readily interpretable. Rising
tones like H* H-H% and L* + H H-H%, in particular, often seemed
semantically incoherent in the given context. No attempt was made to
avoid this situation by looking for 'good' combinations. The pause
between a context and its sentence was 360 ms, that between sentences
or dyads 1 s; while 4.5 s was reserved for response intervals. Each test
tape was presented to 14 native speakers of American English, recruited
and remunerated as in the case of SYN. Their task was to rate the
intonation patterns of the sentences in each pair for semantic difference,
using a 7-point scale.
4.
Results
Interjudge reliability for both auditory tasks was high, implying that the
scores of the different raters covaried to a large extent, and that their
overall level was equivalent. The unadjusted reliability coefficient Ru was
0.92 for SYN and 0.95 for NAT.
Responses were added up for each of the three tests. The resultant
matrices are given in Figure A (VIS), Figure B (SYN), and Figure C
(NAT), in the Appendix. We will present a number of analyses of these
data and the theoretical data in Figure 2 and Figure 4. First, Pearson's
correlations between the theoretical scores and the experimental scores
are presented and discussed. Next, we consider the partial correlations
between the theoretical scores and the auditory scores after controlling
for the visual scores. Finally, we look at the contributions of the component elements in the two theories.
4.1.
Pearson's correlation
coefficients
Table 2 gives Pearson's rs between the two sets of theoretical scores and
each of the three experimental scores. Moreover, a composite score has
been included as AUDITORY, which is the sum of SYN and NAT.
THEORYG appears to correlate significantly better with both sets of
auditory scores than THEORY?. THEORY? does not significantly cor-
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
440 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
Table 2. Pearson 's coefficients (r) between theoretical scores ( THEO R YP and THEO R YG)
and observed scores (VIS, SYN, and NAT), with the sum ofSYNandNAT
(AUDITORY);
the bottom row gives significance levels for the difference between THEO R YP and THEO R YG
per set of scores (N—105)
THEORY?
THEORYG
Difference
VIS
SYN
NAT
AUDITORY
0.42
0.57
n.s.
0.44
0.65
p < 0.05
0.12 (ns)
0.57
p < 0.05
0.31
0.69
p < 0.05
relate with NAT and achieves only a low r of 0.31 with AUDITORY.
Overall, then, THEORYG is a better predictor of the experimental scores
than THEORYP. In the next section, we turn to a consideration of the
different components in the experimental scores, to see how well the two
theories account for the 'abstract' component.
4.2.
Partialing out VIS from SYN and NAT
Our interest in this section concerns the extent to which the two theories
explain the variance in the auditory scores after controlling for the
variance in the visual scores. If a linguist who neither knew English nor
had auditory access to our 15 contours were to produce an analysis on
the basis of representative pitch tracings, the resultant theory would
obviously not reflect any morphological relations that are formally arbitrary. Since the two theories under investigation were produced by analysts who had access to the communicative impact of the contours, these
theories should be expected to reflect these abstract relations, in addition
to reflecting the surface similarities. What we would like to do, therefore,
is subtract from each theory the equivalent of these surface similarities
and see whether the remainder has any explanatory power left. Statistically, this task amounts to establishing the variance in THEORYP and
THEORYG accounted for by VIS, as well as the variance in SYN
accounted for by VIS. When we remove this variance, we can see to what
extent the residual variance in each of THEORYP and THEORYG
correlates with the residual variance in SYN. This correlation is given by
the '(first-order) partial correlation coefficient'. Notice that we remove
the same variance from both the theoretical and the experimental variables. This normally yields lower correlation coefficients than if we were
to remove the variance from one of them only. The partial correlation,
however, gives a better picture of what is unique in the relation between
the variables at stake. The analysis is potentially interesting in our case,
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies 441
because of the not-too-high correlations between the experimental scores:
SYN correlates reasonably well with VIS (0.56) and NAT (0.58), while
VIS and NAT correlate somewhat less well with each other (0.44).
Table 3 shows that the partial correlation between the theoretical scores
and SYN is rather low for THEORY? (0.28) and still has a substantial
value of 0.49 for THEORYG. The difference between the correlations is
significant at the 5% level (t( 102) = 2.20). We interpret this to mean that
theory G explains the abstract structure in the nuclear-contour paradigm
better than does theory P, while also showing a better correspondence
with the surface form of the contours (0.57 vs 0.42).
If we were to further extract SYN and VIS from each of the sets of
theoretical scores, as well as from NAT, we would — in theory — be left
with the variance due to the two aspects of NAT not present in the SYN
and VIS stimuli. These are (a) the contextualization, and (b) the fact that
the contours were naturally spoken. Obviously, we would not expect
either theory to have much explanatory power left. To assess the extent
to which the theoretical scores and the NAT scores are still correlated
when the SYN and VIS variance is removed, second-order partial correlation coefficients were calculated. For THEORYP, the partial after removing VIS and SYN is negative: -0.22. For THEORYG, by contrast, it is
still significant and positive: 0.29. (The difference between the partials is
also significant: t(102) = 5.193, p < 0.01.) Thus, theory P predicts the
reverse of listener's judgments in a contextualized task after the effects
of VIS and SYN have been removed.
4.3.
The components of the theories
A componential set of theoretical scores like THEORYP and THEORYG
may show high correlations with experimental scores because all the
Table 3. Partial correlations between experimental scores and VIS (first column), with SYN
after partialing out VIS (second column), and with NAT after partialing out VIS and SYN
(third column)
THEORYP,VIS
THEORYP,SYN(-VIS)
THEORYP,NAT ( - VIS, - SYN)
0.42
0.28
-0.22
THEORYG,VIS
THEORYG,SYN (- VIS)
THEORYG,NAT (- VIS, - SYN)
0.57
0.49
0.29
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
442 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
elements that contributed to the theoretical score correlate with the
experimental scores. It could also be the case that one or two elements
have low or negative correlations and thus do not have a positive effect
on the performance of the theory. More generally, the particular way in
which we have translated the two theories into numerical terms might
favor one theory at the expense of the other. Can we give different
weightings of the elements in each theory, such that higher correlations
with the experimental scores are achieved than with our 'city-block'
distances? In order to answer this question, we calculated a large number
of correlation coefficients between the experimental scores on the one
hand and different versions of theoretical scores on the other. The latter
were calculated by either (a) halving or (b) doubling the contribution of
the component elements in each theory. The results can be summarized
as follows. For theory P, higher correlations are produced if we either
halve the contribution of the pitch accent or double that of the phrase
accent. In either case, 0.54 results for SYN, and 0.46 for VIS. All other
measures result in lower correlations, while no combination produces a
significant correlation with NAT. In the case of theory G, all new data
sets correlated somewhat less with SYN than did THEORYG (with rs
ranging between 0.60 and 0.64). Improvement for NAT can be achieved
either by halving the contribution of the modifications or by doubling
that of range (both giving 0.62), while for VIS an increase to 0.65 can be
obtained by doubling the contribution by register. It would be reasonable
to say that our results are not greatly affected by how we weight the
contributions of the different elements in the theories. Indeed, none of
the differences observed reaches statistical significance.
Another, but related, procedure which enables us to observe the
differential contributions of the separate elements is the correlation of
each element in the theoretical scores with the experimental scores. We
decided to break down the pitch accent in theory P into the two separate
tone segments, and the variable tone in theory G into the three basic
tones. For instance, component element HL in THEORYG has a value
of T if only one of the two contours has HL as its basic tone, and a
value Ό' otherwise. Figure 7 gives the results.
It appears that the correlation of THEORY? with VIS and SYN is
chiefly due to the phrase accent. Neither the first nor the second tone
segment (together forming the pitch accent) correlates significantly with
any of the experimental data. The boundary tone plays a very modest
role. This result is perhaps unexpected, as the phrase accent would
intuitively seem to represent the least salient element in THEORYP. The
picture for THEORYG is that range and the tone ί,Η seem the best
predictors of the experimental scores, while HL and HLH play little or
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmegen
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
l
•S
05
i
r
< I
* ϊl
I
D.
O
^
LU
o
oo
o
is.
S
8
8
q
d
ο
T
d
§
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-1 one taxonomies
445
no role. The variable 'modifications' correlates substantially only with
SYN.
Finally, we consider the question whether each of the elements in the
theories is necessary in view of the role played by the other elements.
Suppose that increasing or decreasing the contribution of some element
to the theoretical score makes no difference to the way the theoretical
scores explain the experimental data, as indeed was largely the case in
THEORYG. This could mean that the role this element plays is the same
as that of some other element. This would imply that we could remove
it from our theoretical score without changing the results of the experiment. The question therefore is whether the elements in each of THEORY? and THEORYG are correlated. Since theory P, in which the
elements represent cross-cutting parameters (see Figure 1), was taken as
the basis for the selection of the contours in the experiment, we do not
expect this to be the case in THEORYP. But the elements in theory G
need not be evenly distributed over the 15 contours. In particular, ί,Η
frequently cooccurs with wide range (see Table 1). It is therefore possible
that range and ί,Η make the same contribution to the overall correlation
between THEORYG and the experimental scores. What we would like
to know is to what extent the correlation that each of the component
elements has with the experimental scores is unique for that component,
or whether it shares its explanatory role with other elements. For each
element, therefore, we need to partial out the variance accounted for by
all the other elements in its theory.
The results are shown in Figure 8, which gives the correlation coefficients for all the component elements after the variation accounted for
by all other elements in the theory has been removed (highest-order
partials). The picture for THEORYP is unchanged, since — as we
observed above — the elements were uncorrelated in the 15 contours to
begin with. In the case of THEORYG, we see that i,H's role in SYN is
dramatically reduced. Apparently, ί,Η and range correlate with each
other, and although the variable £,H agrees well with the judgments made
by the native speakers, the variable range can account for that variation
even better. On the other hand, the variable modifications explains variation that is not explained by any of the other elements. Together with
range, it is the best predictor of the SYN scores. This finding, of course,
supports the interpretation of range (or 'prominence') given in Gussenhoven (1983a). The strong position of range would seem to tally with the
finding that range exceeds pitch movement in perceptual salience (Collier
and Terken 1987). Although such findings may well depend on the kind
of pitch movements used in the experiment, they do suggest that range
is a very sensitive variable. The role of L and LH, while modest, is
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
446 C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
apparently unique. We note that if we leave out both range and register
from the theoretical scores, THEORYG is still superior to THEORY?
in both SYN and NAT, with correlation coefficients of 0.48 and 0.27,
respectively.
Finally, when we compare SYN and NAT in Figure 8b, we see that
the emphasis shifts to ί,Η and register, and that the correlations with the
other elements are smaller. We interpret this to mean that NAT is more
difficult to account for and attribute the higher correlation for register
to the striking effect of Η* Η —H%, which, as observed earlier, often
appeared to be pragmatically anomalous. For LH a similar effect may
be responsible for the increased correlation.
5.
Conclusion
Overall, THEORYG is more successful than THEORY? in explaining
the experimental data obtained in the two auditory tasks. When the
surface differences between the 15 nuclear tones, as established on the
basis of the visual task, had been partialed out from the auditory scores
as well as from the theoretical scores, the residual variance in THEORYG
correlated better with the residual variance in the auditory scores than
did the residual variance in THEORYP. This can be interpreted to mean
that theory G accounts better for the abstract relations between the
nuclear tones in the experiment. Inspection of the roles played by the
separate elements in the two theories revealed that the only element in
THEORYP that played a role in explaining the experimental data was
the phrase accent. In THEORYG, the two elements that made substantial
independent contributions were the modifications and range. By comparison, the primary elements in THEORYG, the three basic tones, contributed very little to explaining the experimental data.
Our attempt at collecting external evidence for the structure of English
nuclear contours has yielded suggestive, though not decisive, results.
While one of the two theories under investigation has clearly proved to
be a better candidate than the other for providing an explanation of
native-speaker judgments, a substantial part of the experimental variance
remains unaccounted for. In view of the homogeneity of the responses
in the two auditory experiments, it is conceivable that some other theory
may be more successful than theory G in explaining our data.
Received 2 April 1990
Revised version received
5 October 1990
Instituut Engels-Amerikaans
Nijmegen
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmegen
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-tone taxonomies
447
Appendix
HLL
-
HLH
54
-
MHL
99
115
-
HHH
1ΘΘ
162
48
HLHL
89
1Θ6
56
93
-
HLHLc
55
91
84
89
89
-
HLHH
69
49
96
69
94
47
-
LLH
123
111
12Θ
136
132
128
122
LHL
124
123
32
57
79
162
114
128
-
LHH
121
119
75
42
116
124
166
116
53
-
LHLL
36
57
127
132
117
76
164
123
98
164
-
-
-
LHLH
81
54
118
115
112
97
79
118
98
99
59
-
LHH L
166
119
87
167
32
161
115
127
65
82
161
92
63
94
162
164
169
34
56
121
86
164
52
75
74
36
LHHLc
LHHH
93
58
118
99
HLL
HLH
HHL
HHH
118
HLHL
HLHLc HLHH
83
124
116
166
85
63
83
LLH
LHL
LHH
LHLL
LHLH
LHHL
45
LHHLc LHHH
Figure A. Scores obtained in test VIS, as given by the transformation of similarity to
dissimilarity data (total score — 160) (n —16)
HLL
-
HLH
45
-
HHL
162
97
-
HHH
163
97
54
-
HLHL
64
76
46
85
HLHLC
92
84
63
87
49
-
HLHH
69
58
55
79
36
72
-
LLH
63
46
164
91
92
85
87
LHL
96
87
33
78
74
72
»4
96
LHH
169
162
81
27
72
166
67
111
46
-
-
-
LHLL
28
65
162
113
92
76
76
52
97
162
-
LHLH
73
47
85
89
74
163
66
44
85
83
45
LHHL
66
77
66
92
36
74
39
82
57
93
68
68
LHHLc
96
81
85
86
54
27
74
92
69
97
67
69
81
35
LHHH
Figure B.
87
78
77
96
HLL
HLH
HHL
HHH
56
HLHL
HLHLc HLHH
-
25
51
56
94
82
53
53
LLH
LHL
LHH
LHLL
LHLH
LHHL
55
LHHLc LHHH
Total scores obtained in test SYN (n=18)
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
448
C. Gussenhoven and A. C. M. Rietveld
-
HLL
HLH
63
-
HHL
159
171
HHH
197
174
140
-
HLHL
111
134
112
174
-
HLHLc
8Θ
81
127
185
99
-
-
HLHH
88
48
160
178
109
61
-
LLH
83
69
156
163
136
111
99
-
LHL
125
121
129
146
116
119
90
109
-
LHH
179
151
163
35
177
181
179
159
126
-
LHLL
104
100
165
187
108
114
137
111
124
176
-
LHLH
89
63
147
195
109
96
69
105
114
171
89
-
LHHL
119
1Θ9
120
160
71
123
94
128
136
168
90
121
LHHLc
148
135
138
167
147
112
120
141
149
153
153
123
96
LHHH
105
68
141
176
136
84
57
102
116
166
110
44
89
HLL
HLH
HHL
HHH
LLH
LHL
LHH
LHLL
LHLH
LHHL
Figure C.
HLHL
HLHLc HLHH
106
LHHLc LHHH
Total scores obtained in test NAT (n = 28)
Notes
*
We should like to thank Aditi Lahiri for helpful advice in the design stage of the
experiment and Bob Ladd for his useful comments on an earlier version of this article.
We are also indebted to the staff and students of the English Department of the
University of Lund for a number of improvements in the exposition. We thank Mark
Vitullo and Victoria Urkewich for their role in the production of the audiotapes and
John Ohala, Tom Shannon, and Victoria Williams for making the experiments possible.
This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.
Correspondence address: Instituut Engels-Amerikaans, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
1. Strictly, the phrase accent is a boundary segment that is inserted at a right-hand
intermediate-phrase boundary, while the boundary tone is inserted after the higherranking intonational phrase. Since in utterance-final position the two boundaries coincide, we always have both the phrase accent and the boundary tone in our contours.
2. For the chanted contours (STYLIZATION), the pitch must end with a sustained mid
plateau, while for the nonchanted versions (HALF-COMPLETION), the pitch is an
interpolation between a (final) mid value and a high value. See also Figure 6.
References
Beckman, M. E., and Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and
English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255-309.
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Two nuclear-1 one taxonomies
449
Bolinger, D. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14, 109-149. (Reprinted
1972 in Intonation, D. Bolinger [ed.], Harmondsworth: Penguin.)
—(1987). Intonation and its Parts: Melody in Language. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
—(ed.) (1972). Intonation. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Brazil, D. (1985). The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Birmingham: Bleak
House/English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Collier, R. (1975). Perceptual and linguistic tolerance in intonation. International Review
of Applied Linguistics 13, 293-308.
—(1989). On the phonology of Dutch intonation. In Worlds Behind Words. Essays in
Honour of Prof . Dr F. G. Droste on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, F. J. Heyvaert
and F. Steurs (eds.). Louvain: Leuven University Press.
—, and Terken, J. (1987). Intonation by rule in text-to-speech applications. In Proceedings
of the European Conference on Speech Technology, 165-168. Edinburgh.
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. London: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Unpublished dissertation, MIT. (Published 1979. New York: Garland.)
Gunter, R. (1972). Intonation and relevance. In Intonation, D. Bolinger (ed.), 194-215.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gussenhoven, C. (1983a). A semantic analysis of the nuclear tones of English. Distributed
by Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Reprinted 1984 in On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, by C. Gussenhoven. Dordrecht: Foris.)
—(1983b). A three-dimensional scaling of nine English tones. Journal of Semantics 2,
183-204. (Reprinted in On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, by C.
Gussenhoven, 267-290. Dordrecht: Foris.)
—(1984). On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford
University Press.
House, J. (1985). Review of Gussenhoven (1984). Linguistics 22, 899-912.
Ladd, D. R. (1978). Stylized intonation. Language 54, 517-540.
Leben, W. R. (1976). The tones of English intonation. Linguistic Analysis 2, 69-107.
Liberman, M. Y. (1975). The intonational system of English. Unpublished dissertation,
MIT. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club 1978.)
Lindsey, G. A. (1985). Tonal structure and the expression of a pragmatic function in English
and other languages. Unpublished dissertation, UCLA.
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of the intonation of English.
Unpublished dissertation, MIT. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club,
198&.)
—, and Hirschberg, J. (forthcoming). The meaning of intonation in the interpretation of
discourse.
Vögten, L. L. M. (1985). Handleiding No 67. LVS-Speech Processing Programs on IPOVAX 111780. Eindhoven: Instituut voor Perceptie-Onderzoek.
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM
Brought to you by | Radboud University Nijmege
Authenticated | 131.174.187.135
Download Date | 1/16/14 9:56 AM