Jump to content

User:Quellatizia/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
== Prosody in the animal context ==
== Prosody in the animal context ==


Prosody is being increasingly studied in animal communication systems. Modulation of auditory prosody has been studied in different and phylogenetically distant non-human animal species,<ref name=":0" /> including non-human primates,<ref name=":0" /> non-primate mammals,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kello|first=Christopher T.|last2=Dalla Balla|first2=Simone|last3=Médé|first3=Butovens|last4=Balasubramaniam|first4=Ramesh|date=2017|title=Hierarchical temporal structure in music, speech and animal vocalizations: jazz is like a conversation, humpbacks sing like hermit thrushes|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29021158/|journal=Journal of The Royal Society Interface|volume=14|issue=135|doi=10.1098/rsif.2017.0231|via=PubMed}}</ref> chorusing insects<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hartbauer|first=Manfred|last2=Heiner|first2=Römer|date=2016|title=Rhythm Generation and Rhythm Perception in Insects: The Evolution of Synchronous Choruses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885851/|journal=Frontiers in Neurosciences|volume=10|issue=223|doi=10.3389/fnins.2016.00223|via=NCBI}}</ref>, birds<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Patel|first=Aniruddh|date=2008|title=Music, Language, and the Brain|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274247163_Music_Language_and_the_Brain_By_Aniruddh_Patel_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press_2008|journal=Music Perception|volume=26|issue=3|pages=287-288|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> and anurans.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Grafe|first=T. Ulmar|date=1999|title=A function of synchronous chorusing and a novel female preference shift in an anuran|url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1999.0927|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biology|volume=266|pages=2331-2336|doi=10.1098/rspb.1999.0927}}</ref> There is evidence for prosodic modulation in modalities other than auditory, like for seismic modulation in non-primate mammals,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Narins|first=Peter M.|last2=Reichman|first2=O.J.|last3=Jarvis|first3=Jennifer U.M.|last4=Lewis|first4=Edwin R.|date=1992|title=Seismic signal transmission between burrows of the Cape mole-rat, Georychus capensis|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1573567/|journal=Journal of Comparative Physiology A|volume=170 (1)|pages=13-21|via=PudMed}}</ref> and visual rhythmic coordination in insects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Buck|first=John|last2=Buck|first2=Elisabeth|date=1968|title=Mechanism of Rhythmic Synchronous Flashing of Fireflies|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5644256/|journal=Science|volume=159|issue=3821|pages=1319-1327|doi=10.1126/science.159.3821.1319|via=PudMed}}</ref>
Prosody is being increasingly studied in animal communication systems. Modulation of auditory prosody has been studied in different and phylogenetically distant non-human animal species,<ref name=":0" /> including non-human primates,<ref name=":0" /> non-primate mammals,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kello|first=Christopher T.|last2=Dalla Balla|first2=Simone|last3=Médé|first3=Butovens|last4=Balasubramaniam|first4=Ramesh|date=2017|title=Hierarchical temporal structure in music, speech and animal vocalizations: jazz is like a conversation, humpbacks sing like hermit thrushes|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29021158/|journal=Journal of The Royal Society Interface|volume=14|issue=135|doi=10.1098/rsif.2017.0231|via=PubMed}}</ref> chorusing insects<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hartbauer|first=Manfred|last2=Heiner|first2=Römer|date=2016|title=Rhythm Generation and Rhythm Perception in Insects: The Evolution of Synchronous Choruses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4885851/|journal=Frontiers in Neurosciences|volume=10|issue=223|doi=10.3389/fnins.2016.00223|via=NCBI}}</ref>, birds<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Patel|first=Aniruddh|date=2008|title=Music, Language, and the Brain|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274247163_Music_Language_and_the_Brain_By_Aniruddh_Patel_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press_2008|journal=Music Perception|volume=26|issue=3|pages=287-288|via=ResearchGate}}</ref> and anurans.<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Grafe|first=T. Ulmar|date=1999|title=A function of synchronous chorusing and a novel female preference shift in an anuran|url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1999.0927|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biology|volume=266|pages=2331-2336|doi=10.1098/rspb.1999.0927}}</ref> There is evidence for prosodic modulation in modalities other than auditory, like for seismic modulation in non-primate mammals,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Narins|first=Peter M.|last2=Reichman|first2=O.J.|last3=Jarvis|first3=Jennifer U.M.|last4=Lewis|first4=Edwin R.|date=1992|title=Seismic signal transmission between burrows of the Cape mole-rat, Georychus capensis|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1573567/|journal=Journal of Comparative Physiology A|volume=170 (1)|pages=13-21|via=PudMed}}</ref> and visual rhythmic coordination in insects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Buck|first=John|last2=Buck|first2=Elisabeth|date=1968|title=Mechanism of Rhythmic Synchronous Flashing of Fireflies|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5644256/|journal=Science|volume=159|issue=3821|pages=1319-1327|doi=10.1126/science.159.3821.1319|via=PudMed}}</ref>


=== Communicating prosody: intentionality and effects ===
=== Communicating prosody: intentionality and effects ===
Line 35: Line 35:


==== Choruses ====
==== Choruses ====
In choruses, individuals from the same species simultaneously emit signals.<ref name=":0" /> These behaviours can assume different functions, for example they may be defence, or mate choice and sexual advertisement mechanisms-.<ref name=":0" />
In choruses, individuals from the same species simultaneously emit signals.<ref name=":0" /> These behaviours can assume different functions: group or territory defence, mate choice and sexual advertisement mechanisms, social bonding, and coordination of activities.<ref name=":0" />

In birds, evidence for interactional prosody applied to choruses has been reported in common mynas (''Acridotheres tristis'')<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Counsilman|first=J.J.|date=1974|title=Waking and roosting behaviour of the Indian Myna|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1071/MU974135|journal=Emu - Australian Ortnithology|volume=74|issue=3|pages=135-148}}</ref>, Australian magpies (''Gymnorhina tibicen'')<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brown|first=E.D.|last2=Farabaugh|first2=S.|last3=Veltman|first3=C.|date=1988|title=Song Sharing in a Group-Living Songbird, the Australian Magpie, Gymnorhina Tibicen. Part I. Vocal Sharing Within and Among Social Groups|url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Song-Sharing-in-a-Group-Living-Songbird%2C-the-Part-Brown-Farabaugh/0e5b80799617603f6f61fa29196b3afa2c897bc1|journal=Behaviour|volume=118|pages=1-27}}</ref>, and black-capped chickadees (''Poecile atricapillus'')<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Foote|first=Jennifer R.|last2=Fitzsimmons|first2=Lauren P.|last3=Mennill|first3=Daniel J.|last4=Ratcliffe|first4=Laurene M.|date=2008|title=Male chickadees match neighbors interactively at dawn: support for the social dynamics hypothesis|url=https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/19/6/1192/198139|journal=Behavioural Ecology|volume=19|pages=6}}</ref>. In anurans, interactional prosody in choruses might have evolved as defence mechanisms<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tuttle|first=Merlin D.|last2=Ryan|first2=Michael J.|date=1982|title=The role of synchronized calling, ambient light, and ambient noise, in anti-bat-predator behavior of a treefrog|url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00300101#citeas|journal=Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology|volume=11|pages=125-131}}</ref> and/or under sexual selection, for there is evidence for females preference towards calls emitted in choruses,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Fitch|first=W. Tecumseh|title=Acoustic Communication|last2=Hauser|first2=Marc D.|publisher=Springer|year=2003|editor-last=Simmons|editor-first=A.|location=New York|pages=65–137|chapter=Unpacking "Honesty": Vertebrate Vocal Production and the Evolution of Acoustic Signals}}</ref> and especially towards specimens whose calls are most prominent. Because choruses produce high background noise, males increase their calls conspicuousness by producing signals in relation to the prosodic features of the background noise.<ref name=":9" />


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 05:48, 11 June 2021

Prosody as linguistics subfield

Prosody is a linguistics subfield of interdisciplinary application which studies the suprasegmental elements of speech and their implementation in prosodic features such as rhythm, tempo and pausing.[1] Suprasegmental elements, or suprasegmentals, can be analysed from two perspectives: auditory (like pitch or loudness), and acoustic (like fundamental frequency or intensity of sound wave, respectively).[2] Auditory properties represent subjective measures (linked to cognitive and perceptive properties of the signal receiver), while acoustic properties represent objective measures (linked to physical properties, e.g. of a sound wave, and physiological characteristics associated to the signal production).[3] Notably, auditory and acoustic properties are not connected in a linear way.[3] Different combinations of suprasegmental are used in prosodic features and can also be applied to the linguistics functions of intonation and stress.[3]

Prosody can be studied at different levels: it can be applied to single phonemes, syllables, words, phrases, or to entire discourses.[2] It affects communication processing by facilitating word recognition,[4] processing of syntax, predictability of linguistics material, and comprehension of discourse structure.[1][5] Studies of prosodic features have mainly focussed on sound-related modality, but other prosodic modalities, such as visual, have also been investigated.[4]

Prosody in the animal context

Prosody is being increasingly studied in animal communication systems. Modulation of auditory prosody has been studied in different and phylogenetically distant non-human animal species,[6] including non-human primates,[6] non-primate mammals,[7] chorusing insects[8], birds[9] and anurans.[10] There is evidence for prosodic modulation in modalities other than auditory, like for seismic modulation in non-primate mammals,[11] and visual rhythmic coordination in insects.[12]

Communicating prosody: intentionality and effects

Four stages of communicative acts are conventionally distinguished: firstly, the signal has to be produced by the sender; secondly, the signal needs to be transmitted through the environment; thirdly, the signal is perceived by the receiver and discriminated from other signals or noises; and, lastly, the signal provokes a response in the receiver[13]. Prosody can be analysed the same way.

The modulation of prosodic features expresses a variety of meanings; for example, it provides insights into the emotional state of the signaller.[6] However, these meanings are probably not intentionally communicated by the signaller.[14] Processes that might impede the deliberate modulation of prosodic features include physiological changes, which could indirectly affect the articulation activity by the signaller by inducing modifications in tone and coordination of the muscles involved in vocalisation.[15] This causes changes in fundamental frequency and voice quality, and hence hinders the voluntary control of the acoustic properties of the signal.[16] For example, without a certain emotional state, and therefore physiological changes, nonhuman apes find significantly challenging to employ the prosodic features associated to such emotional state.[17]

Although transmitting an emotional state might not be an intentional communicative act by the signaller, the receiver can nonetheless perceive and infer its meaning.[18] Importantly, it is assumed that the signaller, who has a specific emotional/physiological status at the time of the signal production, sends a prosodic signal capable of affecting the physiological and cognitive responses of the receiver[6]. These responses affect the receivers' behaviour, which is understood as the "immediate functional effect of the communication act"[19] by allowing the receiver to process information such as the urgency of a situation, adapting to it.[18]

Biological codes

In humans, a framework to classify and understand how physiological changes affect prosodic features involves the concept of biological codes.[20] There are three biological codes which refer to three physiological changes or properties varying the prosodic feature of pitch.[20]

The Effort Code refers to the energetic expenses related to sound production. Under the Effort Code, wider pitch ranges imply larger amount of energy required to vocalise and are therefore indirectly associated to stronger motivation by the signaller. Consequently, wider pitch ranges may refer to emotional states such as while under pressure and agitation.[20][21]

The Production Code refers to the availability of energy, and specifically that energy related to sound production is available in phases.[20] These phases are due to physiological processes such as breathing.[20][21] Accordingly, the initial stage of a vocalisation has higher pitch, and inversely, the last stage has lower pitch. In humans, modulating pitch height, for example raising the pitch towards the end of the vocalisation, refers to the willingness of the speaker to continue talking.[21]

The Frequency Code refers to the dichotomy between high or raising pitch and smaller vocal cords, and, inversely, the dichotomy between low or falling pitch and larger vocal cords.[22] The Frequency Code indirectly infers that higher or raising pitch can be associated to signallers of smaller size, while lower or falling pitch can be associated to signallers of larger size.[22] Therefore, a signaller modulating its pitch to be higher, or raising, may suggest to be friendly or submissive, and, if the modulation is towards lower, or falling, pitch qualities, it suggests more aggressive, dominant attitudes.[20][21] Frequency Code has been observed in a diverse range of mammalian and avian species in the context of vocalisation.[23]

Functions

Interactional coordination

Prosodic modulation of vocal signals significantly affects interactional coordination and communication.[6] The ability to perform such modulation might had been a precursor to human language and music.[6] Because it is found in species whose taxa are not related, it has been hypothesised that prosodic modulation could be understood as an analogous evolutionary trait in several animal species.[24]

Interactions, in animal acoustic communication, can be classified into three major classes: choruses, antiphonal calling, and duets.[25]

Choruses

In choruses, individuals from the same species simultaneously emit signals.[6] These behaviours can assume different functions: group or territory defence, mate choice and sexual advertisement mechanisms, social bonding, and coordination of activities.[6]

In birds, evidence for interactional prosody applied to choruses has been reported in common mynas (Acridotheres tristis)[26], Australian magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen)[27], and black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus)[28]. In anurans, interactional prosody in choruses might have evolved as defence mechanisms[29] and/or under sexual selection, for there is evidence for females preference towards calls emitted in choruses,[30] and especially towards specimens whose calls are most prominent. Because choruses produce high background noise, males increase their calls conspicuousness by producing signals in relation to the prosodic features of the background noise.[10]

References

  1. ^ a b Wagner, Michael; Watson, Duane G. (2010). "Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review". Language and Cognitive Processes. 25: 905–945. doi:10.1080/01690961003589492 – via Tandfonline.
  2. ^ a b Lehiste, Ilse (1970). Suprasegmentals. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262120234.
  3. ^ a b c Ladefoged, Peter N. (2014). "Phonetics". Britannica.
  4. ^ a b Shukla, Mohinish; White, Katherine; Aslin, Richard N. (2011). "Prosody guides the rapid mapping of auditory word forms onto visual objects in 6-mo-old infants". PNAS. 108: 6038–6043. doi:10.1073/pnas.1017617108.
  5. ^ Cutler, Anna; Dahan, Delphine; van Donselaar, Wilma (1997). "Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review". Language and Speech. 40 (2): 141–201 – via PubMed.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Filippi, Piera (2016). ""Emotional and Interactional Prosody Across Animal Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach to the Emergence of Language"". Frontiers in Psychology. 7.
  7. ^ Kello, Christopher T.; Dalla Balla, Simone; Médé, Butovens; Balasubramaniam, Ramesh (2017). "Hierarchical temporal structure in music, speech and animal vocalizations: jazz is like a conversation, humpbacks sing like hermit thrushes". Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 14 (135). doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0231 – via PubMed.
  8. ^ Hartbauer, Manfred; Heiner, Römer (2016). "Rhythm Generation and Rhythm Perception in Insects: The Evolution of Synchronous Choruses". Frontiers in Neurosciences. 10 (223). doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00223 – via NCBI.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  9. ^ Patel, Aniruddh (2008). "Music, Language, and the Brain". Music Perception. 26 (3): 287–288 – via ResearchGate.
  10. ^ a b Grafe, T. Ulmar (1999). "A function of synchronous chorusing and a novel female preference shift in an anuran". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biology. 266: 2331–2336. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0927.
  11. ^ Narins, Peter M.; Reichman, O.J.; Jarvis, Jennifer U.M.; Lewis, Edwin R. (1992). "Seismic signal transmission between burrows of the Cape mole-rat, Georychus capensis". Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 170 (1): 13–21 – via PudMed.
  12. ^ Buck, John; Buck, Elisabeth (1968). "Mechanism of Rhythmic Synchronous Flashing of Fireflies". Science. 159 (3821): 1319–1327. doi:10.1126/science.159.3821.1319 – via PudMed.
  13. ^ Endler, John A. (1993). "Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 340: 215–225 – via JSTOR.
  14. ^ Gussenhoven, Carlos (2001). Jacobs, H.M.G.M. & Wetzels, W.L.M. (ed.). "Liber Amicorum Bernard Bichakjian. Intonation and Biology". Maastricht: Shaker Publishing BV. ISBN 9042301937.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  15. ^ Scherer, Klaus R. (2003). "Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms". Speech Communication. 40: 227–256 – via Science Direct.
  16. ^ Rendall, Drew (2003). "Acoustic correlates of caller identity and affect intensity in the vowel-like grunt vocalizations of baboons". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 113: 3390–3402 – via PubMed.
  17. ^ Goodall, Jane (1986). "The chimpanzees of Gombe : patterns of behavior". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap, Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-11649-8. OCLC 12550961
  18. ^ a b Seyfarth, Robert M.; Cheney, Dorothy L. (2003). "Meaning and Emotion in Animal Vocalizations". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1000: 32–55 – via PubMed.
  19. ^ Owren, Michael J.; Rendall, Drew (1997). "An affect-conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling". Perspectives in Ethology. 12: 299–346.
  20. ^ a b c d e f Gussenhoven, Carlos, ed. (2004), "Paralinguistics: Three Biological Codes", The Phonology of Tone and Intonation, Research Surveys in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–96, ISBN 978-0-521-01200-3, retrieved 2021-06-04
  21. ^ a b c d Mol, Carien; Chen, Aoju; Kager, René W.J.; ter Haar, Sita M. (2017). "Prosody in birdsong: A review and perspective". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 81: 167–180 – via ScienceDirect.
  22. ^ a b Ohala, John J. (1984). ""An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice"". Phonetica. 41: 1–16 – via Scopus.
  23. ^ Morton, Eugene S. (1977). "On the Occurrence and Significance of Motivation-Structural Rules in Some Bird and Mammal Sounds". The American Naturalist. 111: 855–869 – via JSTOR.
  24. ^ Ravignani, Andrea; Bowling, Daniel L.; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2014). "Chorusing, synchrony, and the evolutionary functions of rhythm". Frontiers in Psychology. 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01118.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  25. ^ Yoshida, Shigeto; Okanoya, K. (2005). "Animal Cognition Evolution of Turn-Taking: A Bio-Cognitive Perspective". Cognitive Studies. 12 (3): 153–165. doi:10.11225/JCSS.12.153.
  26. ^ Counsilman, J.J. (1974). "Waking and roosting behaviour of the Indian Myna". Emu - Australian Ortnithology. 74 (3): 135–148.
  27. ^ Brown, E.D.; Farabaugh, S.; Veltman, C. (1988). "Song Sharing in a Group-Living Songbird, the Australian Magpie, Gymnorhina Tibicen. Part I. Vocal Sharing Within and Among Social Groups". Behaviour. 118: 1–27.
  28. ^ Foote, Jennifer R.; Fitzsimmons, Lauren P.; Mennill, Daniel J.; Ratcliffe, Laurene M. (2008). "Male chickadees match neighbors interactively at dawn: support for the social dynamics hypothesis". Behavioural Ecology. 19: 6.
  29. ^ Tuttle, Merlin D.; Ryan, Michael J. (1982). "The role of synchronized calling, ambient light, and ambient noise, in anti-bat-predator behavior of a treefrog". Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. 11: 125–131.
  30. ^ Fitch, W. Tecumseh; Hauser, Marc D. (2003). "Unpacking "Honesty": Vertebrate Vocal Production and the Evolution of Acoustic Signals". In Simmons, A. (ed.). Acoustic Communication. New York: Springer. pp. 65–137.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Quellatizia/sandbox&oldid=1027988383"