Jump to content

User:Quellatizia/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Quellatizia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quellatizia (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 11 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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). Auditory and acoustic properties are not connected in a linear way. Different combinations of suprasegmental are used in prosodic features and can also be applied to the linguistics functions of intonation and stress.

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,[3] processing of syntax, predictability of linguistics material, and comprehension of discourse structure.[4][1] Studies of prosodic features have mainly focussed on sound-related modality, but other prosodic modalities, such as visual, have also been investigated.[3]

Prosody in the animal context

Prosody is being increasingly studied in animal communication systems.

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[5]. 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.[7] 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.[8] This causes changes in fundamental frequency and voice quality, and hence hinders the voluntary control of the acoustic properties of the signal.[9] 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.[10]

Although transmitting an emotional state might not be an intentional communicative act by the signaller, the receiver can nonetheless perceive and infer its meaning.[11] 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"[12] by allowing the receiver to process information such as the urgency of a situation, adapting to it.[11]

Biological codes

In humans, a framework to classify and understand how physiological changes affect prosodic features involves the concept of biological codes.[13] There are three biological codes which refer to three physiological changes or properties varying the prosodic feature of pitch.[13]

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.[13][14]

The Production Code refers to the availability of energy, and specifically that energy related to sound production is available in phases.[13] These phases are due to physiological processes such as breathing.[13][14] 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.[14]

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.[15] 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.[15] 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.[13][14] Frequency Code has been observed in a diverse range of mammalian and avian species in the context of vocalisation.[16]

Modes

Auditory

Different and phylogenetically distant non-human animal species are able to modulate auditory prosody[6].

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 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.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ a b c Filippi, Piera (2016). ""Emotional and Interactional Prosody Across Animal Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach to the Emergence of Language"". Frontiers in Psychology. 7.
  7. ^ 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)
  8. ^ Scherer, Klaus R. (2003). "Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms". Speech Communication. 40: 227–256 – via Science Direct.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 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
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ Owren, Michael J.; Rendall, Drew (1997). "An affect-conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling". Perspectives in Ethology. 12: 299–346.
  13. ^ 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
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ a b Ohala, John J. (1984). ""An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice"". Phonetica. 41: 1–16 – via Scopus.
  16. ^ 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Quellatizia/sandbox&oldid=1027963144"